least, it is more than improbable, that one who had the poetic faculty to such an extent, as to enable him to write the dramas of Shakespeare, would have refrained up to his death from avowing himself the author of that, of which he might be justly proud, seeing, that he had the moral courage to avow himself the author of a fugitive sonnet, of which he was ashamed, and through which, he himself was convinced he could never be a poet. But as antithetical to this, we may ask, why was his faculty for prose not concealed? The answer is evident, because he knew he could write prose. He does not, and never did, disavow a single work in prose of which he is the reputed author, nor does he avow, nor has there ever been traced to him a single work or line in the dramatic poetry of which Mr. Thomson, nolens volens, wishes to constitute him the author. If he acknowledged all his prose works, of which he might be justly proud, why did he not acknowledge one line of his dramatic works, of which he might be prouder still? If he concealed his authorship of all the dramas, because concealment was his idiosyncrasy, or a political necessity, why did not his idiosyncrasy, or the political necessity, cause him to conceal the authorship of a single work in prose? Mr. Thomson might answer, because his idiosyncracy for concealment, or the political necessity, did not extend to prose; but stopped at poetry. Bacon's contemporaries knew him-the whole civilised world of his time knew him -as the author of the splendid prose works, with which he has been accredited, but not one ever even hints at the suspicion, that Bacon wrote, or was the author of a single comedy or drama. As to Dr. Rawley's remark with reference to Bacon, viz.:-" Abilities, which commonly go single in other men, are all conjoined in him"-it does not state enough. It would have been conclusive, as far as it goes, could it have been read thus:-The highest talent for prose, and the greatest genius for dramatic poetry, which commonly go single in other men, are both conjoined in him. There has been no instance from the earliest historic times up to the present day, where the combination of a Bacon and a Shakespeare, the impersonations of the highest talent and the greatest genius, has found its centre in one man. It is possible, but not more possible than a miracle. Few have ever exceeded Bacon in the force, vigour, terseness, clearness and splendour of his prose. None has ever exceeded Shakespeare, either as a writer of dramas or comedies. Bacon, as a prose-writer, stands in the midst of a goodly company. The most we can say of

Bacon is, that in this genre he was primus inter pares. Shake

speare, as a dramatic genius, stood in lonely grandeur. He was first, and had no equals.

At the end of Mr. Thomson's book is a slip printed as follows:"N.B.-The citations are read from the latest edition of Mr. Dyce, 1877, and the word 'cup,' p. 335, should be 'cap,' and ‘on,' p. 353, 'own."" From this, it may be seen conclusively that Mr. Thomson must have revised his book most carefully before, but more especially after, it was printed. Yet we find Eschylos for Eschylus, Latin murdered and Horace desecrated by such phrases as "tres in unus"!! "res augusti domi," and "akun" written "àkmñ," "reviver” spelt "revivor," "imaginary" spelt "imaginery;" and such sentences as "Both the ancient and modern drama is planned" and "little reads poetry," &c., &c., &c. We advise Mr. Thomson with the most kindly sincerity to copy his Greek, when he has occasion for it, from a Lexicon, and to abstain in future from Latin until he has rubbed up his Latin grammar. Where he quotes English sentences interspersed with Latin, he is fairly accurate; but when he trusts himself to his own Latin, he makes the most egregious, inexcusable blunders. Mr. Thomson says:-" The tragedies of Eschylos were a re-birth or palingenesis of Greek drama." Now, we beg to inform Mr. Thomson that Eschylus did not revive the Greek drama by his tragedies, he simply developed it, and was instrumental in giving it the place of honour. He gave a mask to the actors, he clothed them more decently, introduced the buskin, and had a small theatre built for their use.* The tragedies of Eschylus were no more a re-birth of the Greek drama, than youth is the re-birth of childhood or manhood of youth.+

TpXoyia were three tragedies, which competitors for the prize, were obliged to present on the festival of Bacchus. Mr. Thomson speaks of "Garrick leading tragedy and comedy by the hand in eloquent pictorial trilogy," and in the lofty eloquence of his flight, omits to say how "comedy" can be the picture of tragedy. The next proposition advanced by Mr. Thomson is the "early life" of Bacon. He says, or means to say, that very many salient facts, in the vast array of acquired learning employed in constructing the drama, belong to Bacon's private history. His first salient fact is, that an

"Post hunc, personae pallaeque repertor honestae
Eschylus et modicis instravit pulpita tignis

Et docuit magnumque loqui nitique cothurno."

Hor. Ars. Poet.

+"Tragoedias primus in lucem Eschylus protulit, sublimis et gravis et grandiloquus sæpe usque ad vitium."-Quint. lib. 10, cap. 1.

intelligent lad said, on seeing Bacon's portrait, "O, I should not like to have a head like that;" and then the author goes on to say, that "none can at the first look tell, whether it is a likeness of boy or woman." Does Mr. Thomson rely on this to support his theory? Is this worth discussing? Does its absurdity not stultify itself? A boy does not like the head, and the portrait, though Mr. Thomson says the head is "massive," absolutely shows so little character, that it is too effeminate to be a boy and too manly to be a woman. The second salient fact is, that Bacon was taught the language of Italy by an Italian. On this Mr. Thomson hangs a gratuitous conjecture, purely his own, and treats it as an absolute fact. We refer to the words, "who made him familiar with the romance literature afterwards interwoven into the pattern and fabric of the drama." It is a finished petitio principii, to assume precedently without one atom of proof, that a knowledge of Italian was necessary for the construction of the Shakespearean drama, and that the possession of such knowledge belonging to Bacon's private history, is one reason which makes Bacon the author of that drama. If the knowledge of Italian proves anything, the proof is worth nothing, unless there are some plays, or one play, that could not have been written without a knowledge of that language. Now, there are only four important, at least for our purpose, plays, where the plot or incident, or both. are enacted in, or connected with, modern Italy, viz: "The Two Gentlemen of Verona," "The Merchant of Venice," "Romeo and Juliet," and "Othello." We will examine these plays separately, and if we show conclusively, or even approximately, that they could have been written without the knowledge of Italian, we will have disposed of or thrown into a consumption the second salient fact in Bacon's private history, on which Mr. Thomson relies, to show that Bacon and Shakespeare were identical. First, with regard to The Two Gentlemen of Verona." The scene of this play is in the first act at Verona, and afterwards chiefly at Milan. The play contains no description of either Verona or Milan; and it bears internal evidence that it was not founded upon any historical event. There is only one historical fact mentioned in this play, and that is the Emperor holding his court at Milan, which was under the government of a Duke, who was a vassal of the Empire. Even Mr. Thomson must grant, that "The Two Gentlemen of Verona" could have been written by one, who had never seen Italy, or even heard a word of Italian. The only knowledge required to enable a man of genius to write " The Two Gentlemen of Verona" was the names of

the two places mentioned, and the one historical fact, the former of which he might have read and the latter of which he might have learnt from an English sailor or a London citizen engaged in the export and import trade. This source of information was open to Shakespeare for any other play, than those mentioned, connected directly, indirectly or remotely, with Italy. We now proceed to the "Merchant of Venice." "The story of the bond was ready to Shakespeare's hand in a ballad to which Warton first drew attention. From internal evidence there is no doubt that the ballad preceded the comedy." This is gathered from the fact that the ballad is wanting in that particular feature of the play, the intervention of Portia to save the life of the Merchant. The ballad writer professes to derive his history from the "Italian writers."

In Venice towne not longe agoe

A cruel Jew did dwell
Which lived all on usurie

As Italian writers tell.

Here, to a man like Shakespeare, is the nucleus of the whole play. The ballad must have contained something more than the three lines, which Italian writers told, for all ballads are composed of more than one verse, and what more was wanting to a man of genius to enable him to fill up every detail of the play, and to complete or change it through his humanity, by making Portia intervene to save the life of the Merchant. Hence, until the contrary is absolutely and undoubtedly proved, we assert that no knowledge of Italian was required to write "The Merchant of Venice." And lastly, with regard to "Romeo and Juliet" and "Othello." In the time of Elizabeth we are told, that there were little story books, translations into English from the original, that familiarised the people with the romance and poetry of the South. We certainly know that there was one ballad, and there might have been more. Is it likely, or probable, or even possible, that two stories so full of thrilling interest, and most prominent among Italian stories-the truth of one strengthened by its date (1303), and the existence, in the time of Byron, of Juliet's tomb; and the other related by Giraldi Cinthioshould have escaped such notice as not to have been included in the little story books, which were translated into English from the original. At least we assert the extreme probability of the truth of our conjecture, and the onus probandi of the contrary rests with him who denies it. If this be true, the knowledge of the Italian language was not necessary in order to be the author of either

"Romeo and Juliet," or "Othello." This, the second salient fact on which Mr. Thomson relies in Bacon's private history to prove that he wrote the Shakesperian drama, is so suspiciously mythical, that it looks more like shadow than substance. Besides, Mr. Thomson has not proved, nor has he asserted, that he whom he calls the 'putative poet," did not know Italian. In page 50 of Mr. Thomson's book he tells us that "Bacon was no ontologist

for he contentedly only sought after an useful knowledge in interpreting nature." In the next page he tells us that Bacon was "ever on the alert to make all knowledge his province." The italics are ours. The task of reconciling these directly contrary assertions is Mr. Thomson's, not ours. The next or third salient fact is Bacon's sojourn in France, to account for the conversation which opens "Cymbeline," and the idiomatic French chat in the courtship of Henry V. We really cannot see what a sojourn in France has to do with a conversation which opens "Cymbeline," where the scene is a garden behind Cymbeline's palace, and the country of this scene is Britain, without one word of French, or reference to France in the conversation. The sojourn in France might account for Bacon's knowledge of idiomatic French, but for the limited amount of idiomatic French in "Henry V." a sojourn in France was unnecessary. If the "putative poet"! had not so much knowledge of French as might enable him to write all the French which is printed in the plays of Shakespeare-and Mr. Thomson does not deny that he had not-he might have borrowed it from one of the many fugitives who escaped to England from France during or after the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and who naturally, for this reason, would have been much sought after and noticed, especially by such a man as Shakespeare. In any case, the mere knowledge, or want of knowledge, of so limited an amount of French proves nothing, more especially when one or the other may be so easily accounted for. Certainly a knowledge of the idiomatic French chat in Henry V. would not serve to prove that Shakespeare was Bacon, or Bacon Shakespeare. With regard to the next salient fact on which Mr. Thomson relies, viz., that Bacon, in four trips across the Channel, would "attend to the jargon of a ship's crew and be able to repeat their sea slang to the wonder of nautical experts, and to the astonishment of landsmen." Your readers, Mr. Thomson, may be credulous, but you cannot in your wildest flights, hope that their credulity is so childish as to accept this assertion without considerable modification, and much more proof than you have given of its truth or