L. B. L.
CONTENTS
| PAGE | ||
| Introduction | [xiii] | |
| I. | The Baconian and Anti-Willian Positions | [1] |
| II. | The “Silence” about Shakespeare | [25] |
| III. | That Impossible He—The Schooling of Shakespeare | [41] |
| IV. | Mr. Collins on Shakespeare’s Learning | [65] |
| V. | Shakespeare, Genius, and Society | [83] |
| VI. | The Courtly Plays: “Love’s Labour’s Lost” | [119] |
| VII. | Contemporary Recognition of Will as Author | [133] |
| VIII. | “The Silence of Philip Henslowe” | [153] |
| IX. | The Later Life of Shakespeare—His Monument and Portraits | [167] |
| X. | “The Traditional Shakspere” | [193] |
| XI. | The First Folio | [205] |
| XII. | Ben Jonson and Shakespeare | [235] |
| XIII. | The Preoccupations of Bacon | [271] |
| Appendix I.—“Troilus and Cressida” | [293] | |
| Appendix II.—Chettle’s Supposed Allusion to Will Shakspere | [302] |
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
| Shakespeare’s Monument at Stratford-on-Avon (1616–1623?) | Frontispiece |
| Copy of the title-page of “Love’s Labour’s Lost,” 1598. The earliest title-page in which Shakespeare’s name is given as the author of the work. From J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps’ Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare | [12] |
| Facsimile of the Autograph Signature “By me William Shakspeare.” From one of the Three Sheets of his Will, dated March 25, 1616. From Sir Sidney Lee’s Shakespeare’s Life and Work. By permission of Messrs. Smith, Elder & Co. Facsimile of Mark-Signature of John Shakespeare, the Poet’s Father. From a Deed of Conveyance, dated January 26, 1596 From J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps’ Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare Facsimile of Mark-Signature of Judith Shakespeare, the Poet’s Second Daughter, afterwards Mrs. Thomas Quiney From J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps’ Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare | [47] |
| The Monument in Dugdale’s “History of the Antiquities of Warwickshire” (1656) With permission of John Murray, Esq. | [178] |
| The Carew Monument in Stratford Church The Carew Monument as Represented in Dugdale’s “History of the Antiquities of Warwickshire” (1656) | [180], [181] |
| From Vertue’s Engraving of the Monument (1725) With permission of John Murray, Esq. | [185] |
| London in the year 1610, showing the Globe Theatre in the Foreground From J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps’ Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare | [298] |
INTRODUCTION
The theory that Francis Bacon was, in the main, the author of “Shakespeare’s plays,” has now been for fifty years before the learned world. Its advocates have met with less support than they had reason to expect. Their methods, their logic, and their hypotheses closely resemble those applied by many British and foreign scholars to Homer; and by critics of the very Highest School to Holy Writ. Yet the Baconian theory is universally rejected in England by the professors and historians of English literature; and generally by students who have no profession save that of Letters. The Baconians, however, do not lack the countenance and assistance of highly distinguished persons, whose names are famous where those of mere men of letters are unknown; and in circles where the title of “Professor” is not duly respected.
The partisans of Bacon aver (or one of them avers) that “Lord Penzance, Lord Beaconsfield, Lord Palmerston, Judge Webb, Judge Holmes (of Kentucky, U.S.), Prince Bismarck, John Bright, and innumerable most thoughtful scholars eminent in many walks of life, and especially in the legal profession . . . ” have been Baconians, or, at least, opposed to Will Shakspere’s authorship. To these names of scholars I must add that of my late friend, Samuel Clemens, D.Litt. of Oxford; better known to many as Mark Twain. Dr. Clemens was, indeed, no mean literary critic; witness his epoch-making study of Prof. Dowden’s Life of Shelley, while his researches into the biography of Jeanne d’Arc were most conscientious.
With the deepest respect for the political wisdom and literary taste of Lord Palmerston, Prince Bismarck, Lord Beaconsfield, and the late Mr. John Bright; and with every desire to humble myself before the judicial verdicts of Judges Holmes, Webb, and Lord Penzance; with sincere admiration of my late friend, Dr. Clemens, I cannot regard them as, in the first place and professionally, trained students of literary history.
They were no more specially trained students of Elizabethan literature than myself; they were amateurs in this province, as I am an amateur, who differ from all of them in opinion. Difference of opinion concerning points of literary history ought not to make “our angry passions rise.” Yet this controversy has been extremely bitter.