At once, too, in this quest, we jostle against "that fool of a word,"
as Napoleon said, "impossible." At once, on either side, we assume
that we know what is possible and what is impossible,--and so pretend
to omniscience.
Thus some "Stratfordians," or defenders of the actor's authorship,
profess to know--from all the signed work of Bacon, and from all that
has reached us about Bacon's occupations and preoccupations, from
1590 to 1605--that the theory of Bacon's authorship of the plays is
"impossible." I, however, do not profess this omniscience.
On the other side the Baconian, arguing from all that HE knows, or
thinks he knows, or can imagine, of the actor's education, conditions
of life, and opportunities, argues that the authorship of the actor
is "impossible."
Both sides assume 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.
Pages:
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95