THE WORLD OF BOOKS.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18680, 1 May 1926, Page 13

THE WORLD OF BOOKS.

HALF HOURS IN A LIBRARY. (srrclALLi VTSITTIK TOR "the IZtSS.")

By A. H. Geislisg.

CLXILL-OX BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. Major-General Patrick Maxwell prefaces his entertaining volume "Pribbles and Prabhles" by saying: "There are in this world some terrible people who know everything. There are some otlierß who think they do." Either class of reader will be prone to turn wearily away when they catc-b sight of this week's headline; nevertheless the subject has a fascination for me, and I am unable to divert my thoughts into another direction. Discussing anagrams Maxwell s?ys: "Undoubtedly the most extraordinary of anagrams is that lately evolved out of "honorificabilii udini tatibus' horre.sco referens—by the lunatics who contend that Shakespeare's plnvs were written by Bacon and this particular anagram has acquired a bad eminence by reason' of the ateurd controversy on the subject." Maxwell goes on to say: The ridiculous word in question, as most peopie know, is by Shakespeare put into the mouth of the pedant Holofernes, in "Love's Labour's Lost," Aft V., Scene 1, and the lunatics just referred to have been pleased to resolve it into "Hi ludi, tulti slbi, Fr Bacono nati" —a sentence of the shakiest latinlty and the most dubious sense. Some people have translated these words as follows: "These plays claimed for himself (i.e. Shakespeare) were sprung from Francis Bacon." I do not, however, think that the passive sense In the word "claimed" can well be read into the word "tuiti," and if this be so then the translation will not hold water. Another rendering is presented in a recont number of the "Quarterly Review": "These plays, entrusted to themselves, proceeded from Francis Bacon"; regarding which the reviewer justly add«i "Magnificent, but not Latin."

A capital summary of the BaconShakespeare controversy is to be found in an appendix to the revised and enlarged edition of Sir Sidney Lee'B "Life of William Shakespeare," a book published in 1915. During the last ten or eleven years the controversy has been carried on with more or iesa vigour, and Sir Sidney Lee has not tho last word on the subject. In a pamphlet entitled "Will o' the Wisp, or . the Elusive Shakespeare" Mr George Hookham has a chapter on "Sir Sidney Lee and the Baconian Hypothesis," >n which he writes of Sir Sidney Lee. "With his vastly superior knowledge of Elizabethan, literature he does not share Mr J. M. Robertson's fanciful estimate of Bacon's style compared with Shakespeare's ; ror agiin does he adopt the attitude of Professor Churton Collins, who confesses that any view differing from that of the orthodox is so repulsive to him that he cannot even consider it. Sir Sidney lie® makee at least a show of considering." It is a ■fnelancholy reflection that all three of the men mentioned —Robertson, Collins, and Lee—are no longer here to continue the discussion. Mr Hookham's contribution, however, furnishes

a characteristic example of tho method and spirit of tho controversy: —

Sir Sidney Lee says: "Such authentic examples of Bacon's effort to write verse pray® beyond all roitibility of contradiction that he was incapable of penning: any of the poetry ascribed to Shakespeare. His "Translation of Certain Psalms into English Verse" (1625) convicts liitn of inability to rise above the level of clumsy doggerel. Now, I cannot call to mind any passage in Sir Sidney Lee's works in which he speaks as a judge or a lover of poetry—which, indeed, shows that he to«k any interest in poetry as poetry; and therefore the passages that I have quoted from Bacon's "Psalms" which, I feel confident, will Bppeal to lovers of poetry as rising far above doggerel, clumsy or otherwise, may not appeal to him. I pass this: It is the general proposition that interest" m», the proposition that anyone who wrote doggerel psalms could never rise above doggerel. It is a rash, » headlong assertion. A moment's pause would have reminded him that Milton wrote psalms, doggerel realms, more psalms and worse doggerel than Bacon's; and, moreover, psalms never rising above doggerel, as, whatever impression they produce on Sir Sidney Lee, Bacon' 6 undoubtedly do; and that in quite sustained passages. So, in proving to his own satisfaction, and no dniibt, convincingly to the already convinced, that Bacon could not by any possibility have written great poetry, he has incidentally proved that Milton could not have written Lycidas.

As i 9 the way with controversialists Mr Ifiookham endeavours to make his point by -{noting the worst of Milton's work and the best of Bacon's. The other day turning over the pages of "Songs of Praise, 1 ' I came across Milton's rendering of the Both and 86th Psalm. This book, by the way, which issues from the Oxford University Press, is an endeavour to make a collection of hymns of undoubted poetic merit and is designed to'include all that is best in the hymnology of the past combined with the cream of the work of modern hymn writers. How extremely modern the collection is may be gathered fro.n the fact that it includes some stanzas from John Masefield's "Everlasting Mercy" as well as some verses by James Stephens. Mr Hookhain c-ertainly scores when he quotes Shelley in his "Defence of Pcctry," saying of Bacon:—"He was a poet. His language has a sweet an<l majestic rhvthm that satisfies the sense no less thnn the almost superhuman wisdom of his philosophy satisfies the intellect. It is a strain which distends >:nd then bursts the circumference of the reader's mind and pours itself forth into the universal element with which it has sympathy."

The point which Mr Hookbam labours to moke is set forth in the'following personal statement:—-"I am not a convinced Baconian, but think it possible that Bacon wrote the plays; and I think that the grounds on which that has been held impossible, or even ridiculous, aro fallacious; and this it will be my object to set forth. Asked whether I believe that he did, my answer would be 'No'; if whether he did not, it would have to be the same. I have not arrived at a belief either way,—no -doubt a most unsatisfactory condition." Of the making of queer books about Shakespeare, there is no end. When in Stratford-on-Avon, a few years ago, I picked up a copy of "Shakespeare as the Pan-Judge of the World," by Charles Downing, a book published under the auspices of "The Society of the Shakspearian Reconciliation"—the spelling is worth noticing, seeing that in 1869 there was published in Philadelphia, a pariiphlet called the "Autograph of William Shakespeare, together with 4000 ways of spelling the Name." Mr Downing, addressing the reader, says: In the absents otherwise of a suitable Committee for the reception and introduction to tbe world of the Personality of Shakespeare a Society has been formed for the purpose, which Society we call "The Society of the Shakespearian Reconciliation." Our tenets are:— 1. Shokspeare in "The Sonnets' presents himself as one with tbe All, of Nature and with the Universal Spitit of Beauty, Truth, and Love: thus as Pan alive again with the Renaissance. 2. Shakspeare in "The Tempest" presents himself a* at one with the Moral Law of Nature, witb the Moral Spirit of Love, in judgment of the World: thm as Judge of tbe World with tbe Reformation. 3. Shakspeare in thus presenting himself as Pan-Judge of the World, also exempliSes and teaches in his life-work tbe evolution of Religion to a general Spiritual Reconciliation.

I do not pretend to understand what Mr Downing is driving at, any more than I can comprehend another queer book, published in Sydney five or six years back, and colled "Sonnets of Shakespeare's Ghost," the words "procured" by Gregory Thornton, The books bears this inscription: "The Spirit of William Shakespeare, sore vexed of them who say that in his Sonnets he writ not from the truth of his heart, but from the toyings of his brain, and that he devised but a feigned object to fit a feigned affection, herein maketh answer renewing as best a shadow may that rhyme wherein he was more excellent in tho living body." How far from Shakespeare is Shakespeare's Ghost as a sonneteer, may be judged in the following example of Shakespeare's spirit's muse:— I writ how once I wander'd from thy side, Serving the strong suggestions of my blood, . , Only to prove from worse things vainly tried , How f»r more precious grew thy sum or good- , , If I so lov'd thee, what is my defence, That thy dear love fail'd then my steps to stay. That idle hours were idly given to sense. And soul forsaken at tho call of clay? 0 let love grant excuse; my sensual part Dwelt ever r Irom pure untainted It held no'conversation with my heart, Nor, us'd or cheolc'd could be thine inIf on™ it trluraph'd, carrying roe «way. It stole but earth; my soul did with thee stray.

Any consideration of the Shakespearean problem must include ' The Portrait of Mr W.H." by Oscar Wilde, the manuscript of which mysteriously disappeared from Wilde's house in Tito street, Cholsca, at the time of the auction ssle of his furniture and effects, which followed his exposure and downfall. After an interval of more than a quarter of a century, what purported to be the original manuscript was offered to a New York publisher, who printed it in a limited edition, of which I managed to secure a copy. It bears tho marks of authenticity; but Wilde is not difficult to imitate, as witness another weird book, "Psychic Messages from Oscar Wilde," edited by Hester Travers Smith, with a preface by Sir William J. Barrett, which professes to give a number of messages from Wilde, in automatic writing, and received bv the Ouija board. Oscar was asked: "What do you think of the Sitwells? Have you read their poetrv?" And he is made to reply: "No" I do not spend my precious hours in catching tadpoles, i only leap into the minds of those who have a certain value. Below this standard, I do not sink." The problem of Oscar Wilde is even more bowildering than that of William Shakespeare; it is once more brought into prominence by the publication of a "New Preface" to ''The Life and Confessions of Oscar Wilde," by Frank Harris and Lord Alfred Douglas, an extraordinary production which should b. studied in connexion -with a pamphlet called "T. W. H. Crosland, A Scottish Appreciation," by W. Sorjey Brown, and also another little pamphlet called, "Moore versus Harris." All these writers, Wilde, Harris, Moore, Crosland, and Alfred Douglas are psychological problems, and one of these days I may endeavour to examine their inter-rela-tions. Meanwhile it is well to remember that the question, "Who Wrote Shakespeare?" was first asked by an American consul in 1848, and guesses as to the right answer have been going on ever since. After all, what does it matter? The main thing is that Shakespeare is now in the possession of everybody, since he who runs may read.