DOCSLIB.ORG

Who Was Shakespeare?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Who Was Shakespeare? Brian McClinton The Shakespeare Conspiracies: untangling a 400-year web of myth and deceit Cover by Michael Waring and Timothy Lane " To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth"—Voltaire Aubane Historical Society www.aubane.org Brian McClinton was born in Belfast in 1945 and educated at Belfast Boys’ Model, Royal Belfast Academical Institution, and Trinity College, Dublin. A retired teacher who lives in Lisburn, Northern Ireland, he has had a lifelong enthusiasm for the Shakespeare authorship question. He is editor of Humani, the journal of the Humanist Association of Northern Ireland. His previous works have included: Ulster’s Third Way: The Humanist Alternative Beyond Orange and Green; and Humanist Handbook. Brian McClinton The Shakespeare Conspiracies: untangling a 400-year web of myth and deceit Aubane Historical Society ISBN 978-1-903497-36-4 2007 © Brian McClinton Aubane Historical Society Aubane Millstreet Co. Cork Orders: [email protected] 2 Contents Preface 7 Part One: Evidence 1. The Fact of Mystery 12 The Missing Manuscripts; The Missing Books; William the Silent; The Unknown William; Shakespeare's Name; The Diary's Missing Name; The Strange Case of Troilus And Cressida; The First Folio; The Droeshout Hoax; The Concealed Poets; Anonymity, Allonymity And Pseudonymity; Contemned Poetry; Chapels of Satan; Was 'Shakespeare' A Cover Name?; Conclusion 2. Treacherous Doubts 39 Groats-Worth of Wit; The Return from Parnassus; Ratseyes Ghost; Willobie his Avisa; Phaethon; Labeo; Mutius and Canaidos; Terence; Poet Ape; The Great Assizes; Wits Recreation; Edward Ravenscroft; Essay Against Too Much Reading; The Life and Adventures of Common Sense; James Wilmot; The Learned Pig; The Romance of Yachting; Floodgates of Doubt; Delia Bacon; Ralph Waldo Emerson; Walt Whitman; Mark Twain and George Greenwood; Henry James 3. The Literary Colossus 65 The Highly Cultured Mind; The Wordspinner; The Cambridge Student; The Legal Expert; The Poet of Human Nature; The Aristocrat; The Great Educator; The Nature of the Genius 4. The Invisible Man 89 The Family Background; Unwillingly to School?; The 'Lost' Years; The Actor; The Corn Dealer; William's Will; Envious Death; The Stratford Monument; The Missing Southampton Link; The Womaniser; William 'Falstaff' 5. The Good Pens and the Master-Workman 120 Christopher Marlowe; Earl of Derby; Earl of Oxford; Other Claimants; The Master Workman; The Sonnets; The Use of Good Pens 6. The Waters of Parnassus 156 Cultural Background; The Hermit; Gesta Grayorum; Twickenham's Merry Tales; Essex and After; The Dark Period; Fancy Free; Last Years; Life Summary 7. A Dream of Learning 178 Hymn to the Muses; Feigned History; Philosophy Personified; The Tenth Muse; The Great Renewal; Idols of the Theatre; The Ladder of the Intellect 3 8. House Secrets 196 Matthew's Most Prodigious Wit; Davies' 'Sugared Muse'; Hall's Labeo and Marston's Mutius; Jonson's Plays; Drummond's Notes; The First Folio Again; De Shakespeare Nostrati 9. Exhibits in the Case 217 The Northumberland Manuscript; The Promus 10. Lights of Truth 236 Anagrams and Ciphers; Emblems Part Two: Identity 11. A Noble Heart 249 Mind of Mystery; Creeping Snake or Soaring Angel?; Scientist or Artist?; Philosopher or Poet?; The Advancement of Learning 12. Nature’s Mirror 267 Dogmatism and Scepticism; Art and Nature; Appearance and Reality; Deduction and Induction 13. Love and Romance 283 Of Love; Comedies; Histories; Tragedies 14. Heaven and Earth 298 Bacon's Christianity; Shakespeare and Religion; The Catholic Question; Tolerance; War and Peace 15. Humanist and Poet 317 Renaissance Humanism; Classicism; Secularisation of Education; Individualism and Freedom of Thought; Scepticism and Reason; Humanist Philosopher; Humanist Poet 16. Power and Authority 343 Actor or Spectator?; Pragmatist or Moralist?; Monarchist or Republican?; Order, Rebellion and Poverty; Beyond Politics? 17. A Way of Words 368 One Style or Many?; A Way of Words; The Vision Thing; Words and Things; Truth in a Trope 18. Hamlet’s Jest 394 Date of Composition; Sources of the Play; The Spying Game; The Burghley Parody; Scientific Allusions; Legal Expertise; Hamlet The Man; What's In A Name? 19. Prospero’s Myth 418 A Mythical Maze; The Wreck of the Sea Venture; The Wisdom of the Ancients; Divine Words in Frail Vessels; Uses of the Mask; Prospero's Prayer 4 20. Plot and Counter-Plot 438 Downgrading the Shakespeare Intellect; The Play's The Thing?; Bad Faith; Objections to Bacon; The Case for Bacon Appendix A: Bacon’s Verse Translation of Psalm 104 454 Appendix B: Shakespeare’s Humanism 455 Appendix C: Just William: Greenblatt's Will in the World 461 Appendix D: The Bard Stripped Bare: Ackroyd's Biography 463 Appendix E: Much Ado About Nothing: Germaine Greer on Mrs. Shakespeare 465 Appendix F: Timeline: Shakespeare and Bacon 467 Bibliography 469 Index 505 Illustrations The Droeshout 'Portrait' of Shakespeare page 35 Ben Jonson page 36 Robert Greene page 36 Thomas Nashe page 37 Michael Drayton page 37 A Quartet of Doubters (James Wilmot, Mark Twain, George Greenwood, Enoch Powell) William's 'Signatures' page 114 The Stratford Monuments page 115 The Southampton Connection page 116 A Quartet of Claimants (Christopher Marlowe, Earl of Derby, Sir Henry Neville; Earl of Oxford) page 117 Francis Bacon (Hilliard, Vanderbank portraits) page 118 The White Hart Mural page 119 The Northumberland Manuscript p232 Title Page of Minerva Britanna p233 Title Page of Bacon's De Augmentis p234 Detail of above: a jester? p234 Cryptomenytices Title Page p235 Detail of above: man with spear p235 Earl of Essex; Elizabeth 1; James 1 page 392 London, circa 1600 p393 The Swan Theatre, circa 1596 p393 5 To the memory of my mother Madge who taught me the true meaning of life 6 Preface My suspicions about the authorship of Shakespeare began in 1964 when I was studying The Tempest for A-Level Examination. Until then I had been fairly oblivious to any doubt on the subject, though I was uneasy about the incoherence between the Mind of the plays and the Life of the orthodox claimant. This sense of something not quite right about the miracle from Stratford suddenly became intensified by a close study of this play. As the teacher explained every classical reference, every topical allusion, every nuance of wordplay and every layer of meaning, the work began to assume the shape of a gigantic jigsaw puzzle devised by a grand designer whose mental universe was light years away from the mundane concerns of hoarding corn and malt. The author himself explicitly states that it is "as strange a maze as e'er men trod". That this colossus of literature, this man who was, in his own words, "for the liberal arts without a parallel", had supposedly no intellectual life outside such masterpieces become increasingly impossible to grasp. Surely he was so overbrimming with ideas and imagination that he would not have been content only with an indirect expression of them? Surely he would have said something worth recording or written something memorable—a letter, a poem to a wife, mistress or daughter, a prayer, marginalia in a book, a book list, an essay, a political statement, a religious credo or whatever— that would have been left to posterity? But no, there is instead a massive void outside the works. They stand alone, or apparently alone. Beyond their pages, the voice is silent as the grave. Robert Browning reportedly said about one of his poems: "God and I both knew what it meant once; now only God knows". And indeed many poets and dramatists are essentially intuitive artists who find it difficult to express themselves lucidly and coherently outside their works. But, I thought, this most philosophical and self-conscious of artists was decidedly not one of them. Reading the various critical interpretations of and multifarious meanings ascribed to The Tempest, I felt that this man of all men was quite capable of intending and even explaining all of them, such was the depth and range of his astounding intellect. Then in April of that year I was made more fully aware of the controversy. It was the 400th anniversary of the birth of the man whom I shall call William of Stratford, and an article appeared in the Observer newspaper under the headline: 'The anti-Shakespeare Movement hots up'. Here I discovered that there were other claimants to the mighty throne. 7 There was one in particular who seemed to possess all the necessary qualifications. Yet most of the media and the orthodox scholars treated the heretics with a certain sarcasm and disdain. This I considered unfair, because I was keen to know their arguments, and all I read were personal attacks on people labelled 'snobs', 'cranks' or 'fanatics' and on a movement allegedly rooted in Victorian or aristocratic values. But abuse is hardly a satisfactory way of disproving any viewpoint, however foolish it may seem. Nor is anyone a 'crank' or a 'lunatic' merely on the basis of one opinion, however mistaken. This kind of relentless media abuse would normally be sufficient to smother debate and investigation. However, I was fortunate enough as an undergraduate to attend Trinity College, Dublin, which has a copyright library entitled to every book published in the UK. So I had access to many old works written on the subject. For the majority of people, of course, an effort to find the truth is extremely difficult because the heretics' case has been effectively buried, at least in Britain. As far as most orthodox British scholars are concerned, it was all sewn up long ago: the heretics had their go for a few decades on either side of 1900 but can now be regarded with not a little amusement. Yet I am convinced that in this conclusion these orthodox scholars have made a monumental blunder.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Structure, Legitimacy, and Magic in <Em>The Birth of Merlin</Em>
    Early Theatre 9.1 Megan Lynn Isaac Legitimizing Magic in The Birth of Merlin Bastardy, adultery, and infidelity are topics at issue in The Birth of Merlin on every level. Unfortunately, most of the critical examination of these topics has not extended beyond the title page. In 1662 Francis Kirkman and Henry Marsh commissioned the first known printing of the play from an old manuscript in Kirkman’s possession. The title page of their version attributes the play to Shakespeare and Rowley, and generations of critics have quarreled over the legitimacy of that ascription. Without any compelling evidence to substantiate the authorship of Shakespeare and Rowley, many critics have tried to solve the dilemma from the other end. Just as in the play Merlin’s mother spends most of the first act inquiring of every man she meets whether he might have fathered her child, these scholars have attempted to attribute the play to virtually every dramatist and combination of dramatists on record. Beaumont, Fletcher, Ford, Middleton, and Dekker, among others, have all been subjected to the literary equivalent of a blood-test; analyses of their spelling and linguistic preferences have been made in an effort to link them to The Birth of Merlin.1 Unlike the hero of the drama, however, the play itself is still without a father, though it does have a birthdate in 1622, as has been demonstrated be N.W. Bawcutt.2 Debates over authorship are not particularly uncommon in early modern studies, but the question of who fathered the legendary Merlin, the topic of the play, is more unusual and more interesting.
    [Show full text]
  • Durham E-Theses
    Durham E-Theses Translation and Réécriture in the Middle Ages: Rewriting Merlin in the French and Italian Vernacular Traditions CAMPBELL, LAURA,JANE How to cite: CAMPBELL, LAURA,JANE (2011) Translation and Réécriture in the Middle Ages: Rewriting Merlin in the French and Italian Vernacular Traditions, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/705/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Translation and Réécriture in the Middle Ages: Rewriting Merlin in the French and Italian Vernacular Traditions PhD Laura Jane Campbell Durham University, Department of French Submission Date: October 2010 i Translation and Réécriture in the Middle Ages: Rewriting Merlin in the French and Italian Vernacular Traditions Laura Jane Campbell, Durham University Abstract: This thesis will investigate the processes of translation and rewriting (réécriture) in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, through a study of the French and Italian Merlin corpus.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2007 Shakespeare Matters Page 
    Summer 2007 Shakespeare Matters page 6:4 “Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments...” Summer 2007 11th Annual Shake- speare Authorship Shakespeare—Who Studies Conference Convenes held the Pen? By Bonner Miller Cutting and Earl Showerman Insights Meets Research By Alan Stott oncordia Uni- versity hosted The man of letters is, in truth, ever writing his own biogra- Cits11th an- phy. — Anthony Trollope (1815–82). nual Shakespeare Authorship Studies The marvel of Shakespeare’s genius is that in his secular mir- Conference from ror the divine light also shines. April 12 to 15th, an — John Middleton Murry. occasion marked by many seminal very theatregoer and every reader can perceive the authentic papers, the launch voice, can sense the spirit, in and behind the work of the of the first graduate- Eworld’s leading dramatic poet, known as “William Shake- level programs in speare.” The First Folio (1623) of his collected plays, however, authorship studies, was only published years after his death. Of the actor, one Wil- and the signing of liam Shakespere (1564–1616) — the name never spelt as in the the “Declaration of First Folio — very little is known. Apparently neither manuscript Reasonable Doubt nor letter is extant. The many enigmas surrounding the whole about the Identity phenomenon comprise “the authorship question.” The identity of William Shake- of the Bard, according to Emerson (1803–1882), is “the first of speare.” While this all literary problems.” John Michell1 surveys the candidates with report will attempt a commendable fairness, outlining the history of the search for to summarize the the man who held the pen.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. VI, No. 4 (1945, Oct.)
    THE SHAKESPEARE FELLOWSHIP JAN 29 1946 SEATTLE, WASH INC.TON The Shakespeare Fellowship was founded i,, London in 1922 under the presidency of Sir George Greenwo94~. VOL. VI OCTOBER, 194.5 NO. 4 Oxford-Shakespeare Case Loses Brilliant Advocate Bernard Mordaunt Ward (1893-1945), Author of The Seventeenth Earl oJ Oxjord Friends and admirers of Captain Bernard M. searching out the original records at great pains and Ward will be saddened to learn of his death, which expense. He took as his guiding principle in the occurred quite suddenly at his home, Lemsford Cot­ accomplishment of this task the following text of Itage, Lemsford, Hertfordshire, England, on October Edmund Lodge in Illustrations of Br,tish History 2, 1945. (17911: Captain Ward's untimely demise--due to over• "For genuine illustration of history, biography exertion in the war-removes the last of a distin• and manners, we must chiefly rely on ancient orig­ guished family of British soldier-scholars. He was inal papers. To them we must return for the correc• one of the founders of The Shakespeare Fellowship tion of past errors; for a supply of future materials; in 1922, and for several years prior to his return to and for proof of what hath already been delivered the British Army in 1940, served as Honorary Sec­ unto us." retary of The Ft-llowship. As author of The Seven• In order to keep the size of his book within reason• teentk Earl o/ Oxford, the authoritative biography able bounds, Captain Ward did not attempt to in­ o( Edward de Vere, based upon contemporary doc· troduce detailed Shakespearean arguments into The uments, and published by John Murray of London Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, being content to leave in 1928, Captain Ward will always occupy the place to others the rewarding task of making apparent the of honor next to the late J.
    [Show full text]
  • Negotiating Ovidian Genealogies of Complaint in Drayton's Englands Heroicall Epistles
    Thorne, Alison (2008) 'Large Complaints in Little Letters': negotiating Ovidian genealogies of complaint in Drayton's Englands Heroicall Epistles. Renaissance Studies, 22 (3). pp. 368-384. ISSN 0269-1213 http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/25629/ This is an author produced version of a paper published in Renaissance Studies, 22 (3). pp. 368-384. ISSN 0269-1213. This version has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof corrections, published layout or pagination. Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for any profitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk) and the content of this paper for research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. You may freely distribute the url (http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk) of the Strathprints website. Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to The Strathprints Administrator: [email protected] ABSTRACT Taking as its starting point Michael Drayton’s reworking of a key Heroidean topos, the heroine’s self-conscious reflection on letter-writing as an activity fraught with anxiety, this essay examines the cultural and literary factors that conspire to inhibit or facilitate the emergence of a distinctive feminine epistolary voice in Englands Heroicall Epistles. In particular it seeks to explain how Drayton’s female letter-writers manage to negotiate the impediments to self-expression they initially encounter and thus go on to articulate morally and politically incisive forms of complaint.
    [Show full text]
  • English 12AP Summer Reading Assignment
    English 12AP Summer Reading Assignment All seniors entering English 12 AP in the fall must read Edith Hamilton’s Mythology: Timeless Tales of ​ Gods and Heroes, which is a compilation of myths drawn from classical literature. Paperback editions are ​ available at local bookstores and libraries as well as through on-line merchants. E-texts can be found here and here. ​ ​ ​ As you read, keep a reading log, take notes, or annotate in a way that will help you to remember the characters and storylines of each myth. After you read, choose one poem from the list below and write a 500-word explication discussing how the allusion in the poem supports the poet’s aim/purpose and contributes to the meaning of the poem as a whole. Consider the following features of allusion: 1. An allusion is a reference to another work (e.g., mythological, classical, biblical, literary, or historical). 2. An extended allusion is more than an isolated reference but calls to the reader’s mind the entire context of its source in order to comment on the poet’s subject. 3. The reference (classical, biblical, or mythological, for example) is not itself the subject of the work ​ in which it appears. For example, it would not be an allusion if a poem reviews, retells, or revises a myth or part of a myth, as do Pope in “Argus,” Byron in “Prometheus,” Keats in “Ode to Psyche,” Tennyson in “Ulysses,” Swinburne in “The Garden of Proserpine,” Yeats in “The Fascination with What’s Difficult,” Parker in “Penelope,” and Blake in “Why Was Cupid a Boy?” You will be graded on the following: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Mucedorus and the Birth of Merlin at the Los Angeles Globe
    368 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY with the attitudes of the other male characters in the production. The tribunes, Sicinius and Junius Brutus, were urban hustlers who confidently sported fashionable walking sticks, d la 1890s, when it seemed apparent that Marcius had lost his bid for power against them. In the final scene the envelope containing the terms for peace between Rome and the Volsces was refused and silently returned to the briefcase in which it was delivered. War would continue, as would the irrational forces that shape such conflicts, with or without proud and unresponsive leaders like Marcius. His life was given a wider perspective in this final, silent moment with the envelope, a perspective in which neither his guilt nor Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sq/article/41/3/368/5085016 by guest on 29 September 2021 our affection really figured. Peace is finally out of Marcius's hands, carried instead by the unseen and unspoken forces that have controlled people and events throughout history. Mucedorus and The Birth of Merlin at the Los Angeles Globe JOSEPH H. STODDER The plan of Globe Playhouse producers R. Thad Taylor and Jay Uhley to perform the fifteen most noteworthy of the apocryphal plays is continuing, but they are being offered at a slower pace than had originally been intended. After a promising beginning (Sir Thomas More in 1984, then seven plays between July 1985 and March 19871), the Globe was confronted by the restrictions imposed by the new Actors' Equity Association rules. The Los Angeles Theatre Plan of October 1988 removed the equity waiver (a release permitting low-budget houses to function without paying directors, actors, and crews) under which small theatres such as the Globe had been operating.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare Apocrypha” Peter Kirwan
    The First Collected “Shakespeare Apocrypha” Peter Kirwan he disparate group of early modern plays still referred to by many Tcritics as the “Shakespeare Apocrypha” take their dubious attributions to Shakespeare from a variety of sources. Many of these attributions are external, such as the explicit references on the title pages of The London Prodigal (1605), A Yorkshire Tragedy (1608), 1 Sir John Oldcastle (1619), The Troublesome Raigne of King John (1622), The Birth of Merlin (1662), and (more ambiguously) the initials on the title pages of Locrine (1595), Thomas Lord Cromwell (1602), and The Puritan (1607). Others, including Edward III, Arden of Faversham, Sir Thomas More, and many more, have been attributed much later on the basis of internal evidence. The first collection of disputed plays under Shakespeare’s name is usually understood to be the second impression of the Third Folio in 1664, which “added seven Playes, never before Printed in Folio.”1 Yet there is some evidence of an interest in dubitanda before the Restoration. The case of the Pavier quar- tos, which included Oldcastle and Yorkshire Tragedy among authentic plays and variant quartos in 1619, has been amply discussed elsewhere as an early attempt to create a canon of texts that readers would have understood as “Shakespeare’s,” despite later critical division of these plays into categories of “authentic” and “spu- rious,” which was then supplanted by the canon presented in the 1623 Folio.2 I would like to attend, however, to a much more rarely examined early collection of plays—Mucedorus, Fair Em, and The Merry Devil of Edmonton, all included in C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oxfordian Volume 21 October 2019 ISSN 1521-3641 the OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019
    The Oxfordian Volume 21 October 2019 ISSN 1521-3641 The OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019 The Oxfordian is the peer-reviewed journal of the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship, a non-profit educational organization that conducts research and publication on the Early Modern period, William Shakespeare and the authorship of Shakespeare’s works. Founded in 1998, the journal offers research articles, essays and book reviews by academicians and independent scholars, and is published annually during the autumn. Writers interested in being published in The Oxfordian should review our publication guidelines at the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship website: https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/the-oxfordian/ Our postal mailing address is: The Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship PO Box 66083 Auburndale, MA 02466 USA Queries may be directed to the editor, Gary Goldstein, at [email protected] Back issues of The Oxfordian may be obtained by writing to: [email protected] 2 The OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019 The OXFORDIAN Volume 21 2019 Acknowledgements Editorial Board Justin Borrow Ramon Jiménez Don Rubin James Boyd Vanessa Lops Richard Waugaman Charles Boynton Robert Meyers Bryan Wildenthal Lucinda S. Foulke Christopher Pannell Wally Hurst Tom Regnier Editor: Gary Goldstein Proofreading: James Boyd, Charles Boynton, Vanessa Lops, Alex McNeil and Tom Regnier. Graphics Design & Image Production: Lucinda S. Foulke Permission Acknowledgements Illustrations used in this issue are in the public domain, unless otherwise noted. The article by Gary Goldstein was first published by the online journal Critical Stages (critical-stages.org) as part of a special issue on the Shakespeare authorship question in Winter 2018 (CS 18), edited by Don Rubin. It is reprinted in The Oxfordian with the permission of Critical Stages Journal.
    [Show full text]
  • 1925-1926 Baconiana No 68-71
    ■ j- I Vol. XVIII. Third Series. Comprising March & Dec. 1925, April & Dec., 1926. BACONIANA 'A ^periodical ^Magazine 5 I ) ) I LONDON: 1 GAY & HANCOCK, Limited, I 12 AND 13, HENRIETTA ST., STRAND, W.C. I927 ► “ Therefore we shall make our judgment upon the things themselves as they give light one to another and, as we can, dig Truth out of the mine ' ’—Francis Bacon <%■ 1 % * - ■ ■ CONTENTS. MARCH, 1925. PAGE. The 364th Anniversary Dinner I Who was Shakespeare ? .. IO The Eternal Controversy about Shakespeare 15 Shakespeare’s ' 'Augmentations’'. 18 An Historical Sketch of Canonbury Tower. 26 Shakespeare—Bacon’s Happy Youthful Life 37 ' ‘Notions are the Soul of Words’ ’ 43 Cambridge University and Shakespeare 52 Reports of Meetings 55 Sir Thomas More Again .. 60 George Gascoigne 04 Book Notes, Notes, etc. .. 67 DECEMBER, 1925. Biographers of Bacon 73 Bacon the Expert on Religious Foundations 83 ' 'Composita Solvantur’ ’ .. 90 Notes on Anthony Bacon’s Passports of 1586 93 The Shadow of Bacon’s Mind 105 Who Wrote the “Shakespeare” play, Henry VIII? 117 Shakespeare and the Inns of Court 127 Book Notices 133 Correspondence .. 134 Notes and Notices 140 APRIL, 1926. Introduction to the Tercentenary Number .. 145 Introduction by Sir John A. Cockburn 147 The “Manes Verulamiani” (in Latin and English), with Notes 157 Bacon and Seats of Learning 203 Francis Bacon and Gray’s Inn 212 Bacon and the Drama 217 Bacon as a Poet.. 227 Bacon on Himself 230 Bacon’s Friends and Critics 237 Bacon in the Shadow 259 Bacon as a Cryptographer 267 Appendix 269 Pallas Athene .. 272 Book Notices, Notes, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • CULTURAL SECRETS AS NARRATIVE FORM Reid Fm 3Rd.Qxd 2/2/2004 4:22 PM Page Ii Reid Fm 3Rd.Qxd 2/2/2004 4:22 PM Page Iii
    Reid_fm_3rd.qxd 2/2/2004 4:22 PM Page i CULTURAL SECRETS AS NARRATIVE FORM Reid_fm_3rd.qxd 2/2/2004 4:22 PM Page ii Reid_fm_3rd.qxd 2/2/2004 4:22 PM Page iii CULTURAL SECRETS AS NARRATIVE FORM ᇿሀᇿ Storytelling in Nineteenth-Century America Margaret Reid The Ohio State University Press Columbus Reid_fm_3rd.qxd 2/2/2004 4:22 PM Page iv Copyright © 2004 by The Ohio State University. All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Reid, Margaret (Margaret K.) Cultural secrets as narrative form : storytelling in nineteenth-century America / Margaret Reid. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 0-8142-0947-5 (hardcover : alk. paper) — ISBN 0-8142-5118-8 (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 0-8142-9038-8 (CD-ROM) 1. American fiction—19th century—History and criti- cism. 2. Historical fiction, American—History and criticism. 3. Literature and history—United States-History—19th century. 4. Storytelling—United States-History—19th century. 5. Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 1804-1864. Scarlet letter. 6. Cooper, James Fenimore, 1789–1851. Spy. 7. Wister, Owen, 1860-1938. Virginian. 8. Culture in literature. 9. Narration (Rhetoric) I. Title. PS374.H5 R45 2004 813'.309358—dc22 2003023639 Cover design by Dan O’Dair. Type set in Adobe Caslon. Printed by Thomson-Shore Inc. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39.48-1992. 987654321 Reid_fm_3rd.qxd 2/2/2004 4:22 PM Page v for my parents, James D. Reid and Anne Donohue Reid and in memory of their parents, Agnes Carmody Donohue Gerald Donohue Katherine O’Leary Reid Richard Reid Reid_fm_3rd.qxd 2/2/2004 4:22 PM Page vi For here were God knew how many citizens, deliberately choos- ing not to communicate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shakespeare Controversy
    Brief Chronicles Vol. I (2009) 277 Book Reviews !e Shakespeare Controversy 2nd Edition By Warren Hope and Kim Holston Je!erson: NC, McFarland, 2009 Reviewed by R. "omas Hunter knew I liked this book from its !rst words. “For too long” Delia Bacon has been misunderstood and misrepresented as has her symbolic function for Shakespeare I authorship studies: “an unworldly pursuit of truth that produces gifts for a world that is indi"erent or hostile to them.” Anyone who has labored in the vineyards of authorship study knows how well that statement expresses their experience. #e second accomplishment of authors Warren Hope and Kim Holston in the early pages of !e Shakespeare Controversy is to help untangle the web of Ms. Bacon’s seminal work, which !rst articulated the authorship issue and gave birth to subsequent generations of research, reading, and speculation, !e Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Unfolded. #us, from its very beginning, the authors of this recently revised history of the Shakespeare authorship controversy provide an engaging and a very necessary primer into the history of the controversy and its progression toward Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford as the true author of Shakespeare’s works. It is at the same time more complete, more reasonable, and more readable than anything Stratfordian Professor Samuel Shoenbaum, who tended toward hysteria whenever he addressed authorship literature, ever provided in his histories of Shakespearean biography. Indeed in their introduction, the authors remark on how histories of authorship produced by the traditional camp have all been a$icted with “a dreary sameness…[that] there is no Shakespeare authorship question, really, only a gabble of cranks who think there is.
    [Show full text]