There is one more point of very great importance, where our author has either misapprehended the doctrine of the great writers of whose system he is the expositor, or has intentionally deviated from it, and, as we think, without due consideration. He maintains (p. 255) that material substance is radically spiritual and intelligent. Leibnitz, who is followed by a great number of the ablest philosophers of our day, taught that the ultimate components of matter are simple and indivisible, and so far similar in essence to spiritual substances. Branchereau has very ably sustained this doctrine in his philosophy, and we regard this portion of his treatise as one of the most valuable of his contributions to science. He draws the line, however, in common with all other Catholic writers with whom we are acquainted, sharply and distinctly between material and spiritual substances, as, we think, sound philosophy requires. The theory of our author opens the way to the Darwinian theory of the evolution of all the [{429}] entities of the universe from identical ultimate elements. We think he would have shown more judgment by abstaining from the expression of an immature speculation of his own on such an extremely difficult and abstruse question. A little less of positive assertion, and a little more diffidence of manner, and deference toward others, throughout the whole volume, would be more graceful in an author just at the outset of his career; especially as he is treating of those profound and momentous questions which task and often baffle the mightiest and most veteran leaders in the intellectual warfare.
Having finished the ungracious part of our critical task, we take pleasure in giving our judgment, that the design of the author in the work before us is one that is praiseworthy, and the manner of its execution such as to make it really valuable to the class of readers he has in view. It is worthy of their attentive perusal, and could not fail to benefit them if they would read and consider it with care. It is an exposition of principles and doctrines in philosophy far deeper, sounder, and more satisfactory to the intellect than is usually found in the English language; and makes accessible to those who are unacquainted with our best Catholic authors a portion of that treasure of thought which is locked up in them out of the reach of the majority of even educated men. We should like to have this book read by our students and literary men generally, and even by our professors of metaphysics in the colleges of the United States. It presents the outlines of a system far superior to that jejune psychologism of the Scottish school which is usually talked, and ought to be welcome to those who are in search of something more solid. It will also be valuable to students of philosophy in our own colleges as a companion to their text-books, as well as to English readers generally who have taste and capacity for relishing on philosophical subjects. We wish it success and a large circulation, and we trust the author will continue his contributions to literature and science.
THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORKS OF SHAKESPEARE By Nathaniel Holmes. 1 vol. 12mo, pp. 601. New York: Hurd & Houghton. 1866.
Mr. Holmes attempts, in this finely printed volume from the Riverside Press, to prove that the works of Shakespeare are not Shakespeare's, but Francis Bacon's. His argument is: Shakespeare did not write them because he could not; Francis Bacon, my lord Verulam, did write them because he could. To which it may be replied: Shakespeare could write them, because he did; Bacon did not, because he could not. That Bacon could not, is evident from the character of the man and what we know of his acknowledged writings; that Shakespeare did is the uniform tradition from their first appearance down to the present, and must be presumed until the contrary appears.
Mr. Holmes has proved, what all competent judges have always held, that the author of the works received as Shakespeare's must have had more learning and greater scientific and linguistic attainments than his biographers supposed Shakespeare to have had, but has not proved that he must have had more than Shakespeare might have had. Few persons capable of appreciating the wonderful productions attributed to Shakespeare can doubt that he was up to the scientific lore of his age; knew enough of Latin, Greek, French, Italian, and perhaps Spanish, to read and understand works written in those languages; had some general knowledge of medicine; was familiar with many of the technicalities of English law; was a profound philosopher, with more than an ordinary knowledge of Christian theology and morals. But who can say that Shakespeare might not have had all the learning and science here supposed?
We in reality know next to nothing of the facts of Shakespeare's life. We know the place and date of his birth and death, the age at which he was withdrawn from the grammar-school, and of his marriage; we know that he was in London about the age of thirty, where he chiefly resided till within two or three years of his death, as an actor, play-wright, manager, and a large stockholder in a London theatre. These, and some few business transactions and his retirement, after having accumulated a handsome property, to his native place, where his family appear to have resided, constitute nearly all that we know of William Shakespeare outside of his works; and in these facts there is nothing that proves it impossible or even difficult, [{430}] with the genius, ability, and quickness the author of Shakespeare's works must have had, for him to acquire all the learning and science those works indicate in their author.
Ben Jonson says Shakespeare had "little Latin and less Greek," but Jonson was a pedant, and his assertion meant simply no more than that he was not profoundly or critically learned either as a Greek or Latin scholar; and there is no necessity of supposing that he was. Latin and Greek were taught in the grammar-schools of his time, and as it is said he was fourteen when called home from school, it is no violent supposition to suppose that he learned enough while at school to read and understand Latin and Greek books, at least sufficiently for his purposes as a poet. We know not how or where he spent the sixteen years between leaving school, or the twelve years between his marriage and his appearance in London, but he might, for aught we know, have easily acquired during those years all the learning and knowledge of modern languages indicated by his earliest plays. It could not take a man of his genius and ability many weeks' study to master as much of law and medicine as his works indicate; and as to his theology and metaphysics, we must remember that he lived before Bacon, Hobbes, and Locke had enfeebled theology and philosophy in the English mind, and obliterated from the memory of Englishmen all traces of Catholic tradition. Shakespeare, if not a Catholic himself, had been trained to a greater or less extent in Catholic principles, and he rarely, if ever, deviates in his philosophy, his theology, or theoretic morals from Catholic tradition, still in his time retained to a great extent in spite of Protestantism by the main body of the English people.
Bearing in mind that Shakespeare wrote his plays for the stage, to be acted, and that he used without scruple any materials from whatever quarter gathered that he could lay his hands on, there is nothing wonderful in their production, except the unrivalled genius of their author. There are many self-educated men, even in our own country, who in the learning and science acquired from the study of books equal Shakespeare, but in that which comes from within no one self-educated or university-educated has ever equalled him; and not unlikely the fact that his genius had never been cramped by the pedantic rules of the university, nor his time frittered away in learning minutiae that never come into play in practical life, and which the student forgets as soon as he goes forth into the world, was in his case are great advantage—at least no disadvantage.
But we cannot forgive the author for his sacrilegious attempt to transfer of the glory of Shakespeare to Francis Bacon, a different and altogether an inferior man. Shakespeare was infinitely superior to Bacon. Even if Bacon had been great enough to write Shakespeare's plays—of which there is no evidence—he was not philosopher enough to do it. Shakespeare is always in accord with the best philosophical tradition which comes down from the ancients through the fathers and doctors of the church, as well as with the dictates of experience and common sense; Bacon begins a rupture with tradition, and places philosophy on the declivity to sensism and materialism, whose logical terminus is universal nullity. Shakespeare's philosophy is Catholic, Bacon's is Protestant, and has produced the same anarchy in science that Protestantism has in religion and morals. There is nothing like in the spirit and tone of the two men. Their morale is quite different; neither may have been blameless in life, but Shakespeare, if he sinned, did so from high spirits, joviality, heedlessness; while Bacon sinned, we we know, from sordidness, and left his name stamped with the infamy that belongs to a judge that takes bribes. Bacon, intentionally or not, has favored modern doubt and unbelief, while Shakespeare crushes the incipient doubt of his age in Hamlet and in several other of his place, and he could never have said with Bacon, atheism is better, socially and politically, than superstition. But enough. Mr. Holmes deserves no thanks for what he has done, and we do not think that he has proved his theory is not a "crazy theory."