Bacon and "G. G. G."
The Speaker, February 22, 1902




To the Editor of THE SPEAKER.

SIR,—I see "G. G. G." is at me again. At first, I thought it must be because I had stolen one of the G's which he is industriously accumulating for the composition of his own name; afterwards, my mind drifted towards the unfortunate hypothesis of the man on the dark night, but now I begin to see daylight. The second letter of "G. G. G." was clearer than his first, possibly through a slight evaporation of righteous anger, and I think I can set the matter straight, and perhaps clear up what may be called (I frankly confess) this somewhat ridiculous correspondence. If "G. G. G." is only angry about the words "nasty and beastly" as applied to Bacon, a word of simple explanation will suffice. If I had invented those words out of my own head I should deserve any amount of contempt: I cannot imagine myself talking about "nasty, beastly Bacon," even in my sleep. What I did was this: I took two words- words which seemed to me exquisitely absurd— which the author I was reviewing applied to trivial misconduct of Shakespeare, and I applied them, in inverted commas, to the immense misconduct of Bacon, meaning, of course, that if the words were tolerable at all they were as tolerable about one as about the other. If drunkenness or coarseness make a man "nasty and beastly," so do intrigue and corruption. "G. G. G." speaks of bribery being common among judges; does he imagine that riot and excess were uncommon among strolling players? But the correctness of the locution I used is best shown, as so many other things are, by a simple parallel example. Sup- pose that "G. G. G." were connected, let us say, with a Liberal paper called The Thunderbolt, and that this paper in the heat of controversy used some false and insufficiently examined documents. Suppose that the Tory Press used against it some outrageous and undignified phrase, such as "another trick of the dirty, swindling Thunderbolt." And suppose "G. G. G." replied thus (but more eloquently): "Such mistakes occur in all papers, and the most painful examples of them are not in Liberal papers. The Times speaks of the 'dirty, swindling' Thunderbolt. Yet the Times itself sought the destruction of its political opponents by forgeries which would not stand a day's examination in a court of law. What about the 'dirty, swindling' Times!" If "G. G. G." wrote like this, would anyone but a baby misunderstand him? Would anyone but a fanatic imagine that "dirty" and "swindling" would be the particular adjectives he himself would have invented to describe the Times? The words might be used by "G. G. G." or myself, or anybody else. Yet this is the whole history of what I actually said, and the whole history of "G. G. G.'s" wrath, to Greece, the direful spring, &c.

All this I have said on the assumption that "G. G. G." really does not want me to "admire the moral character" of Bacon, and is really only troubled about the words "nasty and beastly"; in other words, is troubled because I selected two epithets which I did not select, but merely quoted from my opponent in inverted commas and a derisive spirit. But the rest of his letter rather leads me to suppose that after all he does object to my not admiring, or at least exculpating, the character of Bacon, and on that point I see, I must confess, little in "G. G. G.'s" contention. I have no doubt that the receiving of presents by judges was not uncommon in that time; similarly the receiving of stolen goods is not uncommon in our time; nevertheless, if I discovered that Lord Halsbury was in that line of business, I should take the liberty of calling him a bad man. And to ask me to believe that Bacon's faint and glimmering intelligence was not capable of grasping the real object with which suitors gave presents to judges, or the essential infamy of the transaction, is a ridiculous thing, especially in an admirer of Bacon's great and powerful mind. Bacon knew perfectly well that the present was a bribe, and as to his not giving judgment in accordance with it, it matters very little to me whether Bacon cheated justice or merely cheated his accomplice. If a man receives money to do a base action, he might keep faith at least with one person and do the action. I asserted that Bacon had not the honour which is essential among judges. "G. G. G.'s" reply takes the form of saying that he had not even the honour that is proverbial among thieves.

One word in conclusion about false "antitheses." In his first letter "G. G. G." gave me a specimen of my wicked and foolish paradoxes, one about the natural and the supernatural. I explained it, pointing out that such antitheses were essential and in the order of things. He has not attempted to deny the truth of that particular antithesis, and I cannot really undertake to work my way through all the idle antitheses I may ever have employed. Briefly, however, I will note the one he gives: "We are the better for every delusion, the better for every lie." Of course we are also the worse for them; but this is as common as common sense can make it. Surely, for example, it would be legitimate to say that through the advance of medical science in our hospitals we are the better for every accident, the better for every disease. And yet, of course, we are also worse. But the point is that just as the science of health is built up upon innumerable maladies, so, according to the Liberal theory, truth and justice are built up upon innumerable errors and exposures. "G. G. G." says, rather curiously in conclusion, that my example of courage involving fear is no paradox, but an obvious truth, like goodness involving power to do evil. But that was exactly what I pointed out, that all these obvious truths when examined turn out to be paradoxes, both in substance and in form. It is the doctrine of old heroic myth that we are the braver for every terror. It is the doctrine of Christian holiness that we are the better for every temptation of the devil. It is the doctrine of Liberalism and free speech that we are the better for every delusion, the better for every lie—Yours, &c.,G. K. C.