BI-LITERAL CYPHER OF FRANCIS BACON.

A REPLY TO CERTAIN CRITICS.

BY ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

Pall Mall Magazine, May, 1902.

To the March number of thePall Mall MagazineMrs. Gallup contributed a preliminary paper on the controversy which has so stirred the literary world. We now place before our readers a second article in which Mrs. Gallup deals specifically with a number of points which have been raised by certain individual writers during the progress of the controversy. This Mrs. Gallup has not been able to do before, because, as we have already stated, the criticisms were not in her possession when her first contribution left America. In sending us her second contribution Mrs. Gallup wishes us to point out that the articles to which she is now replying occupied considerable space in the magazines publishing them, and the answers, to be at all full and correspondingly valuable, require much greater space than was placed at her disposal by thePall Mall Magazine.In fairness to Mrs. Gallup we think it right to precede her paper with this explanation.Ed. P. M. M.

Ed. P. M. M.

I gladly avail myself of the opportunity of replying to some of my critics in thePall Mall Magazine, as discussions in the daily press sometimes become acrimonious and detrimental to real study and calm judgment, while a presentation of the subject in the pages of a fireside companion can be enjoyed in the hours of leisure and recreation.

In view of the remarkable expressions in theTimesand other papers, and in two or three magazines in England, I should perhaps regard myself fortunate that there is now no Inquisition to compel a discoverer to recant, under penalty of the rack; and I can already sympathise with a contemporary of Bacon who, when forced publicly to deny what he knew to be truth, was said to have muttered, as he withdrew, “E pur si muove!”

The torrent of questions, objections, suggestions, inferences, and imaginings that have overwhelmed the press over Bacon’sBi-literal Cypher, has shown an astonishing interest inthe subject, and I may congratulate myself, at any rate, upon being the innocent cause of what somebody has called a “tremendous propulsion of thought currents.” Much of this energy has been expended along lines in no way relating to me or the validity of my work, but we may suppose there is “no exercise of brain force without its value,” and in the swirl there may be others who will say with me, “the world does move.”

I had expected, if not hoped, that with the aids I had set out, some adept in ciphers—sufficiently curious to enjoy solving Sphinxlike riddles—would have followed, and so proved my work. I have been surprised to find how few have been able to grasp the system of its application, and how much defective vision affects the judgment. I also regret very seriously the superficiality of most of the investigations. I am therefore obliged to go into details, when I had expected eager research by others would have made it a fascinating race to forestall me in deciphering the old books I was unable to obtain.

Ten Objections in the “Times.”

“A Correspondent,” in theTimes, fully discusses and sets out objections, summarising them finally under the following ten heads:

1. “There are discernible distinct differences of form in certain individual Italic letters used by printers of the period.”

This is an important admission of one important fact. Less careful investigators have directly, or by inference, denied that any such discernible differences exist at all. In theBi-literal Cypher, p. 310, Bacon says: “Where, by a slighte alteration of the common Italicke letters, the alphabets of a bi-literate cypher having the two forms are readily obtain’d,” etc., which states clearly enough that he had few changes to make to secure his double alphabet.

It is admitted also that the full explanation of the bi-literal cipher is given inDe Augmentis Scientiarum. Gilbert Wats’s translation says: “Together with this, you must have ready at hand aBi-formed Alphabet, which may represent all theLettersof the commonAlphabet, as well Capitall Letters as the Smaller Characters in double forme, as may fit every man’s occasion.” He also says: “Certainlyit is an Art which requires great paines and a good witt, and is consecrate to the Counsels of Princes.”

So we have, in analysing this first objection, made good progress when we have learned—(1) the admitted differences in the types; (2) from Bacon himself of the use of bi-formed alphabets; (3) the clear and full explanation of the cipher itself, which can be applied to these differences; (4) his statement that it is an art which requires great pains and a good wit (and good vision as well); (5) that its importance is so great that it is consecrate to the counsels of princes. This really leaves but one question: did Bacon print this particular cipher into his books? I answer from a study of months and years that he did, and that I have correctly transcribed it.

2. The correspondent says: “These differences were by no means confined to the period when Bacon lived, or to the books in which Mrs. Gallup alleges a secret cypher—in fact, they are to be detected in similar profusion in books published thirty-five years after Bacon’s death—notably in the third folio of Shakespeare, 1661.”

I replied to this in a former communication to theTimes, stating that in some old books of the period similar founts of type in two or more forms are used; that I have endeavoured to find the cipher in some of these, but found the forms were used promiscuously, without method, and the differences could not be classified to produce, when separated into “groups of five,” words and sentences in the bi-literal cipher. But this has no direct bearing on the subject. As Bacon’s invention consisted in making use (by slight alteration) of varieties and forms of type then, as now, in common use, he would have nothing to do with the introduction of the forms, their general use, or continuance. He employed a method by which two forms were arranged in a definite way, to serve his purpose in his own publications, while the method would be absolutely beyond discovery without the key. This key he withheld until 1623. We now know that Bacon used this method from 1579 to the end of his career, and that Rawley employed it until 1635 for cipher purposes. How much later it was used I have been unable to learn, that being the latest date of my deciphering.

“Confined to Few Types.”

3. “These differences, in so far as they are well marked, uniform, and coherent, appear to be confined to very few types—in the case of Shakespeare’s plays (first, second, and third folios, 1623, 1632, 1661) to some ten or twelve at most of the capital letters.”

This is incorrect, as I have observed in replying to Objection 1. But starting with twelve capitals, there is half that alphabet. The others can be found by closer observation. Many of the small letters are as well marked in some of the types, not only in the First Folio, but especially in theHistorie of the Raigne of King Henry the Seventh(1622), and in the first edition ofDe Augmentis Scientiarum(1623).

Differences Due to Various Causes.

4. He states: “Apart from such well-defined differences, there are to be observed in the Italic types of the period innumerable and unclassifiable differences of form, due, it would seem, to many contributory causes, such as defective manufacture, broken face, careless locking of formes (involving bad alignment or improper inclination of individual letters), bad ink, bad paper, and the great age of the impression.”

It is true there are differences that are not the distinctive differences governing their use, but it is very rarely indeed that a letter is found that is not paired with another, which, though like in some respects, is unlike in certain definite features. It involves no more difficulty to find how a number of letters similar, yet with certain distinctive differences, are to be separated into two classes, than to distinguish in the same way a number of letters in entirely different forms. Bacon himself speaks of the multi- or bi-formed type. We have difficulties arising from very natural causes, but there are none that cannot be overcome with time and patient study.

Mr. Mallock’s Examples.

5. “Mrs. Gallup’s manipulation of these minor differences follows no clear and consistent rule or rules; so that types of many differing characteristics are classed by her as belonging toone fount, while others closely resembling each other are classed by her as belonging to two different founts on different occasions.”

This is erroneous. There is no “manipulation,” and the rules are consistent. In a few instances the same kinds of letters are wrongly marked asaandbbecause of printers’ errors, which are detected by methods elsewhere more specifically set out, or they may be changed in value by a peculiar mark, as explained on the first page of the deciphered work fromHenry Seventh. Printers’ errors are not infrequent in the works. They are found in Bacon’s own illustration inDe Augmentis Scientiarum(1624),e.g.Inconquiesti, line 5, and inquos, line 10, the letterqis from the “bfount.” It should be an “a-fount” letter, and was so printed in the first or “London edition” (1623). Anlin line 12, and another in line 14, is from the wrong fount. There is also an error in grouping in the 1624 edition, which does not occur in the 1623.

As it happened, similar printers’ errors occurred in one of Mr. Mallock’s examples in theNineteenth Century—the passage fromDe Augmentisin which he concealed his own couplet: “The star of Shakespeare, etc.”—and that work was done by twentieth-century printers, of Mr. Mallock’s own selection; The passage he quotes, printed in the two forms of types, cannot be deciphered as printed on account of an error in the tenth group, and a few letters used from wrong founts. I have sent Mr. Mallock the correction; but I have been wondering since whether it were not incorporated intentionally, to test my powers of observation, for after the tenth group the rest of the passage is simply impossible to read in bi-literal cipher, until the short group is detected and a new division made. I cannot think Mr. Mallock made these mistakes in marking his MS. Some errors exist in our own work, which have been discovered since publication, and may quite possibly be found by those who study the book.

Printers and “Digraphs.”

6. “In the period when the writings under discussion were published, printers made a liberal use of digraphs, such as 'ft,’ 'fh,’ 'ct,’ 'fl,’ etc. (In one page of 24 lines, from whichMrs. Gallup derives her cipher narrative, there are 26 digraphs.) With regard to the deciphering of these, Mrs. Gallup suggests no rules and obeys no laws.”

Again this is erroneous in the last clause. I quote from a preceding paragraph of this correspondent’s own article, regarding Bacon’s treatment of the digraph, as follows: “In the example which he gave of the enfolding of such a cipher in a portion of one of Cicero’s letters, he printed an æ (diphthong), occuring in the Latin word 'cæteris,’ not as a diphthong at all, but as two separate letters—ae. Similarly, he caused the ordinary digraph 'ct,’ invariably printed in one type in those days, to be printed as two separate letters—ct, showing, I think conclusively, that in his cipher, as applied to printing, digraphs must be—treated separately.” Our “Correspondent” says “digraphs must be kept out of the print,” but it is a wrong inference. These diphthongs and digraphs must be compared with one another, not with single letters, but the parts are to be considered separately. They will each be found to have distinctive features, and a decipherer who has become at all expert will at once determine their proper classification.

Roman Types.

7. “In certain specific instances, Mrs. Gallup’s deciphering is arithmetically incorrect, or must be helped out with the help of an arbitrary employment of Roman types—on occasion even this device will not avail to produce the requisite number of letters for her alleged cipher message.”

For the specific instances where Roman type is used, Bacon’s instructions are found on pp. 66-67 of theBi-literal Cypher, which “Correspondent” has evidently overlooked. I have used this passage on another occasion, but will quote again, as others have stumbled over the same difficulty:

“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, præfatio, the epilogues, and headlines attracted too much notice. Noe othe’ waie of diverting th’ curious could be used where th’ exteriorepistle is but briefe, however it will not thus turne aside my decipherer, for his eye is too well practis’d in artes that easily misleade others who enquire th’ waye.”

I found Roman type used in such places, and the differences in the letters are quite distinct, but no use was made of this new device, so far as I have found, until 1623, when it appeared in the First Folio, and inVitae et Mortis.

An incident, for the moment mortifying, occurred in Boston, by which I discovered an error of our printers in the first edition issued. Those having copies of the first edition will notice the word “Baron” is left out of the signature, which reads in the later edition Francis, Baron of Verulam (p. 166), deciphered from the short poem signed “I. M.” in the Shakespeare Folio. When I visited Boston to continue my researches, friends previously interested in my work mentioned the difficulty they had in trying to decipher, as I did, this portion. I remarked the Roman letters must be used; to which they replied the number of Italic letters corresponded with the number of groups required, but the groups would not “read.” Upon deciphering it again, in the presence of these people, I found the word Baron had been dropped out in the printing, and the error was corrected in the second edition.

The answers already given meet the summarised objection of the correspondent’s eighth and ninth paragraphs.

The Deciphering Workroom.

10. “The nature of the Cipher is such, being in fact entirely dependent upon the presence and position of a certain number ofb's, that, given a framework of such determining, factors (which might easily be supplied by the acknowledged differences in a few letters), a misdirected ingenuity could with patience supply all that a preconceived notion could possibly demand.”

The cipher alphabet Bacon illustrates inDe Augmentis Scientiarumcontains 68a's and 52b's. The proportion in general use was found to be about 5 to 3. Perhaps I cannot do better to clear myself from the aspersions here intimated than to explain the methods of the workroom by which the larger part of the deciphering was actually done. A type-writingmachine was changed in its mechanism to space automatically after each group of five letters. The operator alone copied every Italic letter, and the sheets came to me with the letters already grouped. The different forms of letters in the book to be deciphered were then made a study, the peculiarities of each fount classified and sketched in an enlarged and accentuated form upon a small chart, and the 'bfount’ (being the fewer) was thoroughly learned. The chart was always before me for use upon doubtful letters. I marked upon the sheet on which the letters had been grouped only those that I found to be of the 'bfount.’ An assistant marked thea's and transcribed the result, when I knew for the first time the reading of the deciphered product. It was thus impossible for me to “preconceive” it, and no amount of “ingenuity, misdirected” or otherwise, could have developed the hundreds of pages of MS. of these consecutive letters into anything except what the cipher letters would spell out.

The Operator and the Errors.

Excepting, of course, occasional corrections of the errors of the operator in copying, or myself in determining the proper fount, the work stands exactly as it left the assistant’s hands. The original sheets are unchanged and in my possession. Errors occurred in the work as it progressed, but they were so guarded against by the system itself that the deciphering was quickly brought to a stop until they were corrected. Coming from the assistant, the words were without capitals, or punctuation, as would be the case by any method of deciphering a cipher. The work of capitalization and punctuation, in the book, is my own, and in this alone was choice permitted me.

The difficulty with “A Correspondent,” as with many observers, is that he jumps at once to conclusions from very superficial and limited examination, as well as unfamiliarity with the principles which underlie the work; and while his keenness of observation is greater than some evince, he has not, by any means, given the matter sufficient study to become an expert, or to warrant him in expressing a critical judgment. He would not expect to learn Greek in a day, nor to decipher hieroglyphics on an obelisk upon a first attempt. There are in the Plays five pairs of alphabets of twenty-four letters each (capital andsmall) in the different styles and sizes of Italic type. In other words, four hundred and eighty different letters have to be compared with their fellows to determine the classification. It is not, then, the work of a day or a week to enable one to pass an opinion upon the Folio as a whole, and yet that is what he attempts to do.

The “Times” Facsimiles.

TheTimesreproduces a page of facsimiles and an illustration taken from Spenser’sComplaints, and has also arranged in enlarged form some small letters. In fairness the captials should have appeared as well. In the processes necessary for reproduction, upon newspaper of coarse fibre and uneven surface with the speed of a modern press, many distinctive features of the letters have been lost or distorted to the skilled eye, and the unskilled should not be asked to form a judgment of the integrity of a difficult cipher from such utterly untrustworthy reproductions.

As explained in the Introduction to the second edition of my book, the facsimiles were not satisfactory. The difficulties arising from age, unequal absorption of ink, poor paper, and poor printing in the old books, cause some features to be exaggerated, while others disappear; and on account of unavoidable inaccuracies, they were omitted from the third edition.

Inspiration.

It is strange how an inadvertent word or phrase, in the hands of those who choose to pervert, will return to plague one. In an article inBaconiana, I enumerated the requirements for the work of deciphering as “eyesight of the keenest and perfect accuracy of vision in distinguishing minute differences in form, lines, angles, and curves of the printed letters ... unlimited time and patience, persistency and aptitude, love for overcoming puzzling difficulties, and I sometimes think inspiration.” Any one who has worked long in an absorbing and difficult field, will know that the word in this connection meant only the light that breaks upon one’s mind, in the solution of some difficulty as the result of earnest effort; and for a critic to make from this a charge that I allege the cipher work to be one of inspiration on my part is such a misuse of terms as to be whollyunjustifiable. I think I have the right to complain when the word so used is made the basis of sneering attack through the public press. The word was used by me in no other connection, and as my critics must know, in no other than this very harmless and allowable sense. This is particularly in reply to a lengthy editorial in theTimes, which assumed that I made claims to “inspiration.”

Those who have read my book carefully will recall some of the difficulties recounted on page 11 of the Introduction, relating to a subject that has puzzled many students—i.e., the wrong paging of the Folio and some of the other old books. It is told in few words in the book, but they are totally inadequate to describe the strain upon eyes and nerves in those days of alternating struggle and elation as one by one the difficulties were overcome. I think my readers will pardon a careless, perhaps irrevelant use of the term, “I sometimes think inspiration”—may have prompted me to make one more trial.

Mr. Lang and Mrs. Gallup.

I am also desired to refer to the writings of Mr. Lang, who, on several occasions, has made theBi-literal Cypherthe theme of much ironical pleasantry, more especially in theMonthly Review. Mr. Lang is one of those happy individuals possessed of a large vocabulary and of a vivid imagination that like Tennyson’s babbling brook “goes on for ever,” but he prefers the interrogation to the period—questions more than he asserts.

In theMonthly Reviewhe cites again, from hisMorning Postarticle (August 1901), some of the reasons for considering Bacon a lunatic. He has, however, omitted one query then made regarding “the new Atlantis men sought beyond the western sea:” “Was Bacon ignorant of the fact that America was discovered?” The question was not repeated after I called attention to the fact that inNew AtlantisBacon said, “Wee sailed from Peru.”

The Alpha and Omega of his article—since it appears on the first page and the last—is Mr. Sidney Lee’s declaration that the cipher cannot exist in the books in which Iknow it does exist. I pointed out in a recent communication to theTimesthat Mr. Lee had not even understood the elementary principles of the cipher. This is betrayed in his statement: “Italic and Roman types were never intermingled in the manner which would be essential if the words embodied Bacon’s biliteral cipher”—for that is not the manner of its incorporation. Mr. Lang goes no farther than this very arbitrary decision in his examination of the cipher itself.

He says: “The consistency of Mrs. Gallup next amazes us. Greene, Peele, Marlowe, and Shakespeare, resemble each other in style (or so she says), because 'one hand wrote them all’ (i., p. 3). But Bacon (deciphered) avers, 'I varied my style to suit different men, since no two show the same taste and like imagination.’ (i., p. 34).... Bacon 'let his own [style] be seen.’” Mr. Lang should have quoted an additional line—“yet should [let] my owne bee seene, as a third o’ warpe in my entire fabricke,” and it would explain why there are both resemblances and differences in the style of those dramatic works, which have been commented upon by numberless writers as giving evidence of collaboration or of plagiarism.

The Wifehood and Motherhood of Elizabeth.

Mr. Lang thinks the idea of the wifehood and motherhood of Elizabeth originated in Mr. Lee’s articles in theDictionary of National Biographycited as corroborating the cipher. The facts set forth in Mr. Lee’s work are very good circumstantial evidence. Assuredly the statments in the word-cipher and in the bi-literal should accord, for in Bacon’s design the principal use of the one was to teach, and assist in deciphering, the others Mr. Lang quotes: “He learnedfrom the interview and subsequent occurrences,” and exclaims, “how Elizabethan is the style!”

InLove’s Labour’s Lost(Act II., Sc. i.) he may read:

at which interviewAll liberall reason would I yeeld unto.

at which interview

All liberall reason would I yeeld unto.

InTroilus and Cressida(Act I., Sc. iii.) we find:

To their subsequent volumes.

And inHenry the Fifth(V. Prol.) is the line:

Omit all the occurrences.

This is where Mr. Lang should exclaim again, “How Elizabethan the style!”

My critics would find it interesting and profitable to learn how many expressions, thought to be modern, are to be seen in the original works. They would be surprised—agreeably or otherwise—at the long list.

“Tidder” or Bacon.

The next point is this: “His name, 'Fr. Bacon,’ is his only 'by adoption,’” and in a footnote Mr. Lang quotes: “'My name is Tidder, yet men speak of me as Bacon.’” In Bacon’sHistorie of the Raigne of King Henry the Seventh(p. 151), we find the name of the first reigning Tudor spelled Tidder. The assertion “We be Tudor” merely shows that he belonged to the Royal house. It was certainly not from Robert Dudley that he claimed a title to the throne. I myself asked, “Why Francis I.?” when this passage was deciphered; and the answer is perhaps in this—as Elizabeth was “Queene of England, Fraunce, and Ireland, and of Virginia,” her son as king would be Francis III. of France and Francis I. of England, as James VI. of Scotland became James I. of England. The right to the French title is questionable, of course; but when the play ofEdward the Thirdhas been deciphered we shall know how Bacon regarded it.

In the expression, “our law giveth to the first-borne of the royall house the title of the Prince of Wales,” Bacon did not intend to say “thestatutegiveth.” Had he usedcustomno one would have cavilled, butcustomis defined in law as “long-established practice, or usage, considered as unwrittenlaw, and resting for authority on long consent,” and, even at that time, it had long been customary to invest the eldest son of the sovreign with this title. In theHistorie of Henry the Seventh(p. 207), speaking of the time when “Henry, Duke of Yorke, was created Prince of Wales, and Earle of Chester and Flint,” he added, “For the Dukedom of Cornewall devolved to him by statute.” We seeper contrathat in this place he did not mean bycustom.

Bacon and the Small Poems.

As evidence of the superficiality of Mr. Lang’s knowledge of the book he attempts to criticise, I quote: “In 1596, in his 'Faerie Queene,’ Bacon grew wilder, in saying 'We were in goodhope that when our divers small poemes might bee seene in printed forme, th’ approval o’ Lord Leicester might be gain’d!’ The earliest of the small Bacon-Spenser works used here, by Mrs. Gallup, is of 1591. Leicester died in 1588. Only a raving maniac like Mrs. Gallup’s Bacon could hope to please Leicester, who died in 1588, by 'small poemes’ printed in 1591, if he means that.”

Has Mr. Lang read so carelessly that he thinks “he means that”? Does he really not preceive that Bacon was speaking of the small poems appearing between 1579 and 1588—Shepheards’ Calenderin several editions,Virgil’s Gnatnearly ready for the printer and suggestively dedicated to the Earl of Leicester? If a careless reading, it discredits his criticism; if a wilful perversion, it is unworthy and without justification.

This is much like his remarkable statement inLongman’s Magazineregarding theArgument of the Iliad: “The right course with Mrs. Gallup is to ask her to explain why or how Bacon stole from Pope’s Homer ... and how he could be (as he certainly was) ignorant of facts of his own time.... These circumstances make it certain that, though the cipher may be a very nice cipher, Mrs. Gallup must have interpreted it all wrong. She will see that, she would have seen it long ago, if she hadread Pope’s Homerand had known anything about Elizabethan history.”

We all know what this impossible charge—that “Bacon stole from Pope’s Homer,” and also the insinuation regarding Melville—covertly asserts. I have fully set out in another article the answer to this baseless accusation of Mr. Marston; but I will here repeat that any statement that I copied from Pope, or from any other source whatever, in obtaining the matter put forth as deciphered from Bacon’s works,is false in every particular.

Bacon and Elizabeth’s Marriage.

Mr. Lang, and others, have asserted that Bacon refers to the first Lord Burghley as Robert. This is incorrect. Bacon saysRobert Cecilwhen he meansRobertCecil, and at no other time. Robert is not only named, but described unmistakably. Mr. Lang says, “Robert Cecil was born in 1563, or thereabout, was younger than Bacon,” consequently could not have incitedthe Queen against him, etc., and devotes a page to mis-statements and sarcasms. Here again is he ignorant, or indulges in wilful perversion. The encyclopædias say, “Robert Cecil was born in 1550.” He was therefore eleven years older than Bacon, and twenty-seven years of age when the incident referred to occurred. We learn also from the same source: “Of his cousin, Francis Bacon, he appears to have been jealous.” The “blunder” is Mr. Lang’s, not Bacon’s, and it is not an evidence that “either an ignorant American wrote all this, or Bacon was an idiot.”

In speaking of Elizabeth’s marriage, Mr. Lang says, “The second was 'after her ascent to royal power’ (1558). Any one but Bacon would have said, 'after the death of Dudley’s first wife,’ because only after that death could the marriage be legal.”

What Bacon really said is this: “Afte’ her ascent to royale power, before my birth, a second nuptiall rite duly witness’d was observed, soe that I was borne in holy wedlocke” (p. 154). Mr. Lang’s opinion of what any other man might have said is quite immaterial.

A question of Bacon’s legitimacy would, without a doubt, have been raised; and as Leicester favoured his second son, Essex, this may account for the express wish to have the story openly told. Such questions were debated concerning more than one royal title in those days, but Bacon believed his birth in holy wedlock was sufficient legitimation. The mere fact that both Mary and Elizabeth succeeded to the throne, although one or the other was not strictly legitimate, would confirm this opinion, and the history of the founding of the line of Tudor involved the same question.

I regret that lack of space prevents a reference to some of Mr. Lang’s other remarks, which are equally subject to criticism and correction. Brander Matthews, inPen and Ink, formulates “Twelve Rules for Reviewers,” that will, I am very sure, commend themselves to those who desire to make criticism of value. Had Mr. Lang followed any of these rules he would have written in a different manner and more to his own credit.

Mr. Schooling and the Cipher.

I can only say that with regard to Mr. Schooling as with thousands of others, defective vision or superficial examinationis responsible for his criticism, for it culminates in the assertion, merely, that different founts of Italic type are not used in the books referred to, and that the work “can be regarded only as a phantasy of my imagining, wholly unworthy of credence.” I again assert, with that degree of positiveness which comes from a study of years, that the Italic typesarefrom different founts and are used in the manner I have set forth. There is no room whatever for imagination in the work.

Mr. Schooling enters into particulars, and reports upono's,n's,andp's in a few lines of small letters, and says “they are from the same fount, and the cipher, therefore, non-existent.” In this he is absolutely wrong. He makes no mention of the marked differences in the capitals, and, too, he should have studied the originals on many pages, as I have done, for in the photographic facsimiles of the book some of the distinctive features are lost. It is difficult to describe in words the particular lines in a drawing, and equally so those in several forms of type, but I will attempt to make the differences clear.

The Italics in Spenser.

Extending these examples of Mr. Schooling, take for illustration the Italics in the first lines of the selection from Spenser. The type is large and clear, and there are several letters so close together that comparisons can easily be made.

full Ladie the La Marie.

There are two captialL's. The serif of the first is curved, of the second straight. At the bottom, the horizontal of the first gradually thickens, and the small line at the end is nearly vertical, while the horizontal of the second is of even thickness and the small line slanting.

There are three smalla's. The oval of the first is narrow and pointed at the top, those of the other two are broad at the top. The small line at the bottom of the first is long and strong, of the other two short and weak.

There are three smalle's. The ovals of the first two are broad, the letters themselves narrow; the oval of the last is longer and more pointed, but the letter itself is wide.

The two smalli's do not stand at the same degree of inclination, and the dot of the first is slightly to the left.

The capitalMis a striking form, and the plainMof that size of type must be familiar to Mr. Schooling and others.

Taking the next Italic line, the smalln's are from different founts. The inclination of the second is greater than that of the first. The stem of the firstn(inHonourable) is straight, that of the second (inand) is slightly curved. The small line at the bottom of the first stands well under the downward stroke, that of the second freely leaves the downward stroke.

In the next line, the difference in the smalll's is very marked, and one is much longer than the other.

In the line below, anefrom the “bfount” and one from the “afount” stand together in the wordbee. These can easily be discriminated, but the characteristics of theein this size of type are the reverse of the same in the large size above.

Theoinlongis a wider oval than theofrom the “afount” inbountifull. It has already been pointed out why then's in both words are “a-fount” letters, although the one inlongis not a perfect letter—the lower part of the last stroke being blotted—but, as I have said on other occasions, where broken or blotted letters or errors of the printer occur in the original, the context will unmistakably indicate what they are.

The “Novum Organum.”

In thePraefatioofNovum Organum, the first letter considered is the smallo, and of this two examples given by Mr. Schooling are in the second line—inexplorataandpronuntiare, The longest diameter produced until it intersects the line of writing does not make so large an angle in the first as in the second. The oval is much narrower in the first. The description of these two will suffice for all others not changed by a mark, unless a printer’s error occurs.

The twop's inpropriaare most easily compared, as the first is from the “afount” and the second is from the “bfount.” The stem of the first is not quite so long as that of the second; and, in the first, the oval is somewhat angular on the right side at the top, in the second this angularity is seen at the bottom. The same rule applies to other cases. Of the half-dozen cited by Mr. Schooling, I have merely chosen two that stand close together. He would find as great difficulty in the differentiationof theo's andc's of any two founts of modern Italic type, as in these he points out, for the differences are often as minute.

Bacon and the Compositor.

Mr. Schooling says, “Mrs. Gallup does not tell us how Lord Bacon managed to get his work set up by the compositor.”

Any printer will tell him, if he will inquire, that it is not more difficult to take certain letters that have been marked on the MS. from one case of Italic type, and certain other letters, not marked, from another case of Italic, than to take Roman from one case and Italic from another in ordinary composition. The system has the advantage that the printer, in following copy, could not know the cipher without the key, which in Bacon’s case was withheld until 1623—forty-four years after the cipher was invented and first used.

The Powers of Imagination.

Perhaps I should thank Mr. Schooling for the implied compliment to my abilities in the realm of creation; for if not a deciphering, what is the alternative? I must first have conceived the plot of the entire fabric of 380 pages, its historical points, statements of facts not recorded in history—which in some particulars conflict with, in others supplement, the records. I must have imagined the moanings of remorse over the tragedy of Essex; the discovery of the motherhood of Elizabeth; guessed at the broadened field of Bacon’s literary powers to take in all the works which are disclosed as coming from his hand; the directions for writing out the word-cipher; the argument of theTragedy of Anne Boleyn; the epitome of theIliadand of theOdyssey; the explanatory letters of Dr. Rawley and Ben Jonson that are found in the cipher; the flights of fancy which occasionally appear in the deciphered work, and all the rest. This must all have been written out in the old English spelling and in the language of Bacon’s time; this previously written plot and story in the main narration must have been fitted to the exact number of Italic letters, and so arranged that the forms of the capital letters and those whose differences are easily perceived, must in every case fit into place as anaor ab, so that those letters, at least, should consistently follow Bacon’s biliteral cipher. The simple enumeration,with all that these things imply, carries the refutation of the possibility of such a manner of production, to say nothing of the absurdity of attempting it. Had it been undertaken, it would have been along lines that were better known, and statments of facts would have been in accord with the records. Historical romance would never so far have transcended the beliefs of the world, nor subverted all previous ideas concerning authorship of literature which will be immortal. The only reason for the book’s existence is that it is the transcription of a cipher placed in the works for the purposes disclosed by its decipherment.

Back to Index Next