New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-03-18

T ThRe RS6SsICTrCiHX MASK. By W. F. c. wig,ton.
svo, PIP. 436 London: Kegan Paul. TRENCH
Trubner & Co.
This is book the imprint Of which should have
hsen BedIam for a crazier composition never issued
from the press and i'm saying this we do not forget
Icnatius Donncly's lunsticsl production That the
latter is responsible for this cumbrous mass OF
rawlings is however too obvious 10 be ignored, ana
the case is clearly one by which the disastrous conse-
ouences Of the contagion of weak minds are coca
eionaly illustrated. The author OF tns vOiuWe
thinks he has a notion about Shakespeare, Bacon ana
the ROscrucians What this notion might have been
had II been evolved by healthy brain it Is Of course
impossible TO say. though ii may Teasonabl be pre-
sumed that healthy brain could not have developed
il at all But obscurcd is the whole matter by
the most muddy ard confused ratiOcination by which
any mortal strOve TO express an innatcy absurd
and preposerous idea, II presents in these pages an
unmanageabc tangle, concerning which the one CYL
dent point is that il Is not worth the trouble Of dis
ENHANCEMENT. 1t may be suTmised in dim and
ain way that the writer is trying TO establish
connection between Bacon and the Ro~icruclanS
with view to demonstrate DOnnelly's mad hypothesis
by new channel. WigStOns claim to Originality
rests upon the Roscrucian aspect of his nonsense,
and there is fine confusion about this part Of the
theory which accOrds well with the subject. and
throws into noble relief the ineptitudes, many and
various, Of the author.
wigston appears to have persuaded himself that
Bacon a Rosicrucan In aid OF this notion lie
advances the assertion that Bacons WORKS, no less
than Shakes peares, full OF ciphers 50 the " Ad-
vancement of Learning" must be regarded as cmbody
ing and oonceang from profane eyes the secret
doctrines OF the Brothers of the Rosy Cross. Why
wigs,on has failed to initiate his master. Donnclly
and give examples Of BacOn's cipher writings, it is
hard to understand because. upon DonnelyS methods,
nothing is easier for persons whose time is of no
vaue than to construct cphers, which will tell any
story required, out of any book books that ever
written. Thus no difficulties exist in the enter
prise proposed by Wigston. Undoubtedly he can
manufacture BacOnian cipher and if he possesses
the ingenuity he can reconstruct BacOn's personal
history by means of it, showing that the Chancellor
really the only pure I'm his generation, and
that all his contemporaries corrupt As il is how
ever. he has not advanced step in this direction,
which causes to suspect in him an incidence fatal
30 literary ambition of the kind he cherishes. His
Rosicrcan hypothesis moreover, is Of the slenderest
The whole edifce is based upon the occurrence. in
tie COnfesSio Fracrnitaes7 which appeared in 1917
at Frankfort. OF reference, supposed reference,
to an anonymous stage player an enemy to the
Brotherhood, and impostor. WigSton proceeds
or the assumption that the reference here is to
Shakespeare. For this assumption there is little
OF evidence on the contrary. every rational pre-
sumption favorS the conclusion that the person de
nounced by the Rosicmcian writer was Ben Jonson.
whose play, The Nchcmist" produced not long be
fore, had held up to contempt and ridcue the
occult doctrines which the Brothers Of the Rosy Cross
were supposed to believe.
Of course. it would not strengthen WigstOn'S case
il it coud be demonstrated that Shakespeare and not
JonSon rcfcHed TO in the Coniesso fratcrnitatcs
II would only cast fresh ridicule upon the whole
Baconau theory for it would put Bacon in the position
Of attacking the whose cooperation was abSo-
Iutcy essential to the carrying out Of his purposes.
Why. if Bacon were really a RCsicwcian. and If he
wrote the plays called Shlkespeac's. should he or any
Of his Roscrucian colleagues denounce Shakespeare a
all impostorl There is plainly no possible answer to
this question that i, compatible with belief in BaconS
sanity that of his Donnellian and Wigstonian up
holders. And vet this ajsWd ncOnSCqucHt and point
less imbrogio Of doubtful facts and Wild deductions
constitutes the sole dependence Of the author of this
book in connecting Bacon. Shakespeare and tn" Ro>
cruci2n>. What Wi->t IA does not lnow about the
Roscrucians indeed much surpas>cs in compass that
which is demonsrably true in bis recital. lie has an
other crazy theory to the effect that England the
main field OF Rosie ucan erdeav0r. thccrg IN support
OF which ne is unable to adduce any evidence deserving
considerations No doubt the whole subject of the RoSi
crucians is involved in ObScurity. Their very exist
ence has been denied, and it has been asserted and
stoutly maintained that the "COnfeSsO FraterntaleS'
and all the other documents put forward about the
early part Of the seventeenth century were mere hOaXes
ARRANGED for jOcular purposes By clever man OF letters
1t is at least certain that determine, on
the strength of these publications, what the RoscrU-
clans (supposing such body TO have existed really
held and taught, fov the documents referred - were
wholly unaccredited. Many surmscs have been
made in this matter II has been supposed that the
Brotherhood anu-CathOlic organization; that IL
aimed at spreading the doctrines OF the Reformation
that Il worked for the capitalization Of occut-m,
and especially alchemy that 1t had both material and
spiritual ends in view, and so forth and on al
libtum." According to WigstOn, Bacon was at the
head Of the undertaking. and in his works and in the
plays called Shakespeare's he embodied profound
occult phosophy-which. however this author has not
succeeded in dsnterring lie tries his hand az the
hackneyed and futile Baconan trick of parallelismN.
method so irrational, obviously inconcusve that
the employment of it by any writer serves demon
stration of the cabrc Of that writer's intelligence.
The fact not to perceive which carries such damaging
Implications is that all authors living in the same age
share a common field of thought. a common vocabu-
laiy and common modes of expression. Ignatus Don
nelly in his book carried his own Argument to a6-
surdy by pushing IL to the end: by this means expos
ing what every intelligent person well knows, namely,
that the delusion Of pag1ieisms can be made 20 snow
tina. any author in one ace wrote all the BOOKS
published in that 30 Donnolly with his naive
and childke faith in the power OF paralei,ms, per
SHADES himself that Bacon wrote not only the w1ks
attributed Shakespeare. but those attributed TO nearly
every ether Elizabethan playwright and poet.
IL would be quite possible. by following the same
method to prove that Herbert Spencer Tas the aphor
O. all the writings ascribed to Professor Tynddll sir
John Lubbock. Mr.. Gladstone, Cardinal Newman and
Charles Bradlaugh-to take few names haphazaId.
But the man who with a knowledge Of the writings
Of Bacon and those OF Shakespeare is capable Of be
levinG possible fOr one moment that the same brain
produced both is deficient in literary judgment dis
elimination and perception. that he would probably
see nothing startling dscrepant in this queer
mingling OF diverse and contradictory inteligcncc>.
This. indeed, IS the difficulty in arguing against such
books as Wgston's. 1t i, clear that the writer lacks
the very first and most indispensable OF critical acul
ties that he is like color blind person who should
undertake distinguish between delicate shades. To
perfectly healthy minds there is not, ami cannot be- any
room for Argument upon the Baconian deu'On; it IS
so palpabe folly and fallacy. low IT works, how
ever is painfully shown in the volume before where