New-York tribune., 1902-03-20

critics had poor opinion of him. This is not sur
Bacon thought it worthy OF his fame to be6gea{n % tn
was in possession of all his faculties. he wrote his
metriCal transa tions of the Psalms. They DO not
In The Return from Parnassus, play that was was
published in 1865. there is scene between ] t hemp
They are represented as giving dramatic hints to
Few of the university pen plays well; they smell
too much Of that writer Ovid. and that writer
and Jupiter Why. here's our fellow Shakespeare
that Ben Jonson is a pestiient fellow He brought
up Horace. giving the poets a pill bat our fellow
him him beWray his credit lit ''''''
This suggests that # any attempt had been made de
the inspiration of the ''Sonnets." somebody would
And hove do lf the pe6Plo who te us gibiy that
Shakespeare was illiterate explain tins evidence %
wrights craft?
NEGLECT OF MASTERPIECES
SIN more noteworthE is the absence Of ffo any ny
bs VInrtbIes Tvmes and his neglect of the mas
terpieces that went by Shakespeares name, ne re
of his literary remains. His secretary, Dr. RaWley'
was intrusted with this responsibility and faith
death Rawiey published the first biography, of his
creation Of Shakespeare Why not? As so many
people were privy to the glorious secret RawIGy
must have known it. After thirty years there
could have been motive for concealinc H. Why
was not Rawlcl instructed to make it known. an
than burying it in a cipher? And where are the
nnmsance pdadsd sgant @ him 9 by @ who
do take tho trouble TO note that other dra-
plays Beaumont and Fletcher died in serene in
difference to the fate Of their works. which were
not published until they had been dead many Years
Haywood left on record the reluctanGe with which
he consented to tn" publication of his own works.
The Elizabethan dramatists could not So" what
they had to gain by publication; rms may seem
odd to us but it oddity clearly not confined
to Shakespeare. Bacon. on the other hand had
eye pOsterity. Hence his sCrupulous care 10
secure a literary executor. Hence the certainty
that if he had written Shakespeare he would have
preserved the @ m3nqsGripts Hence the certainty
Bacon died I'm 1926. and the First Folio Of Shake
spearc was published in 1923. Now. it is IN the
First Folio that have the blessed cipher. The
theory is that Bacon edited the Folio IN order to
introduce the cipher into the printing. but I ask
really believes that any author in revising his
unCorrecod The First m Foo as Ildge Alien says
is "A badly and careeSsly printed book. It is
much more imperfect than som" or the quartoS
lievc that Bacon either did not notice this or did
not care about it! The transatons from the
might go down TO posterity with all its imperfec-
tions its head And it never occurred 70 Bacon
TO instruct his faithful executor 10 prepare a re-
vised edition,
To any intelligent mind. unpretudced by the non
the First Folio was edited by its author. for
the simple that the author was dead
and they amCnted that Shakespeare had not lived
for that task That their testimony TO the author
SNIP IS TO pc 2l'rthroWlt py ''t El"ttSiur NJ
will occupy any serious historical student When
accomplished scholar like Martin Hume Who has
made the archives of the EliZabethan period
late beloved John FiSke. whose contempt for the
BaConau agm"nt did NOT lack cXpicitncss when a
writer Of this distinction and cali6re thinks II
worth while 10 consider whether hacor " Il'S,
family history Is well known to us as that ~
Queen Elizabeth" then l shall humbly await his
judgment.