The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1909-11-07

x To, no, my dear madam, you mis-
IN take my purpose If you fancy that
l. 1 intend to tilt with any of the
accourtered sir knights who have won dis
tinction In the Bacon Shakespeare tour
nament on either side. If 1 were forced
to cross lances with some one of the
aforesaid sir knights do not know from
which side l should call out my oppon-
emit. I do not know who Is right. and,
logically, therefore, l do not know who
Is wrong.
Justly, therefore, you might repeat
Cicero's question and ask, "Quid afferee
conslii potest, qui seipse eget consilio?''
To which / make this reply: I do not
propose to give counsel I simply intend
to tell you what the Baconians say for
their side of the controversy. I do not
mean that ] shall tell all the things that
the Baconians say, for many volumes
have been written by them on this subject
while my space is narrowly limited. But
an outline of their contention, though
brief, may not be Improbable.
So far as I am concerned, I may say,
that I am not greatly interested in the
result of the controversy. We have the
rlays and the sonnets, and my appre-
citation Of them cannot be diminished
should 1t even be demonstrated that some
one hitherto unsupported wove these Won
MUS. The works are here. They were
composed by the chief poetis genius OF
the ages, be his name what 1T may. He
had no equal before the Renaissance, nor
since that period has the world round
his peer We know the man through his
works. but his name we may, or may not,
know. Yet what boots 1t, one way or
anotherf
The Baconians hold that Francis Ba-
con. under the pseudonym OF William
Shakespeare, wrote the works that are
commonly ascribed to William Shakes
peare, the actor of Stratford. You will
notice the difference in the names. The
actors name was 6haksperei the pen
name Of Lord Bacon was Shakespeare.
The Baconians admit the existence OF
shakspere and grant his connection with
the stage and his management OF
theatre, but they contend that SHAKESPEARE
never wrote the plays of Shakespeare
and that of course they were two dir-
ferent people.
victor Hugo in his "Shakespeare." a
work of genius with which every lover
Of literature should be familiar, AYERS
that the name was spelt in both ways.
This statement may prove too much, as
made by the advocate of the Stratford
actor. It may at least suggest that the
ctor SHAKESPEARE, finding that the plays
Of Shakespeare were considered OF I'M
1t1sv1a1 merit, chdnSeQ MS HaHo 10 tudl
yof the unknown playwright in order that
.the himself might be considered their
author. Certain 1t is that the actor 8
name originally was not Shakespeare A
memorandum Of his baptism in the old
register of the parish of Stratford reads
I'm Latin). 1854. April 20, William. son
of John 6hakspere" The parish record
Of his burial reads. 1915. WIN Shakspsre,
. Cent" In my limited library I cannot
and an instance where the father, John
ahakspere. ever spelt his name Shakes
neare though find 1t spelt otherwise
several times as he was called upon to
sirn legal documents. 1t would appear
that shakspere changed his name after
the nlays Of Shakespeare came before the
public but being untutored" as we
are told he did not know how to spell
the new name Hence. in his will we
ana that at the beginning Of that docu-
mont it is spelt shakespeare and at
the close it is signed Shakespeare" OF
course this does not make out the case
for the Baconians, for the photography
Of English words and names had not
orystailised into permanency Of orderly
rule; but 1t IL, at least. very suggestive
and commanding of consideration IN the
controversy.
William Theobald, lecturer ana scholar.
in a public address onse said, Shakes
pere. whose name suggested the pseudo