mmf^.^''mMta. 
 
 >>■ t^ 
 
 Dawbam 
 
 Bacon-Shakespeare Discussion
 
 B ACON - SHAKE SPE ARE 
 
 DISCUSSION. 
 
 A P A P E E 
 
 READ BEFORE THE 
 
 LIVERPOOL PHILOMATHIC SOCIETY, 
 
 DURING THE SEVENTY-EIGHTH SESSION. 
 
 BY 
 
 C. Y. 0. DAWBARN, M.A. 
 
 Author of Onerios ; The Principles of Wealth Distribution; 
 Employers' Liability j etc. 
 
 PRICE SIXPENCE. 
 
 LIVERPOOL : 
 
 HENRY YOUNG & SONS, SOUTH CASTLE STREET. 
 
 1903.
 
 BACON - SHAKE SPE ARE 
 
 DISCUSSION. 
 
 A PAPER 
 
 BEAD BEFORE THE 
 
 LIVERPOOL PHILOMATHIC SOCIETY, 
 
 DURING THE SEVENTY-EIGHTH SESSION. 
 
 BY 
 
 C. Y. C. DAWBAKN, M.A. 
 
 Author of Onerios ; The Principles of Wealth Distribtitioti ; 
 Employers^ Liability ; etc. 
 
 LIVERPOOL : 
 HENRY YOUNG & SONS, SOUTH CASTLE STREET. 
 
 1903.
 
 
 BACON- SHAKESPEAKE DISCUSSION. 
 
 " He decides easily who has few considerations to digest." 
 Was the spirit of prophecy on Bacon when he penned this 
 truth? If so, never was truth more apposite to the 
 subject we have now under consideration. So another 
 aphorism: — "He finds readily what he sets out to dis- 
 cover." Once more is this well illustrated in the subject 
 to-night before us. 
 
 Taking a surface view of either side, it is so simple to 
 see arguments, answerable or unanswerable, according to 
 the view of the enquirer. It is only when we are im- 
 partially anxious to arrive at the truth, and not defend an 
 opinion, that the question presents itself in its fullest 
 difficulty. There is evidence, the strongest possible 
 evidence, on both sides. This is a statement that will 
 equally meet with the disapprobation of the respective 
 partizans. Let me here recall an incident. A famous 
 king was anxious to be his own judge. Having heard one 
 of the parties he was convinced, and proposed to give 
 judgment. Most unreasonably, the other side desired to 
 be also heard. Passing through the various phases of 
 contemptuous attention, indifference, interest, and con- 
 viction, conviction settled, until he heard the first in reply, 
 he at last left the judgment seat in a state of annoyance 
 that he should have been reduced to a condition of such 
 uncomfortable uncertainty. This, I am afraid, will be the
 
 condition of mind of most of those who impartially hear 
 all the evidence on both sides of the question. 
 
 Here, at the outset, let me state a few material 
 facts : — 
 
 Bacon was born in 1561. 
 
 Shakespeare and Marlowe in 1564. 
 
 Ben Jon son in 1574, 
 
 In 1583, Philip Sydney, writing of our stage, treated it 
 with the greatest contempt. At this time, with the excep- 
 tion of a few puerile productions, and those not as many 
 as one could number on the fingers of one hand, the 
 drama, as we now have it, was unknown. Then there were 
 only barren, dull pieces, known as mystery plays, such as 
 " Everyman," of which we have recently had a revival in 
 Liverpool. This was in 1583. Within a few years of 
 Philip Sydney so writing, there suddenly appeared, not 
 one star in the dramatic heavens, but a veritable constella- 
 tion. Greene, Kyd, Marlowe, Lily, Lodge, Nash, Hughes, 
 and Shakespeare himself — all men of talent, some of 
 genius, and all jealous of their fame. This fact was much 
 emphasized by Mr. Knight in his celebrated disagreement 
 with Malone's theories, and he held, that so far from 
 Shakespeare being the plagiarist, appropriator of others 
 ideas, and the " picker-up of unconsidered trifles" as was 
 the only conclusion if Malone was correct ; he was, in fact, 
 the founder as well as the master-builder of historical 
 plays. As for being a mere adapter it was impossible. 
 None of the authors w'e have mentioned were men to allow 
 their own or anyone else's works to be adapted without 
 acknowledgment, and apart from such authors there were 
 no other plays to adapt. This, in the case of Henry VI, he 
 conclusively proved by giving in parallel columns parallel 
 passages, showing they were moulded by the same brain 
 and finished by the same hand. Therefore, whether
 
 Shakespeare or Bacon wrote the plays, to one or other of 
 them the glory equally belongs of being the first to create 
 the form of historical play which one or other of them 
 afterwards developed with such magnificent effect. 
 
 Eesuming our dates we have : — In 1586, Shakespeare 
 supposed to have arrived in London (his wife had twins in 
 Stratford at the end of 1585) ; in 1604 he is supposed to 
 have returned to Stratford, where he died in 1616 ; and 
 in 1623 the great folio edition of his works was pub- 
 lished. 
 
 Now to the main features of our subject. The great 
 argument on the Shakespearean side is the evidence of his 
 contemporaries. On that of Bacon — his superior qualifi- 
 cations, and the identity of thought in the two sets of 
 works. All other arguments are more or less answerable, 
 and, as I have before stated, conclusively and easily 
 answered, by partizans We, as a society, will more 
 impartially try to arrive at the truth. As regards the 
 Shakespearean side, we need not go further than Ben 
 Jonson. His evidence is certain, pointed, and without a 
 doubt. Ben Jonson loved and worshipped Shakespeare, 
 lived with him, knew him intimately, was party with him 
 in the last drunken carouse, which unfortunately ended in 
 the poet's death ; and if any man could have known, 
 Jonson knew ; if any man was capable of judging, Jonson, 
 the brilliant young author of Every Man in his Humour at 
 22, was capable ; and Ben Jonson had no doubt whatever. 
 As a man, as an actor, as a poet, he loved and revered his 
 friend. And could he have been deceived by his bosom 
 crony, and by his crony in his cups ? If Shakespeare was 
 an impostor, strutting in borrowed plumes, could his "own 
 familiar friend" have been his dupe? 
 
 Then we have the Baconian side. Here are plays as 
 remarkable for their erudition as their genius ; for their
 
 knowledge as their fancy. The man who wrote these 
 plays was not only marvellous for his birth-wit, but for his 
 acquired learning, evidenced by every play. As a classical 
 scholar and philologist the writer was past master. As a 
 lawyer he was qualified for the highest legal office, and in 
 knowledge of physical science, history, and geography was 
 beyond any man of his time. Who then, one asks, do 
 these qualifications most fit ? The young man from the 
 country, or the brilhant young genius who paid compli- 
 ments to the queen at nine, left the university in disgust 
 with their methods at fifteen, who wrote Latin as fluently 
 as Enghsh, whose mastery of style is not even surpassed 
 by the plays themselves, who was much travelled, who had 
 every qualification in law, classics, and philosophy — in all 
 of which the plays abound — who was celebrated for his 
 wit and eloquence, and who took all knowledge for his 
 province. 
 
 Which of these two was the likelier author ? The one 
 of whom all this could be said without exaggeration, or 
 the other, of whom the most that could be hazarded was, 
 it could not be proved that he had not acquired all these 
 things. Imagine the two here present stating their pre- 
 tensions to the authorship ; each claiming the priceless 
 glory, each relying on his own qualifications alone. 
 Imagine the claims of Shakespeare unsupported by any 
 contemporary evidence. Could a man doubt the result 
 an instant. Hence the two sides are never at issue on 
 a common point of dispute. Shakespeare is as unanswer- 
 able on the testimony of his fellows as Bacon on the 
 qualifications of the writer. 
 
 Let us go a little further into both. That on Shake- 
 speare's Bide is direct, forcible, and conclusive, and need 
 not take us long. Let us take Ben Jonson in his own 
 words —
 
 TO THE MEMORY OF MY BELOVED, 
 THE AUTHOR, 
 
 Mr. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, 
 
 AND 
 
 WHAT HE HAS LEFT US. 
 
 To draw no envy Shakespeare on thy name 
 Am I thus ample to thy books and fame. 
 While I confess thy writings to be such 
 As neither man nor muse can praise too much. 
 
 Soul of the Age 1 
 The applause, delight, the wonder of our stage, 
 My Shakespeare rise ; I will not lodge thee by 
 Chaucer, or Spencer, or bid Beaumont lie 
 A little further to make thee a roome ; 
 Thou art a moniment without a tomb. 
 And art alive still, while thy book doth live, 
 And we have wits to read and praise to give. 
 
 • ••>•• 
 
 And though thou had'st small Latin, and less Greek, 
 
 From thence to honor thee I would not seek 
 
 For names, but call forth thundering ^schylus, 
 
 Euripides and Sophocles to us, 
 
 Paccuvius, Accius, him of Cordova dead. 
 
 To life again, to hear thy buskin tread 
 
 And shake a stage ; or when thy socks were on 
 
 Leave thee alone for the comparison 
 
 Of all that insolent Greece or haughtie Home 
 
 Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come. 
 
 Triumph my Britain, thou hast one to show 
 
 To whom all scenes of Europe homage owe. 
 
 He was not of an age, but for all time, 
 
 And all the muses still were in their prime, 
 
 When like Apollo he came forth to warme 
 
 Our cares, or like a Mercury to charme. 
 
 Yet must I not give nature all; thy art 
 My gentle Shakespeare must enjoy a part.
 
 8 
 
 For though the poet's matter nature be, 
 His art doth give the fashion, and that he 
 "Who casts to write a living line must sweat 
 (Such as thine are) and strike the second heat. 
 
 Or for the laurel he may gain a scorn 
 
 For a good poet's made as well as borne. 
 
 And such wert thou. Look how the father's face 
 
 Lives in his issue, even so the race 
 
 Of Shakespeare's mind and manners brightly shines 
 
 In his well turned and true filled lines. 
 
 • • • • • 
 
 Sweet Swan of Avon what a siglit it were 
 
 To see thee in our waters still appear 
 
 And make those flights upon the bankes of Thames 
 
 That so did take our Liza and our James ! 
 
 But stay! I see thee in the hemisphere 
 
 Advanc'd, and made a constellation there. 
 
 Shine forth thou star of poets, and with rage, 
 
 Or influence, chide, or cheere the drooping stage. 
 
 Which since thy flight from hence hath mourned like night 
 
 And despaires day, but for thy volumes hght. 
 
 Ben Jonson. 
 
 Again he wrote — 
 
 I remember that the players have often mentioned it as an 
 honour to Shakespeare that in his writings, whatsoever he penned, 
 he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, would that he 
 had blotted a thousand ! Which they thought a malevolent speech. 
 I had not told posterity this but for their ignorance who chose that 
 circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted, 
 and to justify mine own candour ; for I loved the man and do honour 
 his memory on this side idolatory as much as any. He was 
 indeed honest, and of an open and free nature, had an excellent 
 phantasy, brave notions and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed 
 with that facility that sometimes it was necessary that he should be 
 stopped, Sufflaminandus erat, as Augustus said of Haterms. His 
 wit was in his own power ; would the rule of it have been so too ! 
 Many times he fell into those things that could not escape laughter, 
 as when he said, in the person of Ctesar, one speaking to him: 
 "Caesar, thou doest me wrong;" he replied, "Caesar did never
 
 wrong but with just cause," and such Hke, which were ridiculous, 
 But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in 
 him to be praised than pardoned. 
 
 Hearing these extracts have we any reasonable doubt. 
 Can any conckision but one be drawn from theru. Some 
 Baconians reply : Shakespeare is a nom de plume, and 
 point to the spelling of the name as corroboration. 
 Granted, but Ben Jonson is not speaking of a man writing 
 under a uoin dc plume. He is speaking of his friend, the 
 bard of Avon, which the most ingenious critic has not yet 
 been able to construe into a reference to Bacon. And, with 
 the exception of one or two of the older poets, like Greene, 
 who called him an impostor, Jonson voiced the belief of his 
 contemporaries. On this evidence there can be but one 
 verdict. The secondary arguments are not so satisfactory, 
 and, perhaps, in being answerable, weaken rather than 
 strengthen the Shakespearean side, e.g., could Bacon, the 
 learned, have made foolish geographical blunders such as 
 Bohemia on the sea shore ; and taking ship from Milan to 
 Yerona? Equally, 'tis asked, could Shakespeare, the 
 learned, have made foolish geographical blunders as 
 Bohemia on the sea shore, and taking ship from Milan to 
 Yerona? Whoever wrote the plays, plays as magnificent 
 for their erudition as their fancy, whoever wrote them had 
 far too great knowledge of all learning under the sun to 
 have been guilty of mere childish ignorance. Probably it 
 was a poetical indifference to locality, and an equal indif- 
 ference to prosaic facts. For the purposes of the plays, 
 Yerona, Milan, or Bohemia would have been equally well 
 situated in the New Atlantis, Arcadia, or Cloudland, 
 and there it was the poet's privilege to leave them {nee 
 Note A, p. 40). 
 
 So another surface argument in being answerable fails 
 to strengthen this side.
 
 10 
 
 TJie love of the j^oet for nature. Shakespeare may have 
 loved nature ; if he wrote the plays he certainly did ; but 
 whether Bacon wrote the plays or not, he most undoubtedly 
 had a passion for nature, and for nature in all its forms, 
 magnificences, beauties, as well as curiosities. Only read 
 his Sylva Sylvarum, and one says : This is the writing of 
 an enthusiast. His affection for flowers and trees was no 
 dry-as-dust interest, but the passion of a lover for all that 
 was beautiful. If, then, any argument is to be drawn from 
 the poet's love of nature, it is much stronger on his side 
 who proved his devotion by his other works. No ; the 
 great, the overwhelming argument on the Shakespearean 
 side, is the testimony of his contemporaries, of which I 
 have given such a striking example. 
 
 Now, as to the Baconian side, which I will try to put 
 as strongly and impartially as I can. On this side the 
 great argument is : The superior qualifications of Bacon 
 for writing the plays, and the identity of thought between 
 them and his accepted works. So remarkable is this 
 identit}' of thought that, apart from controversy as to the 
 authorship, there is no student of the works but in- 
 stinctively feels that, had Bacon been a poet, had he been 
 a dramatist, the plays as we now have them are exactly 
 the plays we should have expected from his pen. In fact, 
 so much so, that in accepting Shakespeare as the author, 
 we are faced with the almost incredible alternative that, at 
 the same time, there existed two men who thought the 
 same on every conceivable subject, whose range of learn- 
 ing, philosophy, and enquiry, covered identically the same 
 ground ; who both were as intimately acquainted with the 
 ceremonial of a court as the husbandry of a farm ; who 
 both had the same feelings of devotion, the same affection 
 for every fable, legend, or myth that had ever been known 
 amongst mankind, and, above all, two men both incredibly
 
 11 
 
 voluminous who never contradicted one another, and who, 
 with all science, art, and philosophy to embark upon, were 
 yet restrained within the same bounds of enquiry, and 
 limited by the same horizon of thought. That two distinct 
 brains, if two, produced these identities, is not one of the 
 least marvels of the literary world. Then, further, we 
 have to bear in mind not only the identity of thought 
 found in the two sets of works, but the remarkable simi- 
 larity in the rhythm and language in which those thoughts 
 were conveyed. 
 
 And now to proceed with the arguments in proof on 
 this side in more detail, taking them in the following 
 order. 
 
 First we will consider one or two examples showing the 
 similarity of style and rhythm found in the two sets of 
 works. Then we will take a few extracts from the plays 
 proving the profound classical erudition of the writer. 
 Next we will take some twenty or more parallel passages 
 showing identity of thought, and, to a large extent, identity 
 of expression. Then we shall have to content ourselves 
 with one example from the plays, proving that they were 
 written by a great master of history, and not by a mere 
 transcriber of chronicles, or the Lives of Plutarch. And, 
 lastly, to deal with the personal aspect of the plays, and to 
 point out how singularly events and allusions harmonize 
 with what we otherwise know of Bacon's life, whilst 
 absolutely wanting in this quality as regards Shakespeare. 
 
 This is an enormous programme, to every division of 
 which an evening could be well devoted, and it is impos- 
 sible for me to do more than indicate the argument and 
 leave it to members to pursue the study as their leisure 
 permits. In fact, I must rather ask you to accept this 
 joaper as the opening of counsel of what he intends to 
 prove, rather than the proofs themselves. Here I may
 
 12 
 
 carry the simile one step farther, for as no honourable 
 counsel will willingly open facts he does not expect to 
 prove, so I, on this occasion, regard myself in a fiduciary 
 position to this Society, and will not wiUingly make any 
 statements that I feel further investigation will not fully 
 bear out. 
 
 And, first, as to identity, or, rather, similarity of 
 rhythm, thought, and expression, found in two striking 
 extracts. One of the sublimest passages in the language is 
 the prayer of Henry V before the battle of Agincourt. If 
 we find anything of Bacon's even approaching this we 
 must perforce admit anything is possible. It is in their 
 highest flights great intellects are fairly measured and best 
 compared, and with this, one of the greatest of the 
 passages from the plays, I will contrast the prayer of 
 Bacon at the close of the preface to his great Novum 
 Organum, invoking on it the blessing of God Almighty. 
 
 K. Hen. O God of battles ! steel my soldiers' hearts ; 
 Possess them not with fear ; take from them now 
 The sense of reckoning, if the opposed numbers 
 Pluck their hearts from them. Not to day, Lord, 
 O, not to-day, think not upon the fault 
 My father made in compassing the crown ! 
 I Ptichard's body have interred anew ; 
 And on it have bestow'd more contrite tears 
 Than from it issued forced drops of blood : 
 Five hundred poor I have in yearly pay, 
 Who twice a day their wither'd hands hold up 
 Toward heaven, to pardon blood; and I have built 
 Two chantries, where the sad and solemn priests 
 Sing still for Richard's soul. More will I do; 
 Though all that I can do is nothing worth, 
 Since that my penitence comes after all, 
 Imploi'ing pardon. 
 
 May Thou, therefore, Father, who gavest the light of vision as 
 the first fruit of creation, and who hast spread over the fall of man
 
 13 
 
 the light of Thy understanding as the accomplishment of Thy works, 
 guard and direct this work which, issuing from Thy goodness, seeks 
 in return Thy glory. 
 
 When Thou had surveyed the works Thy hands had wrought, all 
 seemed good in Thy sight and Thou restest. But when man turned 
 to the works of his hands he found all vanity and vexation of spirit, 
 and experienced no rest. If however we labour in Thy works, Thou 
 wilt make us to partake of Thy vision and sabbath; we thei'efore 
 humbly beseech Thee to strengthen our purpose, that Thou may'st 
 be willing to endow Thy family of mankind with new gifts through 
 our hands and the hands of those in whom Thou shalt implant the 
 same spirit. '■= 
 
 Shelley, writing of Bacon's prose style was extremely 
 enthusiastic, stating he had so fine an ear for metre that 
 even his prose, sympathizes and blends with the rhythm 
 of universal nature, and, hearing but this one example, 
 we feel the statement is not exaggerated. So also, as 
 regards his wit and eloquence, we have the testimony of 
 Ben Jonson. 
 
 There happened in my time one noble speaker who was full of 
 gravity in his speaking. His language, where he could spare or pass 
 by a jest,! was nobly censorious. No man ever spoke more neatly, 
 more pressly, more weightily, or suffered less emptiness, less idle- 
 
 * The following examples of similarity in the different styles of the two 
 sets of works may well be studied. They have the merit of being accessible, 
 which much of the evidence in this dispute is not. Contrast the supposed 
 speech of the Chancellor in '' Henry VIII," page 350, Bohn's edition, begin- 
 ning "And lastly because the king is well assured," with Katharine's views 
 on a wife's duties in the "Taming of the Shrew," where she says "Thy 
 husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper." So Hamlet's instructions as to 
 acting find their counterpart in an Essay on " Masques and Triumphs." 
 Then read the history of the Salic law (deadly dull to act), where Henry V 
 demands from the Archbishop what are his rights in the French crown, and 
 is conclusively answered, and by a past master in history. Along with this 
 read any essay of Bacon's, for preference, say, that on "Sea power." Next 
 read the preface to the folio of 1C23, presumablj' by Heminge & Condell, 
 found in most editions, and ask if it is not by the same hand as the epilogue 
 to " Henry IV," Part II, spoken by a dancer, and further ask if such magni- 
 ficent English could have been written by anyone but the writer of the plays. 
 
 t " When he could spare or pass by a jest," clear evidence Bacon was a 
 wit in and out of season.
 
 14 
 
 ness, in what he uttered. No member of his speech but consisted 
 of his own graces. His hearers could not cough or look aside from 
 him without loss. He commanded when he spoke, and had his 
 judges angry and pleased at his devotion. No man had their affec- 
 tions more in his power. The fear of every man who heard him was- 
 lest he should make an end. 
 
 I now propose to give an example of the classical 
 erudition found in the plays, as a sample of the many ta 
 be found.* And let it be from the great scene with which 
 you are all acquainted, the famous description of the death 
 of Falstaff by Mistress Quickly. 
 
 And first, as to the ancient origin. Hippocrates, a 
 Greek writer of the fifth century e.g., gives the following 
 presages of death : — 
 
 (1) Handling the bed clothes awkwardly. 
 
 (2) Gathering bits of straw or stems of flowers. 
 
 (3) Kaising the hand aimlessly to the face. 
 
 (4) The nose sharp. 
 
 (5) The whole face of a pale green colour. 
 
 (6) The extremities cold. 
 
 Now for the description as found in the play : — 
 
 After I saw him fumble with the sheets and pla.y with flowers,, 
 and smile upon his finger ends, I knew there was but one way ; 
 for his nose was as sharp as a pen on a green field. He bade 
 me lay more clothes on his feet ; I put my hand into the bed and 
 felt them, and they were cold as any stone. 
 
 The proof of erudition by a comparison of these two 
 passages is complete, for the same signs are taken, and in 
 the same order. 
 
 Next, to show the identity of thought, let us turn to 
 Bacon's Historij of Life and Death, where we find — 
 
 The immediate signs which precede death are fumbling with the 
 
 * A large number of these have been collected by Mr. Edwin Reed in his 
 Bacon and Shakespeare Parallelisms, published by Gay & Bird.
 
 15 
 
 hands, grasping and clutching, the nose becoming sharp, the face 
 palHd, coldness of the extremities. 
 
 A further curious incident of this passage is, that the 
 words " on a green field," were only added in the folio, the 
 writer not being quite satisfied that a description of the 
 death colour which might be quite accurate as regards a 
 Greek would be equally true of a northern race. Further, 
 I may add, no passage has more troubled editors than 
 this — in Knight it appears as " babbling of green fields" — 
 although, when read by the aid of the original, the 
 meaning intended of his nose " sharp as a pen on a green 
 field " is perfectly plain. Perhaps Bacon may have this 
 much honour granted him. If not the writer, he is at 
 least one of the best elucidators of the plays. 
 
 Our next head is to prove the knowledge of philology 
 shown in the plays, as evidenced by the use of so many 
 Latin words in their root meaning. An example of what I 
 mean by way of illustration. In " Hamlet," one suggests 
 that Hamlet " As 't were by accident may here affront 
 Ophelia." The context proves no insult was intended, 
 and that " affront " has here its root and not its ordinary 
 meaning, and that it is from (id frontem, face to face. 
 
 Hundreds of similar illustrations could be given, but I 
 think what will be even more satisfactory will be to give 
 the conclusions at which Hallam arrived. Whilst every 
 man's dictum on this subject can now only be agreed to 
 after sufficient examination, yet I think, in this case, we 
 may accept what he has to say when we remember he 
 wrote his History of Literature in the thirties, and before 
 this controversy had been even suggested. Commenting 
 on Ben Jonson's line — 
 
 And though thou hadst small Latin, and less Greek, 
 he writes : — 
 
 And here, without reviving the debated question of Shakespeare's
 
 16 
 
 learning, I must ventvire to think that he possessed rather more 
 acquaintance with the Latin language than many beUeve. The 
 phrases, unintelligible and improper except in the sense of their 
 primitive roots, which occur so copiously in his plaj'S, seem to be 
 unaccountable on the supposition of absolute ignorance. In the 
 " Midsummer-night's Dream " these are much less frequent than 
 in his later dramas. But here we find several instances, thus : 
 "things base and vile, holding no quantity for value;" "rivers that 
 have overborne their continents, the continente ripa of Horace ; " 
 "compact of imagination;" "something of great constancy," for 
 consistency ; " sweet Pyramus translated there ; " " the law of 
 Athens which by no means we may extenuate." I have considerable 
 doubts whether any of these expressions would be found in con- 
 temporary prose of Elizabeth's reign, which was less over-run with 
 pedantry than that of her successors. But could authorities be pro- 
 duced for Latinisms so forced, it is still not very likely that one 
 who did not understand their proper meaning would have introduced 
 them into poetry. 
 
 With this conchision I think we may concur, and, as 
 our subject is large, at once proceed to our next head, i.e., 
 to prove identity of thought. This will consist of a 
 number of parallel passages where we practically find 
 identity of thought, and not infrequently similarity of 
 expression. Once more, from considerations of time, I 
 have selected these for the sake of brevity, though some 
 of the longer passages are the more convincing. And first 
 let us take an example of a superstition, strange to find 
 in one so learned as Bacon, — 
 
 If the body of one murdered be brought before the murderer, the 
 wounds will bleed afresh. — Natural History (1622-25). 
 
 If thou delight to view thy heinous deeds, 
 Behold this pattern of thy biitcheries. 
 O ! gentlemen, see, see ! dead Henry's wounds 
 Open their congeal'd mouths and bleed afresh. 
 
 " Richard III," act i, sc. 2 (1597). 
 
 Thus Shakespeare echoes the sentiment.
 
 17 
 
 Next we have a strange coincidence of thought when 
 we might well have expected a variance. Bacon writes : — 
 
 Life without an object to pursue, is a languid and tiresome thing. 
 
 Good of advancement is greater than good of simple preserva- 
 tion. — Advancement of Learning (1603-5). 
 
 So much pleasanter is it to be doing than enjoying. — De Aug- 
 mentis (1622). 
 
 This was Bacon's creed, and he died in harness — killed 
 himself hy experimenting on the action of snow in pre- 
 serving dead bodies. 
 
 But Shakespeare, who retired after eighteen years of 
 life in London (Was it he could not live up to the " great- 
 ness thrust upon him " in the city, and died from a 
 drunken bout) has still the same views on life. 
 
 All things that are 
 
 Are with more spirit chased than enjoyed. — 
 
 " Merchant of Venice," act ii, sc. 6 (1600). 
 Things won are done; joy's soul lies in the doing. — 
 
 "Troilus and Cressida," act i, sc, 2 (1609). 
 
 Another example : — 
 
 It is the wisdom of crocodiles that shed tears when they would 
 devour. — Essay of Wisdom (1625). 
 
 As the mournful crocodile with sorrow snares relenting pas- 
 sengers.—" Henry VI." Part II, act iii, sc. 2 (1623). 
 
 The world on wheels. — ■" Two Gentleman of Verona," act iii, 
 sc. 1 (1623). 
 
 The world runs on wheels. — Promus. (1594-96). 
 
 The tongues of dying men 
 
 Enforce attention like deep harmony. — 
 
 " Richard II," act ii, sc. 1 (1597). 
 
 The words which men speak at their death, hke a song of a 
 dying swan, have a wonderful effect upon men's minds. — Wisdoin of 
 the Ancients (1609). 
 
 Deformed persons are commonly even with nature, for as nature 
 hath done ill by them, so do they by nature. Deformed persons
 
 18 
 seek to rescue themselves from scorn by malice — De Augmentis 
 
 Cruel as this judgment is on unhappy innocents, still 
 we have Eichard III as an example of its truth in all its 
 malignity, and not to let there be any doubt, Richard says : 
 
 And therefore since I cannot prove a lover, 
 To entertain these fair well-spoken days, 
 I am determined to prove a villain. — 
 
 "Eichard III," act i, sc. 1 (1599). 
 
 Next for that magnificent passage from Hamlet which 
 has done so much to endear Shakespeare to the Christian 
 mind. 
 
 Our indiscretion sometimes serves us well 
 
 "When our dear plots do pall; and that should teach us, 
 
 There's a divinity doth shape our ends 
 
 Rough-hew them how we will. — 
 
 " Hamlet," act v, sc. 2 (1604). 
 
 Bacon as fervently writes : — 
 
 Oh what divinity there is in chance. Accident is many times- 
 more subtle than foresight. — Advancement of Learning (1603-5). 
 
 The brilliance of many of these sentences we are inclined 
 to forget, they having been household words so long. But 
 remember, once they flashed on a world as meteors that 
 flame out of the darkness of night. And we are taught 
 they are double flashes from two minds at the same time. 
 
 Now am I like that proud insulting ship 
 Which Caesar and his fortunes bare at once. — 
 
 " Henry VI," Part I. 
 As Cifisar said to the pilot of his ship, to strengthen his courage,. 
 You bear Caesar and his fortune. — De Augmc-ntis. 
 
 Question was asked of Demosthenes what was the chief part of 
 an orator ? He answered action. "What next '? Action ! "What 
 next"? Action! — Es. Boldness (1625). 
 
 Action is eloquence, and the eyes of the ignorant more learned 
 than his ears. — " Coriolanus," act iii, sc. 2 (1628).
 
 19 
 
 Some praises proceed merely of flattery, and if he be an ordinary 
 flatterer, he will have certain common attributes that may serve 
 every man. If he be a cunning flatterer, he will follow the arch 
 flatterer which is a man's self, and wherein a man thinketh best of 
 himself, therein the flatterer will uphold him most. — Essay of Praise. 
 Decius. For he loves to hear 
 That unicorns may be betrayed with trees. 
 And bears with glasses; elephants with holes; 
 Lions with toils ; and men with flatterers. 
 But when I tell him he hates flatterers. 
 He says he does — being then most flattered. — 
 
 "Julius Caesar," act ii, sc. 1 (1623). 
 Who having unto truth by telling oft 
 Made such a sinner of his memory 
 To credit his own lie ; he did believe 
 He was, indeed, the duke. — 
 
 " Tempest," act i, sc. 2 (1623). 
 It was generally believed that he was indeed Duke Richard. Nay, 
 himself, with long and continued counterfeiting, and with oft telling 
 a lie, was turned by habit almost into the thing he seemed to be, and 
 from a liar into a believer. — " Henry VII," of Perky n Warbeck 
 (1621). 
 
 Laugh like parrots at a bag piper. — " Merchant of Venice," act i, 
 sc. 1 (1600). 
 
 You shall have parrots that will not only imitate voices but 
 laughing. — Sylva Sylvarum (1622-25). 
 
 Cowards die many times before their death. — "Julius Caesar," 
 act ii, sc. 2 (1623). 
 
 He that lives in death doth die continually. — Letter to Butland 
 (1596). 
 
 The sense of death is most in apprehension. — " Measure for 
 Measure," act iii, sc. 1 (1623). 
 
 The expectation (of death) brings terror, and that exceeds the 
 evil. — Essay of Death (posthumous). 
 
 A good wit will make use of anything. — " Henry IV," Part II, 
 act. i, sc. 2 (1600). 
 
 Excellent wits will make use of every little thing. — Letter to 
 Greville (1596). 
 
 Another popular argument against Bacon as author of
 
 20 
 
 the plays is what we are pleased to regard as his heterodox 
 views on love. But, whatever his views, he finds the hest 
 illustrations of all the conclusions he comes to in the plays 
 themselves. What a tragedy of pure love in excess we 
 have in " Eomeo and Juliet." What an equal tragedy of 
 impure love in excess in " Antony and Cleopatra." How 
 magnificent a man is Antony, but his very magnificence 
 is only a foil to set off the folly of his passion. Bacon 
 says — 
 
 Love troubleth men's fortunes. — Essay on "Love" (1625). 
 
 Antony cries — 
 
 We have kissed away kingdoms and provinces. — 
 
 "Antony and Cleopatra," act iii, sc. 8 (1623). 
 
 And so with other instances showing identity of thought 
 even on this of all subjects. 
 
 Love is merely [wholly] a madness. — 
 
 " As You Like It," act iii, sc. 2 (1623). 
 Transported to the mad degree of love. — Essay on " Love " 
 (1625). 
 
 By love the young and tender wit 
 Is turned to folly. — 
 
 " Two Gentlemen of Verona," act i, sc. 1 (1623). 
 Love is the child of folly — Essay on " Love " (1612). 
 Believe not that tlie dribbling dart of love 
 Can pierce a complete bosom. — 
 
 " Measure for Measure," act i, sc. 4 (1623). 
 Great spirits and great business do keep out this weak passion. — 
 Essay on Love (1612). 
 
 Whosoever esteemeth too much of amorous affection quitteth 
 riches and wisdom. — Essay on " Love " (1612). 
 
 Made me neglect my studies, lose my time, 
 
 War with good counsel, set the world at naught. — 
 
 " Two Gentlemen of Verona," act i, sc. 1 (1623). 
 Love will creep in service where it cannot go. — 
 
 " Two Gentlemen of Verona," act i, sc. 1 (1623).
 
 21 
 
 Love must creep in service where it cannot go. — " Letter to King 
 James, written in 1610, published after his death." 
 Love moderately ; long love doth so. — 
 
 " Romeo and Juliet," act ii, sc. 6 (1599). 
 Love me little, love me long. — Promus (1594-96). 
 Now Romeo is beloved and loves again. 
 Alike bewitched by the charms of love. — 
 
 " Romeo and Juliet," act i, chorus (1599). 
 All the charms of love 
 Let witchcraft join with beauty. — 
 
 " Antony and Cleopatra," act ii, sc. 1 (1623). 
 There be none of the affections which have been noted to 
 fascinate or bewitch but love and envy. — Essay on " Love " (1625). 
 
 I know not how, but martial men are given to love. — Essay on 
 "Love" (1625). 
 
 And may that soldier a mere recreant prove 
 That means not, hath not, or is not in love. — 
 
 " Troilus and Cressida," act i, sc. 3 (1609). 
 
 So much for identity of thought as indicated by paral- 
 lelism. Some you may consider good, some indifferent ; 
 but on the whole they are striking. Still more striking 
 when you read them by the hundred. Thus Edwin Eeed, 
 who has collected over 880, and to whom I am indebted 
 for the majority of those I have read, sums up the argu- 
 ment — 
 
 The arguinent from parallelism may be stated thus : — One paral- 
 lelism has no significance ; five attract attention ; ten suggest 
 enquiry ; twenty raise a presumption ; fifty establish a probability ; 
 a hundred dissolve every doubt. 
 
 But we must remember Jonson had not a doubt — -not 
 when he wrote. Was he deceived? 
 
 I had intended to give one example to prove the poet's 
 intimate knowledge of history, and that he was not a mere 
 adapter of some old chronicler, but a laborious student 
 quarrying out facts for himself. 
 
 Had I time this would be amply proved by my reading
 
 22 
 
 the pedigree of Richard of York as given in the three 
 versions of Henry VI, part I, of 1594, 1619, and 1623. 
 No two of these versions agree. Whoever the author was, 
 he could not make up his mind as to the order of the seven 
 sons of Edward III, and he came to a different conclusion 
 each time. It is most interesting, and the changes are 
 those of the antiquarian. So the version of 1623 is in 
 verse, and is an improvement on that of 1619 in prose, 
 which is an improvement again on that of 1594. 
 
 Eemembering Shakespeare died in 1616, we are faced 
 with this question : Who was the writer, in 1623, who 
 improved on the edition of 1619? The mystery is as great 
 as who was the writer whose plays Shakespeare adapted 
 forty years before. A similar question may also be asked 
 of many other plays. Particularly may it be asked of 
 Richard III. Before the great folio edition of 1623 there 
 were five others: 1597, 1602, 1605, 1612, 1622; and the 
 type of the 1622, in quarto, was apparently kept standing 
 for that of the folio version, for in the two versions are 
 twelve similar printer's errors; and yet in this folio edition 
 there are 193 new lines, and 2,000 retouched. Who then 
 retouched the edition of 1622 ? 
 
 So, who rewrote the 1619 version of the " Merry Wives 
 of Windsor," adding 900 lines ; the 1622 version of 
 "King John," adding 1,000; and the 1622 version of 
 "Othello," adding 160? 
 
 Again, one repeats, the mystery is very great, only 
 equalled by the similar mystery Who wrote the plays 
 Shakespeare adapted ? Did he, a writer of magnificent 
 promise, after an interval of forty years' retirement, again 
 resume activity to finish and round off the work of the 
 master's hand ? 
 
 Having thus dealt with the similarity of rhythm, 
 thought and expression found in both sets of works, and
 
 23 
 
 the classical, philological and historical erudition of which 
 the writer was past master, which I do not say I have 
 proved, but only the lines of proof of which I have 
 indicated, I will now briefly try to lay before you the last 
 argument, to show how singularly everything connected 
 with the plays agrees with what we know of Bacon's life, 
 and not with that of Shakespeare. The method of working 
 is Bacon's. The very folio edition is that of Bacon's other 
 works. The chronology fits in with the life of Bacon. 
 And the allusions, characteristics, and alterations find 
 their justification in his life alone The method of working 
 is Bacon's. Every play of which we have more than one 
 edition was added to and altered, and altered again. The 
 feature of the folio is not only its completeness in the 
 number of the plays themselves, but the ten thousands 
 of lines retouched, and the 7,000 and more new lines 
 added. And every lilmi lias been tJms icritten up and added 
 to from a philosopher's and not an actor's point of view. 
 
 Thus the plays went through the same process as 
 Bacon's other works, as for instance, the Essays originally 
 published as ten in 1597, and then only half their present 
 length; added to in 1612 till they numbered fifty eight; 
 and finally, much enlarged, published in 1625 in the form 
 we now have them. So also the plays have come to us. 
 This fact is in singular contrast with the statement of 
 Jon son, " Shakespeare never altered a line." 
 
 Man loves to gape at the marvellous, hence the 
 cherished fable— the plays were written without a blot. If 
 poor Bacon wrote them they were only produced after 
 unending toil and never-ceasing amendment. Even in 
 this age of agnosticism we would sooner stare at a god, 
 especially of our own creation, than venerate the struggles 
 after excellence of a mere man. 
 
 Then as to the dates of the plays. We all know the
 
 24 
 
 extreme difficulty Shakespearean s have found over the 
 chronology of some of the earlier plays, because written 
 before Shakespeare had come to London. Hence the 
 elaborate theory of his having adapted earlier pieces. 
 This had the great difficult}' to surmount that there was no 
 author then alive who would have patiently allowed his 
 works to be adapted, and apart from the authors then alive, 
 there were no plays to be adapted. But if Shakespeare did 
 write the plays, some explanation was essential, and the 
 best, though bad, had to be accepted for want of a better. 
 
 If Bacon wrote the plays, no ingenious or other ex- 
 planation is requisite. The whole subject is simplified in 
 its entirety. Contemporary allusions are clear, as are the 
 allusions to contemporary affairs in the plays. So with his 
 life, expressions vague and meaningless become pointed 
 and pregnant with thought. 
 
 The following is a list of the earlier plays, with their 
 approximate dates. Fortunately, both parties are fairly 
 well agreed as to the order of the plays, though not agreed 
 as to who was the writer. One school regards them as 
 the plays Shakespeare adapted, the other as the produc- 
 tions of a magnificent but immature genius. Thus agreed 
 we may fix the dates roughly as follows : — " King John," 
 "King Lear," "Henry Y,' "Pericles," "Titus Androni- 
 cus," 1583-1584; "Two Gentlemen of Yerona " (produced 
 first as " Felix jind Philomena,") 1584; "Hamlet," 1585; 
 "The Taming of the Shrew, 1586 ; "Love's Labour Lost," 
 " Comedy of Errors," 1587-1588 ; " Henry YI," part 1, 
 1590-1591; part 2, 1591 ; part 3, 1592. 
 
 These dates are fixed by allusions in contemporary 
 writings, and I will give two by way of example. Not 
 being controversial, further are not required. 
 
 Nash, writing in 1591, makes clearly a contemptuous 
 allusion to " Hamlet " as follows : —
 
 25 
 
 Nor hath my prose any skill to imitate the almond leaf verse, or 
 sit taboring five years together nothing but To be, To be, on a paper 
 drum.* 
 
 Greene, in his Groafs Worth of Wit, in 1592, writes a 
 parody on the line in "' Henry VI." part 3 — 
 
 ! tiger's heart wrapped in a woman's hide. 
 
 as follows — 
 
 There is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers that, with 
 his tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide, supposes he is as well 
 able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you ; and being an 
 absolute Johannes Factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shake- 
 scene in a country. 
 
 This allusion is interesting as fixing the dates of the play, 
 and also as an allusion to Shakespeare as an actor. As 
 regards these plays, if I had time, I would like to have 
 considered them with this Society, and to have shown why 
 Baconians consider the earlier editions of them to he by 
 the same hand as the later ones. But this can only be 
 done adequately in the study, by each personally com- 
 paring the two texts in parallel columns. 
 
 In the great disagreement of Knight with Malone's 
 theory to which I have referred, Knight did this in the 
 case of " Henry VI," and proved that Shakespeare was not 
 the plagiarist Malone would have proved him to be. 
 Similarly, Baconians contend the still earlier plays can be 
 proved to be by the same author. 
 
 And what is the character of these early plays? Do 
 they fit in with Bacon's life? Let Gervinus, the great 
 German critic of nearly one hundred years ago, speak, as 
 no one can suspect his bias. 
 
 All these plays exliibit the poet not far removed from school and 
 its pursuits ; in none of his later dramas does he plunge so deeply 
 into the remembrance of antiquity — his head overflowing with the 
 
 * Slang for dramatic poetry.
 
 26 
 
 images, legends and characters of ancient history. In "Titus," as 
 we have already shown, the whole story is composed from mere 
 pieces of ancient legends and histories. 
 
 Just as in Kyd's " Spanish Tragedy," there are long passages 
 from Latin poets, so here a stanza from an Ode of Horace has been 
 admitted. In "Pericles," as in one of Seneca's plays, we have the 
 apparition of Diana, and scenes which strikingly remind us of 
 Ulysses' visit to the Phoeacians. In the " Comedy of Errors," and 
 " The Taming of the Shrew," we have already pointed out the 
 introductory address in Homer's style. Like "Lucrece" and 
 " Venus " these pieces are redundant with allusions to Greek mytho- 
 logy and ancient history. In these allusions the Trojan legend 
 stands pre-eminent, and especially Virgil's view of it, as we find it in 
 "Lucrece." In the passage where, in " Henry VI," he alludes to 
 Diomede and Ulysses, when they stole " to Rhesus' huts and 
 brought from thence the Thracian fatal steeds," we perceive at ouce 
 how freshly the young poet was imbued with Trojan history. The 
 endeavour to display his learning is not foreign to these pieces, and 
 is not uncharacteristic of a beginner. We will not adduce the first 
 part of "Henry VI" in evidence, because the greater part of it is 
 atbributed to another writer; otherwise we perceive in it great 
 ostentation of study of the Old Testament, of Roman History, of 
 the Bomavces of the Paladin, and even of Froissart's Chronicles. 
 But in the second and third parts also, in Shakespeare's additions, 
 the quotations from old myths and histories are multiplied, and the 
 manner in which he at one time inserts Machiavelli in the place of 
 Catiline, and at another time Baynbus instead of the pirate Abradas, 
 shows that he purposely sought opportunity to show his own learn- 
 ing. But the " Taming of the Shrew " especially may be compared 
 with the first part of " Henry VI " in the manifold ostentation of 
 book learning. 
 
 Is not this the exact description of what we should 
 have expected from Bacon's known life ? When we read 
 this and another passage of Gervinus, we almost wonder 
 he did not identify Bacon with the author of the- plays, 
 so nearly did he seem to approach to that opinion. Thus 
 ho writes — 
 
 If Bacon felt the want of a science of human nature, he rightly
 
 27 
 
 thought that historians and poets are the ones to supply it ; and he 
 well might have searched for it before all in the writings of his 
 neighbour, Shakespeare, for no other poetry has taught us as his has 
 done, that the taming of the passions is the aim of civilization. 
 
 But the explanation is obvious, no doubt had ever 
 for a moment been cast on the authorship of the plays by 
 Shakespeare. I remember a similar incident connected 
 with the Maybrick case. Dr. Carter told me he attended 
 Mr. Maybrick, studied his symptoms with the minutest 
 care, and never dreamt of any poisoning. The possibility 
 of his being slowly murdered by his wife never occurred 
 to him for an instant Hence he sought for every explana- 
 tion, and imagined every possibility but the true one. 
 Then his eyes were suddenly opened, and, as it were, in a 
 moment he saw the whole case from the, beginning, saw 
 how every incident pieced in with every other, and from 
 that instant he was never in doubt. 
 
 And this is what Baconians argue as to this most per- 
 plexing of problems. For good or bad reasons. Bacon 
 determined to cover his identity, and he did so. 
 
 Soon after his death there passed another wild political 
 storm over the whole of England — when who was the true 
 author of the plays was an uninteresting problem — followed 
 by a period of corruptness, when their very beauty was not 
 appreciated, so much so that Dryden turned some of them 
 into rhyme. Hence, what might have been easil}^ dis- 
 proved in the first instance was not even the subject of 
 doubt as years passed by. 
 
 Then, again, exactly as these early plays, full of 
 classicisms, parade of learning, ostentation of acquirements, 
 is what we should have expected from the young scholar, 
 so his life about this time is equally in harmony with the 
 subjects of the play themselves. 
 
 Just as natural that he should have written the
 
 28 
 
 " Comedy of Errors " at this period as that Shakespeare 
 should not. Surely the young man from the country, 
 fired with the historical enthusiasm Shakespeare must 
 have had, if the writer of the plays, might well have found 
 something congenial in the ballads of the time so full of 
 spirit and magnificence. Surely "Chevy Chase" should 
 have inspired him, and if that had been the earliest off- 
 spring of his muse, it would have been as natural as that 
 the famous victories of Henry V should have fired Bacon, 
 and aroused his enthusiasm as he stood on the field of 
 the glorious battle of Agincourt. 
 
 Bacon, we know, travelled through France ; and at the 
 time when the first version of "Henry V" was written, was 
 settled for a M'hile to study at Poictiers. Cressy, Poictiers, 
 and Agincourt! What a thrill of pride they cause in us 
 Englishmen of to-day, and is it possible Bacon was not 
 susceptible of the same enthusiasm. We have the fact 
 that "Henry V" was written in 1583, and is one glowing, 
 magnificent description of this great victory, and then we 
 have the further fact that the historical plays are con- 
 tinuous from Richard II to Henry VIII, with only one gap, 
 the reign of Henry VII, and that is filled in by Bacon's 
 prose history.. Thus we have Bacon on the scenes of 
 our greatest national triumphs, and within a year or two 
 "Henry V" is on the boards. And note, the last of this 
 series of remarkable plays was only first known to the 
 world in the folio of 1623, at which time we remember 
 Shakespeare had been dead seven years. 
 
 So, "Love's Labour Lost" is well placed amongst the 
 courtiers of Navarre, considering how Bacon travelled, and 
 that his brother Anthony was attache at the Court there 
 for five years. Similarly, "Felix and Philomena" was not 
 an unlikely subject for him to have adapted from the 
 Spanish, as it is well known he was a proficient in the
 
 29 
 
 language. And it must not be forgotten that Lopez de 
 Vega was then pourmg out his plays almost b}' the day. 
 When people argue about the physical impossibility of 
 Bacon producing both sets of works, they forget that, 
 according to Hallam, Lopez' plays were supposed to have 
 reached 3,000, and those printed to something like 300 ; 
 nor can they have ever seen the score of one of Wagner's 
 operas, every note of which had to be penned by his own 
 hand ; nor yet have given weight to the fact that Bacon's 
 working life was nearly as long again as Shakespeare's. 
 
 If at this stage it is objected : Where did Bacon get 
 his stage craft ? The same question may be asked with 
 more point of Shakespeare, fresh from fields, and from a 
 home where, practically, the drama was unknown. 
 
 The reason for Bacon's return to England is well 
 ascertained. His father had intended to provide for him 
 so that he could prosecute his researches. Like the will of 
 many another lawyer his was defective, and young Bacon, 
 after vainly beseeching his uncle Cecil to assist him, was 
 driven by the compulsion of necessity to earn his living by 
 law. That he keenly felt he had mistaken his vocation is 
 well evidenced by his prayer of 1621. 
 
 I have misspent my life in things for which I was least fit ; so as 
 I may truly say my soul hath been a stranger in the courses of my 
 pilgrimage. 
 
 So, in the letter to Bodley (1603), he repeats : — 
 
 I do confess, since I was of any understanding, my mind hath in 
 efTect been absent from that I have done . . . knowing myself 
 by inward calling to be fitter to hold a book than to play a part. I 
 have led my life in civil causes for which I was not very fit by 
 nature, and more unfit by the preoccupation of my mind. 
 
 Then we have the lines of the sonnet, written at the 
 time when he was most acutely feeling the want of an 
 independent fortune —
 
 30 
 
 Oh for my sake do you with fortune chide 
 
 The guilty goddess of my harmful deeds, 
 That did not better for my hfe provide 
 
 Than public means which public manners breeds. 
 
 As Bacon's lines they are absolutely intelligible ; but why 
 Shakespeare should have made lamentation over his public 
 life which was bringing him fame and money it is difficult 
 to conceive. And this has been a difficulty that has 
 troubled commentators over 200 years. If Baconians are 
 right this will trouble them no more. 
 
 Another striking feature of the plays, when supposed 
 to have been written by Shakespeare, is how completely 
 impersonal they are, how absolutely all reference to 
 himself and to any incident in his life is wanting in them. 
 But once let Bacon be granted as the author, and this 
 impersonal character is all gone ; for instance, the extracts 
 just given, and, if not many, yet there are other references 
 both striking and highly interesting. Let us for one 
 moment consider the case of Essex, and what we find 
 Bacon himself saying on the subject. And first we must 
 not forget that the divine right of kings was not the myth 
 some now regard it, and that Bacon believed in it, and it 
 was a rule of conduct in his own life. This is well 
 evidenced by his speech at the trial: — "God hath im- 
 planted such a majesty in the face of a prince that na 
 private man dare approach the person of his sovereign 
 with traitorous intent." This sentiment may be extrava- 
 gant and incorrect, but it finds its counterpart in 
 " Hamlet " in the famous lines : — 
 
 There's such divinity doth wall a king 
 That treason dares not look upon. 
 
 So also we must not forget the conditions under which 
 Elizabeth was queen. Whatever the merits might be, the 
 titles of the children of Catherine of Arragon and Anne
 
 31 
 
 Boleyn were inconsistent, and if Mary had been lawfully 
 queen, Mary Queen of Scots, then wife of the Dauphin, 
 was next heir, and there is no doubt that, in right of his 
 wife, the Dauphin assumed the title of King of England, 
 and there is not a doubt that if Elizabeth had not been 
 one of the wisest of women, and Mary one of the most 
 imprudent, and if the Dauphin had not opportunely died, 
 Elizabeth's position would have been most precarious. 
 
 When we also remember that it Avas not then seventy- 
 three years since the whole of England had been convulsed 
 by the civil wars over a title not more doubtful, and that 
 Bacon read the signs of the future Puritan revolution, we 
 can more readily appreciate his devotion to his queen, and 
 a determination to do all in his power to prevent the 
 recurrence of the horrors of the preceding century. 
 Friend or no friend, benefactor or no benefactor, nothing 
 could palliate, justify, or lessen in his eyes the grievous 
 crime of Essex, that of treason to his queen. 
 
 And first, was his advice to Essex good to plead guilty 
 and throw himself on the mercy of the court ? It is the 
 course he himself adopted. It is the invariable practice 
 to-day for counsel so to advise clients undoubtedly guilty, 
 and there is no doubt in the case of Essex it was the 
 wisest. 
 
 And now as for Bacon's view on the situation. In his 
 letter to Essex he writes : — 
 
 I confess I love some things much better than I love your 
 lurdship, as the Queen's service, her quiet and contentment, her 
 honour, her favour, the good of my country. 
 
 How absolutely this agrees with the answer put into the 
 mouth of Brutus when justifying his part in the death of 
 Csesar : — 
 
 If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this
 
 82 
 
 is my answer : " not that I loved Cuesar less, but that I loved Eome 
 more." 
 
 However, in common with his contemporaries, posterity 
 has refused to accept the exphxnation, and hence "Bright- 
 est, wisest, meanest of mankind." For himself he went in 
 terror of his hfe, so popular was Essex, so enraged were 
 his admirers. In similar terror at one period was the 
 writer of the sonnets. 
 
 If Bacon really felt himself the unjust victim of the 
 mob, we can easily understand the contempt he showers 
 on them. In "Julius Cfesar," Antony is not only making 
 their changeableness ridiculous on behalf of the dead, but 
 also on behalf of the living. 
 
 That Bacon should write of the people — " Monster 
 with many heads" {Conference of Pleasure, 1592), "Beast 
 with many heads" {Cliarge apaitist Talbot, 1614), and 
 should hate and despise them we can understand, but why 
 Shakespeare should adopt the same image is not so easy to 
 appreciate. " Beast with many heads " is also the term of 
 contempt used in " Coriolanus." See act iv, sc. 1 (1623). 
 But to hasten on, let us consider the last act in the 
 tragedy of his Hfe, his terrible fail. In this his contem- 
 poraries did not blame him ; to them he was but the tool of 
 the court and the hated favourite, but it is for us enough 
 that he was the tool. He fell, and great was the fall. I 
 am now only concerned with the defence he makes of him- 
 self in the character of Judge Say. Judge Say had been 
 seized by Jack Cade, and thus pleaded for his life. 
 
 In the quarto editions of Henry VI, of 1594, 1600, and 
 1619 (note dates), he speaks the following four lines 
 
 only : — 
 
 Kent, in the Commentaries Caesar wrote, 
 
 Term'd it the civil 'st place of all this land. 
 
 Then noble countrymen hear me but speak ; 
 
 I sold not France, I lost not Normandy.
 
 33 
 
 In the folio of 1623 it is thus ampHfied, and again we ask 
 
 who was the writer in 1623 who improved on the quarto of 
 
 1619. 
 
 Kent, in the Commentaries Caesar writ, 
 
 Is term'd the civil'st place in all this isle. 
 
 Sweet is the country, because full of riches; 
 
 The people liberal, valiant, active, wealthy, 
 
 Which makes me hope you are not void of pity. 
 
 I sold not Maine, I lost not Normandy, 
 
 Yet to recover them would lose my life. 
 
 Justice with favour have I alivays done; 
 
 Prayers and tears have moved me, gifts could never. 
 
 When have I aught exacted from your hands 
 
 But to maintain the king, the realm, and you? 
 
 Large gifts have I bestowed on learned clerks, 
 
 Because my book preferred me to the king, 
 
 And seeing ignorance is the curse of God, 
 
 Knowledge, the wing wherewith we fly to heaven. 
 
 Unless you be possessed with devilish spirits, 
 
 You cannot but forbear to murder me. 
 
 Whoever wrote this speech, one thing is undoubted, this 
 is the way the events connected with Bacon's fall would 
 have presented themselves to Bacon's mind. Whether we 
 would agree, is another matter, but he would say : Justice 
 I have always done ; nought have I exacted ; large gifts 
 have I bestowed on learned clerks ; my book has preferred 
 me to my king ; his life-work was to prove ignorance a 
 curse, and knowledge the lamp to heaven. Eightly or 
 wrongly so, his own time accepted his defence, and for the 
 reasons advanced in this most remarkable speech, and 
 Ben Jon son, in the same writing to which we have already 
 referred, continues : — 
 
 My conceit of his person was never increased toward him by his 
 place or honours, but I have and do reverence him for the greatness 
 that was only proper to himself, in that he seemed to me ever by his 
 work one of the greatest men, and most worthy of admkation, that
 
 34 
 
 had been in many ages. In his adversity I ever prayed that God 
 would give him strength, for greatness he could never want. Neither 
 could I condole in a word or a syllable for him as knowing no 
 accident could do harm to virtue, but rather help to make it 
 manifest. 
 
 Hearing this, it is clear the last word has not yet been 
 spoken on this subject. But how deeply the iron had 
 entered into his soul we begin to realize if we once read 
 " Timon of Athens" in the light of Bacon as author. Of 
 all the awful and terrible tragedies, there is nothing to 
 equal this play in the terrific outpourings of a broken 
 heart. Passage after passage of envenomed eloquence, 
 image after image of awful imprecations, until one asks in 
 amazement will the resources of our language never be 
 exhausted. Only one loveable character stands out, the 
 faithful steward of Timon. So in his own pitiable tragedy, 
 only one delightful character is conspicuous, his faithful 
 secretary, faithful unto death. Here we have the climax 
 of human genius, the maddened production of a bruised 
 heart, and in its awful bitterness we realize the deepness of 
 the wound. In one other form Bacon also sought balm for 
 his broken heart, namely, in the -consolation of religion, 
 for it was at this time that he wrote the Psalms which 
 have been so much derided. In fact they show great 
 mastery over the difficulties of verse, they are conspicuous 
 for their smoothness and easiness of rhyming, but the soul 
 of the poet is not in them, 'tis buried in the grave of his 
 lost honour. As for their being doggerel, they are not. 
 As for their approaching his other lines, they do not. 
 But, when it is remembered they are translations of poems 
 which we are accustomed to read in the most magnificent 
 prose the world has ever known, and when we make 
 allowance for the state of mind of Bacon when he wrote 
 them, and that they were not then in harmony with him-
 
 35 
 
 self, there is nothing in them so inferior as to make us say 
 it is impossible for him to have been a poet. 
 
 One of these I will now read, and that you may 
 appreciate the difficulty of the task, I will follow with one 
 by Milton. 
 
 90th Psalm. 
 
 Teach us, O Lord, to number well our days 
 
 Thereby our hearts to wisdom to apply ; 
 For that which guides man best in all his ways 
 
 Is meditation of mortality. 
 This bubble light this vapour of our breath, 
 Teach us to consecrate to hour of death. 
 
 Return unto us, Lord, and balance now, 
 
 With days of joy our days of misery ; 
 Help us right soon our knees to Thee to bow 
 
 Depending wholly on Thy clemency. 
 Then shall Thy servants, both with heart and voice, 
 All the days of their life in Thee rejoice.-^Bacon. 
 
 Psalm I. 
 
 Bless'd is the man who hath not walk'd astray 
 
 In counsel of the wicked, and i' the way 
 
 Of sinners hath not stood, and in the seat 
 
 Of sinners hath not sat. But in the great 
 
 Jehovah's law is ever his delight, 
 
 And in his law he studies, day and night. 
 
 He shall be as a tree which planted grows 
 
 By watery streams, and in his season knows 
 
 To yield his fruit, and his leaf shall not fall. 
 
 And what he takes in hand shall prosper all. 
 
 Not so the wicked, but as chaff which fann'd 
 
 The wind drives, so the wicked shall not stand 
 
 In judgment, or abide their trial then 
 
 Nor sinners in the assembly of just men. 
 
 For the Lord knows the upright way of the just 
 
 And the way of bad men to ruin must.* — Milton. 
 
 * These last two lines almost rival those of the celebrated Scotch version 
 of the 121st Psalm :— 
 
 " Thy goings out and comings in 
 He keep for ever will.
 
 36 
 
 But to bring my paper to a close, Jonson loved and 
 admired Shakespeare as a man, an actor, and a poet. 
 And Jonson had no doubt — not when he wrote. But 
 when Bacon was preparing his known works he employed 
 Jonson to translate some of them into Latin. Did the 
 necessary intimacy open his eyes. Like posterity, when 
 it was never thought another than Shakespeare could have 
 written them, did he have to accept the situation and try 
 to reconcile inconsistencies in the best way he could ? And 
 were his eyes opened ? The following lines seem almost as 
 if they were. That he had been bitterly deceived by some 
 one is evident. 
 
 In January, 1623, he published a masque "Time 
 Vindicated." In this an imposter, Chronomastix, one 
 flogged by time, is called upon by Fame to answer for his 
 deceptions. Thus he tries to conciliate Fame — 
 
 It is for you I revel so in rhyme, 
 Dear mistress, not for hope I have the time 
 "Will grow the better by it ; to serve Fame 
 Is all my end, and get myself a name. 
 
 But fame will not be pacified, and thus replies — 
 
 Away, I know thee not, wretched impostor, 
 
 Creature of glory, mountebank of wit, 
 
 Self-loving braggart, Fame doth sound a trumpet 
 
 To such vain empty fools ; 'tis infamy 
 
 Thou serv'st and follow'st, scorn of all the muses, 
 
 Go revel with thy ignorant admirers, 
 
 Let worthy names alone. 
 
 But Chronomastix will not so easily surrender, and says 
 he is already accepted as a great author. 
 
 "When I have walked the streets but happy he 
 That had the finger first to point at me, 
 'Prentice or journeyman 1 The shop doth know it ; 
 The unlettered clerk, major and minor poet I
 
 37 
 
 The sempster hath sat still as I passed by 
 
 And dropped her needle, fish wives stayed their cry. 
 
 The boys with buttons and the basket wench 
 
 To vend their wares into my works do trench. 
 
 A pudding wife that would despise the times 
 
 Hath uttered frequent pennorths through my rhymes, 
 
 And with them dived into the chambermaid, 
 
 And she unto her lady hath conveyed 
 
 The seasoned morsels, who hath sent me pensions 
 
 To cherish and to heighten my inventions. 
 
 Well, Fame shall know it, yet I have my faction 
 
 And friends about me, though it please detraction 
 
 To do me this affront. Come forth that love me, 
 
 And now or never, spight of Fame, approve me. 
 
 That a celebrated author was the subject of this satire 
 is certain, and who, if the Baconian theory be true, did the 
 cap fit so well as Shakespeare. We know Greene rej^arded 
 him as an impostor, for in his "Farewell to Folly," 
 written in 1587, he writes — 
 
 Some persons who for their calling and gravity being loth to have 
 any profane pamphlets pass under their hand, have got some other 
 Batillus" to set his name to their verses. Thus is the ass made proud 
 by this underhand brokery, and he that cannot write true English 
 without the help of clerks of parish churches will needs make him- 
 self the father of interludes. 
 
 One further word on the Bacon side. The whole 
 subject seems to me like a mosaic, and I cannot help 
 feeling that every little fact at once fits neatly into its true 
 surroundings if Bacon be the author and not Shakespeare. 
 With the latter as author, so many things need forcing, 
 and explaining, and fitting, and the forcers, and fitters, 
 and explainers never agree. This, however, is only my 
 feeling, and in many respects the subject still seems to me 
 an open one, and one well worthy of this Society's further 
 consideration. My object has not been to demonstrate a 
 
 "A notorious plagiarist.
 
 38 
 
 win for either side, but rather to show there is so much 
 to be said on both as to make it a most fascinating study- 
 to pursue. Perhaps I have said rather more on the Bacon 
 side because it is the less known, and at any rate to show 
 that it cannot be dismissed with a sniff and a sneer, and 
 most certainly not by the many puerile arguments in 
 which some Shakespereans are inclined to indulge. 
 
 As regards the enquiry, none can be more profitable, 
 introducing us to the two greatest works of the age, and 
 this alone should tempt us to further investigation of this 
 most fascinating of subjects. 
 
 In conclusion may I be pardoned if, for a few short 
 sentences, I am foolish enough to moralize. So many ask 
 of this discussion, as they do of many other affairs, cui 
 bono '} As long as we have the plays what boots it who was 
 the writer ? Apart from the truth being always priceless 
 and its pursuit precious, it matters everything. Few 
 examples have done so much harm as that of Shakespeare. 
 Irresistibly as his works have commanded our affections, 
 so has his genius appealed to our imaginations. As 
 Minerva, all armed, sprang from the brain of Jupiter, so 
 we delight in the genius that out of its own brain could 
 spin in unending thread its marvellous lines. It satisfies 
 us of the divinity of man, that without the advantages of 
 study, education, travel or wealth, by simple unadorned 
 power of the mind he could give to us treasures which no 
 labour, application, or intensest study has been able to 
 equal or even approach. Poeta nascitur non fit, and this 
 line and the examj)le of our great poet has damned many 
 a man who might otherwise have produced something of 
 value. But their text has been : Wisdom is a gift, an 
 inspiration, an attribute of God himself, and labour is 
 necessary to plodding mediocrity alone. 
 
 I have known one great genius thus ruined. As a
 
 39 
 
 musician, in my mind, he had the highest gifts, which, 
 developed by industry and method, should have made him 
 a glory to our country. But Shakespeare was a genius and 
 never studied ; he was a genius, an undoubted fact, why 
 should he study. Thus, in the race of life he has been 
 passed by plodding mediocrity. So in other pursuits, or 
 even games, it is the fashion to sneer at acquired learning. 
 Chess, for instance. Even amongst first-rate players it is 
 the fashion to sneer at book knowledge or acquaintance 
 with openings. It is beneath the dignity of genius, even 
 in chess, to plod and toil, Shakespeare was a genius, and 
 proved that genius was above work. And this curse has 
 run through all English-speaking races. None of us 
 sufficiently master what others have delved out, and for 
 this trait in our character, the theory of the omniscience of 
 genius, founded on Shakespeare, is not a little responsible. 
 But once prove that Bacon wrote the plays and all is 
 changed. He was the most indefatigable of workers, the 
 most persistent of workers, he drew on every author for 
 his information, he wrote and revised, and wrote and 
 revised again, and no trouble was too great for him to take 
 to secure accuracy. For instance, the death of Falstaff to 
 which I have referred. In him there was none of the 
 nonsense of the divinity of genius. He first learnt before 
 he sought to teach, and was not satisfied to evolve a new 
 system before he had mastered the merits of the old. And 
 if Bacon did write the plays, what a mighty encourage- 
 ment to industry is it to see the development of his genius 
 from its earliest struggles to its glorious culmination in 
 the masterpieces of the world. How different from the 
 terrible depression one feels thinking that, godlike, Shake- 
 speare shone out in his full glory almost at his first essay. 
 No ; Shakespeare as the author is the greatest discourage- 
 ment to effort the world has known, Bacon as the author is
 
 40 
 
 the most cheering incentive to work frail man can desire. 
 Bacon himself tells us " invention begets invention," and 
 by honest work improvement begets improvement. And 
 unceasing work was as much the characteristic of Bacon 
 as his almost superhuman ability. We cannot start where 
 he started, but neither did he end where he commenced. 
 In this let us try and follow his example and be cheered 
 by his example, as each day in our journey through life 
 we find ourselves further on the v/Sij of self-improvement. 
 And this, gentlemen, is the moral I would have you draw 
 from my paper of this evening. 
 
 NOTE A. 
 
 Is this ignorance of geography quite as palpable as at first 
 sight it would appear to be? Taking ship from Verona to Milan 
 does not necessarily imply a voyage by sea. Rivers were the road- 
 ways of the world, and a river was undoubtedly in the mind of the 
 author, for when Launce speaks of losing his voyage and his master, 
 he says, " Why, man, if the river were dry I am able to fill it with my 
 tears " ("Two Gentlemen of Verona," act ii, scene 3). 
 
 So another curious feature of the folio of 1623 is the absence of 
 all stage directions as to where the scenes are laid and where the 
 action takes place. 
 
 If actors were really editors of this edition, it is indeed a strange 
 omission. Everything else might have escaped their attention, but 
 not particulars such as these. A philosopher editing his own works 
 might not regard the matter as equally important. 
 
 b. MASPLBS and CO., PRINTERS, LOBD STREET, LIVERPOOL.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 MAR 12^963 
 
 Mm LOA 
 
 OCT 12 
 
 A.M. 
 
 f5G4 
 
 P.M. 
 
 m ''^^t» 
 
 .nrn9 7]9gb 
 
 N DESK 
 
 
 Form L9-50jn-4,'61(B8994s4)444
 
 ^PHLET BINDER 
 
 ;^ Syracuse, N. Y. 
 Slocklon, Calif. 
 
 .lllilllllilliHiHiiimm 
 
 3 1158 00907 0763 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY