Act 4; Macb., Act 1. It is in _Lucrece_, and also occurs in Bacon’s

acknoweldged works. He had, perhaps, as good reason as Poe to desire 'surcease of sorrow.’

Certainly, Bacon had a right to use words existing in any language. We know that he anglicized many from the Latin and the French. _Cognomen_ is of course from the Latin; _desiderata_, Mr. Candler admits, was used in 1652; _cognizante_--or as it is elsewhere spelled in the cipher, _cognisant_--might be allowed him on the ground that _cognisances_ was certainly in use.--_Henry Seventh_, p. 211; 1 Hen. VI., Act 2; Jul. Cæsar, Act 2; Cym., Act 2.

ARITHMETICAL PUZZLES.

Mr. Candler is also inaccurate in his arithmetic. He has not carefully read pp. 66 and 67, where it is explained that Latin letters, called by us Roman, were used in a few dedications, prologues, etc. I did not find these employed until the publications of 1623--in the folio and Vitæ et Mortis. I have also shown elsewhere that, at the end of short sections that did not join with other works, there were occasionally a few letters more in the exterior passage than were required for the enfolded portion. These are nulls and not used. Mr. Candler gives the number of letters in the catalogue of the plays as 850 and says the portion extracted required 860. Both numbers are wrong. The cipher enfolded required 855 letters, and that is the exact number of letters in the catalogue when the Roman type is included and the diphthongs and digraphs are regarded as separate letters.

GEOGRAPHY.

Just what Mr. Candler would have us understand by referring to the incorrect geography in the plays is not quite clear. It has no relevance to the cipher nor does it determine whether Bacon or Shakespeare would suffer most from the criticism. The same may be said of the next paragraph under “Proper Names,” for it was, and is, at least poetic license to change the pronunciation in that manner; and as to the spelling of Iliad on page 176 of the _Bi-literal_, we have in Troilus and Cressida a parallel in, “as they passe toward Illium.” Neither spelling nor pronunciation were well defined arts in Bacon’s day or in Bacon’s books.

BACON’S POETRY.

The quoted verse of this “concealed poet” speaks for itself, and on this point I may well be silent, except to say the particular poetry Mr. Candler condemns is said to have been written on a sick bed at the age of sixty-two.

It is amusing to see how many plans are made for Bacon by these critics, how many things are pointed out that he might, or should have done. Their long experience in surmising what Shakespeare may, can, must, might, could, would, or should have done in order to reconcile asserted facts has given them the habit of “guessing.”

Mr. Candler adds some footnotes, in one of which he quotes: “'Mrs. Gallup, when challenged, failed to point out the cipher, an easy matter if it really existed; and now avows that without extraordinary faculties and a kind of “inspiration,” none, save herself, need expect to perceive it.’” And adds, “It should be understood that the President and Council of the Baconian Society enter a formal _caveat_ that nothing in Mrs. Gallup’s interpretation can be said to have been satisfactorily proved.”

I remember very well the evening to which the extract from _Baconiana_ refers, when, upon the invitation of a member of the legal profession, my sister and myself explained to two prominent Baconians the method and scope of our work. In theory, they accepted--or seemed to accept--what is unmistakably true, that for different sizes of type,--pica, small pica, English, etc. Bacon arranged different alphabets. It was shown that one size of ornamental capitals belonged to the '_a_ fount,’ in another size the ornamental letters belonged to the '_b_ fount.’ This was admitted as very possible, even probable; yet when this was applied to practical demonstration of what Bacon _did_, they exclaimed: “Impossible!!” “Bacon never would have done that! etc., etc.” This could not be thought a receptive frame of mind, and just how they knew what Bacon would not have done I cannot tell.

Afterward I showed them which letters belonged to the '_b_ fount,’ in a number of lines of the Dedicatory Epistle of Spenser’s _Complaints_, in no single instance varying from the marking of the manuscript from which my book was printed. This was candidly admitted, yet, when this interview was reported, it read as above quoted.

When I first put out the cipher, I thought any one who would take the time could decipher all that I have done, but when I found people who could not distinguish between this _w_ and ~w~ to say nothing of obscure _o_'s and _e_'s, I despaired of their becoming decipherers. There are, of course, many who have a correct eye for form, who will be able in time to overcome the difficulties this study presents, but I wish to ask Mr. Candler if he does not think the small _a_'s, _c_'s, etc., of the Latin illustration in _De Augmentis Scientiarum_, which he says a child could manage, quite as bewildering as any of the Italic letters elsewhere?

At the close of Mr. Candler’s article he desires that I “get together a few men who know something about books, and add to them a printer or two, familiar with types, new and old; between them if they extract a consecutive narrative ... there is nothing more to be said.” I have extended this invitation many times, only to have it politely declined. The Editor of the _Times_ refused, more than a year ago, to consider this request. Now, having practically lost the use of my eyes for such close work as this entails, I shall be obliged to forego, for a time at least, until a greater degree of strength has returned, the satisfaction it would be to point out in detail to a committee the various differences, though it seems to me they should be readily observable without my aid. In the meantime I rest in confidence that it will be correctly done by some one, somewhere and sometime.

REPLY TO MR. MARSTON.

It seems rather infantile to call attention to the spelling, but as Mr. Marston deems it of sufficient importance to draw from it the following inference, he must think it serious. I quote from the _Times_ of January 3: “The whole thing is so transparently a concoction that a school boy who was reading this deciphered _Tragedy_ asks: 'Was Bacon a Yankee? He spells words like “labour” and “honour” without the “u”.’”

I would reply that he was the same person that wrote the Shakespeare plays. The folio shows both ways of spelling. But all the word-cipher productions were printed according to modern American usage, as in this _Tragedy of Anne Boleyn_.

Mr. Marston emphasizes the matter by a second allusion to this peculiarity as discrediting my work, in the following words: “And Mrs. Gallup asks the world to believe Bacon wrote this 'new drama’ in order to vindicate the 'honor’ of his grandmother.”

A few minutes’ examination shows, in the first four plays of Shakespeare, forty-four instances of the spelling of honor, without the _u_, against twenty-five occurrences of the word with the _u_. For the spelling of labor, I will take time and space to quote only a single line from the first folio:

“There be some Sports are painfull and their labor--” Tem. 3-1-1.

These words occur in the cipher story, as in the plays, spelled both ways.[9]

This suggests one thing of value to present day readers of the plays who do not know, or do not stop to consider, that modern editions differ greatly, and in important particulars, from the original editions, both spelling and grammar having been modified, while in some parts, whole paragraphs of the text are omitted to meet the ideas of what the particular editor _thought_ the author _should_ have said.

Mr. Marston, in the _Nineteenth Century_, continues an argument first put forth in the _Times_, and further illustrated in the _Publishers’ Circular_, attempting to prove that, because certain fragments of the Iliad, in the _Bi-literal Cypher_, deciphered from the _Anatomy of Melancholy_ of 1628, are similar to Pope’s version of the same passages, the whole long story comprising 385 pages--about 300 of which relate to matters entirely foreign to the Iliad--must be a conscious fraud, and that “bold lie” is the key to the whole matter. It was hardly a courteous expression, and I have every confidence that Mr. Marston will, after more careful investigation, retract it.

_Any statement that I copied from Pope, or from any source whatever, the matter put forth as deciphered from Bacon’s works, is false in every particular._

It will be noted that Mr. Marston makes no attempt to prove the cipher, but bases his convictions regarding the book upon this one point of similarity, in an insignificant portion of it, to Pope’s translation of the Iliad.

As it chanced, I had read Pope to some extent in the rhetorical studies of my school days, but had never re-read his Homer until Mr. Marston called attention to it. I now see a similarity in some expressions, and in the arrangement of names, in that portion devoted to the catalogue of the ships. Bacon’s directions for writing out the Iliad (by the word-cipher, p. 170), suggest that at that time he had not made as full preparation for writing out the catalogue as for the remainder of the work, and this seems significant.

I do not find any striking resemblances in the other parts, and, as I stated in a recent communication to the _Times_, in an examination of six English translations and one Latin, I found that each might with equal justice be considered a paraphrase of Pope, or that he had copied his predecessors. Why, among several translations of the same Greek text, two having both resemblances and differences should be classed together, and one should necessarily be a copy of the other, is not clear to me. Knowing that Pope’s was considered the least correct of several of the English translations, yet, perhaps, the best known for its poetic grace, it is hardly reasonable to suppose that I should have copied his, had I been dependent upon any translation for the deciphered matter.

Bacon says his earliest work upon the Iliad was done under instructors. There were Latin translations extant in his day, which were equally accessible to Pope a century later. A similarity might have arisen from a study by both of the same Latin text. George Chapman, in 1598, complained vigorously that some one had charged him with translating his Iliad from the Latin, and abusively replied. Theodore Alois Buckley, in his introduction to Pope’s Iliad, says he was “not a Grecian” and that he doubtless formed his poem upon Ogilby’s translation, besides consulting friends who were better classical scholars than himself.

But all this is of small importance, for it is inconclusive. The question is, did I find this argument of the Iliad in differing founts of Italic type in the text of the _Anatomy of Melancholy_?

I have had set up by our printers from my MS. two sections of the _Anatomy of Melancholy_, from which were taken some passages Mr. Marston quotes. Modern Italic type has to be used, of course, and the two founts will be easily distinguishable. They are so marked as unmistakably to indicate how the differing forms are used. A reference to an original copy of the _Anatomy of Melancholy_ (1628), which may be seen in the British Museum, or in the fine library of Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, will quickly show whether or not I have used all the Italic letters in the text, whether they are of differing forms as marked in this, whether they have been properly grouped, and, when the bi-literal cipher is applied, whether they produce the results I have printed. If the types are of differing forms, are properly grouped, and produce, by the bi-literal method, the results printed, the question of identities or similitudes is eliminated from the discussion.

I am aware that in offering this evidence in this way, I am at a serious disadvantage. The true classification of the types was determined after days of examination and comparison of hundreds of the old letters, until every shade, and line, and curve of those I marked was familiar, and as thoroughly impressed upon my memory as the features of a friend, while to those making this comparison the letters themselves will be new, the number examined probably limited to those in a few sentences, and by eyes entirely unskilled in this kind of examination.

Mr. Marston refers to my use of an edition of the _Anatomy of Melancholy_, published after Bacon’s death, as evidence that I may be wrong. The edition I used was that of 1628, published by Dr. William Rawley. Concerning this and Rawley’s work, I had found in deciphering _Sylva Sylvarum_, the following statement from Rawley himself:

“When, however, you find this change ... where I beganne th’ worke, you shall pause awhile, then use the alphabet as it is heerein employ’d and as explain’d in my preceding epistle. It will thus be like a new alphabet and doubtlesse will bee troublesome, yet can bee conn’d while some had to be discover’d; but in respect of a probable familiaritie with th’ worke, and the severall diverse methods employed oft by his lordship, this may by no meanes be requir’d, since th’ wit that could penetrate such mysteries surely needeth no setti’g forth and enlarging of mine.

“Ere the whole question be dropt, however, let me bid you go on to my larger and fully arranged table where th’ storie, or epistle, is finish’d as it should have beene had his lordship lived to compleat it, since my part was but that of th’ hand, and I did write only that portion which was not us’d at th’ time. All this was duely composed and written out by his hand, and may bee cherish’d.

“From his penne, too, works which now bear th’ name Burton ... make useful those portions which could by noe means bee adapted to dramaticall writings. If you do not use them as you decypher th’ interiour epistles, so conceal’d, your story shall not be compleat.

“Th’ workes are in three divisio’s, entitled Melancholy, its Anatomy. Additons to this booke have beene by direction of Lord Verulam, himselfe, often by his hand, whilst th’ interiour letter, carried in a number of ingenious cyphers mentioned above, is from his pen, and is the same in every case that he would have used in these workes, for his is, in verie truth, worke cut short by th’ sickel of Death.”

This edition of Burton was the only old book in hand at the time of its deciphering, and, having found the cipher in it, I continued work upon it, though its contents were a serious disappointment, and I have since greatly regretted the time and strength spent upon what was of so little value, and of no interest historically as relating to the personality of Bacon or the times in which he lived. Has it been noted by Mr. Marston, or by others who have been incredulous about this book, that Burton in the appendix to his will does not include the _Anatomy of Melancholy_ in “such books as are written with mine own hands”? While this might not be conclusive, it is, in the light of the cipher revelations, a very significant omission. I add here that the first edition was published in the name of T. Bright, under the title of _A Treatise of Melancholy_, in 1586, when Burton was ten years old and Bacon twenty-five. As the _Anatomy of Melancholy_, it was issued in Rawley’s lifetime, in several editions under dates of 1621, 1624, 1628, 1632, 1638, 1651-2, 1660, 1676. The edition of 1676 was a reprint of an earlier edition and was issued after Rawley’s death. Burton died in 1640.

One of the passages which Mr. Marston quotes in proof of a paraphrase of Pope’s translation is the expression, “Hillie Eteon, or the waterie plains of Hyrie.” On referring to my MS. of the deciphering from _Democritus to the Reader_, p. 73, l. 24, _Anat. of Mel._, I find the phrase was extracted from the words, which are here set up in two founts of modern type.

No one should pass judgment upon the _Bi-literal Cypher_ who cannot, at sight, assign these letters to their respective founts, for it is much less difficult in these diagrams than in the old books themselves.

FOUNTS USED

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b {_A_ ~A~ _a_ ~a~ _B_ ~B~ _b_ ~b~ _C_ ~C~ _c_ ~c~

{a b a b a b a b a b a b {_D_ ~D~ _d_ ~d~ _E_ ~E~ _e_ ~e~ _F_ ~F~ _f_ ~f~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b a b {_G_ ~G~ _g_ ~g~ _H_ ~H~ _h_ ~h~ _I_ ~I~ _i_ ~i~ _j_ ~j~_

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b {_K_ ~K~ _k_ ~k~ _L_ ~L~ _l_ ~l~ _M_ ~M~ _m_ ~m~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b {_N_ ~N~ _n_ ~n~ _O_ ~O~ _o_ ~o~ _P_ ~P~ _p_ ~p~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b {_Q_ ~Q~ _q_ ~q~ _R_ ~R~ _r_ ~r~ _S_ ~S~ _s_ ~s~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b a b {_T_ ~T~ _t_ ~t~ _V_ ~V~ _v_ ~v~ _u_ ~u~_ _W_ ~W~ _w_ ~w~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b {_X_ ~X~ _x_ ~x~ _Y_ ~Y~ _y_ ~y~ _Z_ ~Z~ _z_ ~z~

Passage to be deciphered.

_vi_~t~_ij_~s~ ~Cr~_i_~m~_ine_ _N_~e~_m_~o~ _ca_~r~_e_~t~ _Ne_~m~_o_ _sort_~e~ _sua_ _v_~i~_vi_~t~ _co_~n~_ten_~t~_us_ _N_~em~_o_ ~i~_n_ ~am~_ore_ ~sa~_p_~it~, _Nemo_ ~b~_on_~u~_s_, _Ne_~mo s~_ap_~i~_en_~s~, _N_~e~_mo_, _est_ _ex_ ~o~_mn_~i~ par_~t~_e_ _b_~e~_atus_ _&_~c~. _Nicho_~l~_as_ _N_~emo~, _No_ ~b~_o_~d~_y_ _quid_ _va_~l~_eat_ _N_~em~_o_, _N_~e~_mo_ _r_~e~_f_~er~_r_~e~ _po_~t~_e_~s~_t_ _v_~ir~ ~sa~_p_~it~ _q_~u~_i_ _pauc_~a~ _loqui_~t~_ur_

Grouping in fives as the words stand, we have:

_vi_~t~_ij_ ~sCr~_i_~m~ _ineN_~e~ _m_~o~_ca_~r~ _e_~t~_Ne_~m~ _aa b aa_ _bbb a b_ _aaaa b_ _a b aa b_ _a b aa b_ =E= =B= =K= =K=

__sort_ ~e~_suav_ ~i~_vi_~t~_c_ _o_~n~_ten_ ~t~_usN_~e _aaaaa_ _b aaaa_ _b aa b a_ _a b aaa_ _b aaa b_ =A= =R= =T= =I= =S=

The first group forms the biliteral letter _e_, but the next has two 'b fount’ letters at the commencement. There is no letter in the biliteral alphabet commencing _bb_, but there is a possibility of a printer’s error, and it is necessary to examine the following groups. Each forms a bi-literal letter, but they are a jumble and cannot be set off, or divided into words.

Another attempt is necessary to pick up the cipher thread. Omitting one letter at the beginning, the grouping is:

_i_~t~_ij_~s~ ~Cr~_i_~m~_i_ _neN_~e~_m_ ~o~_ca_~r~_e_ _a b aa b_ _bb a b a_ _aaa b a_ _b aa b a_ =K= =C= =T=

~t~_Ne_~m~_o_ _sort_~e~ _suav_~i~ _vi_~t~_co_ ~n~_ten_~t~ _b aa b a_ _aaaa b_ _aaaa b_ _aa b aa_ _b aaa b_ =T= =B= =B= =E= =S=

_usN_~em~ _aaa bb_ =D=

Here, again, _bb_ comes at the beginning of a group, but going on with the remainder of the line the resulting letters are again impossible to separate into any intelligible words.

Omitting another letter we have:

~t~_ij_~sC~ ~r~_i_~m~_in_ _eN_~e~_m_~o~ _ca_~r~_e_~t~ _b aa bb_ _b a b aa_ _aa b a b_ _aa b a b_ =U= =W= =F= =F=

_Ne_~m~_os_ _ort_~e~_s_ _uav_~i~_v_ _i_~t~_co_~n~ _aa b aa_ _aaa b a_ _aaa b a_ _a b aa b_ =E= =C= =C= =K=

_ten_~t~_u_ _sN_~em~_o_ ~i~_n_~am~_o_ _re_~sa~_p_ ~it~_Nem_ _aaa b a_ _aa bb a_ _b a bb a_ _aa bb a_ _bb aaa_ =C= =G= =Y= =G=

Another trial commences with the fourth letter, and the groups are:

_ij_~sCr~ _i_~m~_ine_ _N_~e~_m_~o~_c_ _a_~r~_e_~t~_N_ _aa bbb_ _a b aaa_ _a b a b a_ _a b a b a_ =H= =I= =L= =L=

_e_~m~_oso_ _rt_~e~_su_ _av_~i~_vi_ ~t~_co_~n~_t_ _a b aaa_ _aa b aa_ _aa b aa_ _b aa b a_ =I= =E= =E= =T=

_en_~t~_us_ _N_~em~_o_~i~ _n_~am~_or_ _e_~sa~_p_~i~ _aa b aa_ _a bb a b_ _a bb aa_ _a bb a b_ =E= =O= =N= =O=

~t~_Nemo_ ~b~_on_~u~_s_ _Ne_~mos~ _ap_~i~_en_ _b aaaa_ _b aa b a_ _aa bbb_ _aa b aa_ =R= =T= =H= =E=

~s~_N_~e~_mo_ _estex_ ~o~_mn_~i~_p_ _ar_~t~_eb_ _b a b aa_ _aaaaa_ _b aa b a_ _aa b aa_ =W= =A= =T= =E=

~e~_atus_ _&_~c~_Nic_ _ho_~l~_as_ _N_~emo~_N_ _b aaaa_ _a b aaa_ _aa b aa_ _a bbb a_ =R= =I= =E= =P=

_o_~b~_o_~d~_y_ _quidv_ _a_~l~_eat_ _N_~em~_oN_ _a b a b a_ _aaaaa_ _a b aaa_ _a bb aa_ =L= =A= =I= =N=

~e~_mor_~e~ _f_~er~_r_~e~ _po_~t~_e_~s~ _tv_~irs~ _b aaa b_ _a bb a b_ _aa b a b_ _aa bbb_ =S= =O= =F= =H=

~a~_p_~it~_q_ ~u~_ipau_ _c_~a~_loq_ _ui_~t~_ur_ _b a bb a_ _b aaaa_ _a b aaa_ _aa b aa_ =Y= =R= =I= =E=

DECIPHERED PASSAGE

None of these groups begins with two _b_'s, and the resulting letters spell out the line quoted,

h i l l i e e t e o n o r t h e w a t e r i e p l a i n s o f h y r i e

Hillie Eteon or the waterie plains of Hyrie.

The capitalization and punctuation are suggested by the rules of literary construction. There are four possible wrong groupings, but this illustration required only the trial of three to find the correct one. Should there be obscure, or doubtful, letters in the text that make the resulting letters of a group uncertain, pass the whole group by until those are marked which are certain. There are always a sufficient number of _b_'s to indicate what the word really is in the groups preceding and following. In the resulting phrase above, a number of the letters might be passed over as abbreviations and yet the sense could hardly be mistaken even in this short and disconnected line, while with the context it would be made perfectly clear.

Mr. Marston quotes another passage as evidence that I have “copied Pope”:

“Hee was th’ first of th’ Greekes who boldlie sprang to th’ shore when Troy was reach’d, and fell beneath a Phrygian lance.”

Referring to my MS., I find this comes from page 38, _Anat. of Mel._, commencing in line 11. I have had this printed, also, and grouped for the resulting bi-literal letters that form the deciphered passage, and I think it well to use this because it illustrates one of the points that should be clearly understood.

Anatomy of Melancholy, p. 38, l. 11 (Edition 1628).

_Clau_~din~_us_ ~H~_ippo_~c~_ra_~t~_e_~s~ _Paracel~s~_us N_~on~ _es_~t~ _rel_~uct~_an_~d~_u_~m~ _c_~u~_m_ _De_~o~ _Herc_~u~_les_ ~Ol~_ym_~p~_ic_~ks~ _I_~u~_pi_~t~_e_~r~ ~I~_up_~i~_ter_ ~Her~_cu_~le~_s_ ~N~_il_ _iuva_~t~ _imme_~n~_sos_ ~C~_ra_~t~_er_~o~ _pr_~o~_mit_~te~_r_~e~ _mont_~es~ ~w~_e_ ~mu~_s_~t~ _subm_~i~_t_ ~ou~_r_~s~_e_~l~_u_~e~_s_ _vnd_~er~ _t_~h~_e_ _mig_~h~_ty_ _han_~d~ _of_ ~G~_od v_~n~_a_ ~ead~_e_~m~_q_ _manus_ _vun_~us~ _opem_~q~ ~f~_e_~r~_et_ ~A~_ch_~il~_l_~es~ _A_ _D_~i~_gre_~ssio~_n_ _of_ ~t~_he_ ~nat~_u_~re~ _o_~f~ ~S~_pirits_ ~b~_ad_ ~A~_n_~g~_els_ _o_~r~ ~Di~_ve_~l~_s_ _an_~d~ ~h~_ow_ ~t~_he_~y~ _c_~a~_use_ _Me_~la~_n_~ch~_o_~ly~ _P_~o~_s_~t~_ellus_ _fu_~l~_l_ _of_ ~co~_ntrove_~r~_sie_ _and_ _ambi_~g~_uit_~y fa~_teo_~r~ ~e~_xceder_~e~ ~v~_ires_ _i_~nt~_en_~t~_i_~o~_ni_~s~ _mea_~e~ _A_~u~_st_~i~_n_ ~f~_initu_~m~ _de_ ~i~_nfi_~ni~_to_ _no_~n~ _potest_ _s_~t~_at_~u~_ere_ ~Act~_s_ _Saddu_~cee~_s_ _Ga_~len~ ~P~_erip_~a~_t_~et~_ic_~ks~ _Ari_~s~_totle_ _Pomp_~on~_ati_~u~_s_ ~S~_caliger_ ~Da~_ndinu_~s~ _com_ ~i~_n_ _lib de_

_au_~din~ _us_~H~_ip_ _po_~c~_ra_ ~t~_e_~s~_Pa_ _aa bbb_ _aa b aa_ _aa b aa_ _b a b aa_

_racel_ ~s~_usN_~o~ ~n~_es_~t~_r_ _el_~uct~ _aaaaa_ _b aaa b_ _b aa b a_ _aa bbb_

_an_~d~_u_~m~ _c_~u~_mDe_ ~o~_Herc_ ~u~_les_~O~ _aa b a b_ _a b aaa_ _b aaaa_ _b aaa b_

~l~_ym_~p~_i_ _c_~ks~_I_~u~ _pi_~t~_e_~r~ ~I~_up_~i~_t_ _b aa b a_ _a bb a b_ _aa b a b_ _b aa b a_

_er_~Her~ _cu_~le~_s_ ~N~_iliu_ _va_~t~_im_ _aa bbb_ _aa bb a_ _b aaaa_ _aa b aa_

_me_~n~_so_ _s_~C~_ra_~t~ _er_~o~_pr_ ~o~_mit_~t~ _aa b aa_ _a b aa b_ _aa b aa_ _b aaa b_

~e~_r_~e~_mo_ _nt_~esw~ _e_~mu~_s_~t~ _subm_~i~ _b a b aa_ _aa bbb_ _a bb a b_ _aaaa b_

_t_~ou~_r_~s~ _e_~l~_u_~e~_s_ _vnd_~er~ _t_~h~_emi_ _a bb a b_ _a b a b a_ _aaa bb_ _a b aaa_

_g_~h~_tyh_ _an_~d~_of_ ~G~_odv_~n~ _a_~ead~_e_ _a b aaa_ _aa b aa_ _b aaa b_ _a bbb a_

~m~_qman_ _usvul_ _n_~us~_op_ _em_~qf~_e_ _b aaaa_ _aaaaa_ _ abb aa_ _aa bb a_

~r~_et_~A~_c_ _h_~il~_l_~e~ ~s~_AD_~i~_g_ _re_~ssi~ _b aa b a_ _a bb a b_ _b aa b a_ _aa bbb_

~o~_nof_~t~ _he_~nat~ _u_~re~_o_~f~ ~S~_piri_ _b aaa b_ _aa bbb_ _a bb a b_ _b aaaa_

_ts_~b~_ad_ ~A~_n_~g~_el_ _so_~rDi~ _ve_~l~_sa_ _aa b aa_ _b a b aa_ _aa bbb_ _aa b aa_

_n_~dh~_ow_ ~t~_he_~y~_c_ ~a~_useM_ _e_~la~_n_~c~ _a bb aa_ _b aa b a_ _b aaaa_ _a bb a b_

~h~_o_~ly~_P_ ~o~_s_~t~_el_ _lusfu_ ~l~_lof_~c~ _b a bb a_ _b a b aa_ _aaaaa_ _b aaa b_

~o~_ntro_ _ve_~r~_si_ _eanda_ _mbi_~g~_u_ _b aaaa_ _aa b aa_ _aaaaa_ _aaa b a_

_it_~yfa~ _teo_~re~ _xcede_ _r_~ev~_ir_ _aa bbb_ _aaa bb_ _aaaaa_ _a bb aa_

_esi_~nt~ _en_~t~_i_~o~ _ni_~s~_me_ _a_~e~_A_~u~_s_ _aaa bb_ _aa b a b_ _aa b aa_ _a b a b a_

_t_~i~_n_~f~_i_ _nitu_~m~ _de_~i~_nf_ _i_~ni~_to_ _ababa_ _aaaab_ _aabaa_ _abbaa_

_no_~n~_po_ _tests_ ~t~_at_~u~_e_ _re_~Act~ _aabaa_ _aaaaa_ _baaba_ _aabbb_

_sSadd_ _u_~cee~_s_ _Ga_~len~ ~P~_erip_ _aaaaa_ _abbba_ _aabbb_ _baaaa_

~a~_t_~et~_i_ _c_~ks~_Ar_ _i_~s~_tot_ _lePom_ _babba_ _abbaa_ _abaaa_ _aaaaa_

_p_~on~_at_ _i_~u~_s_~S~_c_ _alige_ _r_~Da~_nd_ _abbaa_ _ababa_ _aaaaa_ _abbaa_

_inu_~s~_c_ _om_~i~_nl_ _aaaba_ _aabaa_

DECIPHERED PASSAGE

Hee was th’ first of th’ Greekes who boldlie sprang to th’ shore when Troy was reach’d, and fell beneath a Phrygian lance.

In the word _Phrygian_, the fifth group which should make the letter _g_, aabba, really is _n_, abbaa, probably Rawley’s mistake, for the printer should not answer to every charge. The two _b_'s stand together, as they should, but are one point removed to the left.

Every page of the book was worked out in the manner illustrated, every Italic letter classified and the result set down, nor could any “imagination or predetermination” change the result.

In this connection as few of your readers have opportunity to examine the old books I will reproduce the Cicero Epistle containing the Spartan dispatch from each of the 1623 and 1624 editions of _De Augmentis_, showing the differences and the errors in the second which like those occurring in the text of the old books have to be corrected if the work goes on.

In the 1624 edition the second _i_ in _officio_ is changed by the law of tied letters; the second _u_ in _nunquam_ has position or angle of inclination, to make it an 'a fount’ letter; _q_ in _conquiesti_ is from the wrong fount, and the _u_ has features of both founts but is clear in one distinctive difference--the width at the top; the _q_ in _quia_ is reversed by a mark; the _a_'s in the first _causa_ are formed like '_b_ fount’ letters but are taller; the _q_ of _quos_ is from the wrong fount; the second _a_ in _aderas_ is reversed being a tied letter; _l_ in _velint_ is from the wrong fount, also the _p_ of _parati_, the _l_ of _calumniam_ and the _l_ of _religione_.

In line twelve '_pauci sunt_’ in 1623 ed. is '_parati sunt_’ in the 1624 ed. The correct grouping is _ntqui velin tquip ratis untom nesad_, the first _a_ in '_parati_’ must be omitted to read _diutius_ according to the Spartan dispatch. Otherwise the groups would be _arati sunto mnesa_. The _m_ and _n_ are both '_b_ fount,’ thus bringing two _b_'s at the beginning of this last group, indicating at once a mistake for no letter in the bi-literal alphabet begins with two _b_'s and wherever encountered may be known to indicate either a wrong fount letter or a wrong grouping. It is one of the guards against error. To continue the groups after the one last given several would be found to commence with _bb_, and the resulting letters would not “read.”

Here, too, is an example of diphthongs, digraphs, and double letters, which are troublesome to “A Correspondent.” The diphthong æ of “cæteris,” the digraph _ct_ in _perfectare_, and the double _ff_'s and _pp_'s are shown as separate letters and must be treated as such in deciphering Italics.

* * * * *

A very important feature, that most seem to forget, is that ciphers are made to hide things, not to make them plain or easy to decipher. They are constructed to be misleading, mysterious, and purposely made difficult except to those possessing the key. Seekers after knowledge through them must not abandon the hunt, upon encountering the first difficulty, improbability, inaccuracy, or stumbling block set for their confusion.

Were the confirmation of this cipher of importance to the government--a matter of life or death to an official, or likely to concern the strategic movement of an army--the energies of many minds would be centered upon deciphering it. But it would appear from the writings we have recently seen, the greatest effort is to prevent its development or acceptance--that the ideas of a lifetime be not overturned, and the satisfaction remain that the individual has already compassed the limits of information. It is so much pleasanter to be satisfied with what we have than to delve for things we do not want to know.

Personally, it is a matter of no vital importance to me whether the cipher is accepted or not. I have put my best efforts into its discovery and elucidation. I know that I have accomplished what others have failed to do, and I can look on with equanimity as the world wrestles with the evidences, and finally comes, as it will, to the conclusion I have reached.

The impetus given the movement by this discussion will result in important research, and other discoveries concerning Bacon that I am unable to make, will, with the light that has now been thrown upon the subject, confirm what has been set forth and much more besides. As I write, an article in _Baconiana_ makes a suggestion which should be acted upon at once:

“Our attention has also been called to _a sealed bag of papers at the Record office_. It was, it is said, sealed at the death of Queen Elizabeth, and to be opened only by joint consent of the reigning Sovereign, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Lord Chancellor. Is not the time come when we may fitly memorialize His Majesty, King Edward, to command or sanction the opening and revelation?”

REPLY TO SIR HENRY IRVING.

THE PRINCETON ADDRESS.

In an address at Princeton on the Shakespeare-Bacon controversy, Sir Henry Irving did me the honor of mention, although in rather a disparaging way, as “constructing a wonderful cipher out of the higgledy-piggledy lettering” of the First Folio and other Elizabethan books in which irregular lettering is found.

As comparatively few will recognize from the terms Sir Henry used, the actual meaning of this characterization of the peculiar printing, I beg leave to say that he refers to the two or more forms of Italic letters the printers of that day employed in the same text of many books, and that I have discovered that their use in a large number was for the purpose of embodying the biliteral cipher invented by Bacon. Much of this work has been deciphered and published as the _Bi-literal Cypher of Francis Bacon_, and no doubt the recent discussion of this book in England,--and the echoes, on this side, of the controversy,--was the suggestion, at least, of the theme of the Princeton address.

Sir Henry points out that by “this wondrous cipher Bacon is alleged to have written in addition to Shakespeare and Greene, the works of Ben Jonson and Marlowe, Spenser’s _Faerie Queene_ and Burton’s _Anatomy of Melancholy_,” but says “its chief business is to stagger us with the revelation that Bacon was the 'legitimate son of Queen Elizabeth.’”

It is not my purpose at this time to discourse upon the discoveries I have made, which, among a great deal else equally important, most certainly reveal all that Sir Henry mentions--except that Bacon lays no claim to the greater part of Ben Jonson’s works--but I wish to throw additional light upon certain passages in the address that are presented as facts irreconcilable with the cipher disclosures. These “facts” are supposed to show that it is not in the realm of possibility that Bacon could have written the plays.

In the opening sentences, Sir Henry refers to some words of his own used as a fitting conclusion to a treatise on the _Bacon-Shakespeare Question_ by Judge Allen of Boston. I quote: “When the Baconians can show that Ben Jonson was either a fool or a knave, or that the whole world of players and playwrights at that time was in a conspiracy to palm off on the ages the most astounding cheat in history, they will be worthy of serious attention.”

If Sir Henry Irving to-day appeared in a new play, and at the same time claimed that it was the work of his hand, it would not, probably, require “a conspiracy of the whole world of players and playwrights to palm it off” on the present age to say nothing of the future.

The writers who refer so confidently to Ben Jonson’s praise of Shakespeare, do not observe that he says:

----“he _seemes_ to shake a Lance, As brandisht at the eyes of Ignorance.”

They are blind, also, to the significance of the lines:

“From thence to Honour thee, I would not seeke For names; but call forth thund’ring Æschilus, Euripides, and Sophocles to us, Paccuvius, Accius, him of Cordova dead, To life againe, to heare thy _Buskin_ tread, And shake a Stage: Or, when thy _Sockes_ were on, Leave thee alone for the comparison Of all, that insolent Greece, or haughtie Rome Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come.”

The 'buskin’ signified tragedy, 'socks’ comedy, and it was as an actor, not as an author, that Jonson would compare Shakespeare with both ancient and modern Greece and Rome. His name was in the list of actors of some of Jonson’s plays, as well as of “Shakespeare’s.” Beeston says, “he did act exceedingly well,” and we are indebted to Mr. Sidney Lee’s _Shakespeare in Oral Tradition_ for a revival of “the exciting discovery some actors made” of Shakespeare’s brother Gilbert whose memory “only enabled him to recall his brother’s performance of Adam in his(?) comedy of _As you like it_.”

It is true that Shakespeare was lauded for the literary work supposed to be his, yet in the article just cited we observe also that “Shakespeare’s extraordinary rapidity of composition was an especially frequent topic of contemporary debate.” There were men even then who realized that these things were not possible to their Shakespeare.

In the _Advancement of Learning_ we read; “He is the greater and deeper pollitique, that can make other men the Instruments of his will and endes, and yet never acquaint them with his purpose: So that they shall doe it, and yet not know what they doe, then hee that imparteth his meaning to those he employeth.” B. 2., 1st p. 33.

This would suggest that Bacon did not impart his purposes to his “masques.” Ignorant of the fact that Shakespeare’s name was being employed as was his own, Greene exclaimed, “An upstart crow beautified with _our_ feathers!” The similarity of expression was apparent to him, as to students of the present day, and the charge of plagiarism was very natural.

Sir Henry points out that although Bacon “was the legitimate son of Queen Elizabeth, his unnatural mother showed not the smallest desire to advance his interests.” But what shall be said of Sir Nicholas Bacon’s failure to make provision for Francis? The cipher history makes that point quite clear. He made provision for his own sons, and in a certain sense Elizabeth provided for hers, although she did not give them public recognition nor show the elder any marked favor.

Sir Henry asks: “What did Bacon know about the stage?” What did he not know about the stage? A few random quotations will best answer these questions:

“_In the plays_ of this philosophical _theatre_ you may observe the same thing which is found _in the theatre_ of the poets, that stories invented _for the stage_, are more compact and elegant, and more as one would wish them to be, than true stories out of history.” _Nov. Or._, p. 90.

“_Representative_ [_poetry_] is as a _visible_ history, and is _an image of actions_ as if they were present, as history is of actions in nature as they are (that is) past.” _Adv. of L._, p. 204.

“In whose time also began that great alteration in the state ecclesiastical, _an action_ which seldom _cometh upon the stage_.” _Adv. of L._, p. 193.

“As if he were conscient to himself that he had _played his part well upon the stage_.” _Adv. of L._, p. 362.

“But it is not good to stay too long _in the theatre_.” _Adv. of L._, p. 206.

“But men must know, that _in this theatre_ of man’s life it is reserved only for God and the angels to be lookers on.” _De Aug._, p. 198.

“As it is used in some _Comedies of Errors_, wherein the mistress and the maid change habits. _Adv. of L._, p. 315, _De Aug._, p. 199.

“What more unseemly than to be always _playing a part_?” _Adv. of L._, p. 349.

“And then what is more uncomely than to bring the manners _of the stage_ into the business of life?” _De Aug._, p. 235.

“Besides it is unseemly for judicial proceedings to borrow anything _from the stage_.” _De Aug._, p. 340.

“But the best provision and material for this treatise is to be gained from the wiser sort of historians, not only from the commemorations which they commonly add on recording the deaths of illustrious persons, but much more from the entire body of history as often as such a person _enters upon the stage_; for a character so worked into the narrative gives a better idea of the man, than any formal criticism and review can.” _De Aug._, p. 217.

“This was one of the longest _plays_ of that kind that hath been in memory.” _History of Henry the Seventh_, p. 304.

“Therefore now like the _end of a play_, a great number came _upon the stage_ at once.” _History of Henry the Seventh_, p. 287.

“But from his first appearance _upon the stage_.” _H. VII._, p. 291.

“He had contrived with himself a vast and _tragical plot_.” _H. VII._, p. 302.

“As to the stage, love is ever matter of _comedies_ and now and then of _tragedies_.” _Essays_, p. 95.

The stage and stage plays were constantly in Bacon’s mind. The point is not well taken that Bacon could not have written the plays from lack of familiarity with the stage, from lack of the old plays that were the basis of some, from the impossibility of altering the plays extant, or of collaborating with other writers in the historical dramas. Bacon had access to all sorts and conditions of men, to all varieties of literature, but the proofs of collaboration are entirely wanting.

Again, Sir Henry states: “His [Shakespeare’s] knowledge of law was supposed to be wonderful by Lord Campbell but does not commend itself to Judge Allen.”

This is the opinion of one man opposed to that of another. Warner, in speaking of the chorus in Act i., Sc. ii., _H. V._, says: “It reads like the result of a lawyer’s struggle to embalm his brief in blank verse.”

A little further on in Sir Henry’s speech we find an allusion to 'Shakespeare’s careless notions about law, geography, and historical accuracy.’

When the great German Schlegel wrote, “I undertake to prove that Shakespeare’s anachronisms are for the most part committed purposely and after great consideration,” the truism was more far-reaching than he knew. The double purpose that many lines and often whole passages serve, was the real cause of the anachronisms, and want of historical accuracy. In _Richard the Second_ the pathetic scene of the queen’s interview with the dethroned Richard as he is being led to the Tower, is “both historically inaccurate and psychologically impossible. The king and queen did not meet again at all after their parting when Richard set out for Ireland, and Queen Isabel was a child.”--_Warner’s Hist._ Nearly the entire scene is a part of the hidden cipher drama, _The White Rose of Britain_, and is the parting of the pretended Richard, Duke of York,--Warbeck, named by the Duchess of Burgundy the White Rose,--from his faithful wife, Katharine, to whom the title was afterward given.

“_Qu._ This way the King will come: this is the way To Julius Cæsar’s ill-erected Tower: To whose flint bosome, my condemned Lord Is doom’d a Prisoner, by prowd---- Here let us rest, if this rebellious earth Have any resting for her true King’s Queene. ENTER RICHARD AND GUARD. But soft, but see, or rather do not see My fair Rose wither: yet look up; behold, That you in pittie may dissolve to dew, And wash him fresh again in true-love Teares. Ah thou, the Modell where old Troy did stand, Thou Mappe of Honor, thou King Richard’s Tombe, And not King Richard: thou most beauteous Inne, Why should hard-favor’d Griefe be lodged in thee, When Triumph is become an ale-house guest? _Rich._ Joyne not with griefe faire Woman, do not so, To make my end too sudden: learne good Soule, To thinke our former State a happie Dreame, From which awak’d, the truth of what we are, Shewes us but this. I am sworne Brother (Sweet) To grim Necessitie; and hee and I Will keepe a League till Death,” etc.--_R. II._, Act. v., Sc. i.

Again in _Henry the Sixth_, see all the conversation regarding the marriage of Edward the Fourth: A note on the play says “nothing is historically certain concerning the episode except that Edward _married_ the Lady Elizabeth Grey.” It is a part of another cipher drama, the _Tragedy of Anne Boleyn_, where some were bold enough to challenge the right of the marriage of Henry the Eighth with the beautiful Anne Boleyn:

“_Lady._ My lords, before it pleas’d his Majestie To rayse my State to Title of a Queene, Doe me but right, and you must all confesse, That I was not ignoble of Descent, And meaner than myselfe have had like fortune. But as this Title honors me and mine, So your dislikes, to whom I would be pleasing, Doth cloud my joyes with danger, and with sorrow. _King._ My Love, forbeare to fawne upon their frownes: What danger, or what sorrow can befall thee, So long as ---- is thy constant friend, And their true Soveraigne, whom they must obey? Nay, whom they shall obey, and love thee too, Unlesse they seeke for hatred at my hands: Which if they doe, yet will I keep thee safe, And they shall feele the vengeance of my wrath.”

_H. VI._, Act iv., Sc. i.

Critics trace the marked anti-papal spirit of _King John_ to 'Henry the Eighth’s revolt from the Roman obedience,’ and these passages are indeed a part of Henry’s speech, in the _Tragedy of Anne Boleyn_:

----“What earthie name to Interrogatories Can tast the free breath of a sacred King? But as we, under heaven are supreame head, So under him that great supremacy Where we doe reigne, we will alone uphold Without th’ assistance of a mortall hand: For he that holds his Kingdome, holds the law.”

And again:

“Yet I alone, alone doe me oppose Against the Pope, and count his friends my foes.”

_K. J._, Act iii., Sc. i.

The following lines are a part of the cipher poem, the _Spanish Armada_:

----“So by a roaring Tempest on the flood, A whole Armado of convicted saile Is scattered and dis-joyn’d from fellowship.”

_K. J._, Act iii., Sc. iii.

A part of Cranmer’s prophetic speech at Elizabeth’s christening has reference to Francis himself:

“So shall she leave her Blessednesse to One (When Heaven shall call her from this clowd of darknes) Who, from the sacred Ashes of her Honour Shall Star-like rise, as great in fame as she was, And so stand fix’d.”--_H. VIII._, Act v., Sc. iv.

The mention of quoting Marlowe sometimes with acknowledgment--sometimes omitting the acknowledgment--shows that Sir Henry does not concede that the plays of Marlowe were from the same pen as the plays of Shakespeare, but he admits that 'Marlowe was Shakespeare’s model in several ways,’ and in making this admission he reveals a recognition of similarity that he can in no way account for until he accepts the very natural 'cause of this effect’ made known in the cipher.

Next we find: “Shakespeare had an immeasurable receptivity of all that concerned human character.”

This is, of course, an inference drawn from the plays. It is well known to all close students of that marvelous literature that its author discerned every type of human character, understood the influence of environment upon men and women, and had a wide and deep knowledge of the spirit of the times, in different ages and in many countries. We do not differ in opinion there, but Sir Henry speaks of the author by his pseudonym, I by the name his foster father gave him.

Tennyson is quoted to show Bacon’s opinion of love: “The philosopher who in his essay on 'Love’ described it as a 'weak passion’ fit only for stage comedies, and deplored and despised its influence over the world’s noted men, could never have written 'Romeo and Juliet’.”

In the _Advancement of Learning_, Bacon says: “Love teacheth a man to carry himself ... to prize and govern himself ... onely Love doth exalt the mind and neverthelesse at the same instant doth settle and compose it.” The play of _Romeo and Juliet_ was the story of the love of Bacon’s youth and early manhood, and the score of years between the time of writing the play and publishing the essay had filled his life with other things, yet those who have read the cipher story know that an inner chamber of his heart enshrined a memory of Marguerite.

I quote again from the address: “Still more noteworthy is the absence of any plausible excuse for Bacon’s fond preservation of his worthless rhymes and his neglect of the masterpieces that went by Shakespeare’s name. He gave the most minute directions for the publication of his literary remains. His secretary, Dr. Rawley, was entrusted with this responsibility and faithfully discharged it.”

Bacon’s MSS. were given to two literary executors, not to Rawley alone, and a part was taken to Holland. Rawley continued the publication of Bacon’s works after 1626, publishing all those that were left in his care. Without these, a large number of the interior works would have been incomplete and the work in the word-cipher interrupted.

Sir Henry’s assertion, “nothing could be easier than to make an equally impressive cipher which would show that Darwin wrote Tennyson,” etc., needs no refutation. Bacon does not say that it was exceedingly difficult to “make” the biliteral cipher.

Again we find: “It would be more to the purpose if the Baconians would tell us why on earth Bacon could not let the world know in his lifetime that he had written Shakespeare.”

The principal reason was because the history of his life was largely given in those plays, not alone in the biliteral, but in the word-cipher, and the revelation of that in the lifetime of Queen Elizabeth would have cost his own life. He hoped against hope to the very day of the queen’s death, that she would relent and proclaim him heir to the throne. But he states that the witnesses were then dead, and the papers that would authenticate his claims destroyed. What could he do? Simply what he did.

In the peroration we find: “I fear that the desire to drag down Shakespeare from his pedestal, and to treat the testimony of his personal friends as that of lying rogues is due to that antipathy to the actor’s calling which has its eccentric manifestations even to this day.”

This cannot in any way refer to my book, for the very nature of this work eliminates personal thoughts and wishes or preconceived ideas. It is as mechanical as the reading of hieroglyphics, as naming perfectly well-known objects, as discriminating the clicks of the telegraph. And as far as Bacon was concerned he desired only his right.

It is by its great men in every age of the world that the actor’s calling is dignified, but the genius of the man of the stage is not necessarily the genius of the man who wrote the greatest plays that time through all the centuries has produced.

ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

THE BI-LITERAL CIPHER IN HENRY VII.

BACONIANA, LONDON, JULY 1905.

It has been suggested to me that I should give some of the results of my examination of Mrs. Wells Gallup’s work on Bacon’s _Henry VII._ I was not in England when Mrs. Gallup’s MSS. arrived from America, in the early part of 1904. On my return to London in June of that year, I heard that two or three members of our Society had been trying to work the cipher, but on comparing notes found that the various copies of the 1622 edition did not agree in some of the forms of the Italic letters. Only one member seemed inclined to devote the time and patience to investigate the matter at all thoroughly. That member, I understand, with much patience devoted _one whole week_ to the study of the italic letters. His very able report against the cipher made me wish to look into the matter still more thoroughly myself. This may appear presumptuous as I was not one of the committee appointed to enquire into the subject. But I had had the advantage of many conversations with Mrs. Gallup, when she first presented her work to the public five years ago, and saw her and her sister, Miss Wells, at work on a book they found in my house not before deciphered by them. I was busy with other literary work during the summer of 1904, but in the autumn made up my mind to send my own copy of the 1622 edition of _Henry VII._ to the Howard Publishing Company, in America, for examination. I was anxious to know if it was a safe copy on which I might commence my work. It was returned to me by Mr. Moore in January, 1905, with one or two pencilled corrections written by Mrs. Gallup in the margin. Mrs. Gallup, in her letter to me, said, “Your copy and ours are the same, except in a very few places.” In that letter, and in others since, she answered several of my questions, and they have materially helped me. I worked diligently for three months, often eight and ten hours a day.

My studies have been confined to the first fifty pages only of the medium Italic type. I find in these fifty pages 10,058 Italic letters. Of these, 1,319 are capitals. For the present I shall confine my remarks to the capitals only. In these fifty pages only twenty-two letters of the alphabet are used. I have completed my studies on thirteen of these letters. They represent 704 letters used for the two founts; and with very few exceptions I find them correctly so used in Mrs. Gallup’s MSS. sent to us for examination. I have not yet completed my studies on the remaining nine letters of the alphabet, representing 615 letters. I am, however, finding the majority of these correctly used also. I am a slow worker, but each day’s work is bringing out better results on these nine more difficult letters. I give below a table of all the letters in the order in which I found them easiest to read, with the columns of figures divided into “a’s” and “b’s.”

Totals. “a” “b”

A. 61 25 36 E. 78 58 20 I. J. 51 49 2 M. 49 41 8 N 42 32 10 U. V. 11 9 2 Q. 13 2 11 P. 163 119 44 R. 41 8 33 S. 93 62 31 W. 19 11 8 T. 70 39 31 Y. 13 7 6 K. 71 37 34 L. 68 46 22 F. 78 47 31 B. 99 65 34 D. 74 47 27 H. 24 12 12 O. 24 17 7 G. 25 18 7 C. 152 100 52 ---- ---- ----

1,319 851 468

It was suggested to me, by a member who disliked the facts revealed in the cipher story, that even if I found the 1,319 capitals correctly used, that would not be sufficient to prove the existence of the cipher, unless I could also find that the small letters were correctly used by Mrs. Gallup. This made me leave the capitals for a time. I have since studied all the small letters of the medium italic type in those first fifty pages. But as they represent 8,739 letters, for the present I can only say I have finished my studies on three of the letters, namely, “k,” “p,” “w,” and with only one or two exceptions I find them correctly used.

If my figures are correct, and I am prepared for the severest examination on these facts, can it be chance that those letters are correctly used in Mrs. Gallup’s MSS.?

I would like to say here, that were it actually the case that only two forms of letters are used, the deciphering of over 10,000 letters would have been a comparatively easy work. But in some of the letters there are many variations, and these again must be paired. And yet in all these pairings there is system and order, and a method in all the seeming madness.

My work would have progressed much more rapidly had two or three others worked with me. For those who have the leisure and much patience I can recommend this interesting study. I am willing and in a position to give them many short cuts, and they, in their turn, could, I have no doubt, help to finish the work I have commenced, that is, simply to verify the working of Mrs. Gallup’s MSS. on this _Henry VII._ Those Baconians who have never very seriously tried to work at the cipher, and are more concerned in refusing to accept the rather unpleasant historical facts revealed, I would ask to suspend their judgment, and to allow others, who may be honestly and seriously trying to arrive at the truth, still to be allowed to examine the work submitted by Mrs. Gallup at the request of some of the members of our Society. The more I, as an amateur, study this technical part of our work, the more convinced I feel that Bacon did use his famous bi-literal cipher in his own prose history of _Henry VII._ A new discovery has been placed before us, and by experts; why should we discredit their labours, and refuse to give an equal amount of time and patience in examining their work?

I would like here to bring forward some curious facts connected with the printing of the 1622 edition of _Henry VII._ I have before me six copies--one belonging to Mrs. Pott, another to Mrs. Payne, and four of my own. Mrs. Payne’s copy is similar to the copy collated for me by Mrs. Gallup. Mrs. Pott’s copy has many differences in it--not in the words and matter, but in the use of the two founts of the Italic type. Two of my own copies are similar to Mrs. Pott’s copy. My fourth copy, again, is quite different to all the others. Why should there be these differences in the various copies of the same edition? Why should type once set up have been altered? And, when altered, why should these changes be carried through with system and order in other copies? Before closing this paper, I would like to remind Baconians that Bacon, in writing to Tobie Mathew in 1609, uses these words: “I have sent you some copies of my book of the _Advancement_ which you desired; and a little work of my recreation which you desired not. My _Instauration_ I reserve for our conference; it sleeps not. Those works of the _alphabet_ are in my opinion of less use to you now than at Paris.... But in regard that some friends of yours have still insisted here, I send them to you, and for my part I value your own reading more than your publishing them to others” (Spedding, vol. iv., p. 134). Spedding, in criticising this letter, says, “What these 'Works of the Alphabet’ may have been I cannot guess, unless they related to Bacon’s cipher.” Spedding then proceeds again to explain this cipher.

Archbishop Tenison in 1679 was evidently aware that Bacon had used his Bi-literal Cipher in the 1623 folio of the “_De Augmentis_” for he especially recommends that “accurate” edition to those who wish to understand the Lord Bacon’s Cipher (BACONIANA, 1679, p. 28). I myself have very little doubt but that Tenison used the same cipher all through his BACONIANA. I only wish I were an expert, and could decipher what he says.

D. J. KINDERSLEY.

HENRY VII.

A REPLY TO THE REPORT OF MR. BOMPAS.

BACONIANA, LONDON, OCT. 1905.

I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to the article of the late Mr. Bompas in the July number of BACONIANA.

I am also grateful to Mr. Cunningham for his prefatory remarks and footnotes, and I wish to say that his regret is my own as well, that Mr. Bompas did not discuss the paper with members of the Society better advised than was he, and that the MS. of the article had not been submitted to me while Mr. Bompas was still with us, or at least before publication, for some, if not all, the erroneous conclusions drawn could have been dissipated before they took form. The explanations would have given that gentleman and his readers a more comprehensive view, a different view point, and greater light upon the subject.

It is rare that an article appearing in public print carries upon analysis its own evidences of error, and in the next preceding pages finds so complete a refutation as does this in the article of Mrs. Kindersley.

In his opening statement Mr. Bompas says: “The copies of _Henry VII._ which have been examined do not exactly correspond.... The form of many of the capitals also differs in the different copies.... Mr. Cuningham’s copy differs widely from the others.... Either each copy contains a different cipher story, which is absurd, or the decipherer happened by chance to light on the only correct copy, which is equally absurd.” Then Mr. Bompas proceeds to build an argument upon the fact that the copy of my MS., furnished to the Society, did not correspond with some copy of _Henry VII._ with which he compared it, concluding, therefore, that the cipher system must be a myth, and Mrs. Gallup a visionary or a fraud.

Any comparison to establish the correctness of my work must be made either with the copy I used or one identical with it. That Mr. Bompas used some copy _not_ identical, but one printed differently, is substantiated by Mrs. Kindersley, whose three months’ work on an identical copy--as against one week Mr. Bompas spent on a different printing--resulted in her verification of nearly all the letters studied. It is still more forcibly proved by the table of headings Mr. Bompas prints, the Italics in which do not at all correspond in the different forms with the book I used. It therefore follows that the entire argument, from pages 169 to and including part of 176, so far as relates to _Henry VII._, is founded upon a false premise and falls to the ground.

Mr. Bompas says, “Either each copy contains a different cipher, which is absurd,” &c.

On the contrary, that is just what occurs in unlike copies. Those widely differing belong to different editions, although published in the same year, as I have found to be true, and stated in my article in BACONIANA published in 1901. Two issues of the _Treatise of Melancholy_ appeared in 1586 with differing Italic printing. I have deciphered both. One ends with an incomplete cipher word, which is completed in the other where the narrative is continued, and the book ends with the signature of Bacon on the last page. I have also found that in two editions of Bacon’s acknowledged works one had the cipher and one had not. The peculiar Italicizing and the same forms of letters were in both. In one the arrangement of the letters followed the cipher system, in the other no amount of study could make them “read.” Bacon refers in the cipher to some false and surreptitious copies issued without his authority.

The differences in print of _Henry VII._ first came to light, apparently, through the comparisons made with my MS. in London, and the report of it was a great surprise to me. Mrs. Kindersley was kind enough to send me one of her copies, and, as before stated, this was found to be identical with the one I used except that three or four typographical errors in her copy were corrected in mine, and one in mine did not occur in hers, but in no case was a verbal change made and only one orthographical.

About the same time it chanced that a copy of the work--a recent importation from London--was sent me from Chicago for examination. This I found quite different in the use of Italics. I did not decipher the work, but became convinced that it either contained another cipher story, or was one of the “false and surreptitious copies” before referred to.

In addition to the criticism of _Henry VII._, Mr. Bompas refers to some typographical errors making slight differences in our own editions of the _Bi-literal Cipher_, and to the examples in the editions of _De Augmentis_ of 1623 and 1624.

I have to admit there are some printers’ errors in my book that escaped the closest proof reading, much to my regret. The proof reading was extremely difficult because of the care required to keep the unusual spelling and occasional abbreviations. Some errors were corrected in the third edition. Mr. Bompas found two or three--probably not all. I have had no opportunity to note the errata in a later publication. I can, however, make the broad assertion that in no single instance has any of these slight technical errors changed the meaning of a phrase, or made it obscure, or been of sufficient importance to affect in the least the overwhelming evidences of the existence of the system of the cipher and the correctness of its deciphering.

Manifest errors occurred in the text of the old books, which were corrected in the deciphering, but they were so few and so evident as to prove rather than to disprove the system. They occur mostly in long groups, as in the example of the cipher in _De Augmentis_, occasionally a short group of four letters, once in a while a wrong font letter, but the meaning of the context was always sufficiently clear in itself to correct the error. I cannot better illustrate this than by quoting from my “Replies to Criticisms,” issued in pamphlet form, but which has not appeared in public print. The explanation covers explicitly a number of points raised by Mr. Bompas, and being an analysis of Bacon’s own illustration of the cipher in the 1624 _De Augmentis_, has the weight of the author’s own methods of correction, and the suggestion, at least, that the errors were purposely made to educate the decipherer as to what would be encountered in the books; also the manner of overcoming the difficulties as they should arise.

“In the 1624 edition the second _i_ in _officio_ is changed by the law of tied letters; the second _u_ in _nunquam_ has position or angle of inclination, to make it an '_a_ fount’ letter; _q_ in _conquiesti_ is from the wrong fount, and the _u_ has features of both founts but is clear in one distinctive difference--the width at the top; the _q_ in _quia_ is reversed by a mark; the _a_'s in the first _causa_ are formed like '_b_ fount’ letters but are taller; the _q_ of _quos_ is from the wrong fount; the second _a_ in _aderas_ is reversed, being a tied letter; _l_ in _velint_ is from the wrong fount, also the _p_ of _parati_, the _l_ of _calumniam_ and the _l_ of _religione_.

“In line twelve '_pauci sunt_’ in 1623 ed. is '_parati sunt_’ in the 1624 ed. The correct grouping is _ntqui velin tquip ratis untom nesad_, the first _a_ in '_parati_’ must be omitted to read _diutius_ according to the Spartan dispatch. Otherwise the groups would be _arati sunto mnesa_. The _m_ and _n_ are both '_b_ fount,’ thus bringing two _b_'s at the beginning of this last group, indicating at once a mistake, for no letter in the bi-literal alphabet begins with two _b_'s and wherever encountered may be known to indicate either a wrong fount letter or a wrong grouping. It is one of the guards against error. To continue the groups after the one last given several would be found to commence with _bb_, and the resulting letters would not 'read.’

“Here, too, is an example of diphthongs, digraphs, and double letters, which are troublesome to 'A Correspondent.’ The diphthong æ of 'cæteris,’ the digraph _ct_ in _perfectare_, and the double _ff_'s and _pp_'s are shown as separate letters and must be treated as such in deciphering Italics.

“A very important feature, that most seem to forget, is that ciphers are made to hide things, not to make them plain or easy to decipher. They are constructed to be misleading, mysterious, and purposely made difficult except to those possessing the key. Seekers after knowledge through them must not abandon the hunt upon encountering the first difficulty, improbability, inaccuracy, or stumbling block set for their confusion.”

The article says: “The plain inference is that the Cipher and Cipher story are imaginary.”

Well, this is at least complimentary, but I doubt whether Mr. Bompas stopped to think what that statement would mean with all that it implies. I do not think he would, on reflection, give me credit for a genius so broad, for it would be equal to the production of the plays themselves.

Were I the possessor of an imagination so boundless, I would certainly not have spent it upon a production foredoomed to be unpopular, or have subjected myself to the strain upon nerves and eyesight of six years’ hard study of old books and their typographical peculiarities for a Baconian cloak to hide the brilliancy of that imagination. Yet if the material for the three hundred and ninety pages of my book were not found in Cipher in the old originals, then it must be the conception of my own brain. First, the plot of each story worked out; the account of Bacon’s discovery of his parentage; the variations from historic records; the death of Amy Robsart; the tragedy of Essex, and that of Mary, Queen of Scots, and other scraps of added history; the love of Bacon for Margaret, and all the rest. All this thought out, in diction, much of it, of the highest order, in the old English spelling and phraseology of the 16th century and fitted with such nice exactness to the Italic letters of the old books, “separated into groups of five”--letters that even the sceptics admit the capitals at least agree with the alleged system--the study of months in the British Museum; the explanations and demonstrations to numberless people--all to hide a genius so magnificent! In the language of Mr. Bompas, “Absurd!” And yet, I repeat, if not Cipher it must be my own production.

It is useless to discuss the probability of Bacon’s committing State secrets to such a Cipher. It is not a time to ask the question, “Is it likely?” _The Cipher is there_, and it only remains to master its intricacies and search out what it has to reveal.

ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

A WORD OR TWO ON CANONBURY TOWER.

_Baconiana, London._

There are several suggestive points of connection to be noted between the old conventual buildings of Canonbury and our Francis St. Alban. There are also obscure particulars well worthy of inquiry.

Originally the property of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, Canonbury House is generally supposed to have been built in 1362, ten years after Edward III. had exempted the Priory of St. Bartholomew from the payment of subsidies, in consequence of their great outlay in charity. Stow says that William Bolton (Prior from 1509 to 1532) rebuilt the house, and probably erected the fine square tower of brick. Nichol, in his “History of Canonbury,” mentions that Bolton’s rebus of _a bolt in a tun_ was still to be seen, cut in stone, in two places on the outside facing Wells’ Row. The original house covered the whole space now called Canonbury Place, and had a small park, with garden and offices. Prior Bolton either built or repaired the Priory and beautiful Church of St. Bartholomew, but at his death the connection between Canonbury and monasticism ceased.[10]

The Tower House was now given by Henry VIII. to John Dudley, Earl of Northumberland, afterwards Viscount Lisle, father of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, whose history has lately risen into fresh and startling importance in consequence of certain deciphered history to be submitted to the world’s judgment. John Dudley was executed as a traitor when Mary was proclaimed Queen in 1553. The Tower then again became Crown property, and Queen Mary gave it to “Rich Spencer,” the magnificent alderman of whom history speaks so fully, giving us even that which it denied us with regard to Francis St. Alban--details of his funeral obsequies. It is from this Sir John Spencer (father-in-law of Lord Compton) that Sir Francis “Bacon,” when Attorney-General (1616), leased Canonbury Manor.[11]

The internal arrangements and decorations of Canonbury House are commented on in detail by Lewis, who describes the elaborate ornamental carving, emblematic figures and devices, ships, flowers, foliage, and other objects which Baconians have learnt to associate with the symbolic method of teaching of the Renaissance, and pre-eminently of the “Great Master” himself, but which in the regulation literature of our day are described as “specimens of taste for ornamental carving and stucco work that prevailed about the time of Elizabeth.” There are also medallions of three great men who seem to have been in a way models to our Francis--types of the nobler Pioneer, the mighty Conqueror, the Master Builder, Alexander the Great, namely Julius Cæsar, Titus Vespasian. Then with the arms of the Dudleys may be seen the arms of Queen Elizabeth in several places, and her initials, “E. R.” with the date--1599, at which time the premises were fitted up by Sir John Spencer.

“On the white wall of the staircase, near the top of the Tower, are some Latin hexameter verses comprising the abbreviated names of the Kings of England from William the Conquerer to Charles I., painted in Roman character an inch in length, but almost obliterated. _The lines were most probably the effusion of some poetical inhabitant of an upper apartment in the building during the time of the monarch last named, such persons having frequently been residents of the place._”

Thomas Tomlins, in his “History of Islington,” writes thus:

“The Earl and Countess, by description Lord and Lady Compton, by indenture 15th February, Jac. 1616, let to the Right Hon. Francis Lord Verulam, Visct. St. Albans, by the name of Sir Francis Bacon Knight,[12] His Majs. Attorney General, all that mansion and garden belonging to what is called Canonbury House, in the Parish of Islington * * * for 40 years from Lady-day, 1617.”

With regard to the Tower, the same writer states:

“The great Sir Francis Bacon resided here from February, 1616; as also at the time of his receiving the Great Seal, on 7th Jan., 1618, and for some time afterwards.[13]

“After the decease of Henry Prince of Wales (in 1612) the Manor of Newington Barrowe was, with other portion of land, on 10th January, 14 Jac., granted upon lease for 99 years to Sir Francis Bacon, Knt., at that time the King’s Attorney General, and also Chancellor to Charles Prince of Wales, afterwards Charles I., and others, his law officers and ministers in trust for him, which lease, upon his accession, became merged in the Crown.”--Dated at Canonbury, 15th Sept., 1629.

In connection with recent statements concerning the parentage of Francis St. Alban, it will be observed that in Nelson’s “History of Islington” the writer states that Queen Elizabeth was at Canonbury Tower in the year 1561, and that she had a “lodge” or summer-house looking into Canonbury Fields. It bore her arms and initials, with the date 1595. “The Tower was encompassed by pleasant fields and gardens, and a salubrious air.”

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Pub.: Gay and Bird, London. The Howard Publishing Company, Detroit.

[2] “Introduction,” p. 11.

[3] He speaks in the third person--as a royal personage.

[4] Introduction, p. 8. It seems probable that this was written soon after the events in 1601.

[5] Introduction, p. 13.

[6] The Biliteral Cipher of Sir Francis Bacon, by Mrs. Gallup.

[7] The passage quoted is from the translation by Gilbert Wats, 1640, as reproduced in _The Bi-literal Cypher of Francis Bacon_, at the end of Part I.

[8] Published, since this article was written, in the Third Edition of _Bacon’s Bi-literal Cypher_.

[9] Even present day London writers are not in accord in the use of “u,” for I find in the _Times_, “_font_ of type.” Mr. Marston and others write “_fount_.”... Are the writings of “A Correspondent” in the _Times_ to be discredited for following the American method?

[10] See “Old and New London,” Vol. II., p. 269.

[11] Sir John Spencer’s daughter and heiress Elizabeth, married Lord William Compton (created Earl of Northampton), eloping with him from Canonbury Manor in a _baker’s basket_. (As I am a man, there was one conveyed out of my house yesterday in this basket.--_Merry Wives of W._