New-York tribune., 1902-02-03
THE BACON HUMBUG.
A CRITICISM AND 4 REPLY.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.

TO the EdltOr OF Inc tribune.
Sir: No man consciously allies himself with
error that carries with il the ridicule and scorn
Of intelligent persons. but if the mere belief
that Sbakespeare probably was not the author
of the works that bear his name can incite his
sdEerents language that is almost lntenl-
perate, il would almost appear idle 10 attempt
10 correct some Of the misinformation Whlch
passes current facts.
Mr.. Winter says of the editors Of the First
Folio that they We're men Of character, talent,
and intelligence and that they were nelther
knayes nor sinnpletons-" So? Many years ago
Mr. Spalding CLetter on Authorship OF Two
Noble Kinsmen'O said: There Is no DOUBT put
they could at least have enumerated Snake
speare's works correctly: but their knoWiedge
and their design of proht did not suit each other
The Folio is dishonest the editors were 'un-
scrupulous and unfair and their whole con-
duct INSPIRES dfstrust" one Of the ablest of
living Shakespeare scholars, w. Adds Wright
does not hesitate Che is very polite, however, TO
convict them Of suggestio falsi, and the Cam
bridge Shakespeare editors do not mince words
either. and they believe that where the Folio
differs from the quartos il differs usually for
University says: But there is no use in mine
ing matters, and If the suggestion of the editors
Of the Folio was false in fact, il must have been
false 70 their knowledge" That the
EDITORS of the First Folio failed in their duties
when Mr Winter cites the appearance of
courtiers in the old play Of 'Gorboduc." he ap-
parenty forgets that the trend of political events
in later years caused most Of the Elizabethan-
Jacobean plays to be packed so full OF personal
illusions that playwrights were in constant
danger not only of Imprisonment but of bodily
mutilatiOn. Lyly'S plays are full OF hits at cpl
sodes in Eltzabeth's earlier career; Nash was
punished for his Isle Of Dogs; the authors OF
Eastward, Ho. We're thrown INTO PRISON anu anu
sentenced to lose their ears; Samuel Daniel Just
escaped serious trouble for his tragedy OF
''Philautus," wherein certain powerful mobiles
professed TO see hints of the Essex affair; and
Elzabeth's fury at the deposition scene Of
Shakespeares Richard II is Wen known.
When she threatened 10 put the author to the
rack. Bacon protested Nay do not rack him.
rack his style" If l correctly appreheno MI:
Winters critique on a recent performance OF
Henry W he believes Shakespeare attempted,
in that play a glorification OF that monarch and
his achievements but many critics see in 1t a
,gr. Winter cites the .Groatsworth of Wit cpl
sode but I challenge him, or any other critic. TO
prove that Shakespeare was the person alludeG
20. pleasant tradition. which has surviNed
merely because Of the numerical respectaolllty
Of its believers. it has absolutely nothing more to
Justify its application to the playwright why
sre the Shakespeare adhereuts so ready to be
iieve the ''Shake-scene'' incident, and so ready
10 discredit the 'Shake-rag' affair? Here again
lhey are unwilling to reconcile their desires Win
Again. as I showed in THE Evening Post Of
the 9th inst, we have in the 164I Beaumont
and Fletcher Folio 2 case exactly analogous to
that Of the First Folio. dedication is signed
by number of actors four of whom We're mem
bers of Shakespeares company, ana me oeal-
cation is to the same Earl of Pembroke 10
whom. with his brother Heminge ana -ot 1oiiGeIt i
dedicated the First Folio. And yet present Gay
scholarship is almost unanimous in discreditlng
the entire work. ana attributing much OF II 10
.Iassinger. I ask Mt. Winter the same question
he is so ready 70 ask Of his opponents. Shou!d
the Earl Of Pembroke and the considerable
rrrOuD of rlavers have had exact knowledge or
the Beaumont and Fletcher plays. and should we
continue 10 receive them authentic work.
EinalIv hermit me to recall the opinion of
the most competent Shakespeare worker who
ever lived the late Halliwell-Philps.. 1t was
his opinion, after a long life devoted to the
know next TO nothing OF either. and that no
statement concerning either was to be received
but with the utmost reserve. There is an OBJ
vious paraphrase that readily suggests ltseI:
CHARLES \. HERPICH.
No is Irving Place, New-York, Jan 2S' l902
In his various published notes on literary sub
iects Mr. Herpich has shown himself TO be a
diligeut and conscientious student, and his
views are. therefore, entitled to respect and
consideration.
There is no disposition the part Of the de-
tenders of Shakespeare to make use of 'intem-
perate language" Indeed, considering their
provocation, they have displayed uncommon
patience The most incorporate language
that has been used in the Shakespeare Bacon
controversy, has been used by Baconians such
as the late Mr.. Donelly and the present Mr..
w H Edwards. a little acerbity, remarked
by Mr. Andrew Lang, is. perhaps. unavoidable
in such a discussion. To those who believe
having every reason to believe, and no reason
whatever 10 doubt,-that the'plays were written
by Shakespeare. the attempt to ruin his re-
nown seems nothing less than criminal desc
Grafton.
1t has not been said. and it is not thought. by
any person acquainted with the subject that
the First Folio Of Shakespeare was thoroughly
edited or that il is free from defects; but 1t is
confidently maintained that Heminge and Con-
dell in their association with that book, were
entirely disnterested and absolutely honest,
and that without compensa ton and probably at
a pecuniary loss. they rendered service TO
literature such as entities them TO everlasting
gratitude and esteem.
Certain comment ators like those above cited
Cspalding, Wright and Madden), have been
pleased to inpugn the integrity Of Heminge and
CondeU bur. in so doing, they have gone much
further than there was ever any warrant for
them to go Heminge and Conden did not fail
in their duty the first folio is not dishonest"
and to say. insinuate, that it has been
discredited is TO the language Of gross in
justice and sheer extravaganza.
The primary defect in the first folio-the de-
feet which all modern editors of Shakespeare
have called attention. and the point upon which
so much stress is now laid,-is the discrepancy
existent between A few words of the preface
and the contents OF the book. In their "Ad-
dress" preface, Heminge and Condell say
We have scarce received from him (Shakes-
peare) q blot in his papers" 1t has been found
however. that several of the plays were. in
fact, reprinted from earlier quartos and that, in
some cases. earlier quartos that were not
suited contain a better text than the folio
This is the sum of all the fault that can be
imputed TO Heminge and Condell, except. in
deed, that the proofs of the folio were not care
fully read and scrupulously corrected: but
Heminge and Condell were not men of letters.
1t was the privilege of the undersigned to have
liPh acrrre eiv,.. f,Fz4