Part 8

The Editor, Gen. T. S. ALLEN, calls attention to a lecture by the late Hon. GEORGE B. SMITH, of Madison, Wisconsin, delivered at Chicago, Madison, and other places a few years since. Mr. Smith’s lecture was never printed. It was a forcible presentation of the Baconian theory.

178 AN ANTI-SHAKESPEAREAN PLEA. By J. W. B. [JOHN W. BELL]. In the Madison (Wis.) _State Journal_, July 22, 1882. 1 column.

_Anti-Sh._

Occasioned by the Bibliographical article and summary in the same paper, April 24, 1882.

179 THE BACON CIPHER. The ruin it wrought on a strong intellect. A strange discovery in Literature. In the San Francisco _Chronicle_, August 20, 1882. (Copied in the Cincinnati _Enquirer_, Sept. 19, 1882.) 1½ columns.

_Unc._

This article refers to Mrs. Windle and her writings. An extract from it will be found in connection with Mrs. W.’s second pamphlet (title 165).

180 QUERY 4929. In _Notes and Queries_ column of the _Evening Transcript_, Boston.

_a_--Query as to merits of the question, August 21, 1882.

_b_--Answers to above, September 24, 1882.

_Unc._

181 BACON AS A MAN OF LETTERS. By HENRY G. ATKINSON. In the _Secular Review_, London, September 23, 1882. 1 column.

_Anti-Sh._

182 NOTICE of the bibliography of the discussion, in the _Bibliographer_, London, October 22, 1882, page 151.

_Pro-Sh._

After mentioning the early authorities, the editor says: “but before this we believe an Englishman lectured to such people as would listen to him on his theory that Shakespeare’s plays were written by the monks.”

183 SHAKESPEARE, BACON AND FREE THOUGHT. By HENRY G. ATKINSON, in the _National Reformer_, London, October 22, 1882.

_Anti-Sh._

184 SOME SHAKESPEAREAN COMMENTATORS. By APPLETON MORGAN. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co., 1882. Fifty copies printed for sale. Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 44.

_Anti-Sh._

This pamphlet is a general answer by Mr. MORGAN to the criticisms of the _Shakespearean Myth_. The following extract from a summary of it will indicate some of the points made by the author:

“So far from being new-fangled, a doubt as to _what were_ Shakespeare’s plays and poems is as old as the first folio itself; that the name was often pirated, and the piracies often detected; that there was a statute in Elizabeth’s day that would have operated to forbid the publication of plays without being first editorially scrutinized; that these plays must have had an editor or editors, as well as an author or authors; and that if produced anonymously, it was much more likely that they should pass by their editors’ then by their authors’ names. Further, that instead of laying this question at rest, the labors of the Shakespeareans are only emphasizing it, and adding to its difficulty.”

The Milwaukee _Sentinel_ (title 202) has this in its summary:

“In the present treatise Mr. Morgan simply recapitulates some of his previous statements; touches at some length on the general absurdity of Edmond Malone; discusses the views of Wm. J. Rolfe, James Freeman Clarke, Henry N. Hudson, and Dr. Ingleby; and finally proceeds to review several disagreeable reviewers, each one of whom, Mr. Morgan intimates, through a very pithy quotation from Huxley, ‘acquired his knowledge from the book he judges--as the Abyssinian is said to provide himself with steaks from the ox who carries him.’”

185 THE ABSURDITY OF THE THEORY THAT LORD BACON WROTE THE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE. By J. WILSON ROSS. In _Modern Thought_, London, for December, 1882. 4 pages.

_Pro-Sh._

186 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. By HENRY G. ATKINSON. In the _National Reformer_, London, December 31, 1882.

_Anti-Sh._

187 THE PROMUS OF FORMULARIES AND ELEGANCIES (being Private Notes, _circ._ 1594, hitherto unpublished) by Francis Bacon, illustrated and elucidated by passages from Shakespeare. By Mrs. HENRY POTT. With preface by E. A. ABBOTT, D.D., Head Master of the City of London School, 1883. London: Longmans, Green & Co. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. (with fac-simile sheet of Promus). 8vo. pp. 628.

_Anti-Sh._

This book is the latest important contribution to the Baconian theory.

The MSS. known as the _Promus_ form a part of the Harleian Collection in the British Museum, and have never before been published. They consist of fifty sheets or folios, nearly all in the handwriting of Bacon, containing 1655 different entries or memorandums. The whole seems to have been kept by Bacon as a sort of commonplace book, in which he entered at different times brief forms of expression, phrases, proverbs, verses from the Bible; and quotations from Seneca, Horace, Virgil, Erasmus, and many other writers. These are in various languages--English, French, Italian, etc. As to the use of this collection, we give Mrs. Pott’s explanation:

“The _Promus_, then, was Bacon’s shop or storehouse, from which he would draw forth things new and old--turning, twisting, expanding, modifying, changing them, with that ‘nimbleness’ of mind, that ‘aptness to perceive analogies,’ which he notes as being necessary to the inventor of aphorisms, and which, elsewhere, he speaks of decidedly, though modestly, as gifts with which he felt himself to be specially endowed.

“It was a storehouse also of pithy and suggestive sayings, of new, graceful, or quaint terms of expression, of repartee, with bright ideas jotted down as they occurred, and which were to reappear, ‘made-up,’ variegated, intensified, and indefinitely multiplied, as they radiated from that wonderful ‘brayne cut with many facets.’”

Mrs. Pott believes that Bacon prepared these notes for use in his literary works, and she elaborates her theory that Bacon wrote “Shakespeare” by taking up in review the whole of the 1655 entries, and citing, by the thousand, what she claims to be parallel thoughts and passages in the plays. To prove that the forms of expression used in the _Promus_ are not contained in contemporary or precedent literature, the author gives, in an appendix, a list of upwards of five thousand works which she has examined for that purpose and in which she claims they are almost unknown.

“It must be held, then, that no sufficient explanation of the resemblances which have been noted between the writings of Bacon and Shakespeare is afforded by the supposition that these authors may have studied the same sciences, learned the same languages, read the same books, frequented the same sort of society. To satisfy the requirements of such a hypothesis, it will be necessary further to admit that from their scientific studies these two men derived identically the same theories; from their knowledge of languages the same proverbs, turns of expression, and peculiar use of words; that they preferred and chiefly quoted the same books in the Bible and the same authors; and last, not least, that they derived from their education and surroundings the same tastes and the same antipathies, and from their learning, in whatever way it was acquired, the same opinions and the same subtle thoughts.

* * * * *

“We should almost have to bring ourselves to believe that Bacon took notes for the use of Shakespeare, since in the _Promus_ may be found several hundred notes of which no trace has been discovered in the acknowledged writings of Bacon, or of any contemporary writer but Shakespeare, but which are more or less clearly reproduced in the plays, and sometimes in the Sonnets.

“Such things, it must be owned, pass all ordinary powers of belief, and the comparison of points such as those which have been hinted at impress the mind with a firm conviction that Francis Bacon, and he alone, wrote all the plays and sonnets which are attributed to Shakespeare, and that William Shakespeare was merely the able and jovial manager, who, being supported by some of Bacon’s rich and gay friends (such as Lord Southampton and Lord Pembroke), furnished the theatre for the due representation of the plays, which were thus produced by Will. Shakespeare, and thenceforward called by his name.”

(Mrs. POTT resides in London. This book, to which she has devoted many years of labor, is, we believe, her only literary work. But it is understood that she has another work in preparation, devoted to the historical side of the question, which will probably appear within a few months, under the title of “_Francis Bacon, Poet, Philosopher, and Dramatist_.”)

188 ARTICLES in _Shakespeariana_, in the _Literary World_, Boston, of dates following:

_a_--Letter from Appleton Morgan, Jan. 13, 1883.

_b_--Bacon’s _Promus_, January 27, 1883.

_Unc._

189 WAS BACON SHAKESPEARE? The New Evidences from the Harleian Collection. In the _Advertiser_, Boston, January 13, 1883. (Copied in the _Tribune_, Chicago, January 20, 1883.) 1½ columns.

_Unc._

190 THE PROMUS, etc. [By RICHARD J. HINTON]. In the _Gazette_, Washington, D. C., January 14, 1883. 1 column.

_Anti-Sh._

A mention of the _Promus_, with a sketch of Mr. O’Connor’s “Harrington” theories, and some reminiscences of Delia Bacon.

191 BACON’S NOTES IN SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS. In the _World_, New York, Jan. 15, 1883. 1½ columns.

_Pro-Sh._

A review of the _Promus_:

“Mrs. Pott has really made the most important, because it is the most direct and scientific, contribution to the Baconian side of the controversy, but her book does little to confirm any theory except the theory that great minds think alike.”

192 BACON-SHAKESPEARE. By Rev. EDWARD C. TOWNE. A series of three articles in the Boston _Evening Transcript_, January 19, 23, and 25, 1883. 3 columns each.

_Pro-Sh._

In these papers are comprised a very complete general review of the whole subject; an account of the various theories and the books containing them; and a comparison of the intellect, character and writings of Bacon and Shakespeare. A short extract as to style:

“Bacon’s style is stiff and weighty, where Shakespeare’s is free and light. Bacon is classical, while Shakespeare is natural. Bacon has always the same formal mode of expression, his own mode only, even if he tries to write dialogues and to represent characters; while Shakespeare easily introduces a high variety--always, too, in character. The hand that wrote the plays could easily have imitated Bacon, but there is not a page of Shakespeare which Bacon could have written. The style of Shakespeare is as impossible to Bacon as violets to a pumpkin vine, or tea roses to a prize cabbage. The one was the most prosaic of classical writers, a Latinist more than an English writer; while the other was as thoroughly English as he was perfectly poetical.”

193 THE NEW LITERARY CONUNDRUM. Was it Shakespeare or Bacon? The Story the Plays tell. A letter in the New York correspondence of the _Evening Post_, Hartford, Conn., January 20, 1883. 2 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

194 A MINUTE AMONG THE AMENITIES. (_Ad finem_). By WILLIAM THOMSON, Garnoch, South Yarra, Melbourne, Feb. 1, 1883. Pamphlet, 8vo. pp. 24.

_Anti-Sh._

The _amenities_ in this are undiscoverable. Dr. THOMSON, in his peculiar style, answers his critics of the _Leader_, the _Argus_, the _Academy_ and the _Australasian_, claiming that he was denied a hearing in those periodicals, and forced to reply in a pamphlet. His _ad finem_ was prophetic, as it was his last work.

195 A NEW SHAKESPERIAN COMMENTARY. Review of the _Promus_. In the _Saturday Review_, London, February 3, 1883. 2 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

“It appears that, having been engaged for many years in proving ‘from internal evidence Bacon’s authorship of the plays known as Shakespeare’s,’ Mrs. Pott’s attention was called to these manuscripts by some remarks made by Mr. Spedding in his edition of Bacon’s works. These remarks led Mrs. Pott to suppose that a further examination might produce corroborative evidence of the points she was laboring to establish. This hope has been fulfilled, she considers, ‘to a degree beyond expectation,’ and the notes, she adds, ‘whatever may be the views taken of the commentary upon them, possess in themselves a value which must be recognized by all the students of language.’ * * * That she has been instrumental in producing an extremely interesting volume, as everything must be interesting that contributes in any way to our knowledge of such a man as Bacon, we allow, and for so much, as we have said, we tender her our most hearty thanks; but that its publication tends in any way to establish her theory--of the theory itself it is quite unnecessary to speak--we do no less heartily deny.”

196 THE PROMUS OF FORMULARIES AND ELEGANCIES. A review in the _Athenæum_, London, February 3, 1883. 3 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

197 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. An article on the _Promus_ from the _Courant_, Hartford, February 7, 1883. (Copied in the _Record_, Philadelphia, February 12, 1883.) 1 column.

_Unc._

198 WAS LORD BACON THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? A communication in the _Sun_, New York, copied in the _Tribune_, Denver, Colorado, February 17, 1883.

_Unc._

199 BACON’S PROMUS. By A. A. A. [Hon. ALVEY A. ADEE, of Washington, D. C.] In the _Republic_, Washington, February 17, 1883. 8 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

A very complete and comprehensive _critique_ of the _Promus_. Mr. Adee thinks the work valuable to the philologist rather than as a confirmation of the Baconian theory. “The lovers of the works,” he says, “which, to adopt a favorite phrase of the Baconians, ‘go about’ under the name of Shakespeare, owe a debt of gratitude to this untiring delver in a new and rich mine of virgin ore for her painstaking contribution to the general knowledge.” He takes up in review a large number of the _Promus_ entries; questions the correctness of many of Mrs. Pott’s citations, and differs from her entirely as to their value as parallelisms in proving the Baconian authorship.

“A critical, and above all, impartial and unbiased revision of this work, with the single aim of selecting only such passages of the Poet’s work as shall, by their context and their true spirit and intent, be found to present unquestionable analogy with the _Promus_ entries, would give invaluable aid to the earnest student. It would not be venturesome to assert that, in such a case, the 4404 parallelisms discerned by Mrs. Pott would shrink to a much more manageable number. Nor would it be hazardous to surmise that a like impartial re-reading of the six thousand works through which Mrs. Pott has labored in vain would be rewarded with the discovery of analogies which have escaped her toilsome scrutiny. It would, perhaps, be unkind to hint that, while the most distant allusions and constructions found in the Poet’s canon have been seized upon, nothing short of practical identity would seem to have been admitted in the case of parallelisms between the _Promus_ and other precedent or contemporary writings. But an impression that this is the Darwinian law of selection which has governed the survival of the fittest phrases for the purpose in hand, must inevitably grow on the unprejudiced mind of the reader.

* * * * *

“Of making books, or rather of Mrs. Pott’s manner of making books, there is no end. Given commonplace texts, time, patience, the power of reaching conclusions ‘by sudden flight,’ and a Concordance--and ‘’tis as easy as lying.’ As honest Touchstone says: ‘I’ll rhyme you so eight years together, dinners and suppers and sleeping hours excepted; it is the right butter-women’s rank to market.’

“Still, Mrs. Pott’s book is a step in the right direction, and serves a good turn. It may not instantly convince the world that Bacon wrote Shakespeare, or even that Shakespeare wrote the _Promus_, as Dr. Abbott seems to insinuate, but the insight it gives into structural peculiarities and turns of speech is well-nigh priceless. * * * As regards the analogies and parallelisms sought to be shown, the kindest course is to say as little as possible about them.”

200 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. Judge Holmes gives his reasons for believing Bacon was Shakespeare. And Father Higgins, S. J., gives his for thinking Shakespeare was himself. In the _Republican_, St. Louis, Feb. 17, 1883. 1 column.

_Unc._

An account of two interviews, called out by the publication of the _Promus_. The first is with Judge Holmes, who claims that the received accounts of Shakespeare’s life do not warrant the supposition of his authorship, and continues:

“To this is opposed the supposition that the plays were written by one [Bacon] whose mind was well disciplined from early infancy, whose life was spent in the prosecution of the deepest and most important studies known to man, with results of the greatest magnitude produced in whatever path his genius may have chosen for itself to tread. He was surrounded by influences the most cultured, and those most likely to give him insight into the lives of the great, which is so prominent a feature in the plays which give rise to the controversy; and yet he possessed, from the positions of trust which he held, every opportunity for looking into and examining the motives for action, even amongst the most lowly. In the plays as we have them there occur numberless passages, referring to classical authors, the Latin, the Greek, the Italian, the German, the French and the Spanish, and these references are not such as could be learned from translation, for many of those found in these plays are there for the first time expressed in the English language. Is it at all likely one of whom Ben Jonson wrote that he knew ‘little Latin and less Greek,’ could by any possibility have picked up in his rather shambling career, the familiarity with these authors which the plays set forth?”

* * * * *

Rev. Father Higgins, of the St. Louis University, takes the opposite view. We give one point only:

“There is another objection to the Baconian claim which is of much weight. The author of the dramas was either a Catholic or one whose early mind had been imbued with Catholic ideas. If there be any one religion which is supported by the plays it is the Catholic faith. You remember the passage in _Hamlet_ concerning the time in which the mass is celebrated, and in other places he refers pointedly to a purgatory. If Lord Bacon wrote the plays these passages could never have occurred, since his position in regard to the events which were happening at that time, and which had already happened, would have made him anxious to blot out all remembrances of the customs of the religion which was in such disfavor at the court. Shakespeare may not have been a Catholic, though there are other things which point to his so being, but at least in the position which he held he would have had no reasons such as existed in Bacon’s mind for trampling out traditions, which he has only fastened more closely in men’s minds, and has done so in a very beautiful manner.”

201 GAMMON OF BACON. In the London _Punch_, February 17, 1883.

_Pro-Sh._

Occasioned by the publication of the _Promus_:

“SCENE--Lord Bacon’s library. Bacon recumbent and meditating as usual (‘_Sic Sedebat_’), in his arm-chair.

BACON--The proof of the pudding lieth in the eating and experiment, and not in the supposition or imagination thereof. (_A gentle tap at the door._) Come in! (_Enter_ SHAKESPEARE.) What, WILL! Thou art right welcome. Sit thee down, WILL. (SHAKESPEARE _sits_.) And now, how doth business at the Globe? How goeth our _Hamlet_?

SHAKESPEARE--Indifferent well, my Lord.

BACON--Why, so. Playest thou the _Ghost_ still?

SHAKESPEARE--Aye, my good Lord, even yet, at times, so please you.

BACON--It pleases me well. Talk of your _Ghost_, doth the Ghost at the G. continue to walk as he ought?

SHAKESPEARE--Punctually, my Lord, in good sooth, every Saturday night.

BACON--Good. I will therefore thank thee to hand me over the balance of our little account.

SHAKESPEARE--I shall, my Lord, incontinently. Meanwhile, so please your Lordship, I must become yet further your Lordship’s debtor for the wealth, I mean the workmanship, of your wit. My Lord, Her Majesty the Queen did last night come to see _Henry the Fourth_. After the play she called me to her presence, and did declare her pleasure that I should produce her a piece, with a part for _Falstaff_, and therein present _Falstaff_ in love.

BACON--How didst thou answer her?

SHAKESPEARE--In your Lordship’s own words--‘I shall in all my best obey you, Madam.’

BACON--And what then said she?

SHAKESPEARE--Straightway capped your line, my Lord, saying, ‘Why ’tis a loving and a fair reply.’

BACON--Long live the Queen! But, _Falstaff_ in love! A most inconceivable suggestion and unimaginable fancy of Her Most Gracious Majesty’s, in respect both of love and of _Falstaff_.

SHAKESPEARE--But how, then, my Lord, may we in anywise manage to perform her Royal command?

BACON--About my brains! Methinks I seem to spy some glimmer of a way. A gross fat man fallen into the conceit that some fair dame is enamoured of him, lured on to make love to her after his own fashion. _Falstaff_ in love _c’y pres_, as we say at Westminster.

SHAKESPEARE--That would serve, my Lord.

BACON--_Falstaff_ thereto befooled, moreover, by the contrivance of some merry women. Merry? Ha! So! Why, certainly it seems to myself that all this hath passed through my mind before--as we do sometimes feel. I must have dreamt of writing such a play. Methinks I even recollect the name on’t. Merry! Yea, marry, quotha--_Merry Wives of Windsor_.

SHAKESPEARE--A title passing good, my Lord, and a taking. Truly, a happy thought.--Let me pray your Lordship about it presently.

BACON--Marry and shall, with all the expedition I may. As soon as possible, I’ll send it to thy playhouse.

SHAKESPEARE--A thousand thanks, my Lord.

BACON--In the meantime, I prithee forget not that small balance.

SHAKESPEARE--Trust me, my Lord.

BACON--Needs must I until thou render me the needful.

SHAKESPEARE--Your Lordship shall be straightway satisfied. I humbly take my leave.” [_Exit_ SHAKESPEARE.]

202 SHAKESPEAREAN CONTROVERSY. Appleton Morgan’s Valiant Fight with the Shakespeareans. In the _Sentinel_, Milwaukee, February 18, 1883. 1 column.

_Anti-Sh._

203 SHAKESPEAREAN PARALLELS. By A. A. A. [Hon. ALVEY A. ADEE]. In the _Republic_, Washington, February 24, 1883. 5 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

In this article, apropos of the “parallelisms” of Judge Holmes and Mrs. Pott, the writer says:

“Theorists such as these appear to lose sight of the circumstance that, in the limitless mines of human knowledge, there are ideas so simple and trite in themselves, so natural to all minds, that their recurrence in varying setting, through successive ages, is a foregone conclusion.”

The writer takes the _Imitation of Christ_, by Thomas-a-Kempis (the first translation into English being printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1502) as an illustration, and finds many striking analogies and parallelisms with the plays of Shakespeare, a few of which he gives. He adds that “treated as Dr. Holmes has treated Bacon’s works, the alleged identities may be made almost countless.” We quote from the concluding paragraphs:

“It is a relief to lay down the cap and bells, and cast the cocks’-comb truncheon aside, and look for a moral to point this idle tale. What is it? Simply this, that the fount of commonplace is inexhaustible from generation to generation, and that whosoever dippeth therein, whether with a golden goblet or a pipkin of common clay, whether he be a Thomas-a-Kempis, a Shakespeare, or a Tupper, brings up, after all, but triteness and commonplace. What wonder, then, that parallels abound in the writings of all times?