Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy

In Short

This book serves as a meticulously curated bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy, chronicling the decades of intense debate over whether Francis Bacon, rather than William Shakespeare, authored the immortal plays. By organizing pamphlets, magazine articles, and critical reviews from the mid-19th century through 1884, it provides a neutral map of an intellectual battlefield. It has endured as an essential reference for historians of ideas, precisely because it refuses to take sides, instead offering a clear, indexed path through a labyrinth of arguments, ciphers, and competing theories about Elizabethan authorship.

The Story

The narrative arc begins in the mid-1850s, a period marked by a sudden, sharp skepticism regarding the traditional attribution of the Shakespearean canon. The catalyst for this intellectual agitation was Delia Bacon, an American whose fervent, if elusive, writings launched the theory that Shakespeare was merely a "poor player" serving as a front for a secret association of Elizabethan intellectuals led by Lord Bacon. Her work, characterized by contemporaries as dense and "obscure," sparked a firestorm of responses, ranging from bewildered dismissal to fervent endorsement by figures like William Henry Smith, the first Englishman to champion the cause.

As the years progress, the controversy migrates from small, privately circulated pamphlets to the pages of respected journals and newspapers. The debate evolves into a rigid binary: the "Pro-Sh" camp, which defends the traditional view through historical documentation and the testimony of Ben Jonson; and the "Anti-Sh" faction, which builds its case on perceived inconsistencies, legal knowledge found in the plays, and elaborate, esoteric interpretations of Bacon’s own writings. The controversy takes on a life of its own, drawing in prominent thinkers, politicians like Lord Palmerston, and even those who treat the inquiry as a form of "morbid anatomy"—a study of the wrongheadedness of clever people.

By the 1870s and early 1880s, the battle becomes increasingly specialized. The publication of books like The Promus by Mrs. Henry Pott, which catalogued thousands of "parallelisms" between Bacon’s notebooks and Shakespeare’s plays, breathes new life into the Baconian cause. Critics respond with equally exhaustive efforts to dismantle these claims, often using the same methods of text-comparison to demonstrate the fallacy of the theory. The controversy captures the imagination of the public, manifesting in lectures, banquets, and a constant stream of correspondence in journals like Notes and Queries.

The text concludes in 1884, with the controversy having reached a state of perpetual, unresolved motion. While supporters of Shakespeare argue that the "impregnable" position of the Bard is confirmed by the utter lack of evidence for a hidden authorship, the Baconians persist in their belief that history has been a grand deception. The book leaves the reader at a crossroads where the evidence, though vast, is ultimately interpreted through the lens of one’s own belief. The final entries suggest that while the "secret" of the authorship may never be revealed, the sheer volume of discourse has at least ensured that the works themselves are read, re-read, and analyzed with an intensity that the authors of the Elizabethan age could scarcely have imagined.

How It Unfolds

The initial spark The narrative begins with the emergence of the Baconian hypothesis in the 1850s, detailing how Delia Bacon’s obscure, high-minded theories first challenged the traditional attribution of the plays. These early entries capture the shock of the literary establishment as they grapple with the suggestion that the "poor player" from Stratford was a mere figurehead.

The battle lines are drawn As the controversy gains momentum, the text charts the emergence of specialized advocates like William Henry Smith and the subsequent pushback from scholars who defend Shakespeare’s reputation. This section highlights the shift from mere speculation to the attempt to use "parallelisms" and cryptology as empirical evidence.

The professionalization of the debate The middle section documents the entry of serious critics and academics into the fray, with lengthy reviews and rebuttals appearing in prominent periodicals. The debate begins to mirror a legal trial, with both sides citing contemporary testimonies, such as Ben Jonson’s, as the definitive, if disputed, proof.

The exhaustive search for truth The final stages track the descent into minutiae, including the analysis of Bacon’s Promus and the emergence of "cipher-hunters" and amateur detectives. The work culminates in a comprehensive index, proving that by 1884, the controversy had become a permanent, if eccentric, fixture of intellectual life.

The People

Delia Bacon stands as the troubled pioneer of the movement, a figure whose intellectual intensity bordered on monomania. Her quest to prove that Bacon used the plays to convey a "new science of life" made her a lightning rod for criticism and a tragic figure whose life became as debated as her theories.

William Henry Smith emerges as the first major proponent of the theory in England, though he is often cast as an opportunist who attempted to claim the theory as his own while simultaneously lecturing and writing on the subject. He represents the transition of the controversy from an eccentric American idea into a persistent British debate.

Ben Jonson is the silent, central witness whose posthumous praise of Shakespeare serves as the primary obstacle for every Baconian. Whether Jonson is viewed as a loyal friend testifying to a truth or a man perpetuating a "mortuary eulogy" to protect a professional secret, his name is invoked by both sides as the ultimate, yet maddeningly ambiguous, arbiter.

Appleton Morgan appears as a modern, multifaceted architect of the anti-Shakespearean view, constantly shifting his arguments to meet his critics. He represents the later, more cynical phase of the movement, where the search for "truth" is often replaced by a debate over whether Shakespeare was capable of the "lawyer-like" intellect displayed in the courtroom scenes of The Merchant of Venice.

In Its Own Voice

“The process by which Shakespeare is reduced to nothing is certainly startling.”

A reviewer in the Athenæum describes the audacity required to dismiss Shakespeare’s intellectual depth in favor of the Baconian theory.

“It is, perhaps, due to the various theorists that the ground-work of their opinions be known, and it is due no less to the memory of William Shakespeare that these adverse theories, and the arguments in answer, shall be so presented as to enable any one, who wishes to investigate the question, to form an intelligent opinion for himself.”

The compiler defines the book’s core purpose: to provide a balanced ledger for the reader to judge the controversy independently.

“The attempt to take from Shakespeare’s brow the laurel crown of the most glorious of bards is a vain effort to rob a dead man of well-earned honors.”

William Leighton, Jr., captures the emotional and moral stakes felt by those who believe the traditional attribution is a matter of historical justice.

What It's Really About

The central theme is the nature of genius and the anxiety of attribution. The book captures a specific cultural desire to bridge the gap between the "real" man—a provincial actor with limited documented education—and the monumental intellect required to write the plays. It asks whether we can reconcile the man with his works, or if genius is something so transcendent that it defies the biographical details of its author. Beyond the specific question of Bacon, the book is a study in the persistence of skepticism and the human need to look beneath the surface of history to find a "hidden" truth, even when the obvious one is right in front of us.

Why Read It Today

Readers who enjoy the history of ideas will find this volume deeply compelling, as it provides a rare, objective look at a cultural obsession that has refused to die for over a century. It feels like stepping into a Victorian archive, complete with the era’s characteristic mix of earnest scholarship, sharp-tongued debate, and a genuine, almost obsessive fascination with the Elizabethan age. You will encounter the voices of 19th-century critics, from the caustic to the curious, as they grapple with questions that remain relevant today.

However, the book is not a light read. It is a dense, bibliographical record—an academic tool rather than a narrative history. The prose is often formal and reflective of 19th-century intellectual attitudes, which may require patience from a modern reader accustomed to faster pacing. You should be prepared for lists of obscure pamphlets, long-forgotten newspaper articles, and the occasional repetition inherent in cataloging a decades-long argument. Yet, if you are interested in the evolution of literary criticism or the psychology of belief, the effort pays off. It offers an unparalleled view of how a "myth" is constructed, maintained, and debated, leaving you with a profound appreciation for the enduring, mysterious power of the plays themselves.