The Birmingham age-herald., 1910-10-02

Y left Birmingham for my vacation July
 27 and returned September 9. The x .scopy" of my "Short Journeys was fin the hands of the editor of The Age Herald before I went away. But Ior an indisposition to interrupt the pup l,cation of the series should nave written on the above subject long ago.
 During my absence from Birmingham a paper appeared in these columns III which the contention of the Baconlans was designated as a "lunacy, they holding that Lord Bacon wrote the plays and poetry usually credited 10 shakspere. The paper was written py pr. Richardson of Tuscaloosa, whom have not the honor to know. l snail review his paper in th1s artlcie.
 In all my papers on the subject, ~what the Baconians Say" nave meant the actor of Stratford when writ ing the name "Shakspere;' when nave anelt the name Shakespeare, re- ferred to the written works, or 10 th cir real author. who was, as the Ba- conians hold, Sir Francis Bacon. l shall continue so to do. AS the man of Stratford has not left single sig neture spelt "Shakespeare,' do his name no injustice hereby.
 Why should the Baconian contention he called a 'lunacy?" Is 1t because arguments are wanting and recourse must be made to ridicule to meet facts and statements that cannot be other- wise answered? It certainly so appears. .It is Iunacy," said certain ones, or the theory of Columbus that beyond the western sea lay another hemisphere. Tt 1s lunacy," said some of the theories of Calico and of Copernicus ana or Bruno And some there were Wno were bold enough to declare the teacning or the Christ a 'lunacy." Many dis- putant for want of argument hastens to employ ridicule. MT. Gladstone said, "considerins what Bacon was, I have always regarded the discussion as one perfectly serious and to be respected. in the Nineteenth Century Review w. H. Mallock writes: "The. mere theory that Bacon was the author of the plays
 does not indeed contain any thing essentially shocking to common sense. On the contrary 1t is generally recognized that on purely a priori grounds there Is less to shock common sense in the idea that those wonderful compositions were the work of schol- or, a statesman, and profound man Of the world than there Is in the idea that they were the work of mo- toriously ill-educated actor. who seems to have found some difficulty in sign
 
 xette, London, said: "The day has come when, rejecting lives of an imaginary ehakspere, and scruitinizing the insig- nihcant circumstances which are all that is known of him. the discrepancy becomes more and more apparentpe- tween the intellectual genius of he author of the plays and the sordid nd squalid characteristics of the man of etratford." The question isfone of SCI ti- ous literary investigation. It is md It certainly an open question:. It's stu- dents are multiplying constantly and a mass of 1itreature Is being published on the subject. We have two classes of these students here in Birmingham. One of the most cultured men in Ala that Bacon wrote the plays; but have no Idea that the fellow Shakspere had anything to do with their compost tion." A learned member of the Bir- mingham bar, university man, said q have been Baconian for 30 years" There are many students in a state of doubt. but I know of few exceptions to the statement that if man studies the subject thoroughly he becomes a Baconian. ,
 Dr. Richardson rhetorically asserts ~T had rather have been the author of Lear than to have built the pyra- mids." So would anyone else. Where's The point In this declaration? "I had rather have written All the Worlds a Stage, than to have swum the Helle- apont." My dear sir, had rather have written it than to have swum the At lanto But what bearing has this