appearance of validity, must embrace everything that appeared in connection with Shakespeare's name; as, to admit that he did or could write any one of the pieces, would be to admit that he might have written them all, and that would be fatal to the whole Baconian theory. This is the plainest logic, and hardest to controvert, of all truth.

The style of these compositions, though somewhat crude, as would be natural to these "first heirs to his invention" is quite in harmony with all Shakespeare's writings; the subjects, treatment and diction, are closely comparable with the plays and especially with the work of the sonnets, given to the public in 1609. These were understood to have been written originally for private circulation among friends; from internal evidence they were begun as early as 1594, the year of the dedication of Lucrece; a great number of them are clearly addressed to Lord Southampton, and depict known events in his life; they give the fullest evidence of the continuous devoted loyalty of Shakespeare to his noble patron, which, as said in the dedication to Lucrece, "is without end," and it will be observed is

carried over and far beyond the period of the trials.

The extremes of contrast are reached, when the mind reverts from this picture of undying gratitude and unfaltering devotion, to that of Bacon's unblushing treachery. Shakespeare's immortal verse is a fit embellishment of this point.

"Freeze, freeze, thou bitter sky,
That dost not bite so nigh,

As benefits forgot :

Though thou the waters warp,
Thy sting is not so sharp

As friend remember'd not."

CHAPTER IX.

Further defence of the Baconite claim impossible—Reasons for belief in Shakespeare-Ben Jonson's sketch of Shakespeare-Record proving authenticity and genuine work of the first editors-The man who stood near the king.

N the preceding chapters it has been shown, by citations from the works of Bacon, that he had not a vestige of the genius and temper indispensable to the imagery of the plays; by a review of some of the leading features of his life and actions, that he was devoid of the sentiment that inspires their ideal of love, and that he was without the warm and manly impulses animating the pen of Shakespeare wherever virtue is extolled or vice censured, honesty and courage portrayed, or folly ridiculed. In the last chapter the wretched fallacy of the Baconite pretension is clearly exposed and the final blow given to the imposture. If, in the face of this, a belief in that palpable absurdity is still defended, it must be by those

only whose credulity is stronger than reasonwhose fondness for the marvellous is greater than the relish for fact, or whose density is their most prominent trait. No fact exists to support the claim; no probability can be founded upon any of the facts that do exist in connection with either of the names.

The subject might close here, but it is proper to give a slight sketch of facts and reasons that establish Shakespeare's title to the writings: The first of these is his recognized connection with them and established reputation as their author, during his whole lifetime, and in the succeeding generations with which that period was connected by living observers, who have, from their personal knowledge of the man and his works, made authentic record of the fact; the poems of Venus and Adonis, Lucrece, and the Sonnets, bearing unmistakable impress of the same mind, known to have been written and published by him, and openly dedicated as a token of regard, to the man who was well known to be his friend and patron; the surreptitious publication of some of the plays and the piratical use of his name, by publishers,

to extend the sale of pieces that he did not write, establishing the fact that as a writer he was widely known and had a popular and creditable reputation; the rivalry and jealousy of other writers of his day, and the publicity of his work, which would have made it impracticable to maintain so successful an imposition; the testimony of those writers and of his fellow actors and co-labourers.

No word was uttered or written by any contemporary of Shakespeare-or until over two hundred years after his death-that even hints at a disbelief in his authorship or in his ability to write the plays and the sonnets. His association with his fellow actors was most intimate and constant, and his work of revising and altering plays to suit either the requirements of the law and demands of the court, or the whims of popular taste, was unremitting. He was one of a large number of playwriters of his time, notably Sackville, Marlowe, Greene, Dekker, Ben Jonson, Rowley, Peele, Lodge, Drayton, Fletcher, Kyd, Wilkins, Wilson, Tarleton, Tourneau, Davenport, Heywood, Chapman, and Chettle, all known to each other and most of them having active inter