1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2f657e48a4d3ddaf984a03c75a7224a9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PZLfegkq62QuDAl8MuV9gw9e5NXe34OSJ8nfB5iaHedfAS%7Ebn0TcKYe7uz9paXv7qzUHgSRBhzLXGwfJ5UnqgILofArkaxComRuQavxLIvMFKaw7r%7EyhbwHpzjh1ecbOFaVbKAWwm23Ngf9qA2kQLuCMtNJ6dmK89LR8gDS%7E8APSXT6YSf69FjrVm9EWod9mOHNvD%7EdlNq6EdM2MCViVRjmRjW1lfrRsCLhJaL5a8iIDDad6FKb1lKO7Sor86h2FLQ5M%7EaN56o90w8K7ja0sSQ9oQcJ3oYmo-SL9QOMfkMTTn3AlLZQdOwEWAEQts626fr2akDhMiyHcwsBwTIGrGA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a9e0cfc0029298981e7422a91e623ca1
PDF Text
Text
B
S
bJ I ^-’3.
national secular society
LORD BACON:
WRITE
HE
DID
SHAKESPEARE’S PLATS?
A REPLY TO
I JUDGE HOLMES, -MISS D. BACON, & MR. W. H. SMITH,
BY
I
CHARLES C. CATTELL,
Editor of “ Dawson’s Speeches on Shakespeare.”
‘ Know the grounds and authors of it.’—Twelfth Night, Act V Sc. 1
PRICE
(THE
PROCEEDS TO
TWOPENCE.
BE
GIVEN
RESTORATION
Printed
and
TO
THE
LIBRARY
FUND.)
Published
by
G. & J. H. SHIPWAY, 39, MOOR STREET, BIRMINGHAM.
1879.
�NEW
WORK
Just Published, Price One Shilling,
THE
BY
CHARLES C. CATTELL.
Opinions—1878.
“A very interesting little work.”—Newcastle Chronicle, March 16th.
“ A series of short biographies of illustrious men who have suffered
tribulation in this world. Apart from this [that some do not deserve
the title], the biographies are interesting and instructive.”—Birming
ham Daily Bost, April 23rd.
“ Might have been made a hundred times as long as it is............ But
this small work very creditably fulfils the purpose which is set forth in
the preface. ”— Weekly Dispatch. March 24th.
“The facts in the various ‘ lives ’ are well marshalled, and the leading
characteristics as well brought out as narratives so very condensed will
admit. The volume bespeaks a large and varied course of reading,
and has substantial literary merit.”—The Advertiser, March 23rd.
“Well worthy of perusal, having been judiciously done.”—Free
Press.
‘1A sort of handy summary of the Foxe’s Martyrs order, and abounds
cheerfully with the headsman’s axe, racks, knouts, and stakes at
Smithfield.”—The Dart, March 16th.
“The biographies are comprehensive, and written in a pleasing
pithy style. The love of freedom which permeates the whole volume
is not the least interesting feature in it.”—Daily Mail.
“It is an excellent work of its kind; and, being very cheap, it
will doubtless find its way into the hands of the young working men
for whom it is adapted.”—7'ruthseeker.
“ Mr. Cattell has compiled a short history of each martyr, the lite
rary merits of which do him as much credit as the generous prompt
ings which led to such a task being undertaken. ’— Brtlish Mercantile
Gazette.
Published by CHARLES Watts, 84, Fleet Street, London.
�BID LORD BACON WRITE SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS?
BY
CHARLES
C.
CATTELL.
O some this is an old question, but it is not so old as some
other questions by many thousands of years. Many who
possess the volume entitled “Shakespeare’s Works” are
altogether indifferent as to when or by whom the plays and
poems were written. Then there are the idolaters who regard
the utterance of a doubt, as to Shakespeare being the author,
as gross infidelity, a species of blasphemy against “the divine
William.” But a wise scepticism is a healthy sign in this age
of reason, this age of intellectual activity—such as was never
before seen in the history of mankind. Old and wise heads
have settled this and many other questions to their own satis
faction ; but a new generation seeks solutions of its own, and
desires to discuss and settle questions, unawed by all authori
ty but the evidence, by which alone a thoughtful man is
guided. This humble contribution to the discussion is intended
to serve those whose time or opportunity does not permit them
to consult more expensive and voluminous books on the subject.
Some persons are angry with the heretics ; but it may be
fairly taken as a very high compliment to the genius of
Shakespeare, that his plays and poems are considered worthy
of the pen of so profound a philosopher, scholar, and master
mind as Lord Bacon.
T
�4
Those who think this is a fight with phantoms, a firing into
the air at nothing in particular, should be informed that in
1875 a new edition of Judge Holmes’s work was published,
containing 696 pages, setting forth the claims of Lord Bacon.
Besides this, there is a work by Miss Delia Bacon of 582 pages,
and one by W. H. Smith of 162 pages, and others.
The position taken by the heretics is that Shakespeare was
only a poor strolling, vagabond player—who not only could
not be the writer of the plays or of anything else, except his
own name, and that so badly that it is still an open question
whether he knew how to spell it.
On the other hand, Lord
Bacon could write, was a scholar, and lived at the same time,
in the same country, as Shakespeare, and therefore he might
have written the plays and poems. Dr. Watts laid down as a
sort of logical canon that what might be might not be.
One
argument against Lord Bacon is that several literary men of
eminence, who lived at the time, in the same country, do not
say he wrote the plays, but give the credit of authorship to
William Shakespeare.
The words these men wrote, about Shakespeare being the
author, were published at the time, form part of our national
literature, and remained undisputed for more than 250 years.
Besides Ben Jonson, Francis Meres, and others, Earl
Southhampton calls Shakespeare his “especial friend” and
describes him as the “writer of some of our best English
plays ”
John Milton, in 1632, only a few years after the death of
Shakespeare, which occurred in 1616, sings to his memory a
hymn of praise. Heminge and Condell, who played with him,
were on friendly terms with Earl Pembroke, and had, so far
as we know, thirty years good character, published the plays
�5
and poems in 1623, as we now have them, under the name of
William Shakespeare; and at the same time under their own
signature claimed him as their friend and the author of the
hooks they edited.
In order to sustain the claims set up for Lord Bacon we are
compelled to take refuge in the assumption—that men of
learning, scholars, pure and noble characters—-entered into a
conspiracy to deceive mankind to all eternity, or, otherwise,
that they were the most weak, deluded, drivelling, soft-headed
fools that ever were permitted to breathe the air of Great
Britain. Either they lied or were imposed upon, and neither
one nor the other is laid to their charge—or, instead of being
quoted as ornaments to their age, they would be described as
impostors or idiots.
The so-called arguments of the heretics are made up of
11 if’s,” “hut’s,” and “might he’s.” Those who put forth no
arguments on their side are the most difficult writers to answer
or refute : but the reasoning of the heretics admits of illustra
tion, if not of refutation.
The following will illustrate their method, supposing they
described it as I should:—There was a plague in London; Charles II. was King, and
John Milton was a poet. Now John Milton was poor, and old,
and blind—and had no power over the elements,the army or
the government—but the king had control over the govern
ment and its administration, and therefore he “ might ” have
had something to do with the plague. Although we have
held the opinion for more than twenty years that the King
caused the plague, we never hoped or expected to be able to
prove any such thing!
One conclusive proof against Milton
is he left no manuscript giving instructions about the plague ;
�6
neither did the King, but no doubt he wrote them.
Having
sent a copy of our work, showing that the King caused the
plague, to a gentleman who has devoted many years to writing
a life of the King, and he having thanked us for it, and also
given us his opinion—that our theory and statements are
totally unsupported by facts, and are incredible and absurd
beyond all question ; we think it necessary to bring out anew
edition of our valuable work, which we find is supported by
other independent writers, who have proved nothing at all, and
of whose existence we were entirely ignorant at the time we
wrote our own views on the same subject.
Judge Holmes makes a point of the fact that no manuscript
has been found of Shakespeare’s own writing : but if that
proves anything against him it is equally fatal in the case of
Bacon who has also omitted to leave us manuscript of his
Tragedies and Sonnets.
Dr. Ingleby suggests that Shakes
peare’s manuscripts may have been taken to London by his
friend Ben Jonson, and that they may have been burnt at the
fire which took place at Jonson’s house. Heminge and Condell say they had Shakespeare’s manuscripts of his plays and
poems to print from, but I am not aware of any one having
said that much of Lord Bacon’s. Bacon’s works were not
published till after twelve of the plays, so that plagiarism
would be extremely difficult, especially as his works contained no
plays or sonnets.
Here we have Lord Bacon busy writing his great works,
and having them carefully done into Latin; and we are asked
to believe that at the same time he wrote the same sentiments
(for their evidence consists of parallel passages only) in
sublime tragedies, known and played before, and placed to
the credit of a writer whose name was not Bacon. Moreover
�7
these Dramas which have won the praise and admiration of all
nations were in his eyes such inferior rubbish, that he allow
ed them to remain in English instead of having them done
into Latin to be preserved for posterity. Any one who knows
Bacon’s character knows that that is just what he would not
have done.
The assumption necessary for the heretics’ case is that Bacon
not only wrote the sentiments in majestic prose, about which
there is no dispute; but that he also made the same sentiments
do duty twice—in the second instance they appear in the form
of sublime dramatic poetry—the writing of which he confessed
himself incompetent, and the heretics produce no evidence that
he either could or did.
Holmes says it is ‘ historically known’ that Bacon wrote plays
and poems ; but does not say to whom this history was known,
or who wrote it. Ellis gives a list of fifty persons who wrote
in the reigns of Elizabeth and James, but Bacon is not one.
Bacon wrote in fulsome adulation of his friend James, but did
not produce a sonnet on his accession to the throne, but he did
produce some wretched prose, altogether unworthy of his pen.
It certainly is recorded by himself that he 'prepared a sonnet’
as ' a toy,’ in 1599, to please the queen, and in the same docu
ment he says he did not profess to be ‘a poet.’
It is also‘historically known’ that he ‘assisted’ in preparing
a masque, and the part he did was ' the dumb shows,’ and
the rest was done by others. Another proof that Bacon wrote
Shakespeare is that he wrote a metrical version of the Psalms
of David. I can only make out that he paraphrased VII of
them, and if any body else had produced such—I hesitate to
say what language critics would have used about the VII. To
produce any force, the parallel passages, to prove identity of
�8
authorship, should have been taken from Bacon's tragedies
and sonnets, about which no dispute has taken place because
even their existence has not yet been established. Bacon’s
biographer says—if he did not write the plays of Shakespeare,
of which we have no proof, there is no evidence that Bacon
could write Dramatic Poetry. True enough, say the heretics,
but if he did, which he
that is evidence that he
could. Verily there is “much virtue in ?/.”
Any one reading the plays would infer that the writer had
some knowledge of the stage, and was not unacquainted with
Warwickshire, and even Stratford-on-Avon : —and ‘if Bacon
did not write them, some other person ‘might'' who had some
knowledge of both. The author ‘might' have been a player,
‘if he had once lived on the banks of the Avon.
Of course
Bacon lived at a time when his parents ‘might' have resided
in Warwickshire, and he ‘ might' have obtained some know
ledge of the stage, ‘if' he was a player, although it is not
“ historically known " these mights are in any sense rights.
It is urged that all the difficulty is occasioned by Bacon’s
concealment of his name as a Dramatist; because that character
was unpopular in his time. A more conclusive reason, to my
mind, is the fact that he was unknown to be able to sustain
the character—and that the reason why his name was con
cealed, as the writer of Shakespeare’s plays, was because he
did not write them—and that purely through his lack of
ability to do anything of the sort, as he himself confessed in
writing.
Let any one compare Bacon’s version of the Psalms with any
Tragedy or Drama, attributed to Shakespeare, and see what
sort of an idea can be obtained of a parallel. There is as much
difference between the writings of Bacon and the Plays as
�9
there is difference in the characters of the philosopher and
the poet.
Shakespeare has keen described as honest, open,
gentle, free, honourable and amiable; while Bacon has been
described as ambitious, covetous, base, selfish, unamiable and
unscrupulous. Now, taking these two descriptions as a fair
index of their souls—which is the more likely to have por
trayed the women of Shakespeare’s plays ?
The reasons given for concealment lose all their force
when we remember that Bacon’s complete works were not
published till 1635, one year before he died.
He lived long
enough to see the end of his plays ‘ if’ he wrote them ; so
that the excuse which he ‘ might ’ have had, when a young
rising ambitious man, could not do duty at the age of sixty.
Besides, his friend and servant Ben Jonson had placed the
plays and poems, many a long year before, high up above all
the productions of the genius of the human race. To suppose
a man like Bacon dying and leaving such works unowned—•
leaving them to be fathered by a poor despised player, who
could but just sign his name for cash received from the Queen
and King for acting before them—is—what ? To assert that
such is within the limits of probability is unmitigated twaddle.
It is a known fact that Bacon was very anxious about how
he should appear to posterity—and yet we are asked to believe
that he allowed his plays, ‘if’ he wrote them, which he
might not, to come down to us, published under his very eyes,
with 20,000 errors.
Then there is the important point that Shakespeare had
little or no education--very irregular—short in duration—and
the absence of proof that he ever went to school at all—and
if he did go—he must have begun to write before he was
qualified either by college or university.
�10
At the very starting point in this investigation the presump
tion is that the boy Shakespeare was totally unprepared for
the office of poet at the time when he was busy at it. Now, ‘ if
he did go to school, his father being a yeoman and having
served as chief magistrate, he ‘ might ’ have had an education
like his friend Lord Southampton.
Ben Jonson says Shake
speare had “small Latin and less Greek,” so that it seems
quite possible that he obtained these at some school—and is it
too much to assume that his friend Ben, who was a scholar,
could, and would, and did assist him ?
Many of the books he ‘might' have read in English, ‘if
that be added to his Latin and Greek, which is not impossible,
as he lived at a time when English was spoken and written.
Surely Ben Jonson would help his ‘beloved author ’ to Ovid
and Virgil, about the only two he would want besides trans
lations. It should be remembered that much of Shakespeare
is the work of genius observing nature and man, and that he
does not write alone as books enable and as colleges teach.
He may also have in some measure resembled Pope, Goldsmith,
and Burns, whose education was not of a very high order •
but they, as also Dryden, Milton, Coleridge, and others
began to write before they were twenty, Milton being a fair
classical scholar at 17. Shakespeare having, according to Emerson, “the best head in the universe,” and some knowledge
of Latin and Greek, and some mysterious mental power sur
passing that of the wisest of the ancients, he might have been
able to produce some of the great works which make his name
immortal, without being Lord Bacon in disguise, or the mere
puppet of the great philosopher, who had as much to do with
the plays as the writer of this.
�11
Holmes cites a number of passages from Bacon containing
the same words and illustrations as are found in Shakespeare’s
plays, and asks “ can all this be accidental ?”
Yes : but if
not, things that are equal to the same thing are equal to one
another : so that if parallels prove identity of authorship, the
inference that Shakespeare wrote Bacon is as logical as the in
ference that Bacon wrote Shakespeare. The evidence consists
solely of similarity of expressions, as the following will illustrate.
Bacon writes that he remembers in a chamber at Cambridge
there was “ a pillar of iron erected for a prop,” in another
place he speaks of “ Ancient pillars.”
Shakespeare also speaks of “ a prop to lean upon,” “ props
of virtue,” “pillars that stand to us,” and “deserving pillars of
the law.” To me this only proves that both used the words
pillar and prop. Bacon speaks of “the finger of God.”
Shakespeare speaks of “the fingers of the powers above.”
Bacon speaks of “ the soul having shaken off her flesh.”
Shakespeare speaks of “ when we have shuffled off this mortal
coil.” Bacon speaks of “ the mole that diveth into the darkness
of the earth.” Shakespeare says—“ old mole ! canst work i’
th’ ground so fast ? ” Bacon writes—
“ As a tale told, which, sometimes men attend,
And sometimes not, our life steals to an end.”
Shakespeare writes :—
“ Life is as tedious as a twice told tale,
Vexing the dull ear of a drowsy man.”
Bacon :—“ The great navies look like walking woods.”
Shakespeare :—
“Anon, me thought,
The woods began to •move.”
It should be noted that the last two quotations from Bacon are
�12
translations from the Psalms, so that, if they prove any
thing, they prove that Shakespeare was written by King David.
Holmes discovers that the plays were written between 1582
and 1613 ; Bacon at the same time living thirty-one years,
from 21 to 52, “ corresponding exactly to that portion of Ba
con slife in which we may most easily suppose they could have been
written by him.” Shakespeare also lived thirty-one years dur
ing the same period, corresponding exactly to that portion
of Shakespeare’s life from 18 to 49, in which we may easily
suppose he wrote some of the plays.
This would be very easy
indeed if we took Holmes as a guide. For instance, in speak
ing of the style of Heminge and Condell’s affectionate dedication,
he says, “it is much more nearly that of Bacon; but it may very
well have been Jonson.” Again, Holmes says, there are traditions
that Jonson severely criticised Shakespeare’s productions,
and was envious of his fame—“and from these it should be
inferred that Jonson could not really have believed that
Shakespeare was the actual author of the works.”
While reading this sentence it will be well to bear in mind
that Jonson paid the highest compliment to Shakespeare’s
genius, and that Holmes himself contends that the works so
“ severely criticised ” were written by no less a person than
Lord Bacon. If we believe in Holmes and his logic, Jonson
was a fool in criticism and a liar in eulogy.
Holmes quotes a postscript from a letter by Tobie Matthew
to Lord Bacon, in which allusion is made to a ‘ ‘ most prodigi
ous wit ”—“ of your Lordship’s name, though he be known by
another.”
Who else could this refer to but Shakespeare?
He calls this a “very remarkable piece of evidence.”
To me
the sentence is by no means clear—as to whom it refers —
is a kind of literary conundrum—the true answer to which,
�13
Judge Holmes himself has not, in my opinion, yet discovered.
The sentence to me is remarkable as evidence of an
obscure style of letter writing, and of interest, or even intelligi
ble, only to the initiated correspondent.
Miss Delia Bacon, whose sincerity is indisputable, since she
sacrificed her reason and her life in pursuing this subject,
states that she will not place any value on Ben Jonson’s evi
dence in favour of Shakespeare’s authorship until he has ex
plained why he did not mention to the author of the “ Advance
ment of Learning ” the name of the author of ‘‘ Hamlet” as,
she says, two such remarkable persons “ might like to meet each
other.” She offers no evidence that Jonson did not do this, or
that they did not meet.
The imputation upon the honour of
Jonson is therefore unsupported, except by thejgreat argument
which the heretics fall back upon on all occasions, which is
founded on the fact that all the historians and biographers are
entirely silent on the subject.
This comes with great force
because historians and biographers so seldom agree, but on this
point they are unanimous, in saying nothing !
She may be excused for her enthusiasm since she believed
she had discovered “hidden treasure” under the surface of
Shakespeare’s plays, although for years she had been a
student of the bard, and, like all the rest of the world, found
only beautiful ideas clothed in the most majestic words of one
of the greatest living languages.
But she, with keener eye
than ordinary mortals, saw, “under the surface of Shakepeare’s plays,” the philosophy of Sir Walter Raleigh, and the
imperishable thoughts of Lord Bacon, the father of the induc
tive method. Strange as this may appear to some—it is mar
vellous what hidden things may be discovered in any great
book, if you gojzo it with a theory preconceived, and with a
�14
settled purpose of finding in it some support to your theory.
A remarkable illustration of this is found in the case of the
English Bible. A thousand discordant sects fly to the book of
books in search of illustrations and facts and sanctions to en
force their views, and they come back loaded with texts innum
erable with which they pelt each other for hundreds of years.
Moreover they not only thus fight each other but they combine
to pelt all who differ from the whole of them with a vigour
that can only be appreciated by those who have been engaged
in what Coleridge’s coachman called “something in the oppo
sition line.”
My contention is, that if you did not first catch your hare
you could not cook it, that if you did not get your theory first
you would not find it in the book nor the facts in support of it.
I read Bacon’s essays before Shakespeare’s plays and
the thought that one man wrote both was not suggested, and
such a thought would not be suggested by the reading only—
not to one man in a million—and still it might be so—it might
still be true that one man was the author of both.
The mul
titude do not make discoveries. The discoverers of truth, the
proclaimers of truth, and the defenders of truth, have in all
ages been the few—-the minority of the human race.
These facts should be constantly borne in mind, so that per
sonal abuse, persecution in any form, should not be possible
among the students, or even among the admirers, of literature,
art, and science. In the words of Shakespeare, let it become
a common truism, and not the insulting concession called toler
ation, that “ Thought is free.”
Mr. W. H. ^Smith contends that in Bacon alone are to be
found the vast variety of talents possessed by the writer of
Shakespeare’s plays.
�15
The best answer I can give is that the talent required, above
all others, is the ability to write such dramatic poetry as the
book contains, and which cannot be traced to Lord Bacon.
Mr. Smith considers similarity of ideas or coincidence of
expressions unreasonable, and not to be expected, yet here we
find them in the following pointed instances.
Bacon speaking of reputation uses these words “because of
the peremptory tides and currents it hath ” and Shakespeare
says “ There is a tide in the affairs of men.”
Bacon relates an anecdote about a man named Hog, who
claimed kindred on account of his name. Sir N. Bacon replied
“ Ay, but you and I cannot be kindred except you be hanged ;
for Hog is not Bacon until it is well hanged.”
Shakespeare
has also used the words hang, hog, and bacon.
Evans—“Hung, Hang, Hog.”
Dame Quickly—“Hang, Hog is the Latin for Bacon.”
Mr. Smith points out that the word ‘ Essay ’ was new in
Bacon’s time, and yet Shakespeare uses it once, Bacon uses it
as a title.
If the use of the same word by two authors who lived at the
same time proves that one wrote the works of the other, there
wonld be no difficulty in proving that Judge Holmes wrote the
book of W. H. Smith, or vice versa.
As a matter of fact he has been charged with copying Miss
Delia Bacon. In his defence he says that if it were necessary
he could show that for twenty years he had held the opinion
that Bacon was the author of the works of Shakespeare. Such
a declaration would lead any reader to expect something very
conclusive,—yet at the end of his volume he says “ we shall
be told that the sum of the whole does not prove that Bacon
wrote the plays.
We have never said or insinuated that we
hoped or expected to prove any such thing,”
�16
The value of an opinion, although like this of Mr. Smith’s,
may be twenty years of age, depends on the facts which support
it. Any opinion of which there is no hope or expectation is
hardly likely to obtain converts, and maybe very justly left to
expire with the name of W. H. Smith.
IN THE I-'NESS.
TO SUBSCRIBERS ONLY, 2/6.
GREAT MEN’S VIEWS
ON
SHAKESPEAKE,
BY
This work will contain the opinions of the leading writers on
the subject in Germany, France, America, and England.
Subscribers names to be sent to
G. & d. H. SHIPWAY, 39, MOOR ST.,
BIRMINGHAM:.
G. & J. H. SHIPWAY, 39, Moon Street, Birmingham.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Lord Bacon: did he write Shakespeare's plays? A reply to Judge Holmes, Miss D. Bacon, & Mr W.H. Smith
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cattell, Charles Cockbill
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Birmingham
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Other works by Cattell advertised on page [2] and back cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
G. & J. H. Shipway
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1879
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N122
Subject
The topic of the resource
Literature
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Lord Bacon: did he write Shakespeare's plays? A reply to Judge Holmes, Miss D. Bacon, & Mr W.H. Smith), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Authorship
Francis Bacon
NSS
Shakespeare