The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakspere Unfolded | Page 7

of the
Philosopher. So nearly did these philosophic minds, that were 'not for
an age but for all time,' approach each other in this point. But the
_protégé_ and friend and well-nigh adoring admirer of the Poet, was
also the _protégé_ and friend and well-nigh adoring admirer of the
Philosopher. The fact that these two philosophies, in this so close
juxta-position, always in contact, playing always into each other's
hands, never once heard of each other, know nothing of each other, is a
fact which would seem at the first blush to point to the secret of these
'Know-Nothings,' who are men of science in an age of popular
ignorance, and therefore have a 'secret'; who are men of science in an
age in which the questions of science are 'forbidden questions,' and are
therefore of necessity 'Know-Nothings.'
As to Ben Jonson, and the evidence of his avowed admiration for the
author of these plays, from the point of view here taken, it is sufficient
to say in passing, that this man, whose natural abilities sufficed to raise
him from a position hardly less mean and obscure than that of his great
rival, was so fortunate as to attract the attention of some of the most

illustrious personages of that time; men whose observation of natures
was quickened by their necessities; men who were compelled to
employ 'living instruments' in the accomplishment of their designs;
who were skilful in detecting the qualities they had need of, and skilful
in adapting means to ends. This dramatist's connection with the stage of
course belongs to this history. His connection with the author of these
Plays, and with the player himself, are points not to be overlooked. But
the literary history of this age is not yet fully developed. It is enough to
say here, that he chanced to be honored with the patronage of three of
the most illustrious personages of the age in which he lived. He had
three patrons. One was Sir Walter Raleigh, in whose service he was;
one was the Lord Bacon, whose well nigh idolatrous admirer he
appears also to have been; the other was Shakspere, to whose favor he
appears to have owed so much. With his passionate admiration of these
last two, stopping only 'this side of idolatry' in his admiration for them
both, and being under such deep personal obligations to them both,
why could he not have mentioned some day to the author of the
Advancement of Learning, the author of Hamlet--Hamlet who also
'lacked advancement?' What more natural than to suppose that these
two philosophers, these men of a learning so exactly equal, might have
some sympathy with each other, might like to meet each other. Till he
has answered that question, any evidence which he may have to
produce in apparent opposition to the conclusions here stated will not
be of the least value.
These are questions which any one might properly ask, who had only
glanced at the most superficial or easily accessible facts in this case,
and without any evidence from any other source to stimulate the
inquiry. These are facts which lie on the surface of this history, which
obtrude themselves on our notice, and demand inquiry.
That which lies immediately below this surface, accessible to any
research worthy of the name is, that these two so new extraordinary
developments of the modern philosophy which come to us without any
superficially avowed connexion, which come to us as branches of
learning merely, do in fact meet and unite in one stem, 'which has a
quality of entireness and continuance throughout,' even to the most

delicate fibre of them both, even to the 'roots' of their trunk, 'and the
strings of those roots,' which trunk lies below the surface of that age,
buried, carefully buried, for reasons assigned; and that it is the sap of
this concealed trunk, this new trunk of sciences, which makes both
these branches so vigorous, which makes the flowers and the fruit both
so fine, and so unlike anything that we have had from any other source
in the way of literature or art.
The question of the authorship of the great philosophic poems which
are the legacy of the Elizabethan Age to us, is an incidental question in
this inquiry, and is incidentally treated here. The discovery of the
authorship of these works was the necessary incident to that more
thorough inquiry into their nature and design, of which the views
contained in this volume are the result. At a certain stage of this
inquiry,--in the later stages of it,--that discovery became inevitable. The
primary question here is one of universal immediate practical concern
and interest. The solution of this literary problem, happens to be
involved in it. It was the necessary prescribed, pre-ordered incident