Both sides a.s.sume to be omniscient, but we incontestably know much more about Bacon, in his works, his aims, his inclinations, and in his life, than we know about the actor; while about "the potentialities of genius," we know--very little.
Thus, with all Bacon"s occupations and preoccupations, he had, the Baconians will allow, GENIUS. By the miracle of genius he MAY have found time and developed inclination, to begin by furbishing up older plays for a company of actors: he did it extremely well, but what a quaint taste for a courtier and scholar! The eccentricities of genius MAY account for his choice of a "nom de plume," which, if he desired concealment, was the last that was likely to serve his turn.
He may also have divined all the Doll Tearsheets and Mrs. Quicklys and Pistols, whom, conceivably, he did not much frequent.
I am not one of those who deny that Bacon might have written Hamlet "if he had the mind," as Charles Lamb said of Wordsworth. Not at all; I am the last to limit the potentialities of genius.
But suppose, merely for the sake of argument, that Will Shakspere too had genius in that amazing degree which, in Henry V, the Bishop of Ely and the Archbishop of Canterbury describe and discuss in the case of the young king. In this pa.s.sage we perceive that the poet had brooded over and been puzzled by the "miracle" (he uses the word) of genius. Says Canterbury speaking of the Prince"s wild youth,
"Never was such a sudden scholar made."
One Baconian objection to Shakespeare"s authorship is that during his early years in London (say 1587-92) he was "such a sudden scholar made" in various things.
The young king"s
"addiction was to courses vain, His companies unletter"d, rude, and shallow,"
precisely like Shakespeare"s courses and companions at Stratford
"Had never noted in him any study."
Stratford tradition, a century after Shakespeare left the town, did not remember "any study" in him; none had been "noted," nor could have been remembered. To return to Henry, he shines in divinity, knowledge of "commonwealth affairs,"
"You would say, it hath been all in all his study."
He is as intimate with the art of war; to him "Gordian knots of policy" are "familiar as his garter." He MUST have
"The art and practic part of life,"
as "mistress to this theorie,"
"Which is a wonder how his Grace should glean it,"
as his youth was riotous, and was lived in all men"s gaze,
"And never noted in him any study, Any retirement, any sequestration From open haunts and popularity."
The Bishop of Ely can only suggest that Henry"s study or "contemplation"
"Grew like the summer gra.s.s, fastest by night, Unseen,"
and Canterbury says
"It must be so, for miracles are ceased."
And thus the miracle of genius baffles the poet, for Henry"s had been "noisy nights," notoriously noisy.
Now, as we shall later show, Bacon"s rapid production of the plays, considering his other contemporary activities and varied but always absorbing interests, was as much a miracle as the sudden blossoming of Henry"s knowledge and accomplishments; for all Bacon"s known exertions and occupations, and his deepest and most absorbing interest, were remote from the art of tragedy and comedy. If we are to admit the marvel of genius in Bacon, of whose life and pursuits we know much, by parity of reasoning we may grant that the actor, of whom we know much less, may have had genius: had powers and could use opportunities in a way for which Baconians make no allowance.
We now turn to Mr. Greenwood"s chapter, "Shakespeare and "Genius.""
It opens with the accustomed list of poor Will"s disqualifications, "a boy born of illiterate parents," but we need not rehea.r.s.e the list. {91a} He "comes to town" (date unknown) "a needy adventurer"; in 1593 appeared the poem Venus and Adonis, author"s name being printed as "W. Shakespeare." Then comes Lucrece (1594). In 1598 Love"s Labour"s Lost, printed as "corrected and augmented" by "W.
Shakespere." And so on with all the rest. Criticism of the learning and splendour of the two poems follows. To Love"s Labour"s Lost, and the amusing things written about it by Baconians, I return; and to Shakespeare"s "impossible" knowledge of courtly society, his "polish and urbanity," his familiar acquaintance with contemporary French politics, foreign proverbs, and "the gossip of the Court" of Elizabeth: these points are made by His Honour Judge Webb.
All this lore to Shakespeare is "impossible"--he could not read, say some Baconians, or had no Latin, or had next to none; on these points I have said my say. The omniscient Baconians know that all the early works ascribed to the actor were impossible, to a man of, say thirty- -who WAS no more, and KNEW no more, than they know that the actor was and knew; and as for "Genius," it cannot work miracles. Genius "bestows upon no one a knowledge of facts," "Shakespeare, however favoured by nature, could impart only what he had learned."
Precisely, but genius as I understand it (and even cleverness) has a way of acquiring knowledge of facts where the ordinary "dull intelligent man" gains none. Keen interest, keen curiosity, swift observation, even the power of tearing out the things essential from a book, the gift of rapid reading; the faculty of being alive to the fingertips,--these, with a tenacious memory, may enable a small boy to know more facts of many sorts than his elders and betters and all the neighbours. They are puzzled, if they make the discovery of his knowledge. Scott was such a small boy; whether we think him a man of genius or not. Shakspere, even the actor, was, perhaps, a man of genius, and possessed this power of rapid acquisition and vivid retention of all manner of experience and information. To what I suppose to have been his opportunities in London, I shall return.
Meanwhile, let the doubter take up any popular English books of Shakespeare"s day: he will find them replete with much knowledge wholly new to him--which he will also find in Shakespeare.
A good example is this: Judge Webb proclaimed that in points of scientific lore (the lore of that age) Shakespeare and Bacon were much on a level. Professor Tyrrell, in a newspaper, said that the facts staggered him, as a "Stratfordian." A friend told me that he too was equally moved. I replied that these pseudoscientific "facts"
had long been commonplaces. Pliny was a rich source of them.
Professor Dowden took the matter up, with full knowledge, {93a} and reconverted Mr. Tyrrell, who wrote: "I am not versed in the literature of the Shakespearian era, and I a.s.sumed that the Baconians who put forward the parallelisms had satisfied themselves that the coincidences were peculiar to the writings of the philosopher and the poet. Professor Dowden has proved that this is not so." {93b}
Were I to enter seriously on this point of genius, I should begin by requesting my adversaries to read Mr. F. W. H. Myers"s papers on "The Mechanism of Genius" (in his Human Personality), and to consider the humble problem of "Calculating Boys," which is touched on also by Cardinal Newman. How do they, at the age of innocence, arrive at their amazing results? How did the child Pascal, ignorant of Euclid, work out the Euclidean propositions of "bars and rounds," as he called lines and circles? Science has no solution!
Transport the problem into the region of poetry and knowledge of human nature, take Will in place of Pascal and Gauss, and (in manners and matter of war) Jeanne d"Arc;--and science, I fancy, is much to seek for a reply.
Mr. Greenwood considers, among others, the case of Robert Burns. The parallel is very interesting, and does not, I think, turn so much to Mr. Greenwood"s advantage as he supposes. The genius of Burns, of course, is far indeed below the level of that of the author of the Shakespearean plays. But that author and Burns have this in common with each other (and obviously with Homer), that their work arises from a basis of older materials, already manipulated by earlier artists. Burns almost always has a key-note already touched, as confessedly in the poems of his predecessor, Fergusson; of Hamilton of Gilbertfield; in songs, popular or artistic, and so forth. He "alchemised" his materials, as Mr. Greenwood says of his author of the plays; turned dross into gold, brick into marble. Notoriously much Shakespearean work is of the same nature.
The education of Burns he owed to his peasant father, to his parish school (in many such schools he might have acquired Latin and Greek; in fact he did not), to a tutor who read with him some English and French; and he knew a modernised version of Blind Harry"s Wallace; Locke"s Essay; The Spectator, novels of the day, and vernacular Scots poets of his century, with a world of old Scots songs. These things, and such as these, were Burns"s given literary materials. He used them in the only way open to him, in poems written for a rural audience, and published for an Edinburgh public. No cla.s.sical, no theatrical materials were given; or, if he read the old drama, he could not, in his rural conditions, and in a Scotland where the theatre was in a very small way, venture on producing plays, for which there was no demand, while he had no knowledge of the Stage.
Burns found and filled the only channels open to him, in a printed book, and in music books for which he trans.m.u.ted old songs.
The bookish materials offered to Will, in London, were crammed with reminiscences from the cla.s.sics, were mainly romantic and theatrical; and, from his profession of actor, by far the best channel open to him was the theatre. Badly as it paid the outside author, there was nothing that paid better. Venus and Adonis brought "more praise than pudding," if one may venture a guess. With the freedom of the theatre Will could soar to all heights and plumb all depths. No such opportunity had Burns, even if he could have used it, and, owing to a variety of causes, his spirit soon ceased to soar high or wing wide.
I take Shakespeare, in London at least, to have read the current Elizabethan light literature--Euphues, Lyly"s Court comedies, novels full of the cla.s.sics and of social life; Spenser, Sidney--his Defence of Poesy, and Arcadia (1590)--with scores of tales translated from the Italian, French, and Spanish, all full of foreign society, and discourses of knights and ladies. He saw the plays of the day, perhaps as one of "the groundlings." He often beheld Society, from without, when acting before the Queen and at great houses. He had thus, if I am right, sufficient examples of style and manner, and knowledge of how the great were supposed (in books) to comport and conduct themselves. The books were cheap, and could be borrowed, and turned over at the booksellers" stalls. {96a} The Elizabethan style was omnipresent. Suppose that Shakespeare was a clever man, a lover of reading, a rapid reader with an excellent memory, easily influenced, like Burns, by what he read, and I really think that my conjectures are not too audacious. Not only "the man in the street,"
but "the reading public" (so loved by Coleridge), have not the beginning of a guess as to the way in which a quick man reads. Watch them poring for hours over a newspaper! Let me quote what Sir Walter Raleigh says: {97a} "Shakespeare was one of those swift and masterly readers who know what they want of a book; they scorn nothing that is dressed in print, but turn over the pages with a quick discernment of all that brings them new information, or jumps with their thought, or tickles their fancy. Such a reader will have done with a volume in a few minutes, yet what he has taken from it he keeps for years. He is a live man; and is sometimes judged by slower wits to be a learned man."
I am taking Shakespeare to have been a reader of this kind, as was Dr. Johnson, as are not a few men who have no pretensions to genius.
The accomplishment is only a marvel to--well, I need not be particular about the kind of person to whom it is a marvel!
Here, in fairness, the reader should be asked to consider an eloquent pa.s.sage of comparison between the knowledge of Burns and of Will, quoted by Mr. Greenwood {97b} from Mr. Morgan. {97c}