Shakespeare, Bacon and the Great Unknown | Page 2

Stopes (herself no Baconian) about the history of the
Stratford monument of the poet. About Will's authorship of Titus
Andronicus, and Henry VI,
Part I,
the friends of Will, like the friends of Bacon, are at odds among
themselves. These and other divergencies of opinion cause the
Baconians to laugh, as if THEY were a harmonious circle . . . ! For the
Baconian camp is not less divided against itself than the camp of the
"Stratfordians." Not all Baconians hold that Bacon was the legitimate
son of "that Imperial votaress" Queen Elizabeth. Not all believe in the
Cryptogram of Mr. Ignatius Donnelly, or in any other cryptograms. Not
all maintain that Bacon, in the Sonnets, was inspired by a passion for
the Earl of Essex, for Queen Elizabeth, or for an early miniature of
himself. Not all regard him as the author of the plays of Kit Marlowe.
Not all suppose him to be a Rosicrucian, who possibly died at the age
of a hundred and six, or, perhaps, may be "still running." Not all aver
that he wrote thirteen plays before 1593. But one party holds that, in
the main, Will was the author of the plays, while the other party votes
for Bacon--or for Bungay, a Great Unknown. I use Bungay as an
endearing term for the mysterious being who was the Author if Francis
Bacon was not. Friar Bungay was the rival of Friar Bacon, as the
Unknown (if he was not Francis Bacon) is the rival of "the inventor of
Inductive reasoning."
I could never have expected that I should take a part in this controversy;
but acquaintance with The Shakespeare Problem Restated (503 pp.),
(1908), and later works of Mr. G. G. Greenwood, M.P., has tempted me
to enter the lists.

Mr. Greenwood is worth fighting; he is cunning of fence, is learned
(and I cannot conceal my opinion that Mr. Donnelly and Judge Holmes
were rather ignorant). He is not over "the threshold of Eld" (as were
Judge Webb and Lord Penzance when they took up Shakespearean
criticism). His knowledge of Elizabethan literature is vastly superior to
mine, for I speak merely, in Matthew Arnold's words, as "a belletristic
trifler."
Moreover, Mr. Greenwood, as a practising barrister, is a judge of legal
evidence; and, being a man of sense, does not "hold a brief for Bacon"
as the author of the Shakespearean plays and poems, and does not value
Baconian cryptograms. In the following chapters I make endeavours,
conscientious if fallible, to state the theory of Mr. Greenwood. It is a
negative theory. He denies that Will Shakspere (or Shaxbere, or
Shagspur, and so on) was the author of the plays and poems. Some
other party was, IN THE MAIN, with other hands, the author. Mr.
Greenwood cannot, or does not, offer a guess as to who this ingenious
Somebody was. He does not affirm, and he does not deny, that Bacon
had a share, greater or less, in the undertaking.
In my brief tractate I have not room to consider every argument; to
traverse every field. In philology I am all unlearned, and cannot pretend
to discuss the language of Shakespeare, any more than I can analyse the
language of Homer into proto-Arcadian and Cyprian, and so on. Again,
I cannot pretend to have an opinion, based on internal evidence, about
the genuine Shakespearean character of such plays as Titus Andronicus,
Henry VI,
Part I, and Troilus and Cressida. About
them different views are held WITHIN both camps.
I am no lawyer or naturalist (as Partridge said, Non omnia possumus
omnes), and cannot imagine why our Author is so accurate in his
frequent use of terms of law--if he be Will; and so totally at sea in
natural history--if he be Francis, who "took all knowledge for his
province."

How can a layman pretend to deal with Shakespeare's legal attainments,
after he has read the work of the learned Recorder of Bristol, Mr. Castle,
K.C.? To his legal mind it seems that in some of Will's plays he had the
aid of an expert in law, and then his technicalities were correct. In other
plays he had no such tutor, and then he was sadly to seek in his legal
jargon. I understand Mr. Greenwood to disagree on this point. Mr.
Castle says, "I think Shakespeare would have had no difficulty in
getting aid from several sources. There is therefore no prima facie
reason why we should suppose the information was supplied by
Bacon."
Of course there is not!
"In fact, there are some reasons why one should attribute the legal
assistance, say, to Coke, rather than to Bacon."
The truth is, that Bacon seems not to have been lawyer enough for
Will's purposes. "We have no reason to believe that Bacon was
particularly