The Bacon- Shakespeare Folly 381 



the only thing for the law to consider. The talk 

 of the clowns brings out the humour of the case 

 with Shakespeare's inimitable lightness of touch. 



The report of the Hales case was published in 

 the volume of " Plowdeii's Eeports " which was 

 issued in 1578 ; and Mr. Holmes informs us that 

 " there is not the slightest ground for a belief, on 

 the facts which we know, that Shakespeare ever 

 looked into ' Plowden's Reports.' " This is one of 

 the cases where your stern Baconizer will not hear 

 of anything short of absolute demonstration. Mere 

 considerations of human probability might disturb 

 the cogency of a neat little pair of syllogisms : 



(1.) The author of "Hamlet" must have read 

 Plowden. Shakespeare never read Plowden. 

 Therefore Shakespeare was not the author of 

 Hamlet." 



(2.) The author of " Hamlet " must have read 

 Plowden. The lawyer, Bacon, must have read 

 Plowden. Therefore Bacon wrote " Hamlet." 



With regard to the major premise here, one may 

 freely deny it. The author of " Hamlet " might 

 easily have got all the knowledge involved from 

 an evening chat with some legal friend at an ale- 

 house. Then as to the minor premise, what earthly 

 improbability is there in Shakespeare's having 

 dipped into Plowden ? Can nobody but lawyers or 



