A 
 
 
 =^^= 1 
 
 
 - r~ 1 
 
 A 
 
 ~ o | 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 ■■ 1 
 
 
 P 
 
 
 JD 1 
 
 
 ■ .- ^^|M| 
 
 3 
 
 ^^^^^"^ o 1 
 
 6 
 
 ^^^^Z :> 1 
 
 9 
 
 ^^^^= 3 1 
 
 2 
 
 T^^^^^^s ^ 1 
 
 4 
 
 
 3 
 
 S^E5 zr 1 
 
 ^— ^— ^ j 
 
 
 ■■ < 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 Theobald 
 Ethics of Critici 
 
 sm
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 
 THE ETHICS OF 
 
 CRITICISM 
 
 llustrated by 
 
 Vlr. CHURTON COLLINS 
 
 By 
 ROBERT M. THEOBALD, M.A. 
 
 Wenn dich die Lasterzunge sticht, 
 So lass dir dieses Troste sagen : 
 Die sohlechtesten Friichte sind es nicht, 
 Woran de Wespen nagen." 
 
 WATTS & CO., 
 17, JOHNSON'S COURT, FLEET STEEET, LONDON, E.C. 
 
 Price 6d. nett
 
 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 
 
 ILLUSTRATED BY 
 
 Mil. CHUBTON COLLINS 
 
 BY 
 
 ROBERT M. THEOBALD 
 
 Wenn dich die Liisterzunge sticht, 
 So lass dir dieses Troste sagen : 
 Die schlechtesten Friichte sincl es nicht, 
 Woran de Wespen nagen." 
 
 WATTS & CO., 
 17, JOHNSON'S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C. 
 
 l'J04
 
 \ 
 
 \ 

 
 / 
 
 n 
 
 
 .s 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 A pamphlet of self-defence may itself require to be defended. 
 My chief aim in publishing the facts given in the following 
 pages is not self-vindication, much less self-assertion. It is to 
 put on record a piece of unimpeachable evidence that the 
 Baconian controversy, in the hands of the most distinguished 
 advocates of the Shakespearean side, is not fairly conducted ; 
 and that their unspeakable licence of misrepresentation and 
 detraction gives strong presumptive evidence that they are 
 themselves conscious that their case is a bad one. 
 
 R. M. Theobald. 
 
 4<J, Micheldever Road, Lee, S.E. 
 .lime, 1904. 
 
 968?'
 
 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 
 
 J'ACCUSE 
 
 My chief difficulty in bringing before the public the narra- 
 tive contained in the following pages is that the story I 
 have to tell is almost incredible. For I have to show that 
 a gentleman of very high reputation in literary circles, a 
 distinguished scholar, a well-known reviewer and teacher, 
 has spoken of three books and three authors in a quite 
 unjustifiable way ; that literally not a word of truth exists 
 in his very confident statements ; that the absolute falsity 
 of this attack on two of the three authors, and of his 
 approval and personal endorsement of the third, has been 
 demonstrated to him by documentary evidence beyond the 
 possibility of doubt— that nevertheless he adheres to this 
 unveracity and refuses to alter or modify one word of his 
 injurious imputations. This would be incredible if affirmed 
 by or of anyone ; but when the indictment is drawn up by 
 a Baconian and the illustrious person accused is a Shake- 
 spearean, the difficulty of obtaining even a fair hearing for 
 such a strange, unheard-of charge becomes immensely 
 augmented. For the accuser comes before the public — or 
 certainly before the Shakespearean section of the public — 
 with a damaged reputation ; and the accused enjoys almost 
 unlimited credit. The accusation is made by one who is 
 already branded with the imputation of mania ; he is a 
 crazy crank ; he is incapable of weighing evidence ; he does 
 not know what he is talking about when he presumes to 
 pronounce an opinion on matters relating to Elizabethan 
 literature ; men of his class have been examined by experts 
 
 5
 
 6 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 
 
 in lunacy, and in every case a diagnosis of monomania has 
 been arrived at. 1 How can the assertion of such a person 
 obtain the least credit when levelled at a literary pundit of 
 high repute ? 
 
 Nevertheless, I do venture to launch in 3' J 'accuse — a 
 formula of indictment which seems reserved for use when 
 the accused is a person of eminence. I accuse Mr. J. 
 Churton Collins of stating as fact against Dr. Webb and 
 myself, and in favour of Judge Willis as one of our oppo- 
 nents, that which the most superficial examination would 
 have shown to be entirely untrue ; I accuse him of making 
 statements which he makes no attempt to verify, and I 
 accuse him of refusing to alter or qualify his charges after 
 their falsity has been so conclusively shown that no fair 
 critic would hesitate in withdrawing them. For the 
 matters in dispute are perfectly simple, capable of almost 
 immediate verification, not requiring long or elaborate 
 research in order to reach a safe conclusion. It is a plain 
 case. If Mr. Churton Collins is correct, he can prove it at 
 once by a simple reference to the page and the words 
 where the facts on which his assertion rests are found. 
 When his accuracy is challenged, he need not spend five 
 minutes in testing it. The attack which Mr. Churton 
 Collins makes on Dr. Webb and myself is a very definite 
 one, but before making it he was bound to examine the 
 condemned writings very carefully, and to be ready with 
 chapter and verse if his accuracy is disputed. I have 
 proved that the charge he makes is so absolutely destitute 
 of foundation that it cannot possibly rest on anything 
 quotable in the two books. In that case no other origin 
 can be found for it except his own imagination ; his charge 
 is entirely, completely, absolutely baseless ; there is not an 
 atom of fact to sustain it. Now, the difficulty one finds in 
 
 1 To Mr. Sidney Lee must be given the credit of this most interesting piece 
 of information. He writes : "When any of the genuinely deluded victims 
 have been narrowly examined, they have invariably exhibited a tendency to 
 monomania." If this is to be taken seriously, it implies that some examina- 
 tions of this kind have been made by those capable of making the diagnosis.
 
 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 7 
 
 making such a charge as this is to express it with permis- 
 sible moderation. The ceremonial of modern criticism 
 does not permit the use of violent or extreme language, 
 except for privileged persons. Pascal would not be 
 allowed now to say to his disputant mentiris impudentissime, 
 and the " measureless " invective of Coriolanus would be 
 visited with wholesome and deserved rebuke. Nor am I 
 myself inclined to give to my accusation these extreme 
 forms. But, if any other explanation is to be found, it 
 must be psychologic in its nature. The case is one of 
 violent prejudice, extreme " distaste and revulsion " from 
 a hated topic, leading to distorted judgment, perverted 
 mental conceptions, delusions, and hallucinations. So, then, 
 it seems that the "Baconian mania" — to use Mr. C. 
 Collins's own tender phrase — does not stand alone ; there 
 is a " Shakespearean mania " not less virulent, not less 
 disastrous in its results, and of this disorder Mr. Churton 
 Collins is an unhappy victim. Either this or undiluted 
 judgment in the style of Pascal and Coriolanus. I prefer 
 the gentler and more charitable verdict. 
 
 For one portion of Mr. Churton Collins's inaccuracies 
 some slight extenuation may be admitted. He submitted 
 himself too obsequiously to the guidance of Judge Willis 
 in a matter on which he ought to have had independent 
 convictions of his own. Judge Willis attributes to me 
 most amazing absurdities — and these Mr. Collins in- 
 cautiously endorses — the nature of which will appear in 
 the following pages. Surely Mr. Churton Collins ought to 
 have been on his guard against the Shakespearean com- 
 petency of a critic who was quite sure that the dramatist 
 never " turned nouns into verbs." He was, I presume, not so 
 " cabined, cribbed, and confined " as to indulge in any such 
 " linguistic experiments." And he might have suspected 
 the partiality of a controversialist who thinks it necessary 
 to inform me that the Latin word contriverunt was not 
 invented by Bacon, but is to be found in classic writers of 
 a much earlier date. With these indications of ignorance 
 and incivility, Mr. Churton Collins might be expected to
 
 8 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 
 
 look narrowly into such extraordinary imputations of 
 imbecility as Judge Willis seeks to fasten upon me. 
 Evidently his reliance on one of the most vehement and 
 impetuous advocates w r ho ever thundered at the bar, and 
 compelled witnesses to deny what they wished to affirm 
 and to affirm what they wished to deny, must be explained 
 by the psychologic aberrations to which I have already 
 referred. 
 
 Now, from Mr. Churton Collins and Judge Willis I 
 appeal to the public, and from this larger tribunal I claim 
 a fair and unprejudiced hearing. And this not merely on 
 personal grounds. I think it high time that the base 
 coins used against us should be nailed to the counter, and 
 their worthlessness exhibited in a conspicuous and typical 
 instance. Too long has it been the fashion to treat the 
 Baconian controversy by empty contradictions, baseless 
 assertions, unmitigated scorn, unmeasured invective, and 
 acrimonious denunciation. These weapons are getting 
 rusty ; let them be hung up on the walls of the lowest 
 basement story of the Castle of Dogmatism. 
 
 And with this preliminary demand for an unbiassed 
 judgment I proceed to the statement of my case. 
 
 THE ATTACK 
 
 Mr. John Churton Collins, in his Studies in Shakespeare 
 (pp. 34*2-4), makes the following statements: — 
 
 "The work to which Dr. Webb owes most is not, so far 
 as we can discover, mentioned by him. This is Shakespeare 
 Studies in Baconian Light, by Robert M. Theobald. The 
 substance of Mr. Theobald's work appeared, we believe, in 
 a series of articles contributed some years ago to a leading 
 London newspaper, under the modest title of ' Dethroning 
 Shakespeare.' Mr. Theobald marshals, with laudable 
 industry, the arguments a priori and otherwise, as well as
 
 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 9 
 
 the evidence accumulated by his predecessors ; and adds 
 much new matter of his own. His most remarkable con- 
 tribution to the subject is a chapter entitled ' The Classic 
 Diction of Shakespeare,' in which he cites some 230 words 
 for the purpose of showing that the author of the Shake- 
 spearean dramas was familiar with Latin ; that, as a Latin 
 scholar, he was constantly ' making linguistic experiments,' 
 and endeavouring to enrich his native language by coining 
 new words or employing naturalised words in their strictly 
 classical sense ; that most of these words are to be found 
 in Bacon ; and that, as Bacon was a classical scholar, and 
 Shakespeare, as it is assumed, was not, the presumption is 
 that Bacon coined the words ; and that, as he coined the 
 words, and so formulated the diction of the dramas, he must 
 have been the author of those dramas. But, unfortunately, 
 Mr. Theobald's learning is not equal to his industry. His 
 ignorance of the English language anterior to and con- 
 temporary with Shakespeare, and the recklessness with 
 which he displays that ignorance, are almost incredible. 
 In nearly every case the words which Bacon is assumed to 
 have coined, or to have employed in a classical sense, are to 
 be found, and are often of frequent occurrence, in the 
 English of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. 
 Indeed, the whole chapter is an excellent illustration of 
 that pseudo-erudition and specious parade of apparently 
 conclusive testimony in which the Baconians are such 
 adepts, and which enables them to impose so easily on 
 credulous ignorance. "Whoever would see how their myths 
 fare when submitted to the scrutiny of real learning and 
 sobriety would do well to turn to Mr. Willis's recently- 
 published refutation of Mr. Theobald's fiction, entitled The 
 Baconian Mint: Its Claims Examined. Well may Mr. 
 Willis say : ' Mr. Theobald ought, in my opinion, to cancel 
 the fourteenth chapter of his work entitled " The Classic 
 Diction of Shakespeare." For, at Mr. Willis's touch, the 
 whole thing has collapsed like a house of cards. All that 
 is of any importance in Mr. Theobald's contribution to the 
 subject Dr. Webb assimilates, and, indeed, summarises.
 
 10 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 
 
 To Dr. Webb's learning Mr. Theobald makes no pretension, 
 and the consequence is that, while he anticipates almost all 
 his disciple's absurdities, he does not give himself away by 
 committing his disciple's blunders. But, although Dr. 
 Webb"s obligations to Mr. Theobald are so considerable, it 
 is due to Dr. Webb to say that this does not detract from 
 the importance of his work." 
 
 On reading this extraordinary account of the three books 
 referred to — Dr. Webb's, Judge Willis's, and my own— I 
 wrote to Mr. Churton Collins as follows : — 
 
 THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 32, Lee Terrace, Blackheath, S.E., 
 
 February 26th, 1904. 
 Dear Sin, 
 
 At pages 342-4 of your Studies hi Shakespeare you say, 
 " All that is of any importance in Mr. Theobald's contribution to 
 the subject Dr. Webb assimilates, and, indeed, summarises." 
 And you say that Dr. Webb's obligations to Mr. Theobald are 
 " considerable." 
 
 Will you do me the favour to point out the "summary" 
 referred to in Judge Webb's book, and some specimen or 
 specimens of the "obligations" which you say Judge Webb is 
 under to Mr. Theobald's book ? I almost think you are mistaken. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Robert M. Theobald. 
 
 To this letter Mr. Collins replied : — 
 
 51, Norfolk Square, Hyde Park, W., 
 
 February 2Hth, 1904. 
 Deai: SlK, 
 
 In reply to your letter, I can only say that, if I have 
 made any misstatement with respect to Dr. Webb's indebtedness 
 to your work, it has not been deliberately, but it is right and just 
 that T should be called to account for it. I read your work and 
 his when I was writing on the subject, and the impression made
 
 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 11 
 
 on me was the impression I recorded. I am so overwhelmed 
 with urgent work that I really have not time again to procure 
 and go over the two works and reckon up the indebtedness in 
 detail. I shall be very surprised if I turn out to be in error with 
 regard to an impression so very definitely formed. 
 
 I am, yours very truly, 
 
 J. C. Collins. 
 
 Mr. Churton Collins tells me that the impression which 
 the two books compared made on his mind was "very 
 definite " ; he wrote " deliberately," not suspecting any 
 misstatements. And he admits my right to call into 
 question his accuracy. 
 
 In order to bring the subject more clearly before his mind, 
 I continued the correspondence as follows : — 
 
 82, Lee Terrace, Blackheath, S.E., 
 
 February 29th, 1904. 
 
 Dear Sie, 
 
 The gentlemanly and courteous tone of your letter 
 emboldens me to speak more freely about my contribution to the 
 Bacon -Shakespeare controversy than I should otherwise venture 
 to do. 
 
 As to Judge Webb's indebtedness to me, you say that you 
 asserted this "deliberately." And yet there is not a single 
 chapter or even page in his book that can be brought into com- 
 parison with any chapter or page in mine. Our points of view 
 are entirely different. His argument is historical and personal. 
 I have completely and advisedly neglected this side ; that is not 
 my department. I go as a plain, unlearned man to the two sets 
 of works, making no profession of deep scholarship, but, on the 
 contrary, expressly disavowing it (page 294). Still, I am not 
 entirely destitute of classic knowledge, and know more of Eliza- 
 bethan literature than I have used in my book. Here is my 
 standpoint — a lawful one, I contend. I need no larger research 
 than that supplied by a fairly complete and entirely unbiassed 
 and honest study of the texts of Bacon and Shakespeare. I 
 " display no ignorance " as you accuse me, for I make no ventures 
 outside the range of my own knowledge. The standpoint of
 
 12 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 
 
 Judge Webb is different. He also speaks of what be is capable 
 of judging and knowing, but his topic is one of historic evidence. 
 If he makes any comparison between the writings of Bacon and 
 those of Shakespeare, he selects matters which I have not touched, 
 nothing which he can possibly have derived from me, so that 
 even here, where a debt might be incurred, he is not within 
 visible distance of one. Even of this kind nothing is common to 
 him and me. Consequently, whether " deliberate " or not, your 
 assertion is entirely untrue, and I am quite sure you can never 
 justify it. But I do not stop here. I know as a fact that Judge 
 Webb bad never seen my book when he wrote his own. I sent 
 him a copy after reading his book, which he acknowledges in 
 these terms, dated June 22nd, 1902 : — " Dear Sir, — Your welcome 
 present has safely arrived at Dublin ; but for the last three weeks 
 I have been absent from home, and have been so engrossed by 
 the discharge of my official duties that I fear I have incurred the 
 charge of insensibility to your kindness by not writing before. / 
 have not yet had the opportunity of reading the work of which you 
 have kindly made me a present, and I fear that when I read it I 
 sball rind that you have anticipated me in much of my argu- 
 ment." And on July 16th he writes : "I have read your book, 
 and am at once astonished and delighted by it. What pleases 
 me more than anything else — if I am to make distinctions — is 
 the masterly way in which you have obviated the objections of 
 Tennyson and Sir Theodore Martin [and he might now add 
 Mr. Churton Collins, who repeats the same at pages 364-5] 
 against the Baconian theory, based on Bacon's treatment of 
 
 love and marriage Your treatment of the classic evidence 
 
 leaves nothing to be desired." (He could scarcely have antici- 
 pated what a notable addition to it you would make.) 
 
 These quotations, 1 presume, settle the question. You are 
 mistaken, and 1 contend that your mistake is one that you ought 
 not to have made. There is absolutely nothiny to sustain it. 
 Your amazing assertion — " All that is of any importance in Mr. 
 Theobald's contribution to the subject Dr. Webb assimilates, and, 
 indeed, summarises " —is textually contradicted by Dr. Webb's 
 own words. 
 
 Not less inexcusable is your reference to Judge Willis's 
 Baconian Mint. If you had read it with the same critical dis- 
 cernment that you have used in your study of Shakespeare's 
 classical learning, yon would at once have detected numerous
 
 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 13 
 
 errors, plentiful non-sequiturs, and a total misapprehension of 
 the matter under discussion. His book is a mare's-nest. He 
 attributes to me notions and beliefs which I have never enter- 
 tained, and certainly never even remotely expressed, and, having 
 set up this imaginary Aunt Sally, proceeds to fling missiles at it, 
 and, of course, can easily make it "collapse like a house of cards." 
 It is really a blunder from beginning to end, and a stupid, foolish, 
 unnecessary one. I need not now prove this, but enclose a copy 
 of the Preface which I have written for a cheaper issue of my 
 book, and that will show you what a ridiculous piece of Quixotic 
 tilting at windmills you have " deliberately " endorsed. If this 
 is your notion of deliberation, I wonder where you will find reck- 
 lessness. No, my dear sir ; your animus has led you astray, and 
 placed you in a false and absurd position. When you are dis- 
 cussing the problem of Shakespeare's learning, your caution and 
 thoroughness are admirable. In my view, you have proved 
 Shakespeare to have been as learned in Greek as in Latin, but 
 you will not pronounce positively on this point ; with a hesita- 
 tion and reserve which is entirely commendable, you refuse to 
 advance a step beyond that which is warranted by the evidence. 
 This, I say, is infinitely creditable. But when you come to deal 
 with the Bacon- Shakespeare controversy, all admission of doubt 
 or difficulty or perplexity is abandoned. You are not only confi- 
 dent yourself, but you treat all difference of opinion with scorn 
 and contempt. 
 
 Now, I am a far-advanced septuagenarian, and entitled to 
 speak plainly in a matter of ethics and behaviour ; and I put it 
 to you whether a little of the judicial calmness and reserve which 
 you show in discussing Shakespeare's scholarship might not be 
 employed in debating the previous questions which our contro- 
 versy raises. So many of your own conclusions — when applied 
 to the Actor-manager — rest on mere conjecture, for which not a 
 scintilla of evidence seems to me to exist, that some toleration 
 and courtesy might surely be shown for those who cannot accept 
 the evidence which appears to satisfy you. 
 
 Are you content to endorse all Willis's absurdities, and to wear 
 the cap that fits him '? You commit yourself to his assertion 
 that I am such a fool as to believe that Bacon invented — (coined 
 is your word, borrowed from Willis) — such words as Act, 
 Admiration, Advertising, Aggravate, Artificial, Capricious, Cast, 
 Casual, Circumscribe, Contain, Content, Continent, Contraction,
 
 14 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 
 
 Contrive, Convenience, Conversation, Convicted — I need not go 
 on ; all these are taken from the first fifty words of my four- 
 teenth chapter, and the same sort of list might continue for the 
 whole two hundred and thirty. Now, I ask : Do you attribute 
 to me the belief that Bacon coined these words ? — for this is 
 what you really imply. Are you quite happy in endorsing this 
 monstrous absurdity ? 
 
 Perhaps you did it inadvertently ; but you know that " an 
 offence may be inadvertent where inadvertency is sin" (Studies in 
 Shakespeare, p. 162). 
 
 The fact is that my argument is not in the least touched by 
 Willis's foolish and blundering criticisms, which you heedlessly 
 endorse. Indeed, my argument is a small buttress, which might 
 be added to the support of your larger and more stately structure, 
 and you ought to welcome it as in perfect harmony with your 
 own. It is absolutely untrue to say that I use this collection of 
 " coined " words to prove Bacon's authorship. What I do prove 
 is that the writer, whoever he was, breathes a classic atmosphere ; 
 in less than a quarter of the cases do I connect them with Bacon at 
 all, and nothing depends upon it. So that your very contemptuous 
 description of my argument on page 343 is as purely fictitious as 
 the story of Jack and the Beanstalk. Now, I am quite sure that 
 you are honest, and wish to say only what is true — or what you 
 believe to be true. But I must also tell you that this method of 
 dealing with opponents — and accepting ridiculous calumnies 
 without verification — is very dangerous for one who abhors 
 falsehood and " sinful inadvertency." You are not alone. Mr. 
 Sidney Lee — taking, as I am perfectly justified in doing, the 
 interlinear import of the words which I quote in my Preface 1 — 
 has the audacity to tell the public that a select number of 
 Baconians have been medically examined by experts in lunacy, 
 and that in all these cases a diagnosis of monomania has been 
 pronounced. Will you hunt in couples with Mr. Sidney Lee? 
 For I tell you plainly that the interlinear significance of some of 
 your statements is almost as bad. The language used on the 
 top of page 3G8 is such as no gentle critic ought to employ. It 
 is vulgar and nauseous. 
 
 Now, I am claiming decency of debate — a genuine effort to realise 
 the standpoint of those whom you consider mistaken or even 
 
 1 See also p. (footnote).
 
 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 15 
 
 deluded ; a fair balancing of evidence ; generous toleration of 
 differences ; confutation expressed in measured and non-irri- 
 tating language ; candid recognition of facts which point to 
 conclusions different from your own — and I do not think this 
 claim is unreasonable. Professor Dowden admits that my book 
 has taught him something — has interested and instructed him. 
 We have many men of great culture and level-headed judgment 
 among us. The fact that the strength of our case is admitted by 
 such eminent and capable men as Lord Penzance, Oliver W. 
 Holmes, Chief Baron Palles, Archbishop Walsh, Judge Webb, 
 Eev. Walter Begley, etc., etc., might prompt a little modesty (in 
 the vernacular and classical sense) in any controversy where the 
 reasoned persuasions of these gentlemen are concerned. 
 
 I am, dear Sir, yours very truly, 
 
 Eobert M. Theobald. 
 
 It appeared to me that by my simple statement of indis- 
 putable facts I had cleared the way for a speedy conclusion, 
 and that, however busy with other pursuits, Mr. Churton 
 Collins would be able very speedily to ascertain that he 
 had been entirely mistaken in the whole of what he had 
 written concerning the mutual relations of Dr. Webb, 
 Judge Willis, and myself. I could not, however, complain 
 if the case did not at once present itself so clearly to his 
 mind as it appeared to me ; and I was not entirely unpre- 
 pared for Mr. Collins' reply to my letter of February '29th : — 
 
 51, Norfolk Square, Hyde Park, W. 
 
 March 1st, 1904. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I am obliged to you for your letter, which I have read 
 with the care and attention which it deserves. I desire in every- 
 thing truth, but you must forgive me for saying that we are 
 probably both of us under the dominion — to some extent, at least 
 —of prejudice, and therefore I cannot accept your conclusion and 
 contentions without carefully going over the ground for myself, 
 and, as I have already explained to you, the burden of my daily 
 work is at present too urgent to admit of my doing so now. One 
 thing, however, I have no difficulty in conceding after what you
 
 16 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 
 
 tell me — namely, that Dr. "Webb did not consciously avail himself 
 of your work ; and, if my book should go into a second edition, I 
 will retract that statement and refer, with your permission, 
 to your letter. What you say about Judge Willis shall be care- 
 fully considered also. 
 
 You are quite justified in rebuking me for the very acrimonious 
 and contemptuous tone of my essay, but I am a man who feels 
 very strongly on this particular subject, and therefore I have 
 expressed myself strongly — too strongly, perhaps 
 
 I have the honour to be, dear Sir, 
 
 Yours very faithfully, 
 
 J. C. Collins. 
 
 I was not inclined to wait indefinitely — perhaps till the 
 appearance of a second edition of Mr. Churton Collins's 
 Studies — before receiving some kind of satisfaction for what 
 I considered to be an entirely baseless and unjustifiable 
 attack. In order to stimulate my assailant to an answer 
 without needless delay, I wrote as follows : — 
 
 32, Lee Terrace, Blackheath, S.E., 
 
 March 3rd, 1904. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I am obliged by your letter of March 1st, with the 
 
 promise at some future (indeterminate) time to (1) retract those 
 
 statements about Judge Webb's book which are proved to be 
 
 false by his own words (here, of course, you have no alternative) ; 
 
 and (2) reconsider Willis's criticisms. 
 
 I do not know how far the value of this admission respecting 
 
 Judge Webb is to be qualified by your speculation that his 
 
 indebtedness to me may be still real, although " unconscious "; 
 
 1 presume you mean that there may be such an accidental 
 
 coincidence between us as shall account for and excuse your 
 
 mistake. If you can substantiate this, you are welcome to do so. 
 
 But, having again read a good deal of Judge Webb's book, and 
 
 carefully examined the whole, I am convinced that you will find 
 
 in it nothing of the kind — nothing that might have been taken 
 
 from my book if it had been under his eye. I do not see how
 
 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 17 
 
 you can possibly qualify the entire withdrawal of your account of 
 the relations between the Judge and myself. You must admit 
 that he was in no sense a " disciple " of mine ; that the 
 summary which you affirmed does not exist at all ; and that you 
 cannot point out definitely one single case of apparent " obliga- 
 tion." You must admit that every word of this very emphatic 
 allegation is untrue. 
 
 You promise also to consider Willis's Mint, and the imputation 
 of coinage which he makes and which you adopt. This also is 
 to be tested. But as this is all that Willis alleges — one small 
 and yet large fact — where is the need for postponement? You 
 have only to glance over the 230 words given in my fourteenth 
 chapter, and put to your own common sense the question, " Does 
 Mr. Theobald really believe what I have attributed to him, that 
 all these 230 words were coined by Bacon, and are not to be 
 found in any books ' anterior to or contemporary with Shake- 
 speare '?" This is the whole case in a nutshell. If you do not 
 believe this, if you can find nothing in my book that implies this 
 or anything approaching to it, then I claim that you should 
 withdraw the whole description of me and my work which is 
 given on pages 342-3. That the issues involved are of this 
 simple quality you can at once see merely by reading these two 
 or three pages in your own book. So far as Willis is concerned, 
 you can settle the case in five minutes ; and even as to the 
 possible coincidences between my " disciple " and me I am sure 
 you can certainly soon find them if they exist. They are of the 
 nature of parallels, and you know how valueless and deceptive 
 all parallels are when used by us. I presume you will not treat 
 your own parallels more tenderly. 
 
 Now, I protest against the postponement which you claim on 
 account of the urgent and engrossing nature of your present 
 occupations. Nothing, I conceive, can be more urgent than the 
 immediate reparation of the injustice you have done, and the 
 injurious account of me and my book to which you have given 
 your unquestionably great authority. For while you are waiting 
 for your opportunity the mischief is going on ; my credit for 
 sanity and as an expositor of our case suffers damage, and the 
 circulation of my book is checked. You certainly have access to 
 some literary journal which would gladly admit anything you 
 wish to say on the entire question, and if you desire to make any 
 personal statement the readiness to hear you would be augmented.
 
 18 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 
 
 I do not think a single day ought to lapse before this act of 
 justice is done. 
 
 As to other matters of justification which you give, I may be 
 allowed to speak briefly. I heartily commend your frank 
 admission that the tone of your essay is " very acrimonious and 
 contemptuous," and that you have spoken perhajis too strongly. 
 That confession will, I trust, be included in the amende which I 
 anticipate. You tell me in extenuation of this fault that you 
 " feel very strongly." Even so, I do not object ; only, if your 
 feelings and beliefs are held fortiter, you can still express them 
 Hiiaviter, and are bound to do so. There is a temptation for 
 anyone who feels strongly to act unwisely or intemperately, and 
 to judge hastily and unfairly. The Times critic, while not 
 entirely averse to your " hanging a Baconian," seems to point to 
 this as a sort of constitutional infirmity under which you suffer, 
 since it manifests itself in other cases than the Baconian. He 
 finds indications of " a certain captiousness in dealing Avith 
 theories or investigations which conflict with your own." He 
 says you are " impatient," etc. I presume you will scarcely be 
 disposed to question this psychologic diagnosis? Now let me put 
 it to you that it is not a little dangerous for anyone with this 
 temperament to attribute "mania" or " craziness " to his 
 opponents. Indeed, the vehemence and unreasonableness of 
 some Shakespearean apologists does appear to some of us to pass 
 outside the boundaries not only of courtesy but of sanity. I 
 could easily find illustrations of this in your book — but enough! 
 
 I have delivered my mind of its burden, and I can only 
 conclude by assuring you that, apart from your anti-Baconian 
 attitude, which seems to me to occupy a detached niche in the 
 otherwise well and fairly furnished chambers of your mind, I 
 have the greatest admiration and respect for you. And I believe 
 you are capable of casting off your unworthy prejudices, and of 
 learning the art of treating your literary opponents in a reason- 
 able and conciliatory way. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Robert M. Theobald. 
 
 \n order to facilitate Mr. Churton Collins's promised in- 
 vestigations, I wrote briefly offering him a presentation 
 copy of my book, only presuming that he would abstain
 
 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 19 
 
 from discourtesy in his further discussion. To this Mr. 
 Collins sent the following reply : — 
 
 51, Norfolk Square, Hyde Park, W., 
 
 March 6th, 1904. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I am very sensible of your kindness in offering to send 
 me a copy of your work, but will you allow me frankly to say — 
 and, indeed, there is no discourtesy intended by what I do say — 
 that this whole subject is so distasteful and repulsive to me that 
 it would not be a kindness to send me the work ? 
 I am, dear Sir, yours very faithfully, 
 
 J. C. Collins. 
 
 After waiting nearly a week I sent the following : — 
 
 32, Lee Terrace, Blackheath, S.E., 
 
 March 14th, 1904. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I have been waiting for your response to my letter of 
 3rd inst. You must yourself recognise the necessity of sending 
 a response sooner or later, for you have made a violent and 
 injurious attack upon me, every word of which I have proved to 
 be untrue. Excuse my pointing out that even in the compara- 
 tively unimportant detail of your reference to Dethroning Shake- 
 speare, the fatality of inaccuracy seems to pursue you. This 
 " modest title," as you term it (of course, for my benefit), was not 
 invented by me; it was given by the Daily Telegraph to a corre- 
 spondence which appeared in its columns, preluded by two 
 leading editorial articles, in 1887-8, — a selection from which, 
 with comments by myself, was subsequently published in a 
 volume bearing the same title. This, however, did not contain 
 the substance of my subsequent volume, Shakespeare Studies in 
 Baconian Light, as you incorrectly affirm, so that Dr. Webb 
 could not have derived his " obligations " even unconsciously 
 from this source, and I scarcely think the imported absurdities 
 to which you refer could originate thus. 
 
 My vindication rests primarily with you. Is it to be imme- 
 diate, generous, full, and courteous ? I hope so. Surely there 
 should be no Fabian policy, no dilatory shuffling, in so plain a 
 matter. Neither should my vindication be extracted from you
 
 20 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 
 
 grudgingly. I hope you will see this, and make the amende 
 
 honorable accordingly. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Kobert M. Theobald. 
 
 Mr. C Collins seems to have been stimulated by these 
 letters to make the investigation which he promised in his 
 letter of March 1st. On March 19th the following letter 
 was sent, giving me the result : — 
 
 51, Norfolk Square, Hyde Park, W., 
 
 March 19th, 1904. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 In accordance with my promise, I have compared your 
 work again with Dr. Webb's and Judge Willis's, and I see no 
 reason to alter or modify one word which I have written. You 
 prove to me by a quotation from a private letter that Dr. Webb 
 — though he practically incorporated what is of any importance 
 in your work (presumably from other sources) — had not, as a 
 matter of fact, seen it, and that statement, should my work pass 
 into a second edition, I will cite on your authority ; and that is 
 the sole concession which I feel I am justified in making. 
 
 I am, dear Sir, yours very truly, 
 
 J. C. Collins. 
 
 I confess I was hardly prepared for such a determined 
 adhesion to that which I had proved beyond the possibility 
 of doubt, for any reasonable mind, to be absolutely untrue. 
 At first I was inclined to accept the ultimatum without 
 further protest. But in order that Mr. Churton Collins 
 nimht be fully informed of the kind of exposition of his 
 methods of criticism that might be expected, also in order 
 to guard against the possible danger of publishing his 
 letters without his express permission, I wrote as follows : — 
 
 32, Lee Terrace, Blackheath, S.E., 
 
 March 22nd, 1904. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 Your letter of the 19th inst. only makes matters worse, 
 because it leaves the impression that what I charitably took for 
 the involuntary inaccuracy of an honest critic is really the reck-
 
 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 21 
 
 less calumny of an unscrupulous one. I do not like to think 
 thus of you, and beg pardon if in doing so I am unjust, and I 
 will just make one more attempt to persuade you to be as just to 
 your own character as to me. For I cannot let the matter rest 
 in its present state. Unless you publicly admit the inaccuracy of 
 all you have said about Dr. Webb, Judge Willis, and myself on 
 pages 342-4 of your book, I reserve to myself the right to 
 publish the whole correspondence, with such additional explana- 
 tions as the case requires. I shall assume your consent to the 
 publication of your letters unless you expressly forbid my doing 
 so. If you refuse permission to let the public see your replies, 
 I shall let them know that fact as well. You will probably 
 prefer that your own share should be given in your own words 
 rather than epitomised and perhaps misinterpreted in mine. 
 But I wish once more to make the attempt to convince you how 
 unjust and inaccurate you are. 
 
 As to Dr. Webb's book, you admit that he had not seen mine 
 when he wrote, but you presume that he derived his " summary" 
 of the book, his "considerable obligations to it," his " assimila- 
 tion of all that is of any importance in it," from other sources. 
 Without insisting on the absolute absurdity of assuming such 
 enormous accidental correspondence between any two books, I 
 must inform you first of all that there does not exist any book 
 or books or publication of any kind from which this summary, 
 these obligations, this assimilation, could have been derived. 
 Second, that the substance or summary of my book is not present 
 in Dr. Webb's. No summary or incorporation could possibly 
 omit some reference to the elaborate comparisons between Bacon's 
 philosophy and Shakespeare's poetry, which are the main features 
 of my book. Any such reproduction would have something to 
 say about Bacon's Philosophy of Comfort by companionship, of 
 his Philosophy of Hope, of Wonder, of Love and Business, of 
 Behaviour, some paragraphs derived from the thirteen sections 
 dealing with Bacon's philosophical maxims, not to mention the 
 incriminated chapter on the classic diction of Shakespeare. 
 Excepting one or two slight specimens, not the same as mine, of 
 classic diction, not one word on all these topics is to be found in 
 Dr. Webb's book. In fact, the absence of resemblance between 
 two books treating of the same topic is to me one of the most 
 striking features in the comparison between them. In the third 
 place, on going through Dr. Webb's book I find just eight
 
 22 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 
 
 paragraphs referring to matters which are also noticed by me ; 
 and six of these might have been taken from Donnelly or the 
 Bacon journals. In one of the other two remaining cases the 
 parallel between Bacon and Shakespeare is shown in an entirely 
 different form from that which I employ. So that the alleged 
 " obligations," the entire assimilation, the summary, is reduced 
 to one case. And yet you say that Dr. Webb uses in his own way 
 " all " that my book contains " of any importance." 
 
 As to Dethroning Shakespeare, I have transferred a few parallels 
 from this earlier publication ; but what I have now defined as 
 the substance of my later book does not exist in any form what- 
 ever, however remote and allusive, in the previous volume. 
 
 You say, adopting Judge Willis's language as your own, " Mr. 
 Theobald ought to cancel the fourteenth chapter of his book"— 
 and that for the reason that I offer in that chapter 230 specimens 
 of words coined by Bacon — for this is Willis's contention. You 
 know quite well that this is not only untrue, but that it is a 
 flagrant and ridiculous absurdity. Consequently, the whole of 
 your attack on me on pages 342-3 is based on a nonsensical 
 fiction, which you ought to have at once detected, and would have 
 detected if you had examined the books, I will not say carefully 
 and minutely, but sufficiently for the purposes of honest reviewing. 
 
 Now, if after waiting three or four days you still persist in 
 endorsing, " without any alteration or modification, every word " 
 you have written about Dr. Webb and Judge Willis and myself 
 (except the absolutely unavoidable concession extorted from you 
 by Dr. Webb's own words), I shall feel myself absolved from all 
 obligations of silence, and shall expound for the benefit of the 
 public this remarkable specimen of Shakespearean polemics. 
 
 Meanwhile, as one very small test of your accuracy, I ask you 
 to refer me to the page in Dr. Webb's book which contains his 
 summary of mine. 
 
 I am, dear Sir, Yours quite faithfully, 
 
 Robert M. Theobald. 
 
 Mr. Churton Collins, still impenitent, closes the corre- 
 spondence thus, (dated March 23rd) : — 
 
 In reply to your letter, you are quite at liberty to make any 
 use you please of what I have written to you. 
 
 I am, Ac.
 
 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 2a 
 
 MB. CHURTON COLLINS'S OPINIONS 
 
 As to Mr. Churton Collins' s general criticism of what he 
 is pleased to call the " Baconian mania," I have no inten- 
 tion of discussing it in detail ; I am chiefly concerned with 
 that part in which the three works of Dr. Webb, Judge 
 Willis, and myself are alluded to. I may, however, com- 
 ment upon some representations which he has given of the 
 entire controversy in the following passages : — 
 
 " But among these and similar paradoxes one stands alone. 
 It is not so much by its absurdity as by the absence of 
 everything which could give any colour to that absurdity, 
 that the Bacon-Shakespeare myth holds a unique place 
 among literary follies. Its supporters have no pretensions 
 to be considered even as sophists. Their systematic sub- 
 stitutions of inferences for facts and of hypotheses for 
 proofs ; their perverted analogies ; their blunders and their 
 misrepresentations; their impudent fictions; and their pro- 
 digious ignorance of the very rudiments of the literature 
 with which they are concerned, could not, for one moment, 
 impose on anyone who, with competent knowledge and a 
 candid and open mind, had taken the trouble to investigate 
 the subject. Their contentions and arguments, indeed, so 
 far from misleading any sane scholar, produce the same 
 impression on the mind as Mrs. Gamp's curls — those 
 ' bald old curls that could scarcely be called false, they 
 were so very innocent of anything approaching to decep- 
 tion," — produced on the eyes of their beholders." (Pp. 333-4.) 
 
 " In all seriousness, this Baconian craze is a subject in 
 which the student of morbid psychology is far more 
 intimately concerned than the literary critic. Ignorance 
 and vanity can account for much ; the Idols of the Cave and 
 of the Market-place for more ; but none of these, singly or 
 collectedly, can account for all. Some appear to be 
 fascinated by its sheer audacity of absurdity. Others, with 
 little judgment to start with, lose what they have in the 
 bewildering mazes of false facts, false inferences, and
 
 24 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 
 
 myriad irrelevancies of its apologists, and in mere weariness 
 and perplexity acquiesce. Some, again — and this no doubt 
 accounts for its popularity among lawyers — -are constitu- 
 tionally insensible of what relates to the aesthetic, to the 
 incredible — nay, ineffable — absurdity of supposing that the 
 author of the poems of Bacon (and he has left us ample 
 means of judging of his powers as a poet) could have been 
 
 the author of the poems attributed to Shakespeare 
 
 And so this ridiculous epidemic spreads, till it has now 
 assumed the proportions, and many of the characteristics, 
 of the dancing mania of the Middle Ages." (P. 368.) 
 
 COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS 
 
 It is sufficiently obvious, after the disclosures of the pre- 
 ceding correspondence, how completely the tables may be 
 turned on Mr. Churton Collins in respect of his fierce attack 
 on his opponents. If we are the victims of monomania, 
 surely the " strong feeling " which he admits as an explana- 
 tion of, and a partial excuse for, his " acrimonious and con- 
 temptuous " tone — the " distaste and repulsion " which he 
 also acknowledges — give a very colourable suspicion of 
 monomania to his own case. "Strong feeling" and 
 " repulsion " may be the starting-points, the very pro- 
 dromata, of an acute attack ; and the " distaste " which he 
 admits may have made the examination of that which he 
 professes to review very perfunctory and insufficient. If 
 we are to look for " blunders and misrepresentations," for 
 " impudent fictions," for " prodigious ignorance of the very 
 rudiments of the literature " which the censor presumes to 
 judge, surely we may find most characteristic specimens of 
 these choice attributes in the writings of Mr. Churton 
 Collins and Judge Willis. To affirm the " absence of all 
 colour" for our argument might be called an "impudent 
 fiction " were we to condescend to borrow our epithets from 
 our opponents, which we do not. We may safely call it a
 
 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 25 
 
 proof that the writer wilfully shuts his eyes to facts. Chief 
 Baron Palles has allowed the publication of his opinion on 
 this point, and that is that he would hang a man on evidence 
 as clear as that which is produced contra Shakespeare and 
 pro Bacon. Evidence which satisfies keen lawyers like 
 Baron Palles, Judge Holmes, Judge Webb, Lord Penzance, 
 Mr. Appleton Morgan, and Mr. Castle ; which convinces 
 such capable judges of literary excellence and individuality 
 as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mr. Furness, Count Vitzthum, 
 Walt Whitman, Rev. H. R. Haweis, Rev. Walter Begley, 
 Louis de Reynall, Professor Cantor, Rev. W. A. Sutton ; 
 which compelled assent from such sensible men of the world 
 as Lord Palmerston and John Bright ; which seriously dis- 
 turbed the Shakespeare faith of Hepworth Dixon, Charles 
 Dickens, Professor F. W. Newman, and Mr. Gladstone — 
 may be insufficient for absolute demonstration, may even 
 leave much excuse for incredulity ; but to say that it is 
 " colourless," non-existing, an outcome of mania and 
 ignorance, is simple nonsense. 
 
 In fact, the strange obliquity of judgment shown by these 
 Shakespearean apologists passes the bounds of permissible 
 comment. The writer who calls our controversy a 
 " ridiculous epidemic, which has now assumed the propor- 
 tions and many of the characteristics of the dancing mania 
 of the Middle Ages," puts himself by such an outrageous 
 utterance outside the pale of decent controversy ; answer to 
 such nonsense is impossible for those who desire to observe 
 the salutary ceremonial which limits the range of reply for 
 literary controversy. 
 
 It may be reasonably suggested that Judge Willis and 
 Mr. Churton Collins could not both have formed the 
 impression that the 230 words given in my fourteenth 
 chapter are supposed by me to have been coined by Bacon — 
 or at the very least to have been first used by him in an 
 unusual classic sense — without some plausible reason. I 
 do not think any sympathetic or unbiassed reader, 
 estimating the whole scope of my argument, could make 
 such a mistake. But it is difficult to say how much
 
 26 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 
 
 misleading is possible for a hostile critic who is eagerly 
 hunting for points of attack, and is very unwilling to be 
 diverted in his quest. Let me, then, frankly present what 
 I suppose to be the entire ground on which this conclusion 
 rests. * 
 
 The exposition of the purpose and contents of the 
 fourteenth chapter is given most distinctly in the previous 
 chapter, in which four possible lines of discussion regarding 
 Shakespeare's scholarship are pointed out. These are : — 
 (1) The classical allusions in the plays, pointing to 
 particular passages in classic writers. (2) The general 
 evidence derived from the classical plays ; which may 
 include Goriolanus, Julius Ccesar, and Antony and Cleopatra, 
 with the addition of Troilus and Cressida, and Timon of 
 Athens. The Comedy of Errors and Lucrece may come 
 either under this group or the previous one. (3) Classic 
 construction of sentences, in which the grammar is more 
 conformed to Latin usage than to English. And (4) The 
 classic diction — the subject of the fourteenth chapter. And 
 here I will give the exact terms in which the plan of this 
 chapter is announced : — 
 
 "This kind of evidence [i.e., that of the third class] is 
 still further heightened b}^ the frequent use of Latin words, 
 or words which, although English ( perhaps very familiar in 
 vernacular usage), are 3 7 et derived from the Latin, and are 
 so used as to show that the writer is not limited by their 
 imported significance, can follow them into the widely and 
 more varied range of meaning, or else into the different 
 and more restricted meanings, which they possess in their 
 original forms. This, also, is evidence that cannot be 
 disposed of by any appeal to translations. It shows that 
 the writer could use the Latin language as a mother, or 
 perhaps a step-mother, tongue ; could probably read, write, 
 and think in it, and had been accustomed to employ it in 
 all these ways." (P. 293.) 
 
 This is the only passage in which the design of this 
 chapter is expressly stated. And it will be noticed that, so 
 far from an}' intention to attribute to Bacon either the
 
 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 27 
 
 origin or the exclusive use of these words, they are stated 
 to be in many cases vernacular. And there is no claim 
 made, nor was any claim intended, that Bacon was the 
 first or only writer to use these words in a classical sense. 
 It seems to me that if Judge Willis and Mr. Churton 
 Collins had accepted this, the one authentic statement of 
 the plan of the fourteenth chapter, they could not have 
 made the mistakes against which I protest. 
 
 Probably these two writers forgot this passage, and only 
 noticed the less formal and .guarded statements of the 
 introductory paragraphs of the fourteenth chapter itself. 
 This is given in the following words : — 
 
 " The object [of this chapter] is to show that Shakespeare's 
 vocabulary was in the highest degree classic ; that Latin 
 was a language which he could use as a vehicle of his own 
 thoughts ; that his English contains very large augmenta- 
 tions from the Latin. It shows him constantly making 
 linguistic experiments, endeavouring to enrich his native 
 language by coining new words from the Latin, and that 
 even ordinary English words often became plastic and elastic 
 in his speech, carrying a larger import than their vernacular 
 employment can account for. As this kind of evidence has 
 not hitherto been very completely shown, and only in- 
 cidentally noticed, I will give as full a collection as I can of 
 words used in a classic sense by Shakespeare, either non- 
 naturalised Latin words, or else English words of Latin 
 derivation, which, dltliaugh they have a need English import, 
 yet in ordinary use do not bear all the meaning which in 
 the poet's hand they are made to bear, and which is derived 
 from their classic roots." (Pp. 318-9.) 
 
 Now, I will admit that this statement, taken by itself, 
 does not fully protect me from the false construction which 
 prejudice and bias may fasten upon me, although judicial 
 fairness and candour could not go astray. I trusted too 
 much to the more guarded definitions of the previous 
 chapter, and did not sufficiently take into consideration the 
 opportunities supplied to hostile critics, bent on mischief 
 and ready to distort evidence in support of the faults which
 
 28 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 
 
 they are seeking to find, and certainly will find unless 
 extreme precautions are taken against their perverse 
 ingenuity. And yet even this passage, standing alone, 
 ought not, I think, to have conducted any critic, however 
 hostile, to the monstrous conclusions of Willis's Baconian 
 Mint and Mr. Churton Collins's endorsement of the same. 
 In fact, the most plausible objection that might have been 
 raised is that there is nothing in the subsequent pages to 
 fulfil the announcement of " coining new words " made in 
 this introductory paragraph. Nearly all the words given are 
 obviously not newly-coined words, not invented by Bacon. 
 So that this part of the programme is tacitly ignored. 
 For, indeed, there is absolutely no claim of coinage for any 
 particular set of words ; the only claim is that Bacon's 
 habit of coining words finds some illustration in this 
 chapter, and may be operative even when he is using 
 common words. And I do not think this can be well 
 disputed. I believe that some of these words were coined 
 by Bacon ; but I am not inclined to pick them out — that is 
 too risky even for my impetuosity. And when the actual 
 imputation is made, these critics, both of them, begin to 
 say what is not true. I will confine myself to the imitator 
 and leave the original. Mr. Churton Collins says (for me) 
 that " most of these words are to be found in Bacon." But, 
 as a matter of fact, out of 230 words I only refer to Bacon 
 in fifty-seven cases — i.e., in less than a quarter of the list — 
 a clear indication of the reckless exaggeration with which 
 the charges are made. Then Mr. Churton Collins assumes, 
 without the least ground, that I display " ignorance of the 
 English language anterior to and contemporary with 
 Shakespeare," because I am supposed to say that Bacon 
 either coined those words or first used them in a classic 
 sense. The fact is that on this matter I pronounce no 
 opinion whatever — Mr. Collin's assumption is purely 
 gratuitous. Not only so ; I myself refer to other writers as 
 using the same words in the classic sense. I refer to 
 Hooker, Ben Jonson, Raleigh, Spenser, Sir Thomas 
 Browne, Sir Thomas More, Marlowe, and the English
 
 THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM 29 
 
 Prayer Book, and to some of these more than once. But, 
 apart from all this, the intention of the chapter is quite 
 clear. Coinage is not the theme ; hut classic colouring 
 classic usage. Even if the same colour and use are found in 
 other writers, that makes no difference. Any fair-minded 
 critic would recognise this, and never dream of the false 
 imputations which these two false witnesses make. A simple 
 inspection of the list ought to he quite sufficient to prevent 
 this mistake. I have given, in my letter of February 29th, 
 a selection of words, obviously vernacular, taken from the 
 first fifty, and I may be allowed to add another list taken 
 from the second fifty. They are Convince, Crisp, Defused, 
 Degenerate, Delated, Demerits, Depend, Deprave, Derogate, 
 Determine, Delated, Discoloured, Dissemble, Distract, 
 Document, Double, Eminent, Err, Exempt, Exhaust, Exhi- 
 bition, Expedient, Expedition, Fact, Factious, Fine, Forti- 
 tude, Fraction, Frustrate. Now, I confidently assert that 
 no fair-minded critic could ever speak of coinage, even as a 
 half-abandoned alternative, in respect to such words as 
 these. Only stupidity, or reckless resolution to detract, or 
 downright dishonesty, could construct such a charge out of 
 these materials. Let Judge Willis and Mr. Churton 
 Collins select for themselves the explanation that fits and 
 pleases them best. Mr. Churton Collins shows how deter- 
 mined he is to misrepresent the real purpose of this chapter 
 by his echo of Judge Willis's blundering conclusion : 
 "Well may Mr. Willis say 'Mr. Theobald ought, in my 
 opinion, to cancel the fourteenth chapter of his work entitled 
 " The Classic Diction of Shakespeare," ' for at Mr. Willis's 
 touch the whole thing has collapsed like a house of cards." 
 Now, as Mr. Willis's judgment is based entirely on the foolish 
 assumption of coinage, Mr. Churton Collins in these words 
 adopts the same absurd notion, and proves that he has not 
 taken the least trouble to ascertain what my true meaning 
 is. Anything more scandalous in literary criticism than 
 the bad blunder of these two critics I do not remember to 
 have ever seen. 
 
 It should be noticed that many other " linguistic experi-
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 Form L9-32m-8,'58(5876s4)444 
 
 I ti lli 1 ' ] ' ^ I * Y 
 
 UMVEUSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY I ACILITV 
 
 a 
 
 aulofd 1 
 
 PAMPHLET BINDER 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y. 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 
 000 369 243