BACON-SHAKESPEARE.

The Times, London, Eng., Jan. 27, 1902.

To the Editor of the Times:

Sir,—Your issues of December 19, 20, and 21 have been forwarded to me by Messrs. Gay and Bird, and, while regretting that distance will cause much time to elapse between the issues and the time this can reach London, I yet desire space to reply to the communications of Mr. Marston and Mr. Lee concerning myself, and the book recently given to the public, “The Bi-literal Cypher of Francis Bacon.” I trust I may not be refused because of lapse of time, or for any other reason.

I hope the gentlemen do not mean to be rude or do me an injustice, and I do not think they can persist in the characterization which their words imply.

The assertion that Mr. Mallock has become “addlepated,” because of thinking there may be something in the cipher, must be something of a shock to his friends.

Mr. Marston did me the honour of two favourable notices, in succeeding issues of thePublishers’ Circular. I was about to thank him for numbers sent to me when I learned that he had prepared and published an elaborate article attempting to discredit the entire work, because of doubts arising in his mind upon a single point. He does not base his disbelief upon any investigation he has made of the cipher itself, but because a fragment which forms a part of Bacon’s “Argument” or epitome (but not the full translation) of the Iliad, in that portion which catalogues the ships and the troops they transported, is similar—“nearly like”—Pope’s translation of the same passages,ergo, it must be that I paraphrased Pope, and hence that the whole cipher fabric is tumbled into dust. Because of this similarity he takes Mr. Mallock to task for considering my work seriously, and declares that, as I have, as he thinks, copied Pope in this, the results of my four years’ research in Americaand in England, set down on 385 printed pages, must be pure invention, and Mr. Mallock a poor deluded mortal to have gone into the cipher at all. The statement of the case exhibits the value of the conclusion.

It does not appear just how much variation Mr. Marston would have between the translations of the identical Greek text, describing definite things, to prove which was the correct one, and which the copy. It will also be noted that this is not one of the portions of Homer’s wondrous story where imagination may run riot, and imagery and poetic license add lustre to the original.

The claim of identities set me to wondering whom else I might have paraphrased, or if it was not possible that Pope had copied from some one other than Bacon. An examination of six different English translations and one Latin shows me such substantial accord, that either of them could be called with equal justice a paraphrase of Pope, or that Pope had copied from the others.

In phrasing no two translations of the Iliad entirely agree, but are we to conclude that, because the translations of the same text are in substantial agreement (though not exact), that one of the two most nearly alike must be a paraphrase? The trifling additions showing some exterior knowledge of persons and places may be found in Bacon’s other works.

It will be observed by readers of the “Bi-literal Cypher” that the fragment of the Fourth Book of the Iliad which is injected by Bacon into the “Argument” is for illustration merely, and is clearly stated to be only “a supreme effort of memory” of the fuller translation which he had previously embedded as a part of the mosaic in his works, to be extracted and reconstructed through the methods of another cipher.

Surely there can be no more distressing condition than when critics refuse to know all the facts, and are guilty of drawing conclusions without them. Bacon, who knew human nature, has described this class of minds most precisely in his aphorisms, and it would almost seem he had this controversyin view, or at least a permonition of it, when he says, in NumberXXXIII:—

“This must be plainly avowed; no judgment can be rightly formed either of my method or of the discoveries to which it leads by means of anticipations ... since I cannot be called upon to abide by the sentence of a tribunal which is itself on its trial.”“One method of delivery alone remains to us: ... we must lead men to the particulars themselves and their series and order; while men on their side must force themselves for awhile to lay their notions by and begin to familiarize themselves with facts.” (XXXVI.)

“One method of delivery alone remains to us: ... we must lead men to the particulars themselves and their series and order; while men on their side must force themselves for awhile to lay their notions by and begin to familiarize themselves with facts.” (XXXVI.)

Mr. Lee, too, bases his disbelief on most inconclusive grounds. The witty author of “Democritus to the Reader” said that any one who sought what he did not want, or that would do him harm when found, wanted wisdom. To be exact, it was expressed less euphemistically, “He is a fool that seeks what he does not want.”

Mr. Lee insists that, because he has collated 25 copies of the plays, during which time he was not looking for a cipher, none exists. As well say that the stars of late discovery which are as yet unknown to any but the most skilled eye of the astronomer do not exist because Mr. Lee, with his unskilled eye, has not discovered them while looking for something else.

Mr. Sinnett, in the same issue ofThe Times, states the case fairly in the remark that there are two schools of thinkers on the subject—those who have studied the matter, and those who have not—and he illustrates the feelings of a surprisingly large class by the repetition of the remark of a friend, who, when asked if he had seriously considered certain points (of the Baconians), replied: “I would rather hang myself than consider anything so atrocious.” I have no doubt Mr. Lee would sympathize with, if not echo, this sentiment.

I wish politely, and with all due deference, to assert, with a positiveness as emphatic as that of Mr. Lee, that the cipherdoesexist in the typography of the Plays, and in the “Anatomy of Melancholy” and in the other works which I have deciphered. The difference between us is that I found what I was looking for (and much besides), while Mr. Lee did not find what he was not looking for.

Another aphorism, NumberXXXVIII, would apply here:—

“The idols and false notions which are now in possession of the human understanding, and have taken deep root therein, so beset men’s minds that truth can hardly find entrance.”

And again, in NumberXLVI:—

“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.”

If Mr. Lee has a vision sufficiently accurate to discriminate in form, and will spend as much time as I have spent upon the typography of the old books, he will find the letters can be classified, and starting from the proper points and placing in “groups of five” the Bi-literal Cipher will read as I have written, and will not read anything else.

Sincerely yours,Elizabeth Wells Gallup.

Detroit, January 9.

P. S. Jan. 11.—Copies of your issue of December 26 and 27 have just reached me.

The articles on the “Bacon Bi-literal Cypher” show thatThe Timesis not averse to whatever aids in elucidation of this new phase of the Bacon-Shakespeare question.

I am glad to note that “A Correspondent” has taken some of the preliminary steps to an actual examination of the cipher and apparently has the perception required to reach conclusions that Mr. Mallock and Mr. Sinnett have also reached as to distinctive variations in the forms of letters used in the old books. This denotes real progress in the investigation, and I think the gentleman, with patience, would easily become a decipherer. The peculiarities of the type are clear to the skilled artist or engraver, but they are not so quickly apparent to those less fitted for the closest observation.

Some of the difficulties encountered by the novice are explained by Mr. Sinnett in the issue of the 27th. I shall be greatly pleased to clear up some of this correspondent’s difficulties,in another communication, but will only note in this two paragraphs. One difficulty he mentions is that in certain passages he does not find sufficient Italic letters to make up the extracted sentences. He had overlooked the application of the passage in the book, on pp. 66-67:—

“In order to conceale my Cypher more perfectly I am preparing for th’ purpose a sette of alphabets in th’ Latine tipe not for use in th’ greatest or lengthy story or epistle, but as another disguise, for, in ensample, a prologue, praefatio, the epilogues, and head lines attracted too much notice. I, therefore, have given much trouble to mine ayders by making two kinds or formes of these letters. These be not designed for other use than hath but now beene explain’d, nor must you looke to see them employ’d if a reason for th’ change appeare, but there will be warning given you for your instruction or guidance. Noe othe’ waie of diverting th’ curious could be used where th’ exteriour epistle is but briefe, however it will not thus turn aside my decipherer, for his eye is too well practs’d in artes that easily misleade others who enquire of th’ waie.”

There are a very few dedications, commendatory poems, headings, etc., in which Roman letters were used by Bacon. These are in his later printings.

Another thing this correspondent makes note of is that many of the old books of the Elizabethan period have the same differences. I have examined many of these, beside those belonging to Bacon in which differences occur. In some of them I was led to think the cipher might be found, but on examination it was seen that the different forms were used promiscuously, without method, and could not be grouped in fives to read in the bi-literal.

Replying to Mr. Lee’s communication in the issue of the 27th, I quote this extraordinary extract:

“I should like to state unmistakably that I hold there to be not the smallest jot of evenprima faciejustification ... in the text of the First Folio for the belief that a cipher is concealed in that volume. I write with a fine copy on my desk.... Italic and Roman type appear in the preliminary pages ... they are never intermingled in the manner which would be essential if the words embodied Bacon’s bi-literal cipher.”

His idea of the intermingling of the Roman and Italic type as an essential is entirely wrong. If he had read my book understandingly, he would have known the different founts used by Bacon were in the differing forms of Italic type, not the Roman, except in the very few instances noted above. The cipher letters are not produced by intermingling Romanand Italic type in the Plays. He will find on every page of the Plays more than one fount or form of these Italic letters, and that not proper names only, but much besides was printed in them. See especially pp. 42-43,Merry Wives of Windsor.

Quoting again from Mr. Lee:—“To assert that a bi-literal cipher can or does appear in a text printed as the First Folio is printed is a bold denial of plain facts.” I wish to repeat, with equal earnestness and entire certainty, that to assert that the cipher cannot and does not exist in the text is a denial of a fact which I have demonstrated.

He mistakenly says, “The proper names figuring in the text of the plays alone appear in a different type.” To these must be added the abbreviated names of the speakers, the running titles, etc., and all other words in Italic type, which together make up when deciphered over 50 pages of my book that are extracted from the folio.

What shall we say of this quotation from Mr. Lee?

“Ignorance, vanity, inability to test evidence, lack of scholarly habits of mind are in each of these instances found to be the main causes predisposing half-educated members of the public to the acceptance of the delusion (!). And when any of the deluded victims have been narrowly examined they have invariably exhibited a tendency to monomania.... May a second Hogarth deal as effectually with Mrs. Gallup and Mr. Mallock, and their feeble-witted followers.”

Mr. Mallock “addlepated!” and “half-educated!” Lord Palmerston “feeble-witted”—“with a tendency to monomania!” Is this temperate discussion of a new discovery? Is true criticism of this subject and its believers reduced to vituperation, and this the end of the argument?

The public will refuse to accept Mr. Lee’s dictum as having any weight at all over against the examination made, and being made, by Mr. Mallock, Mr. Sinnett, and many others. I must assume them to be the peers of Mr. Lee in intelligence and discrimination, for he is most surely wrong and refuses knowledge, while they are willing to study the subject with patience and candour.

Back to Index Next