The Arkansaw traveler., 1884-08-09
SHAKESPEARE OR BACON.

SHAKESPEARE OR BACON.
 "A. Fiexner, in Chicago Cnrent.l
 IL is nov thirty years since an article in PHksGm's AagaSis< provoked what has since become known as the Bacon- Shakespeare eentruvezsy. The author of the paper-Miss Della Bacon-disputed the claims of Shakespeare as the author of the dramas which bear his name, and hinted, vaguely and indefinitely enough, that their real author vas Sir Francis Bacon. Since her death the shecsy which she upheld has managed to exist, but has hardly acquired any great momentum. Its advocates have been distinguished more for their enthusiasm and earnest- ness than for their literary or critical ability. Their number has at all times been small, and tue cause which they rep resent has yet to be explained to the vast majority Of the reading public: ithas ap- parently made very htale impression out side . very narrow circle, and the great critics alike of Shakespeare and of Bacon, have remained unshaken in their ale glance.
 uS OCC884Qo Ot t1t3 8kkiNlG tS k0S tG~ cent publication of the ablest work yet written in support of the Baconian side of this question The Authorship Of Shakes- Peare, by Judge Nathaniel Holmes. l do not, indeed, propose in these papers ts examine minutely the vast mass of so- called evidence which he has diligently collected. To do % would require vol ume no smaller than his own, and, it is more than likely, that, in its course, we should, like Judge Holmes lose sight of our objective point, and wander aimlessly in the discussion and elaboration of some trivial allusion. shall merely examine in general way the arguments which he advances in support of his position. Broadly speaking, these eventually re- duce to two propositions
 of knowledge that it would have been fairly impossible for a rustic youth and London playright to acquire.
 Viewing this argument in the most favorable light viewing it, in fact, in any light whatever, it appears to me that it re- quires grasuitous assumption which the Baconians have DO right to make, and which l would be very far from granting. The argument rests upon . fallacy. It requires us to believe, without the faint- est shadow of proof, that Shakespeare did not possess the abilities requisite to the production of these dramas. Clearly, this is begging the question" Upon what is it based5 Merely upon the facts that he was the son of an ignorant Ssrat- ford glover, who was apparently unable to sign his own name, and that he him. self was . shFewd business man, with an eye always to pecuniaEy independence. The idea that John Shakespeare's son may well have been . greater genius than the son of Sir Nicholas Bacon seems never to have presented issslf to Judge Holmes' attention. But in the lottery of life, where the chances of all men are equal, it is a million chances to one that the great prize win fall to the lot of an unknown man. The great men of all ages have sprung directly from the very heart of the people and the pure and uncontaminated atmosphere which per vades the lives and character of the humble and the lowly has aiways nour- ished the worlds gieatest singers. Homer, Horace, Virgil, Milton, Buns, and Beranger illustrate the force of this assertion.
 The character of the scholarship man. ifested in these plays is to me almost con- elusive proof that their author did not have the advantage of that systematic in- tellectual training which Bacon enjoyed. He was doubtless . man of remarkable receptivity and of equally remarkable powezs q mental digestion. Coupled with the fact of his genius, the variety and amount of his knowledge is thus readily accouneed for, and the character of the age in which he lived vas iavor- able to the acquisitioo of such miscel- laneous information. It vas that age of sudden and broad expansion when the monaster1H were thrown open and the learning which had been treasured in them fox centuries vas scattered to the four winds; when the classics became common property in virtue of repeated and bsoadspread transaations, and when theological controversy s<isred the minds of men to their very depths-thax age, in a word, when an was vigoT, feSment and enthusiasm. It reached its most perfect expression in the dramas ol William Shakespeare: but 1t alse shaped the work VI s4sG s<1SGk kAk AASs S>4A4SA k0SA4 ktSW wealth, in learning, in wisdom. Why should not Shakespeare have utiiized the same means for the same ends? Ben Jonson, from being a skiilfuI bricklayer and an intrepid fghtez, became learned scholar and famous dramatist. Why should not Shakespeare, starsing with superior abilities, have progressed in like ratio?
 
 The second of the argunens which udge Holmes advances and the one which he has moss fully elaborated is based upon the similarly (sometimes ssziAing, n oeAsr tiDs quise inapprecis- haa ed mest ollen anounfing to but the nee q the sane vocd h the same senseH between passages to be jound scattered through the vofks of both Bacon and ShakeapsRa
 Ihe nsH obvioas difficulty under which Judge Holmes lzbogs in this case is the