Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-08-10

SHAKESPEARE AND LORD BACON.
. TO the Editor of the Spirit of the
| Pimes-Dear Sir: The long d lay OF my
answer being thus accounted for, L
viii now set forth, as plainly as can,
the theory of Shakspearean Yerslhca-
ton, to which you refer. As for the
Baeonian theory Of the authorship. Of
/ Shakspeare's plays, which remember
TO have been first started by Miss Ba-
con, at New Haven't prejudged 1T. 1t
appeared to me, by the force OF single
reelection. to be as unworthy OF exam
nation, as to seriously consider if two
bodies could occupy the same place at
the same time.
The rejection to which I refer to is
this: That Nhen we regard the works
of great naen-the sculpture and paint
ings of Michael Angelo, the architec-
ture of lingo Jones. the dramatic works
Of Shakespeare, and, ] am obliged to
mention for my arguments, the works
of Lord Bacon, we see the rounded
thought Of ga life,' as it grew and
spread-like one of those giant-trees Of
California, with its roots In the earth
Just where it started. The life work
of each had its roots IN an idea, a
soil, genius, mot an industry, from
which all sprang. Each such work Is,
as Isaid, the expression Of ga life,
and Of life commenced and continued
under certain auspices. He, therefore,
that wrought the one, could not have
performed the work incident to the
other, without entirely new conditions
from the start. How mach less possi-
bic is it that one could have accom-
plished the JOINT works of any taco.
Not the least among these, but, per-
haps, the greatest wonder of them all
is Shakespeare. The world has been
accustomed TO regard the author of
these marvellous plays, as the wonder of
the world and the king Of men. 1t is
certain, whoever he was, that from
childhood he was growing to the work,
eultiEating his Imagination, accumulate
ing his materials, his mind left TO its
bent, but little interfered with from
Without even too severe and strict an
education, would ha e dwarfed his
imagination, and stopped this mighty
mind in its career. Its education must
greatly have been an education OF
choice.
And now we are asked to concede that
these plays, and all that they contain,
needed no such one sided devotion and
mental proclivity, and was not 80 much
of q work after all, for Lord Bacon,
whose chief and earnest devotion of his
mind and time was not surrendered TO
this work, bat is well understood and
fully admitted BY his biography to have
been exerted In a different direction;
yet supplemented these dramatic works
as a mere pastme, in hours of relaxa-
ton from severe and absolute duties and
hbors.
It is not so unreasonable, am viii
ling to admit, apart from historical
proofs to the contrary, to dispute the |
authorship of Shakspear's plays, but |
utterly unreasonable to think to find |
the author IN one, who was at the same |
period, filling the world with a light, !
an effulgence Of a brightness of only a
somewhat lesser magnitude. So Lord |
Bacon is ruled out, by a sort Of an |
intellectual abb, for he was somewhere
else busily engrOssed with something |
else. To have done the one work, pre- |
cludes the possibility Of having done |
the other, as it would for both an oak |
and a pine tree to grow from the same
seed. Understand me, that if they |
were both works of mere literary labor |
ike those Of Schelgel for SO I judge |
Schelgel), this would not apply, but |
being both works Of genius, and one
at least the plays Of both genius and |
Of art, this does not apply.
But, to have shut the door upon the |
subject ike this, We should have lost |
the valuableresearch and analysis which |
we now get at the hands of Mr.. Wilkes.
His statement of the lack Of liberal
sentiment in Shakespeare, is quite an |
original and deeply interesting thought.
It strikes me as true. shall turn to |
the plays to confirm it, with q new
interest and scrutiny. Yours faith
fully, J. ". TAvERNER. !
i. II. ELLINGWOOD, ESQ.