Bacon's Dictionary
Appendices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
57 58 59
The exhibits and miniatures of which are found in this section, are designed to assist the serious student and reader in following the path of the Authorship Controvesy that has been so laboriously persued by many authors and researchers during its commence.
These exhibits have been placed here as not to interrupt the flow of reading in the Baconian Dictionary sections, being a finding list of Bacon’s works, his history, his thoughts and his aims, which are a subject of study and discussion.
Disputed Shakespearean Plays
Thomas Lord Cromwell and Sir John Oldcastle
Tieck classes together as biographical dramas, and models of their kind, the first in the nature of its subject linked to Henry VIII., and the second to Henry V. Tieck also has no hesitation in assigning these plays to the author of Hamlet. On the other hand, Phillipps, realizing the danger of questioning the infallibility of the Canon, rejects, in accord with the prevailing policy, the play of Oldcastle, suggesting an old play of that name, while Ulrici ascribes it to an imitator “who tried to model himself upon Shakespeare’s style.”
The personalities of Oldcastle and Falstaff have been confused unnecessarily by critics. There were real personages of both names, but there is nothing in the drama we are considering to lead one to suppose that the worthy Sir John was the prototype of the selfish and lascivious Falstaff. In the Famous Victories there is a Sir John Oldcastle, a disreputable fellow associated with Prince Henry in his madcap adventures, whom the public later recognized in Falstaff, seemingly to the annoyance of the Cobhams who were allied to the Oldcastle family. The following quotations from the Prologue to Sir John Oldcastle, and the Epilogue to the second part of Henry IV., should settle the matter: “It is no pampered glutton we present, nor aged Councellor to youthfull sin, but one whose virtue shown above the rest, a valiant Martyr, and a vertuous Peer. For anything I know Falstaffe shall dye of a sweat unless already he be killed with your hard Opinions: For Old-Castle died a Martyr, and this is not the man.”
Concerning this play a curious question is disclosed by this entry in Henslowe’s Diary: “This 6th of October ‘99, received by me Thomas Downton of Phillipp Henchlow, to pay Mr. Munday, Mr. Drayton and Mr. Wilson, and Hathway for the first parts of the Lyfe of Sir John Ouldcasstell, and in earnest of the second parts, for the use of the companye ten pownd. Thomas Lord Cromwell.” This play, political in its nature, appeared in 1602, shortly after the Essex Rebellion, and Cromwell, having been also Earl of Essex, seems to have attracted notice to that event. It was first published anonymously, and continued to be played by the company to which the Stratford actor was nominally attached, until 1613, when it was republished with his initials on the title page. Farmer ascribes its authorship to Heywood, and others to Wentworth Smith, but there is nothing whatever, not even its style, to give colour to such allotment. That it was regarded as a genuine work of the author of plays in the Canon is evidenced by its endorsement by Rowe, Pope, and Walker, who published it as A Tragedy By Shakespeare, as late as 1734, and its acceptance by the German critics, Ulrici, Tieck, and Schlegel. The Tragedy was entered for license in 1594, and printed in Quarto in 1595 under the initials “W.S.” Steevens accredits the authorship to Marlowe, who died a year before it was entered on the Register. Knight says that the initials might, without any attempt to convey the notion that Locrine was written by Shakespeare, have fairly stood for “William Smith”, and in the same way the “W.S.” of Thomas Lord Cromwell might have represented “Wentworth Smith”, a well-known dramatic author at the date of the publication of those plays. If we refer to Fleay, however, we find that “Wentworth Smith” was “A hack writer, not one scrap of whose work was ever thought worth publishing.” Schlegel we have seen says of Oldcastle, Cromwell, and Locrine, that they “are not only unquestionably Shakespeare’s, but deserve to be classed among his best and mature works”; and Tieck pronounces Locrine to be “the earliest of Shakespeare’s dramas.” 1
The Puritan Widow
No play among those admitted to the two later Folios has been discredited so generally as this. Winstanley ascribed it to Shakespeare, and likewise Schlegel, who advances the theory that for some reason of his own he wished to adopt the style of Jonson. Knight dismisses it contemptuously; Fleay ascribes its authorship to Middleton. It was first published in 1607, and contains an allusion to Richard III., and Macbeth. It can hardly be thought worthy of the great dramatist; unless it is regarded as a very youthful work which it shows evidence of being.
A Yorkshire Tragedy
This play was founded upon a tragedy which occurred in 1604, and was published in 1608, with W. Shakespeare, on the title page. Knight pronounces it a “Play of sterling merit in its limited range,” 2 and is inclined to ascribe it to Heywood. Fleay, however, admits that “the authorship of this play has not yet been ascertained.” 3 Malone would give no decided opinion upon it, nor does Phillipps venture to guess at its author, though he condemns it, and accounts for the actor’s remaining silent about the use of his name by assuming that he was probably attending to some of his many lawsuits. Hazlitt ascribes its authorship to Heywood, and Dr. Farmer asserts that “most certainly it was not written by our poet at all.”
The London Prodigal
This play was first published in 1605, and the title page bore the name William Shakespeare. Tieck ascribes its authorship to Shakespeare. Knight rejects it. Fleay says: “This play is certainly by the same hand as the Cromwell. 4
Areden of Feversham
This play should especially gain our attention. It was published as early as 1592. How long before this date it was written, we have no means of knowing; but there can be no doubt that it was the work of a young writer. Like the Yorkshire Tragedy, it is founded upon a local homicide, and like that event greatly excited the public mind. Its first publication was in Holinshed’s Chronicle of 1577, to which the dedicatory epistle follows. As it occurred, however, in 1551, it was then an old case with the legal fraternity, and served them for reference in similar cases. The author, however, had a clearer legal conception of the case than the chronicler, and discards certain speculative evidence to advantage. Tieck thought well enough of the drama to translate it into German, declaring it beyond question a Shakespeare work.
1 Fleay. A Chronicle History of the English Stage, p. 299
2 Knight. The Works of Shakspere, supplemental volume, p. 254
3 Ibid., p. 158
4 Fleay. A Chronicle History, etc., p. 300
Historiæ Placeant Nostrates Ac Peregrinæ
To The Right Honourable And His Singular Good Lord,
Sir William Cecil,
Baron Of Burghley, Knight Of The Most Noble Order Of The Garter, 5
Lord High Treasurer Of England, Master Of The Courts Of Wards And Liveries,
And One Of The Queen’s Majesties Privy Counsel.
Considering with myself, right Honourable and my singular good Lord, how ready (no doubt) many will be to accuse me of vain presumption, for enterprising to deal in this so weighty a work, and so far above my reach to accomplish: I have thought good to advertise your Honour, by what occasion I was first induced to undertake the same, although the cause that moved me thereto hath (in part) yet this been signified unto your good Lordship.
Whereas therefore, that worthy Citizen Reginald Wolfe late Printer to the Queen’s Majesty, a man well known and beholden to your Honour, meant in his life time to publish an universal Cosmography of the whole world, and therewith also certain particular histories of every known nation, amongst other whom he purposed to use for performance of his intent in that behalf, he procured me to take in hand the collection of those histories, and having proceeded so far in the same, as little wanted to the accomplishment of that long promised work, it pleased God to call him to his mercy, after five and twenty years travel spent therein; so that by his untimely decease, no hope remained to see that performed, which we had so long travelled about. Nevertheless those whom he put in trust to dispose his things after his departure hence, wishing to the benefit of others, that some fruit might follow of that whereabouts he had employed so long time, willed me to continue mine endeavour for their furtherance in the same. Which although I was ready to do, so far as mine ability would reach, and the rather to answer that trust which the deceased reposed in me, to see it brought to some perfection: yet when the volume grew so great as they that were to defray the charges for the impression, were not willing to go through the whole, they resolved first to publish the histories of England, Scotland, and Ireland, with their descriptions; which descriptions, because they were not in such readiness, as those of foreign countries, they were enforced to use the help of other better able to do it than myself.
Moreover, the Charts, wherein Master Wolfe spent a great part of his time, were not found so complete as we wished: and again, understanding of the great charges and notable enterprise of that worthy Gentleman master Thomas Sackford, in procuring the Charts of the several provinces of this realm to be set forth, we are in hope that in time he will delineate this whole land so perfectly, as shall be comparable or beyond any delineation heretofore made of any other region; and therefore leave that to his well deserved praise. If any well willer will imitate him in so praiseworthy a work for the two other regions, we will be glad to further his endeavour with all the helps we may.
The histories I have gathered according to my skill, and conferred the greatest part with Master Wolfe in his life time, to his liKing, who procured me so many helps to the furtherance thereof, that I was loth to omit any thing that might increase the readers knowledge, which causeth the book to grow so great. But receiving them by parts, and at several times (as I might get them) it may be, that having had more regard to the matter than the apt penning, I have not so orderly disposed them, as otherwise I ought; choosing rather to want order, than to defraud the reader of that which for his further understanding might seem to satisfy his expectation.
I therefore most humbly beseech your Honour to accept these Chronicles of England under your protection, and according to your wisdom and accustomed benignities to bear with my faults; the rather, because you were ever so especial good Lord to Master Wolfe, to whom I was singularly beholden; and in whose name I humbly present this rude work unto you; beseeching God, that as he hath made you an instrument to advance his truth, so it may please him to increase his good gifts in you, to his glory, the furtherance of the Queen’s Majesties service, and the comfort of all her faithful and loving subjects.
Your Honour’s most humble to be commanded,
Raphael Holinshed
Edward III
Was printed in quarto in 1596 anonymously, as the early Shakespeare quartos were, and was regarded as being the work of the same author by Collier. Capell in 1760 republished it as “a Play thought to be writ by Shakespeare” and that when it appeared “there was no known writer equal to such a play.” Ulrici accounts for its neglect and its omission from the Folio, by the fact that it contains reflections upon the Scots, which made it popular in Elizabeth’s time but would have given offense to James, and therefore its paternity was not recognized by its author in his reign. He concludes that it is “a complete and beautiful composition, which is throughout worthy of the great poet,” having already given his opinion “that the piece probably belongs to Shakespeare’s earlier labours.” Collier declares it to be undoubtedly Shakespeare’s. 6,7
5 Membership of this order of chivalry was restricted to the monarch and 25 Knights and some foreign potentates. Places in the order were in practice controlled by the monarch though Henry VIII., tried to raise its status
6 J. Payne Collier. History of English Dramatic Poetry, Vol. II. p. 311
7 Baxter. The Greatest Literary Problems, 1915