New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-03-11

guns. and so forth. What l mean Is thdI
all our large ideas about human oes
tinies, society, religion, evolution tou,
10 tremblement, are, In the rough as ol1
as homo sapiens, and that every one OF
our modern speculations has us ptoto
type I'm the thought Of the lowest saVdees
whom we are able to study. we ohly
put the notions into our scientific jar
con. That my statements are true IS
the slightly disenchanting lesson OK an
thropology 1t follows that we are not
likely TO hit on any essential idea when
had not been contemplated BY mihd
like Shakespeare.
Mr.. Stoll says that Mr.. Shaw ana
Count Tolstoy have zone much 10 eN,
Mode the notion that the thoughts anu
devices of the sixteenth century are not
different from those OF the twentieth
AS he adds that these gentlemen are
"uncritical, unhistorical in temper.
what they say about criticism and ms
tory may not be very important. In the
dxteenth century certain prevalent IDEAS
n ours-say, anarchism, socialism, athe-
ism. pantheism any ism" you please
gere "sair madden doun," but they were
all in existence. and Shakespeare hao
thrown his eve over them. "A man may
see how this world goes with no eyes;
Look with thine ears; see how yono
fuetice rails upon yond simple thier.
lark in thine ear; change places; ana
handy dandy. which is the Justice, whicn
Is the thief? None does oileno;
None, I say, None, III able them.
Tear Is the speaker; he is anarchis,
enough, modern enough, lor any MOI 'a''
however advanced
, or course If we talk popular science
about matters which we do not under
stand. such as heredity. and attribute
the same ideas to Shakespeare, We 90
him Injustice. lie was not Professor
Jon,broso. II his characters explain
things by the influences or the stars ne
does not; other characters or MS lausn
like Picodclla Mirandola, at that ola
SUPERSTITION The notion OF the supcoH-
scious self may be only century ora III
our speculation, but the Bishop or Ely
In "Henry V" seems to be familiar with
II. IL Napoleon said that Shakespeare
Rad no strategy" one asks what he lad
10 do with strategy as his forces were a
few bucklers and three rusty raplers,
do not know what a "symbollst' is.
a bore probably, and If symbolism ls
a new idea and bad idea ut is improD-
able that any idea should be new, no
doubt Shakespeare was not synooilst'
7 am not defending all the interpreters
Of Shakespeare: I am sure he Is not the
same SORT ol SHillAS az hidNN~' ''''~'s
Ibsen. He had sense Of huTor. Ger
tainly the critic is anachronistic VINO
studies Shakespeare through spectacles
provided by Ibsen and Maeterlinck. "
is the dav Of Darwin. Nietzsche ana
Pater." and therefore, It seems, we no
longer believe in compensation or retri-
hutton" We may disbelieve IN what
we please. but no critic can possibly
know what Shakespeare believed in. MI
Stoll himself has glimpse Of this: the
endinss Of Shakespeare plays warrant
no conclusions touching his views OF
life" OF course they don't, and If any
critic thinks they do he is like Lord
Chesterfields herald, who did not know
even his own silly old business" MI.
StolI seems 10 be concerned with a queer
sentimental up-to-date set OF critics,
who interpret Shakespeare into their
own ephemeral jargon. But It is just as
foolish to suppose that Shakespeare was
limited to sixteenth century ideas" All
centuries had all ideas. The religion
and the society OF the Ages or falth
were riddled through with every form or
doubt and discomfort, but authority sup
pressed them. as far as possible. l am
not Intimately familiar With the doctrines
81 Count Tolstoy. but II he has any
thing new 10 teach the author Of Pliers
pIoyman" Cwho preceded Shakespeare
bv two centuries do not know what 1t
can be. II IS only ignorance that makes
us think our ideas are new.