Considerable ingenuity and much enthusiasm have been shown by advocates of the theory which makes Lord Bacon the author of the works of Shakspere; but the theory is an absurd one, with nothing whatever to support it. The internal evidence, contained in the works of the two authors, not only gives the theory no support, but is alone enough to a sane mind completely to demolish it. The whole cast of Bacon’s mind, as shown by his known writings, was as unlike as it could be to that of the person who wrote the Shakspere dramas and sonnets. And what other evidence is adduced by those who would have us transfer to another the laurels of the man who was easily the greatest mind in all literature? None whatever. The truth is, it is the improbability from the nature of the case—or, as some would say, the impossibility—that such a person as William Shakspere, the son of a Stratford yeoman, with limited educational opportunities, whose youth was by no means promising, should have produced the works to which for two centuries his name has been attached, which is at the bottom of the theory which gives the authorship to another. This, and nothing else, originated the idea, and keeps it alive. We are told that to believe in Shakspere as the author of these works, universally acknowledged as unapproached and unapproachable, is to believe a miracle. “Whence hath this man this wisdom?” it is asked, as was asked of the Divine Man; and we are reminded that the stream never rises higher than the fountain. Shakspere could not have produced the works—the power was not in him, it is reasoned, but the wise Bacon might have done it; therefore people search for the wherewithal to substantiate an assumption giving the authorship to the latter. But we must believe the miracle; there is no escape. Did Milton write the “Paradise Lost,” and Lord Bacon the “Novum Organum?” Is the Iliad the work of Homer? It is just as certain that the Shakspere writings were the offspring of Shakspere’s genius. We admit the marvel, but there is no setting aside of the fact. And when we are asked to explain how this man could have acquired the power to produce these prodigies of human genius, we can only say, the Maker gave it to him. EDITOR’S NOTE-BOOK. The C. L. S. C. received special attention at the summer Assemblies. By referring to the reports published elsewhere in this number, our readers will learn how the Chautauqua spirit spreads, and how the organization is being strengthened in all parts of the land. * * * * * Recent Presidents of the United States have shown their taste for recreation very positively. Ex-President Grant was fond of good horses and rapid driving; ex-President Hayes visited colleges during the commencement season, and loved his farm as a quiet retreat; President Arthur turns from his arduous labors to the rod and line and long journeys, such as he has made to Florida and the West during the past year.