Ɛpsilon

WCP3201

Letter (WCP3201.3169)

[1]

Charleston

W. Va.

U. S. A.

Jan 22. 1901

Dr A R Wallace,

Parkstone, Dorset, England.

My dear Sir,

I was glad to see by your letter1 of 4th that you were well and active. I have recently read with interest your paper on Evolution in 19th Century, in the N. Y. Sun.2 It is wonderful how that principle has come to pervade all science and religion.

As to the Shaksper [sic] books, I based my argument on the testimony of the great Shakesperean biographers and commentators. If they testify truly, my statements are correct, and the conclusions drawn are inevitable. Dr Wallace said that if Shaksper could not possibly have written the plays, somebody else must have done so.3 All that I had to do then was to prove that he could not have done it, and my argument is logical and I know it is held by a great many cultivated people to be conclusive. There is a letter from a Ph.D. in Boston, editor of a Journal, wh. I read only last week. "At last I have found time to read and enjoy your book. You have convinced me and made the old-time theory repellent. I would not have missed the book for anything". Another [2] promises me a review in his paper. Many letters have I recd from strangers of same tenor. We may strike out explanations and points made to a greater extent, and the main argument will not be affected. As, for example, all the extracts from the Quarterly Rev. and all concerning Ben Jonson.4 In the former case, as the paper on Shakesperean knowledge of natural history appeared in a high class magazine, and therefore not to be held to be correct and authoritative; and as, in the 4 years since it appeared, no repudiation of its proposition has been published (that I have seen or heard of) I had a right to take its correctness for granted.

And,5 by the way, what Dr Drake6 said, a hundred years ago, about the surprising omission in the plays of reference to the Arms or Stratford or Warwickshire, is making an argument agst Stratford authorship as the knowledge changes, if they run true.

I gave my own views of the Jonson case.7 Another man would hold a different view. As I regard Wm Shaksper to have been the champion literary impostor of this world, and as I likened Jonson somewhere know it very well. — I had to put myself in Jonsons [sic] place, and form an idea of how he came to write that Preface.8 On the other hand, Edwin [3] Reed, in "Bacon vs. Shakespeare" [illeg.] Shaksper to have been Jonsons "Poet-Ape", who acquired title to plays by purchase, & passed them off as his own. However, no matter what view in situ, Jonson lied so deliberately in that preface, that it is evident he spoke ironically.

Wm Shaksper was an ignoramus, and never had any chance for correction. His 5 signatures proven to have been written in other hands. He didn’t know how to write any more than did his father before him.

Then9 compare Shaksper with Dante and Spenser as to evidence of personal history. Spenser lived in obscurity, and much of the time in Ireland. But Shaksper lived at a time of illumination. The time was full of eminent men of letters, who note Dürer & kept note books, who wrote letters to all parts of the kingdom, & who published books. And yet, in all the literary revisions of that day, there is not a mention of Shaksper or of Shakespeare that asserted any personal knowledge of him — except the [illeg.] mention of the plays for which I cited highly. Not a [2 words illeg.] that plays [5 words illeg.]: and not the plays nor writing the Shaksper plays. As to [4] "Shakespeare", as there was no such historical man, it is plain to me the name was a pseudonym to conceal the real man.

The very many refers to Shakespeares [sic] universal knowledge are "really absurd". I refuse to believe that. I could, wished the truth, have said much more than I did.

The vocabulary10 speaks for itself. The vocaby of a scholar of minimal learning. The thoughts in Latin, Latin was as familiar to him as English.11 Thus I do not know of any man who used so extensive a vocabulary except Francis Bacon. He had the learning, the knowledge, the accomplishments, the experience of courts and gentle society, of travel and knowledge of foreign languages; and he had a practical turn of mind. — The Baconians believe Bacon wrote these plays. I believe he was fully equal to it, and only wait for more distinct proof to make me agree with the Baconians.

As to population of London in 1600. I have just looked in the Enc. Brit. & found that in 1590 the population was estimated as 160,000! C. Dickens12 is a poor parallel to Shakespeare. As to what genius can do, Dr Johnson says: [5] "Genius is nothing more than knowing the use of tools; but there must be tools for it to rise; a man who has spent all his life in his room will give a very poor account of what is certain in the next." Shaksper all his life, was shut up in a single room!

My book has sold very well, and we are preparing a second edition, in which all errors discovered will be corrected. I may consider to strike out the pages of the Quarterly paper.

We are sorry for the trouble England is passing through today. — the illness of the Queen.

Yours very truly | W H Edwards13 [signature]

Shall return to Coalburgh 1 April.

1
The letter has not been found.
2
Wallace, A. R. 1900. Evolution. Sun (New York) 68 ( 23 December): 4-5.
3
Wallace, A. R. (1893). The Bacon-Shakespeare Case. Verdict No. I. Opinions of Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace, D.C.L., The Marquis of Lorne, O. B. Frothingham, G. Kruell, Appleton Morgan, Franklin H. Head, Rev. C. A. Bartol, Henry George, and Frances E. Willard The Arena Vol. VIII pp. 222-239. This was the first of many solicited responses concerning the authorship of Shakespeare's works. The case of Bacon vs. Shakespeare was previously argued at length in The Arena Vols. VI and VII by various scholars. In the first instalment of the verdict, ARW among others rendered a verdict in favour of the defence (i.e. found Shakespeare the true author).
4
Jonson, Benjamin ("Ben") (1572-1637). English playwright, poet, actor and literary critic of the 17th century, whose artistry exerted a lasting impact upon English poetry and stage comedy.
5
From here to the end of the page ARW scored and added a question mark on the left margin. He also wrote, then deleted “applies to any author of the plays.”
6
Drake, Nathan (1766-1836). English essayist and physician. His works include several volumes of literary essays, and some papers contributed to medical periodicals. The author refers to Drake, N. (1817). Shakespeare and his Times, including the Biography of the Poet, Criticisms on his Genius, and Writings; a new Chronology of his Plays; a Disquisition on the Object of his Sonnets; and a History of the Manners, Customs and Amusements, Superstitions, Poetry and Elegant Literature of his Age (2 vols.) London, T. Cadell & W. Davies.
7
Johnson, Samuel ("Doctor Johnson") (1709-1784). English writer, poet, essayist, moralist, literary critic, biographer, editor and lexicographer. A Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1755, the standard work until publication of the OED 150 years later. His later works included essays, and an influential annotated edition of The Plays of William Shakespeare (see Endnote 13). Note the author has miss-spelt the surname of Samuel Johnson, to whom he clearly refers, citing his Preface (see Endnote 13) in the same paragraph. It is spelt correctly on page 4, referring to Johnson’s quotation on genius. The author previously referred to Ben Jonson in a different context on page 1.
8
Johnson, S. & Steevens, G. (Eds.) (1765). The Plays of William Shakespeare in Eight Volumes London, Printed for C. Bathurst and others. This was an 18th-century edition of the dramatic works of William Shakespeare. In the "Preface" to his edition, Johnson justifies trying to determine the original language of the Shakespearean plays and addresses Shakespeare's "greatness" especially in his "portrayal of human nature"; his "faults or weakness"; the plays in relationship to contemporary poetry and drama; and a history of "Shakespearean criticism and editing down to the mid-1700's".
9
From here to the end of the page ARW score and wrote on the left margin, “all this applies to any author of the plays”.
10
All the underlines made by ARW.
11
ARW wrote in the left margin, “shows literary genius”.
12
Dickens, Charles John Huffam (1812-1870). British writer and social critic, regarded as the greatest novelist of the Victorian era.
13
Edwards, William Henry (1822-1909). American entomologist, whose A Voyage Up the Amazon (1847) inspired ARW and Henry Walter Bates to travel to the Amazon.

Editorial information

Status: Draft transcription [Letter (WCP3201.3169)]

For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon

Revision history

Transcribed by O'Dell, Sandra [2018-08-15] Transcription checked by Chua, Christine [2026-04-18]

Please cite as “WCP3201,” in Beccaloni, G. W. (ed.), Ɛpsilon: The Alfred Russel Wallace Collection accessed on 5 June 2025, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/wallace/letters/WCP3201