lillies of all kinds,The flower-de-luce being one.
lillies of all kinds,The flower-de-luce being one.
lillies of all kinds,The flower-de-luce being one.
For at least half a minute I thought, in my innocence, that I had made a discovery! But reflection of course, told me that so startling a parallelism must have been observed by hundreds before me. “Lillies of all kinds,†says Shakespeare;“lillies of all natures,†says Bacon; and each specifies “the flower-de-luce†as one of them! Surely, I said to myself, this is no mere coincidence! Surely one of these writers must have, consciously or unconsciously, taken the words from the other! On closer inspection, too, I found a remarkable resemblance between the two lists of flowers, Bacon’s and Shakespeare’s; that they are in fact substantially the same. Did then Shakspere borrow from Bacon? Very possibly, I thought; but on investigation I found that theEssay on Gardenswas first printed in 1625, nine years after player Shakspere’s death. Well, then, did Bacon borrow from Shakspere in this instance? Few, I think, would be inclined to adopt that hypothesis. The author of theEssayhad made a life-long study of gardens, and, as Mr. James Spedding writes (though I did not discover this till years afterwards), “it is not probable that Bacon would have anything to learn of William Shakespeare [i.e., Shakspere of Stratford] concerning the science of gardening.†“Moreover,†says the same writer, “the scene inWinter’s Talewhere Perdita presents the guests with flowers ... has some expressions which, if theEssayhad been printed somewhat earlier, would have made me suspect that Shakespeare had been reading it!â€[76]Yes, indeed, and these “expressions,†almost identical in both, have made some persons “suspect†that the same pen wrote both theEssayand theScene.
There are, as all those who have studied the two authors are aware, many other striking coincidencesto be found in the writings of Shakespeare and Bacon. In this chapter I propose to consider some of them only, namely those which, nearly twenty years ago, formed the subject of a controversy between the late Judge Webb, and the late Professor Dowden.
In the year 1902 the late Judge Webb, then Regius Professor of Laws, and Public Orator in the University of Dublin, published a book which he calledThe Mystery of William Shakespeare.
The eighth chapter of that work treats “Of Shakespeare as a Man of Science,†and here the learned Judge put forward a number of parallelisms taken from Shakespeare’s plays and Bacon’s works (mainly from theNatural History, which was published eleven years after the death of Shakspere of Stratford), in order to show that “the scientific opinions of Shakespeare so completely coincide with those of Bacon that we must regard the two philosophers as one in their philosophy, however reluctant we may be to recognize them as actually one.â€
To this the late Professor Dowden replied, inThe National Reviewof July, 1902, and brought forward an immense amount of learning to show that these coincidences really prove nothing, because “all which Dr. Webb regards as proper to Shakespeare and Bacon was, in fact,the common knowledge or common error of the time.†Whereunto the Judge, in a brief rejoinder (National Review, August, 1902), intimated that all he was concerned with was “the common knowledge and common error of Shakespeare and Bacon,†his case being that in mattersof science these two, as a fact, show an extremely close agreement. The question for the reader, therefore, is whether or not that agreement is so remarkable that something more than “the common knowledge or common errorof the time†is required to explain it.
Here the matter has been left, but I think it may be of interest to consider once more the points at issue between these two learned disputants. Let me premise that I do not write as a “Baconian.†The hypothesis that Bacon was the author of the plays of Shakespeare, or some of them, or some parts of them, may be mere “madhouse chatter,†as Sir Sidney Lee has styled it, or we may be content with more moderate language, and merely say that the hypothesis is “not proven.†I leave thatvexata quæstioon one side. But, whatever may be our opinion with regard to it, it must, I think, be admitted that some of the “parallelisms,†or “coincidences,†between Bacon and Shakespeare are really very remarkable, and the controversy between Judge Webb and Professor Dowden, which I here pass under review, has not, as it seems to me, so conclusively explained their existence as to leave nothing further for the consideration of an impartial critic.
Let me take an example. Bacon in hisSylva Sylvarum, orNatural History[77](Cent. I, p. 98), speaks of “the spirits or pneumaticals that are in all tangible bodies,†and which, he says, “are scarce known.†They are not, he tells us, as some suppose, virtues and qualities of the tangible partswhich “men see,†but “they are things by themselves,†i.e., entities. And again (Cent. VII, 601), he says, “all bodies have spirits, and pneumatical parts within them,†and he goes on to point out the differences between the “spirits†in animate, and those in inanimate things. Further on (Cent. VII, 693), Bacon writes: “It hath been observed by the ancients that much use of Venus doth dim the sight,†and the cause of this, he says, “is the expense of spirits.†Now in Sonnet 129 Shakespeare writes:
The expense of spirit in a waste of shameIs lust in action.
The expense of spirit in a waste of shameIs lust in action.
The expense of spirit in a waste of shameIs lust in action.
Here we certainly seem to have a remarkable agreement between Shakespeare and Bacon. Both use the very same expression “the expense of spirit†and (which constitutes the real strength of the parallel) both use it in exactly the same application. What is Professor Dowden’s explanation? He says that “the mediæval theory of ‘spirits’ will be found in theEncyclopædia of Bartholomew Anglicus on the Properties of Things,†which he says was “a book of wide influence.†He says further: “The popular opinions of Shakespeare’s time respecting ‘spirits’ may be read inBright’s Treatise of Melancholy, 1586, andBurton’s Anatomy, 1621, and in many another volume.... Bright, in hisMelancholy, seems almost to anticipate the theory of Bacon, and possibly he was himself influenced by Paracelsus.†As to the expression “expense of spirit,†he says it may be found in this book of Bright’s (pp. 62, 237,and 244), and in Donne’sProgress of the Soul. I do not understand the Professor to suggest that the Stratford player had consulted these works (Burton, of course, is out of the question) for he writes: “The language of Shakespeare is popular, and connected probably neither with what Bright nor what Bacon wrote, but if a theory be required, it can be found as easily in a volume which Shakespeare might have read, as in a volume published after his death.†Bacon, however, we may say with confidence, knew these books, and had, in all probability, read them. The Professor, for instance, refers to Paracelsus, and subsequently, on another point, to Scaliger. Bacon, as we know, was familiar with both these writers, and makes reference to them (see, for instance,Natural History, Cent. IV, 354, and Cent. VII, 694), whereas it will, I suppose, hardly be suggested that the player had sought inspiration in the works of these scholars.
The first question, then, which suggests itself is this. Are we to conclude, because there is a theory of “spirits†(which Bacon says “are scarce knownâ€) to be found in Bartholomew Anglicus, and Bright, and Paracelsus, that it was a matter of “popular†knowledge, a subject with which Shakspere of Stratford, as well as the philosopher of Gorhambury, would have been likely to be familiar? This question seems to me a very doubtful one, but if it is to be answered in the affirmative, then we have to ask: Is this assumed popular knowledge, or popular error, sufficient to account for the use by both Shakespeare and Bacon of exactly the same expression in exactly the same collocation? Andin considering this question we must remember that the evidence is cumulative, i.e., this coincidence is not a solitary instance, but only one of many, and it is but fair, if we wish to come to a just decision, that all of them should be considered together.
But how far is it true, as Professor Dowden alleges it to be, that “Bright in hisMelancholyseems almost to anticipate the theory of Bacon?†The book is a scarce one. There is no copy in the London Library. However I have taken the trouble to examine it at the British Museum. Professor Dowden refers to pages 62, 237, and 244. In the edition which I examined, that of 1586, there is no reference to the “expense of spirits†at p. 237. Neither is there at p. 62. On page 63, however, I find the following. The author, one Timothy Bright, “Doctor of Phisicke,†is speaking of strong affections of the mind, and he says: “If it holde on long and release not, the nourishment will also faile, the increase of the body diminish, and the flower of beautie fade, and finally death take his fatall hold; which commeth to passe, not onely byexpence of spirit, but by leaving destitute the parts, whereby declining to decay, they become at length unmeete for the entertainment of so noble an inhabitant as the soule,†etc. On p. 244 we read: “Now as all contention of the mind is to be intermitted, so especially that whereto the melancholicke person most hath given himself before the passion is chiefly to be eschued, for the recoverie of former estate and restoring the depraved conceit and fearefull affection. For there, if the affection of liking go withal, both hart and braine do overprodigallyspend their spiriteand with them the subtilest parts of the naturall iuyce [juice] and humours of the bodie. If of mislike and the thing be by forcible constraint layd on, the distracting of the mind, from the promptness of affection, breedeth such an agonie in our nature that thereon riseth also greatexpence of spirit, and of the most rare and subtile humours of our bodies, which are as it were the seate of our naturall heate,†etc.
Now in both these passages we find, indeed, the expression the “expense of spirit,†but, except for that, it appears that they can hardly be cited as parallel passages with those of either Bacon or Shakespeare. It is not alleged that this expression is peculiar to these two writers—assuming the duality. The parallelism consists in this, that they both use the words in connection with what Bacon terms “the use of Venus.†I cannot see that the passages in Bright’s treatise, when they are carefully examined, make this parallelism at all less remarkable.
The Professor further tells us that the expression “expense of spirits†may be found in Donne’sProgress of the Soul[78]Stanza VI. I do not find it in that stanza, but in Stanza V the following occurs. The poet prays that he may be free,
From the letsOf steep ambition, sleepy poverty,Spirit-quenching sickness, dull captivity,Distracting business, and from beauty’s nets,And all that calls from this, and t’ others whets,O let me not launch out, but let me saveTh’ expence of brain, and spirit, that my graveHis right and due, a whole unwasted man, may have.
From the letsOf steep ambition, sleepy poverty,Spirit-quenching sickness, dull captivity,Distracting business, and from beauty’s nets,And all that calls from this, and t’ others whets,O let me not launch out, but let me saveTh’ expence of brain, and spirit, that my graveHis right and due, a whole unwasted man, may have.
From the letsOf steep ambition, sleepy poverty,Spirit-quenching sickness, dull captivity,Distracting business, and from beauty’s nets,And all that calls from this, and t’ others whets,O let me not launch out, but let me saveTh’ expence of brain, and spirit, that my graveHis right and due, a whole unwasted man, may have.
And in Stanza XXI are the words quoted by Professor Dowden, concerning the sparrow:
Freely on his she friendsHe blood, and spirit, pith and marrow spends.
Freely on his she friendsHe blood, and spirit, pith and marrow spends.
Freely on his she friendsHe blood, and spirit, pith and marrow spends.
This indeed proves, what nobody has ever denied, viz., that the expression “to spend the spirit†is not confined among writers of the Elizabethan age to Bacon and Shakespeare. To what extent it detracts from the force of the coincidence on which Judge Webb has laid stress, I must leave it to the reader to determine. The learned Judge laughs at the idea that citations from Bright’sTreatise of Melancholyand Donne’sProgress of the Soul, are proof that the expression was one in common use.
There is another example of agreement between Bacon and Shakespeare in connection with this theory of “spirits.†Jessica says (Merchant of Venice, V. 1):
I am never merry when I heare sweet music.
I am never merry when I heare sweet music.
I am never merry when I heare sweet music.
To which Lorenzo replies:
The reason is your spirits are attentive.
The reason is your spirits are attentive.
The reason is your spirits are attentive.
Bacon writes (Natural Hist.Cent. VIII, 745): “Some noises help sleep; as the blowing of the wind, the trickling of water, humming of bees,soft singing, reading, etc. The cause is for thatthey move in the spirits a gentle attention.â€
Upon this Professor Dowden tells us that Bright talks of music “alluring the spirites,†while “Burton quotes from Lemnius, who declares that music not only affects the ears, ‘but the very arteries, the vital and animal spirits,’ and, againfrom Scaliger, who explains its power as due to the fact that it plays upon ‘the spirits about the heart,’ whereupon Burton, like Shakespeare’s Lorenzo, proceeds to speak of the influence of music upon beasts, and like Lorenzo, cites the tale of Orpheus.†But Burton’sAnatomywas not published till 1621, about five years after Shakspere’s death, and we can hardly suppose that the player delved into “Lemnius†or “Scaliger!†But we shall doubtless be told that, whether Shakspere had read these books or not, the fact that Bright speaks of music alluring the spirits shows that this was a common expression, and that Lorenzo’s words are to be referred to “the common knowledge or the common error of the time.†But Lorenzo says, “your spirits areattentive,†and Bacon speaks of “a gentleattention†of the spirits. I do not see this expression in Bright, or Lemnius, or Scaliger, as quoted by Professor Dowden. Here, then, we have two expressions, “the expense of spirits†in connection with Venus, and “the attention of spirits†in connection with music, both in Shakespeare and Bacon. It will be for every reader who is interested in the question, taking these coincidences with many others of a similar character, to decide whether “the common knowledge of the time†affords a sufficient explanation. And let him remember two things—first, that it is, of course, impossible to find an agreement between Shakespeare and Bacon on a subject of which they two alone (if two they were) had exclusive knowledge, and secondly that though one, or two, or three threads may not suffice to bear a weight, agreat many threads combined into a cord may do so. At any rate, it may be said of these two:
Utrumque vestrum incredibili modoConsentit astrum.
Utrumque vestrum incredibili modoConsentit astrum.
Utrumque vestrum incredibili modoConsentit astrum.
Judge Webb, of course, refers to the well-known fact that both Shakespeare and Bacon held similar views on the relationship of Art to nature, both holding that art was not something different from nature, but a part of nature. All will remember the dialogue between Perdita and Polixenes in theWinter’s Tale:
Per.: ... The fairest flowers o’ the seasonAre our carnations and streak’d gillyvors,Which some call nature’s bastards; of that kindOur rustic garden’s barren: and I care notTo get slips of them.Pol.: ... Wherefore, gentle maiden,Do you neglect them?Per.: ... For I have heard it saidThere is an art which in their piedness sharesWith great creating nature.Pol.: ... Say there be;Yet nature is made better by no mean,But nature makes that mean: so, over that artWhich you say adds to nature, is an artThat nature makes. You see, sweet maid, we marryA gentler scion to the wildest stockAnd make conceive a bark of baser kindBy bud of nobler race: this is an artWhich does mend nature, change it rather, butThe art itself is nature.
Per.: ... The fairest flowers o’ the seasonAre our carnations and streak’d gillyvors,Which some call nature’s bastards; of that kindOur rustic garden’s barren: and I care notTo get slips of them.Pol.: ... Wherefore, gentle maiden,Do you neglect them?Per.: ... For I have heard it saidThere is an art which in their piedness sharesWith great creating nature.Pol.: ... Say there be;Yet nature is made better by no mean,But nature makes that mean: so, over that artWhich you say adds to nature, is an artThat nature makes. You see, sweet maid, we marryA gentler scion to the wildest stockAnd make conceive a bark of baser kindBy bud of nobler race: this is an artWhich does mend nature, change it rather, butThe art itself is nature.
Per.: ... The fairest flowers o’ the seasonAre our carnations and streak’d gillyvors,Which some call nature’s bastards; of that kindOur rustic garden’s barren: and I care notTo get slips of them.
Pol.: ... Wherefore, gentle maiden,Do you neglect them?
Per.: ... For I have heard it saidThere is an art which in their piedness sharesWith great creating nature.
Pol.: ... Say there be;Yet nature is made better by no mean,But nature makes that mean: so, over that artWhich you say adds to nature, is an artThat nature makes. You see, sweet maid, we marryA gentler scion to the wildest stockAnd make conceive a bark of baser kindBy bud of nobler race: this is an artWhich does mend nature, change it rather, butThe art itself is nature.
It certainly seems remarkable that the King of Bohemia should lecture the country girl on the essential identity of nature and art. It is notexactly what we should have expected. It is somewhat strange, too, to find Bacon waxing eloquent on the same subject, and to the same effect. Take the following from theDe Augmentis(Lib. II, Cap. ii.): “Libenter autem historiam artium, ut historiæ naturalis speciem, constituimus: quia inveteravit prorsus opinio,ac si aliud quippiam esset ars a natura, artificialia a naturalibus.... Sed et illabitur etiam animis hominum aliud subtilius malum; nempe,ut ars censeatur solummodo tanquam additamentum quoddam, naturæ, cujus scilicet ea sit vis, ut naturam, sane, vel inchoatam perficere, vel in deterius vergentem emendare, vel impeditam liberare; minime vero penitus vertere, transmutare, aut in imis concutere possit: quod ipsum rebus humanis præproperam desperationem intulit.â€
That is to say, “we very willingly treat the history of art as a form of natural history; for an opinion has long been prevalentthat art is something different from nature—things artificial from things natural.... There is likewise another and more subtle error which has crept into the human mind, namely, that of considering art as merely an assistant[79]to nature, having the power indeed to finish what nature has begun, to correct her when lapsing into error, or to set her free when in bondage, but by no means to change, transmute, or fundamentally alter nature. And this has bred a premature despair in human enterprises.†He goes on to point out that, on the contrary, there is no essential difference between art and nature,things artificial being simply things natural as affected by human agency, which is a part of nature, so that in the words of Shakespeare, “the art itself is nature.â€[80]
Here it may be worth while to point out that these words are not to be found in the EnglishAdvancement of Learning, first printed in 1605, but are found in the enlarged Latin version made under Bacon’s supervision, and published in 1623, the very year in which theWinter’s Talealso first saw the light in print, to wit in theFirst Folio. The play may, no doubt, have been written some ten years before that, but whether in its earlier form it contained all this not very appropriate philosophy concerning art and nature, it is of course impossible to say. It is said to have been written about 1611, and we find Bacon writing about the same time very much to the same effect as above quoted.[81]
Artificial selection is, therefore, after all only a form and part of natural selection, thedifferentiabeing that it is human agency which brings it into play. And that Bacon had, by one of his luminous intuitions, which are really quite as remarkable ashis inductive philosophy, a foreshadowing of the theory of evolution is undeniable, for we have it plainly stated in hisNatural History(Cent. VI, 525): “This work of the transmutation of plants one into another isinter magnalia naturæ; for thetransmutation of speciesis, in vulgar philosophy, pronounced impossible, and certainly it is a thing of difficulty, and requireth deep search into nature; but seeing there appear some manifest instances of it, the opinion of impossibility is to be rejected, and the means thereof to be found out.â€[82]
As to the “streaked gillivors, which some call nature’s bastards,†we find that Bacon has much to say concerning experiments in the colouration and variation of these gillyflowers. In theNatural History(Cent. VI, 506), he writes: “Amongst curiosities I shall place coloration, though it be somewhat better: for beauty in flowers is their pre-eminence. It is observed by some that gillyflowers ... that are coloured, if they be neglected, and neither watered, nor new molded, nor transplanted, will turn white.†Subsequently (510) we read: “Take gillyflower seed, of one kind of gillyflower, as of the clove gillyflower, which is the most common, and sow it, and there will come up gillyflowers some of one colour and some of another,†etc. Then, in 513, we come to the application of “art†to these flowers: “It is a curiosity also to make flowers double, which iseffected by often removing them into new earth.... Inquire also whetherinoculatingof flowers, as stock-gillyflowers ... doth not make them double.â€
At any rate it must, I think, be admitted that we have here some very remarkable resemblances between Bacon and Shakespeare. First we have, as mentioned in the opening of this chapter, an almost complete verbal agreement, “lillies of all kinds, the flower-de-luce being one,†and “flower-de-luces and lillies of all naturesâ€; then we have two very similar lists of flowers according to the seasons, whether of the year, or of human life; then we have a complete and, I think extraordinary agreement, as to the philosophy of “nature†and “artâ€â€”to wit, that the two are essentially one, since art is but part of nature. Moreover it seems that both writers, if two there were, were writing these things just about the same time. And finally we find that both writers are much concerned with the colours and varieties of “streaked gillyvors†or “stock-gillyvors.â€[83]
What does Professor Dowden say to this? He quotes William Harrison’sDescription of England: “How art also helpeth nature in the dailie colouring, dubling, and enlarging the proportion of our floures, it is incredible, to report,†etc. But Harrison does not say, as Shakespeare and Bacon say, that the art is part of nature (“The art itself is natureâ€). He merely speaks of art as anadditamentum quoddamnaturæ, which is just the proposition that Bacon (and Shakespeare, by implication) condemns as fallacious. Professor Dowden then tells us that this thought as to art and nature was prominent in the teaching of Paracelsus whom Bacon refuses to honour. But whether or not Bacon refuses to honour Paracelsus he was, at any rate, familiar with him, and makes frequent mention of him. So again as to Pliny, whom the Professor appeals to in this matter. Bacon cites him in the very passage of theDe Augmentis(Lib. II, Cap. ii), part of which I have quoted. It seems rather remarkable that the authors to whom the Professor makes his appeal should be, so frequently, writers such as Pliny, and Paracelsus, and Scaliger who certainly were well known to Bacon. I doubt if the Stratford player had included these in his (assumed) omnivorous reading; nor do I think “the common knowledge and common error of the time†explain these coincidences of thought and expression in an altogether satisfactory way. The lines,
... this is an artWhich does mend nature, change it rather, butThe art itself is nature,
... this is an artWhich does mend nature, change it rather, butThe art itself is nature,
... this is an artWhich does mend nature, change it rather, butThe art itself is nature,
really do seem to bear the Baconian stamp on the face of them. However those who think it sufficient to find that something similar (though certainly not the same) was said by somebody else somewhere about the same time will doubtless be satisfied with Professor Dowden’s hypothesis of a common origin in common knowledge, or error; and those who are “convinced against their will,†will, as usual, be “of the same opinion still.†They should note,however, that Mr. Spedding candidly admits that if theEssay on Gardenshad been published before 1616, he would have suspected that it had been read by Shakespeare!
It is interesting to note that Shakespeare speaks of plants as distinguished by sex difference. An old friend of mine, now, alas, gone to that bourne whence no traveller returns, who, like many others, used to maintain that “everything can be found in Shakespeare†(a proposition which if confined within reasonable limits I should be the last to dispute) was so struck by this fact that, in an article contributed by him to theSaturday Review, he expressed the opinion that “it can only be explained as a flash of genius hitting on an obscure truth by a great observer, as Shakespeare undoubtedly was.†And in a note to this article, when published with others in book form, he says: “I claim the discovery in the case of flowers for Shakespeare.â€[84]But the conception of sex-difference in plants originated long before the days of Shakespeare. It is, if I remember rightly, to be found in Herodotus. But however that may be, it was certainly well known to Bacon who writes (Nat. Hist.Cent. VII, 608): “For the difference of sexes in plants they are oftentimes by name distinguished, as male-piony, female-piony, male-rosemary, female-rosemary, he-holly, she-holly,†etc. He goes on to notice the case of the he-palm and the she-palm, which were said to fall violently in love with one another, as to which further details may be found in Burton’sAnatomy of Melancholy. Bacon adds: “I am aptenough to think that this samebinariumof a stronger and a weaker, like unto masculine and feminine, doth hold in all living bodies.â€[85]
To return for a moment to Professor Dowden. I should be the last to deny that he states the case against Judge Webb, so far as regards these Shakespeare-Bacon parallelisms, with great force and learning, and what in an “orthodox†critic is, perhaps, best of all, with admirable temper. And in some cases, I am free to admit that he seems to me to have the best of the argument.
But let us take another example. Hamlet, in his letter to Ophelia, writes:
Doubt thou the stars are fire,Doubt that the sun doth move;Doubt truth to be a liar;But never doubt I love.
Doubt thou the stars are fire,Doubt that the sun doth move;Doubt truth to be a liar;But never doubt I love.
Doubt thou the stars are fire,Doubt that the sun doth move;Doubt truth to be a liar;But never doubt I love.
Upon this Judge Webb comments that Bacon, notwithstanding the teaching of Bruno, and of Galileo, maintained that “the celestial bodies, most of them, are fires or flames as the Stoics held,†and that, notwithstanding the teaching of Copernicus, he held the mediæval doctrine of “the heavens turning about in a most rapid motion.†And he adds, with a touch of sarcasm: “The marvel is that the omniscient Shakespeare with his superhuman genius maintained these exploded errors as confidently as Bacon.†Whereunto Professor Dowden replies that “it presses rather hardlyupon Hamlet’s distracted letter to deduce from his rhyme ‘a theory of the celestial bodies,’â€and he goes on to say that, “in fact Shakespeare repeats the reference to the stars as fires many times,†and that “references to the stars as fire and to the motion of the heavens are scattered over the pages of Shakespeare’s contemporaries as thickly as the stars themselves.â€
Now all this about the stars might, as it seems to me, have been omitted altogether. To assert that the fixed stars are “fire†is surely not to be taken as a proof of scientific ignorance! The sun itself is but a star, and all of us have read of the “mighty flames,†as Sir Robert Ball calls them, that leap from the surface of the sun.[86]But to affirm “that the sun doth move†as one of the certainties of human knowledge was in Shakespeare’s time tantamount to a rejection of the heliocentric teaching of Copernicus and Bruno in favour of the old Ptolemaic system, or, at any rate, of a system in which the earth is supposed to be at rest.[87]Now, that Bacon had failed to profit by the teaching of Copernicus is certain, for in hisDescriptio Globi IntellectualisandThema CÅ“li(1612) he condemns all the then existing systems of Astronomy asunsatisfactory. His biographer, Dr. Abbott, who is very far from being an indulgent critic, finds much excuse for him here in the fact that Copernicus “himself advocated his own system merely as an hypothesis,†and that it was inconsistent and incomplete until Newton had discovered the Law of Gravitation. He adds: “It is creditable to Bacon’s faith in the uniformity of nature, that he predicted that future discoveries would rest ‘upon observation of the common passions and desires of matter’—an anticipation of Newton’s law of attraction.â€[88]
But granting that Bacon and Shakespeare were at one in their rejection of the teaching of Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo, it seems to me that no argument on behalf of the Baconian theory can be safely founded upon that fact. For the “Stratfordian†answer is very simple, viz., that William Shakspere, the Stratford player and supposed author, very naturally was not abreast of the most advanced scientific teaching of his day. He, of course, conceived that the sun moved round the earth as Ptolemy taught, and notvice versâ. The argument therefore can only be effective (if at all) as against those Shakespeariolaters who conceive that player Shakspere was omniscient, or, at least, wrote, as it were, by plenary inspiration.
Mr. Edwin Reed, however, makes another use of these lines. He points out that in the Quartoof 1603 they do not run as above quoted, but as follows:
Doubt that in earth is fire,Doubt that the stars do move,Doubt truth to be a liar,But do not doubt I love,
Doubt that in earth is fire,Doubt that the stars do move,Doubt truth to be a liar,But do not doubt I love,
Doubt that in earth is fire,Doubt that the stars do move,Doubt truth to be a liar,But do not doubt I love,
and he refers to Bacon’sCogitationes de Natura Rerum, assigned to the latter part of 1603, or the early part of 1604, and quotes a passage from hisDe Principiis atque Originibus, in order to show that at that date Bacon had changed his mind in regard to the commonly accepted belief in the existence of a mass of molten matter at the centre of the earth, and maintained that, on the contrary, the terrestrial globe is cold to the core. He goes on to suggest that the substitution of “the sun†for “the stars,†giving us the line,
Doubt that the sun doth move,
Doubt that the sun doth move,
Doubt that the sun doth move,
in the 1604 edition, is indicative of a deliberate intention on the part of the writer to retain “the doctrine that the earth is the centre of the universe around which the sun and stars daily revolve.†So that, in spite of Copernicus, and Bruno, and Kepler and Galileo, Bacon and the author of the Plays “were agreed in holding to the cycles and epicycles of Ptolemy, after all the rest of the scientific world had rejected them, and they were also agreed in rejecting the Copernican theory after all the rest of the scientific world had accepted it.†And the same doctrine is, of course, retained in the Folio edition ofHamlet, published in 1623, in which same year Bacon wrote, in the third book of theDe Augmentis, that the theory of the earth’s motion is absolutely false!
All this is ingenious, but how far it is convincing must be left for the reader’s consideration.
Let us take yet another example. Bacon in hisNatural History(s. 464) tells us that “as terebration doth meliorate fruit, so upon the like reason doth letting of plants blood,†the difference being that the blood-letting is only to be effected “at some seasons†of the year. And so also the gardener in Richard II says:
We at time of yearDo wound the bark, the skin of our fruit trees,Lest, being over-proud with sap and blood,With too much riches it confound itself.
We at time of yearDo wound the bark, the skin of our fruit trees,Lest, being over-proud with sap and blood,With too much riches it confound itself.
We at time of yearDo wound the bark, the skin of our fruit trees,Lest, being over-proud with sap and blood,With too much riches it confound itself.
Here, as Professor Dowden admits, “the parallel is remarkably close,†but in order to show the “common knowledge of the time,†which is to account for it, he cites Holland’sPlinyto the effect that trees “have a certain moisture in their barkes which we must understand to be their very blood,†and he further refers to Pliny (XVII. 24), to the effect that a fir or pine tree must not have its bark “pulled†during certain months, and adds that, “like Shakespeare, Pliny terms the bark the ‘skin’ of the tree.†Once more, it is remarkable that the reference should be to Pliny, an author with whom, as we know, Bacon was on very familiar terms.[89]However, there is a further illustration from Dekker, and a quotation as to “proudly-stirring†sap from Gervase Markham.
Here again, the only question, as it seems to me, is whether this “remarkably close parallelism,†considered as one among many, is satisfactorily explained by the fact that other contemporary writers spoke of wounding the bark of trees, and drawing blood. It would, certainly, be more satisfactory, from a Baconian point of view, if we could find in both Bacon and Shakespeare something which could only have been known to those two writers, or to that one writer. But as that is hardly possible we have to consider all the parallel passages together, and ask ourselves whether or not, taken as a whole, they raise the presumption of identity of authorship.
Judge Webb, while denying the allegation that “all that is proper to Shakespeare and to Bacon was the common knowledge or common error of the time,†writes as follows: “Whatever inferences may be deduced from the fact, it surely is a fact that the poet, like the philosopher, maintained the theory of pneumaticals, the theory of the transformation of species, the theory that the sun is the efficient cause of storms, the theory that flame is a fixed body, the theory that the stars are fires, and the theory that the heavens revolve around the earth. That the poet should have been as interested as the philosopher in scientific matters is surely a fact worth noting; and even if they resorted to the store of ‘the common knowledge or common error of the time,’ it surely is remarkable that they not only resorted to the same storehouse, but selected the same things, and incorporated the same things in their respective writings, and, so far as either theirknowledge or their errors in matters of science were concerned, were in reality the same.â€
And here, since I profess not to be compiling a new “brief for the plaintiff†in the great case ofBacon v. Shakespeare, I am content to leave this interesting controversy for further consideration.
G. G.
Inthe year 1867 there was discovered at old Northumberland House in the Strand, in a box which had been for many years unopened, an Elizabethan manuscript volume containing, amongst other things, the transcripts of certain compositions admittedly the work of Francis Bacon. It commences with four speeches written by Bacon in 1592 for Essex’sDevice, viz.: “The praise of the worthiest virtueâ€; “The praise of the worthiest affectionâ€; “The praise of the worthiest powerâ€; “The praise of the worthiest person.†These speeches were published in 1870 by Mr. James Spedding, with an introductory notice of the manuscript, and a facsimile of its much bescribbled outside page, or cover, of which more anon. The speech in praise of knowledge professes to have been spoken in “A conference of Pleasure,†and Mr. Spedding adopted this as the title of his little work. The manuscript book is thus described by him: “It is a folio volume of twenty-two sheets which have been laid one upon the other, folded double (as in an ordinary quire of paper) and fastened by a stitch through the centre.Butas the pages are not numbered and the fastening is gone, it may once have contained more, and if we may judge by what is still legible on the much bescribbled outside leaf which once served for a table of contents, there is some reason to suspect that it did.†In a note he adds: “One leaf, however—that which would have been the tenth—is missing; and one, which is the fourth, appears to have been glued or pasted in.†It is clear that he included this missing “tenth†leaf in his “twenty-two sheets.â€
Mr. Spedding, therefore, carefully examined the volume in the condition in which it was when found at Northumberland House, and, as his accuracy is well known, we may be content to rely upon his evidence in this matter. At any rate it is the best that we can now get, for as Mr. Frank Burgoyne, the Librarian of the Lambeth Public Libraries (who in 1904 edited and published a transcript and colotype facsimile of the whole of the contents of the volume) informs us: “Since Mr. Spedding wrote, the manuscript has been taken to pieces and each leaf carefully inlaid in stout paper, and these have been bound up with a large paper copy of his pamphlet entitled ‘A conference of Pleasure.’ The manuscript in its present condition contains 45 leaves, so Mr. Spedding does not appear to have included the outside page in his enumeration. The pages are not numbered, and there are no traces of stitching, or sewing;it is therefore quite impossible even to conjecture what was the number of sheets in the original volume.â€[90]
This statement will be found not unimportant when we come to consider yet another work on these old manuscripts, also published in 1904, by Mr. T. Le Marchant Dowse. Mr. Dowse is anxious to limit the original volume to a quire of 24 sheets. Spedding, he says, “tells us it was a quire of 22 sheets, [Spedding however, only says it was folded double “as in an ordinary quire of paperâ€] but he omits to take into account the outer sheet, which was of the same fold of paper and served as a cover; this made 23 sheets. Moreover he tells us leaf 10 was missing (the written matter, however runs on without a break); but as leaf 10 must have formed one half of a sheet, the other half, in the latter part of the MS., should also have been missing, consequently the ‘quire’ was originally a full and proper quire of 24 sheets.â€
But as I have already pointed out, Spedding evidently includes the missing leaf, which he numbers “the tenth,†in his twenty-two sheets, equally with the leaf which, as he says, “appears to have been glued or pasted in.†Mr. Dowse’s ingenious attempt to limit the volume to 24 sheets therefore fails, and, in the present condition of the manuscripts, the only safe conclusion is that stated by Mr. Burgoyne, viz., that “it is quite impossible even to conjecture what was the number of sheets in the original volume.†But of this more presently.
On the outside page or cover, besides a number of very interesting scribblings, we find a list which has been generally looked upon as a table of contents of the volume as it originally existed. It runs as follows:
But, as Mr. Spedding points out, just above the writing, “Earle of Arundells letter to the Queen,†stand the words “Philipp against Mounsieur,†a title which he says seems to have been inserted afterwards, and is imperfectly legible.â€[91]This evidently refers to Sir Philip Sydney’s letter to the Queen dissuading her from marrying the Duke of Anjou, which is part of the contents of the volume as it has come down to us. The Gray’s Inn Revels are, no doubt, those of 1594-5 of which the history is related in theGesta Grayorum.
Now of this list, besides the four Discourses or “Praises,†only four items are found in the volume as it at present exists, viz., the “Speaches for my lord of Essex at the tyltâ€; the “Speach for my lord of Sussex at the tiltâ€; “Leycester’s Common Wealth,†and Sir Philip Sydney’s letter. Theactual contents of the volume in its present condition are as follows:[92]
On comparing these two lists we find also that four of the articles now contained in the volume are not mentioned in the list on the outer page, viz.:
On the other hand if this list was really a list of the original contents of the volume then eight articles have disappeared from the book, besidesthe missing portions ofLeycester’s Commonwealth, viz.:
Now, on this state of things, Mr. Dowse vehemently contends that the list on the outside cover is not, and never was meant to be a “table of contents.†He asserts that all this matter could not have been either accidentally lost, or (as seems much more probable) intentionally abstracted from the volume. First, because he says the volume originally consisted of a quire and no more; but as I have already said this is a mere conjecture, which in the face of Mr. Spedding’s evidence, is quite untenable. Secondly, because, “on the said assumption, the MS, as found, should have shown a considerable bulge, from top to bottom, alongside the fold,†and Spedding must have seen this “considerable bulge†if it had been there, and must have mentioned it if he had seen it! Mr. Dowse goes on to say that there is other “evidence on the point quite sufficient to satisfy reasonable beings,†which is an expression commonly used when a writer wishes to imply that those who do not accept his conclusions are not endowed with the reasoning faculty. Mr. Dowse’s idea of “evidence†is, as I shall show, somewhat peculiar, but in any case, I do not think many of his readerswill be much impressed with the “considerable bulge,†or “the silence of Mr. Spedding†line of argument, especially as Mr. Spedding, though not mentioning the “bulge,†has definitely put on record his opinion that the volume may have originally included much more matter than it now contains. It is almost certain, for example, that it contained, with the other speeches written by Bacon for Essex’sDevicein 1595,The Squire’s speech in the tilt-yard, as well as the beginning and the end ofLeycester’s Common Wealth. But let us hear Mr. Spedding. After enumerating the speeches written for thisDevice, which are now contained in the volume (viz., The Hermits fyrst speach: The Hermits second speach: The Soldier’s speach: The Squire’s speach), he writes: “These are the speeches written by Bacon for aDevicepresented by the Earl of Essex on the Queen’s day 1595, concerning which seeLetters and Life of Francis Bacon, vol. I. pp. 374-386. The principal difference between this copy and that at Lambeth, from which the printed copy was taken, is that this doesnotcontain ‘The Squire’s speech in the tilt-yard,’ with which the other begins, anddoescontain a short speech from the Hermit—‘the Hermitt’s fyrst speach’—which seems to be a reply to it. It is possible that the beginning has been lost,as any number of sheets may have dropped out at this place, without leaving any evidence of the fact.â€
Further on (p. xix), after giving the list of the titles on the outside cover, which he takes to have been a table of contents, Mr. Spedding writes:“The principal difficulties which I find in it are, first, the absence from the list of all allusion to theAdvertisement touching the controversies of the Church of England, which can never have been separated from the volume, and has all the appearance of having been transcribed about the same time, and is too large a piece to have been overlooked; secondly, the absence from the volume itself of all trace of theEarl of Arundell’s letter to the Queen, which appears in the list, and thirdly, the misplacing of the entry of Sir PhilipSydney’s Letter against Monsieur, which stands higher in the list than it should. All this however may be explained by a few suppositions, not in themselves improbable, namely that the transcriber of the first five pieces left his list of contents incomplete; that the transcriber who followed him set down the contents only of his own portion; that the first sheet or two of his transcript has been lost, and that Sydney’s letter had been at first overlooked. I have already observed that the sheet on which the fifth piece ends and what is now the sixth begins, is the middle sheet of the volume; and therefore ifanything came between these two, it may have been taken out without leaving any traces of itself. I have noticed also that Sir Philip’s letter has no heading, and may therefore have been easily overlooked. Now if we may suppose that the Earl of Arundell’s letter, having been transcribed on a central sheet, has dropped out, and that Sir Philip’s having been overlooked, the title was entered afterwards in the place where there was most room, we shall find that the first four titles represent correctly the rest of the contentsof the volume.... The titles which follow have nothing corresponding to them in this manuscript,but probably indicate the contents of another of the same kind, once attached to this and now lost.â€
Thus Mr. Spedding, who had the great advantage of seeing the manuscripts as they were found in 1867. But Mr. Le Marchant Dowse will have nothing of all this. He speaks loftily of the “folly†of supposing that the list on the outside page was a table of contents. Apparently he cannot tolerate the idea that two plays of Shakespeare, before they found their way into print, should have been transcribed by the same man, and included in the same volume, with certain works of Francis Bacon!Id sane intolerandum.But if not a table of contents what is the meaning of this outside list? How did it come to be written “at all, at all� Well, Mr. Dowse’s theory is as follows: The supposed “quire†originally contained only the “Praises.†It came into the possession of the Earl of Northumberland. “It then came under the control of somebody (I shall name him hereafter) who jotted down at intervals the titles of other papers which he judged worth copying, or which were of interest as having reference to, or connexion with, or as having been written by, people whom he knew; but, on the one hand, he probably found it difficult to procure the papers he wanted; and meanwhile, on the other hand, papers that he had not previously thought of were unexpectedly placed at the Earl’s disposal; and these were copied as they came to hand.†According to this theory, therefore, a scribe in the employ of the Earl of Northumberland,entrusted with a paper volume in which four speeches, composed by Bacon for Lord Essex, had been transcribed, and very carefully and beautifully transcribed,[94]and finding these noted on the outside cover, which up to that point certainly had done duty as a “table of contents,†amuses himself by jotting down beneath, and on the same page, the titles of a number of works which he had not in his possession but which he “judged worth copying,†or thought of interest, such as the orations at Gray’s Inn, and Bacon’sEssays, and Shakespeare’s plays ofRichard IIandRichard III. These, on this hypothesis, he was never able to procure, and therefore their titles on the cover stood for nothing, except as reflections of his inner consciousness. But, meanwhile, other papers, “that he had not previously thought of, were unexpectedly placed at the Earl’s disposal; and these were copied as they came to hand.†This theory we are asked, nay ordered, to accept on pain of being dismissed as creatures beyond the pale of reason. Quite unappalled by that terrible threat I venture to think that Mr. Dowse’s theory is itself unreasonable. I do not think a scribe entrusted with a nobleman’s manuscript volume, in which his duty was to enter further transcripts, would be at all likely to act in such a manner. I think it far more reasonable to suppose that these works had been copied or entered, that they were originally included in the volume, the original dimensions ofwhich it is now impossible to estimate, and that they were subsequently abstracted, probably for some very good reason. In fact I think the evidence of Mr. Spedding, the eyewitness, is a great deal better than the hypothesis and conjectures of Mr. Dowse.
But the fact is that Mr. Dowse entered upon his investigation with two preconceived ideas. In the first place his purpose was to have a tilt at the Baconians who had founded some arguments on the close juxtaposition of the names, and certain of the works, of Bacon and Shakespeare in this manuscript. And, secondly, his purpose was to find evidence for his preconceived belief that John Davies of Hereford was the “scribbler†who had written so freely on the outside page of the volume. So much Mr. Dowse, unless I much misunderstand him, himself confesses. “The following investigation,†he says in his Preface, “was suggested to me by sundry mistaken notions respecting the MSS. hereinafter examined, which had found their way into print, and so had caught my eye from time to time.†Mr. Dowse, as will be seen, is violently anti-Baconian, by which I mean that he is not only altogether contemptuous of “the Baconian theory,†but also that he entertains a very low conception indeed of the personal character of Francis Bacon. I think, therefore, I have correctly interpreted the meaning of the above extract. Then as to “the writer of the scribble,†he says, “in point of fact upon my first scrutiny, several years ago, of Spedding’s facsimile, I provisionally formed an opinion as to who the scribbler was.†It will beseen, therefore, that Mr. Dowse set out to prove that the scribbler was John Davies, though, of a certainty, the bare inspection of Spedding’s facsimile of the outer page of the manuscript could not justify any belief in the matter, and could, at most, only give occasion for the merest guess.
But before we come to the “scribbler†let us examine the scribble, and see what date we can assign to the writings. What Mr. Spedding calls “the title page,†forming half of the outside sheet, “which appears to be the only cover the volume ever had,†is covered all over with the so-called scribblings. “It contains,†says Mr. Dowse, “some two hundred entries, independently of the ‘Praises,’ and the list of titles.†Mr. Spedding, Mr. Dowse, and Mr. Burgoyne have reproduced this leaf in facsimile, and the latter has provided us with a modern script rendering of it. It may be said to be divided into two columns. At the top of the right-hand column stands the name “Mr. ffrancis Bacon,†followed by the list of “Praises,†which again is succeeded by what Mr. Spedding has called the table of contents. At the top of the left-hand column stands the name of Nevill, twice written, and not far below it is the punning motto of the Nevill family,Ne vile velis. “Perhaps,†says Mr. Burgoyne, “this gives a clue to the original ownership of the volume as it seems to indicate that the collection was written for or was the property of some member of the Nevill family.†It is suggested that this was Sir Henry Nevil (1564-1615), Bacon’s nephew, and a friend of Essex. Then high up, in the middle of the page, occur thewords “Anthony Comfort and consorte,†which is, without doubt, as I think, an allusion to Anthony Bacon. Lower down in the left-hand column are the words: