CHAPTER XX.

CONCLUSION.

HE whole Baconian theory is so

THE

preposterous, I am almost ashamed to say another word about it; but now that I am at it, I shall endeavor to finish it. A hundred things might be said to show its absurdity; but I will content myself with but two or three more, which, I think, together with those arguments I have already given, will be sufficient to settle the matter forever.

It is contended that because there are many expressions and thoughts in Shakespeare's writings that are to be found in Bacon's, these must have been written by the same hand. In this way, one might prove almost any writer of that day to have been the author of Shakespeare's plays. Nay, one might prove that some

writer of the present day, or of the day before Shakespeare, was their author. There is nothing new under the sun. The very words I am now using, the very sentence I am now writing, and possibly every sentence in this book, may, in some shape, be pointed out in some other author. We are all of us constantly borrowing words and expressions one from another, or unconsciously repeating what was uttered before. In every age, certain thoughts and certain expressions are more or less predominant; and to argue that because one literary man uses in his works expressions or thoughts similar to those of another, these must have been all written by the same hand, is the height of absurdity. By such reasoning, anything, as I said, may be proved. Proved? Why, has not somebody proved, or pretended to prove, that our

Saviour never existed? Did not Berkeley prove that there is no such thing as matter? Anything may be proved, after a fashion; and I have no doubt that somebody will, in the next generation, prove

that Shakespeare never existed at all. But as a matter of fact, even this kind of "proof" can by no means be allowed. If anybody should know the style of Bacon as compared with the style of any of his contemporaries, that man is Mr. Spedding, who was familiar with almost every line that Bacon wrote. Now hear what this gentleman says of these similar expressions, these parallelisms, collected by Judge Holmes: "Shakespeare may have derived a good deal from Bacon he had no doubt read the 'Advancement of Learning' and the first edition of the Essays'; and most likely had frequently heard Bacon speak in the Courts and the Star Chamber. But among all the parallelisms which you have collected, with so much industry, to prove the identity of the writers, I have not observed one in which I should not myself have inferred, from the difference of style, a difference of hand.

I doubt whether there are five lines together to be found in Bacon which could be mistaken for Shakespeare, or five

lines in Shakespeare which could be mistaken for Bacon, by one who is familiar with the several styles and practiced in such observation." Then he goes on to show that style, like the hand-writing of different persons, is something which, though apparently similar on a superficial examination, is found to be altogether different on a close examination.

It is painful to see how Shakespeare has been dragged down into the dust by some of the Baconians, Now that they have fallen foul of him, and found him out to be an impostor, there is nothing too odious they can say of him: he is an ignoramus, a deceiver, a drunken sot, a mere money-grabber; and so on.

O mighty Poet! Dost thou lie so low?

Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils,
Shrunk to this little measure?

When Berkeley proved that there is no such thing as matter, Byron said it was no matter what he said; and when the Baconians prove that Bacon wrote

Shakespeare's plays, and that Shakespeare was an illiterate ignoramus who could hardly sign his own name, etc., it is no matter what they say, we are not going to heed them. If there were no madness in the world, sanity would not be properly appreciated.

In his last will and testament, Lord Bacon gave particular directions as to the disposal of his books and manuscripts; and in this document occurs the well-known sentence: "For my name and memory, I leave it to men's charitable speeches, to foreign nations, and to the next ages." Now, if he had been the author of the plays, is it at all likely, is it in any way conceivable, that he would have left them unmentioned, unregarded, in this important document? Did they contain such deadly thrusts against government that, like Junius, he feared vengeance on his descendants, of whom he had none? Did these plays, that so "did take Eliza and our James," contain such deadly treason? Or will any sane man maintain that