Bacon and Shakespeare 10

Bacon and Shakespeare 10

A a a a a a I or J a b a a a R b a a a a

B a a a a b K a b a a b S b a a a b

C a a a b a L a b a b a T b a a b a

D a a a b b M a b a b b U or V b a a b b

E a a b a a N a b b a a W b a b a a

F a a b a b O a b b a b X b a b a b

G a a b b a P a b b b a Y b a b b a

H a a b b b Q a b b b b Z b a b b b

 

For the purpose of introducing this alphabet into the book which is

to contain the secret message, certain letters are taken to stand

for “a’s” and others for “b’s.” In Bacon’s illustration, he employed

two different founts of italic type, using the letters of fount “a”

to stand for “a’s,” and the letters of fount “b” to stand for “b’s.”

Bacon takes the word “fuge” to exhibit the application of the alphabet,

thus:--

 

F U G E.

a a b a b b a a b b a a b b a a a b a a

 

The word is enfolded, as an illustration, in the sentence _Manere te

volo donec venero_, as follows:--

 

MANERE TE VOLO DONEC VENERO.

 

a a b a b | b a a b b | a a b b a | a a b a a

F. | U. | G. | E.

 

A more ample example of the cipher is given on the page which is here

reproduced from Mrs. Gallup’s book. The work in which the “interiour”

letter is enfolded is the first _Epistle of Cicero_, and the cipher

letter it contains is as follows:

 

All is lost. Mindarus is killed. The soldiers want food.

We can neither get hence nor stay longer here.

 

[Illustration: _Cicero’s First Epistle._

 

(NOTE)--This Translation from Spedding, Ellis & Heath Ed.]

 

Bacon had a three-fold motive for putting his cipher into every book of

merit that was published in his day. In the first place, it allowed him

to claim the authorship of the book. In the second, in Mrs. Gallup’s

own words, “it was the means of conveying to a future time the truth

which was being concealed from the world concerning himself--his right

to be King of England--secrets of State regarding Queen Elizabeth--his

mother--and other prominent characters of that day--the correction

of English history in important particulars, the exposure of the

wrongs that had been put upon him;” and, equally important, thirdly,

of publishing his version of the wrongs he had done to others, and

to Essex in particular. Concerning the amazing diversity of style

displayed in the many works, he says in his cipher: “I varied my stile

to suit men, since no two shew the same taste and like imagination....”

“When I have assum’d men’s names, th’ next step is to create for each

a stile naturall to the man that yet should let my owne bee seene,

as a thrid of warpe in my entire fabricke.” His explanation of the

diversity of merit that is displayed in the works of Robert Greene and

of Shakespeare, is not less interesting and instructive. “It shall bee

noted in truth that some (plays) greatly exceede their fellowes in

worth, and it is easily explained. Th’ theame varied, yet was alwayes

a subject well selected to convey the secret message. Also the plays

being given out as tho’gh written by the actor, to whom each had bin

consign’d, turne one’s genius suddainlie many times to suit th’ new

man.”

 

“In this actour that wee now emploie (the cipher appears in the 1611

quarto edition of _Hamlet_), is a wittie veyne different from any

formerly employ’d. [Bacon appears to have forgotten that he employed

the ‘masque’ of Shakespeare in the quarto editions of _Richard II._

(1598), _Midsummer Night’s Dream_, _Much Ado About Nothing_, _The

Merchant of Venice_ (1600), and of _King Lear_, _Henry V._ (1608), and

_Pericles_ (1609)]. In truth it suiteth well with a native spirrit,

humourous and grave by turnes in ourself. Therefore, when wee create

a part that hath him in minde, th’ play is correspondingly better

therefor.”

 

In the cipher story which is found by Mrs. Gallup in _Titus

Andronicus_, Bacon again recurs to the superior merit of the plays put

forth in Shakespeare’s name, and he extols the merits of Shakespeare as

an interpreter of these dramas:--

 

“We can win bayes, lawrell gyrlo’ds and renowne, and we can raise a

shining monumente which shale not suffer the hardly wonne, supremest,

crowning glory to fade. Nere shal the lofty and wide-reaching honor

that such workes as these bro’t us bee lost whilst there may even a

work bee found to afforde opportunity to actors--who may play those

powerful parts which are now soe greeted with great acclayme--to winne

such names and honours as Wil Shakespear, o’ The Glob’ so well did win,

acting our dramas.

 

“That honour must to earth’s final morn yet follow him, but al fame won

from th’ authorshippe (supposed) of our plays must in good time--after

our owne worke, putting away its vayling disguises, standeth forth as

you (the decipherer) only know it--bee yeelded to us.”

 

If Mr. Mallock reposes any confidence in his Bacon--according to Mrs.

Gallup--he must at once withdraw his description of Shakespeare as a

“notoriously ill-educated actor.” Bacon himself, in the foregoing,

acknowledges that Will Shakespeare derived a well-won reputation and

honours by acting in his dramas. At the same time Bacon is confident

that the dramas will win for him, as author, “supremest, crowning, and

unfading glory.”

 

Here, almost at the outset of these cipher revelations, we are met

by a passage, plausible in itself, but which, read in the light of

our knowledge of Bacon’s doubts upon the permanency of the English

language, calls for careful consideration. Bacon rested his fame

upon his Latin writings. He wrote always for the appreciation of

posterity. As he advanced in years, he appears, says Abbott, to have

been more and more impressed with the hopelessness of any expectations

of lasting fame or usefulness based upon English books. He believed

implicitly that posterity would not preserve works written in the

modern languages--“for these modern languages will at one time or other

play the bank-rowtes (bankrupts) with books.” Of his Latin translation

of the _Advancement of Learning_, he said, “It is a book I think will

live, and be a citizen of the world, as English books will not,”

and he predicted that the Latin volume of his _Essays_ would “last

as long as books shall last.” So confident was he that his writings

would achieve immortality, that he dedicated his _Advancement of

Learning_ to the King, in order that the virtues and mental qualities

of his Majesty might be handed down to succeeding ages in “some

solid work, fixed memorial, and immortal monument.” Bacon’s pride in

his work was monumental, his “grasp on futurity” was conceived in a

spirit of “magnificent audacity;” every scrap of his writings was

jealously preserved and robed in the time-resisting garments of a dead

language. Is it conceivable in this magnificent egoist that he should

have displayed such gross carelessness, such wanton unconcern in his

plays that, but for the labours of a couple of actors in collecting

and arranging them, they would have been utterly lost? It is simply

incredible that Bacon should have based his anticipation of immortality

upon plays which for years were tossed about the world in pirated and

mutilated editions, and in many instances, until the issue of the

first folio in 1623, existed only in the form of the actor’s prompt

books. The sixteen plays, in quarto, which were in print in 1616, were

published without the co-operation of the author. They were to win for

their author unfading glory, yet he was at no pains to collect them.

The first folio was printed from the acting versions in use by the

company with which Shakespeare had been associated, and the editorial

duties were undertaken by two of Shakespeare’s friends and fellow

actors, whose motives rather than their literary fitness for the task

call for commendation. It was dedicated to two noblemen, with whom, so

far as we know, Bacon had no social or political intercourse.

 

[Illustration]

 

Mr. Theobald considers that Bacon’s “confident assurance of holding a

lasting place in literature,” his anticipation of immortality, could

only have been advanced by the man who voiced the same conviction

in the Shakespeare _Sonnets_. The deduction is based on arbitrary

conjecture, and a limited acquaintance with the literary conceits of

the time. But Shakespeare claimed as his medium of immortality the

language which Bacon predicted could not endure.

 

“So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see--

So long lives this, and this gives life to Thee,”

 

wrote Shakespeare. This was English, the purest and the sweetest that

tongue ever uttered, and Bacon was dressing his thoughts in Latin that

they might outlive the language which Shakespeare wrote. Ronsard and

Desportes, in France, and in England, Drayton, Daniel, and, indeed,

all the Elizabethan poets, had made the topic a commonplace. In his

_Apologie for Poetrie_, Sir Philip Sidney wrote that it was the custom

of poets “to tell you that they will make you immortal by their

verses,” and both Shakespeare and Bacon adopted the current conceit

when they referred to the “eternising” faculty of their literary

effusions. It is not claimed by, or for, Bacon that he was the

author of Drayton’s _Idea_ or Daniel’s _Delia_, but if Mr. Theobald’s

style of reasoning is to be taken at his own valuation, the master of

Gorhambury, and none other, was responsible for the poetic output of

both these singers.

 

 

 

 

_Bacon’s “Sterne and Tragicle History.”_

 

 

We are assured by another Baconian student that the Shakespeare plays

were not an end, but merely a means to an end, the end being the

revelation of Bacon’s history, and the composition of further plays

and poems from the material which he had warehoused in the dramas

attributed to Shakespeare and other authors. The initial, and most

important fact which Mrs. Gallup’s deciphered story reveals, is, not

that Francis Bacon was the author of Shakespeare’s plays, but that he

was the legitimate son of Queen Elizabeth, by Robert Dudley, afterwards

Earl of Leicester. The disclosure is so startling, so quaint, so

incredible, and withal so interesting, that the revelation both appeals

to and outrages our credulity. From our knowledge of Elizabeth and

of Bacon, we can more readily believe that the Queen was the mother

of Bacon, than that Bacon was the father of Shakespeare’s plays. At

Gorhambury is to be seen a pair of oil paintings, by Hilliard, of

Elizabeth and Leicester. The pictures are a match in size, style,

and treatment. The doublet in which Leicester is portrayed is of the

same material as that of the gown in which the Queen is represented.

Moreover, they were a present from Elizabeth to Sir Nicholas Bacon, the

foster father of Francis, who signs his cipher revelations, “Francis

First of England,” “Francis Bacon (Rightful) R,” “F.B. or T.” or“Francis of E.”, as the humour seized him.