erican," because
of its setting forth by Miss Delia Bacon, a New England woman, some
twenty years ago, is not and never was worth five minutes' serious
consideration by any sane human being. It is too foolish to be talked
about. No man who really knows anything about the subject has ever
given this fancy a moment's entertainment; and we regret to see that
Mr. Wilkes is at the pains of examining it carefully all through his
book. It is not worthy of refutation. We therefore set small store by
the probabilities which he accumulates against it. There is no more
ground for reasonable doubt that William Shakespeare did and Francis
Bacon did not write the plays attributed to the former than there is
for doubt that Horace Greeley did and William Henry Seward did not edit
the "Tribune" between the years 1845 and 1865. That Bacon was their
author is indeed an American point of view, it having been taken not
only by Miss Bacon, but by Judge Holmes of Missouri, and by an unknown
American writer in "Frazer's Magazine" for August, 1874. But we are
inclined to think that Miss Bacon's book is unknown to Mr. Wilkes
except at second hand, else he would not speak of that tremendous
octavo tome as a "pamphlet," which he does twice. It was as heavy
metaphorically as it was in avoirdupois. It fell dead from the press.
Nathaniel Hawthorne, who wrote the introduction to it, says in his "Old
Home" that he believes that it never had but one reader, a young man of
his acquaintance. He probably had not seen Mr. Grant White's statement,
made in some of his Shakespearian books or writings, that "for his
sins" he had read every word of it. And we must say from our knowledge
of it, that the reading ought to go largely to his credit in his
account with purgatory. Judge Holmes's book is very able and ingenious;
so much so that it is to be regretted that he did not give his learning
and his reasoning powers to better business. In Mr. Wilkes's book we
probably have heard the last of this American view of Shakespeare.

Our author also gives much attention to the questions of Shakespeare's
religious faith and his knowledge of the law. He is of the opinion that
Shakespeare was a Roman Catholic, and that he had not studied law. In
both cases we think Mr. Wilkes wrong. Such evidence as Shakespeare's
works afford goes, we think, decidedly in favor of their writer's
having been a Protestant of unusually "broad church" views for his
time, and of his having made