New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-02-09
Shakespeare-Bacon
Copyright. 1918. by G. W. smaley)
London. January IL.

tlDutlOn TO the SbdhtSpedi - phNoi'
controversy is a legacy for which the
Baconians will not ne grateful Ihey
could hardly have a more dangerous
opponent. 1t is an open question
whether they ought 10 he taken serl-
Ously. Lang evidently doubted; then
his own nature determined for him the
line he should follow. A pitiless analy-
sis Of what they call evidence and a
hooking laughter at the absurdity OF
the whole business go hand in hand'
lie treats them politely as individual
men and women. For their advocacy
of Bacons authorship Of Shakespeare S
plays he has nothing but scorn. In
his heart he resents their attacks upon
the greatest Of all great regulations;
upon the man to whom English and
Americans owe more than to any other.
But he thinks ridicule a better weapon
than indignation: as it is.
Mrs. Lang, who edits her husband
book with pious and intelligent care
tells us she doubted whether to publish
it or not. Lang died before he could
revise his work, and no doubt. as she
says. he would have altered. polished,
completed his draft. But she need
nave no misgivinRs. The book as II
stands is a monument 10 her husbands
memory. There is in it no sign Of fall
ing power. The play Of mind is as free
as ever. The wit, the humor, the deli
cacy and felicity Of method which were
always his are his also in this last
piece of work l suppose the last he
ever did. II will do a service. Ii will
not convert Ignatius Donnelly. because
ne is dead II will not convert Sir
Edwin Durning-L Lawrence. because he
is living. 1t may not convert anybody
who has committed himself To the
Baconian heresy. II does not much
matter whether il does or not. But it
will have its due effect on a public
opinion which, on this subject, is Ian
guild or Indifferent The book will be
read because it is amusing 10 read, and
into the mind Of the amused reader
will sink the conviction Of the writer
After all, this is not question OF
cryptograms, Of italics, Of printers err
rors. of what / may call the physical
pccularities on which this fantastic
theory has been built. ii is, in the last
resort. a question Of intellectual per-
ception. Mr.. Lowell summed it up in a
sentence l have quoted before:
There are in existence certain verses
indisputably Bacon's. No man who
knows what poetry is can believe that
their author is the author Of Shake
speare."
on this simple proposition Lowell
loved to dwell Bacon had not the
secret of metrical structure, Of
rhythm: Of poetry in any high sense.
His mind was a mind Of another cast;
of very varied powers, capable of deal
ing with that universal knowledge
which he had taken to be his province:
not capable Of poetry. with which, in
it's proper sense, knowledge has little
or nothing 10 do. IL is not question
of writing better or worse verse al diff
ferent times. as, for example IN
Wordsworth's case prominently, and
in almost every poet more or less. Ii is
the difference between verse and prose.
Bacon was a great prose writer. a poet
ne was not and could not be. He had
for poetry an ineradicable incapa city.
Some of the gifts poet must have
Bacon had-imag inatiOn for one. You
NAV grant him imagination, but his
nrose. unlike that Of some great prose
writer's. remains always prose. Can
YOU read any page Of the Essays: any
page-even the most imaginative-of
the Noyum Organum: any page OF the
Advancement Of Learning, and conceive
II possible that this purely pedestrian
Muse had anything in common with
her who inspired the magic cadences
If Shakespeare? The majesty OF
pacon is his own. The majesty Of
Shakespeare is his own. Between the
two there is no poetic quality in com
mon.
With the Donnellys and Lawrences
Mr.. Lowelrs judgment would be- sup
lose. of no avail They do not accept
his standard They lie different
weights and measures. With others. to
whom poetry is something more than
the counting Of feet in a line, or the
shroud Of an imaginary cipher, Low .
eu,e appeal would be irresistible, lie
was. Of course besides being himself
poet. though not Of the first ordei' inc
hest or nearly the best. Ellzabethaii
scholar Of his time. He knew the
nerlod and the literature OF the period.
He was. in every sense. an accom-
plished Shakespearisn; expert IN mat
ters OF Shakespearian technique. lie
was enually an expert in Beaumont ana
Fletcher. in Marlowes mighty line III
Hevwood. i'm the whole band OF Eliza 81
hethan writer's whose real greatness is
half obscured in Shakespeare SPLEEN
dor
Mr. Lang says he himself is not an
Elizabethan. Not perhaps as Lowell
and the great editors like Dyce and
Halliweu- Phillips and Furness were.
but he knew the learning and literature
of those great days as few knew it. Hc
knew far more than any OF the Baconi-
ans knew. and could meet them on any