HENRY VII.
A Reply to the Report of Mr. Bompas.
Baconiana, London, Oct. 1905.
I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to the article of the late Mr. Bompas in the July number ofBaconiana.
I am also grateful to Mr. Cunningham for his prefatory remarks and footnotes, and I wish to say that his regret is my own as well, that Mr. Bompas did not discuss the paper with members of the Society better advised than was he, and that the MS. of the article had not been submitted to me while Mr. Bompas was still with us, or at least before publication, for some, if not all, the erroneous conclusions drawn could have been dissipated before they took form. The explanations would have given that gentleman and his readers a more comprehensive view, a different view point, and greater light upon the subject.
It is rare that an article appearing in public print carries upon analysis its own evidences of error, and in the next preceding pages finds so complete a refutation as does this in the article of Mrs. Kindersley.
In his opening statement Mr. Bompas says: “The copies ofHenry VII.which have been examined do not exactly correspond.... The form of many of the capitals also differs in the different copies.... Mr. Cuningham’s copy differs widely from the others.... Either each copy contains a different cipher story, which is absurd, or the decipherer happened by chance to light on the only correct copy, which is equally absurd.” Then Mr. Bompas proceeds to build an argument upon the fact that the copy of my MS., furnished to the Society, did not correspond with some copy ofHenry VII.with which he compared it, concluding, therefore, that the cipher system must be a myth, and Mrs. Gallup a visionary or a fraud.
Any comparison to establish the correctness of my work must be made either with the copy I used or one identical with it. That Mr. Bompas used some copynotidentical, but one printed differently, is substantiated by Mrs. Kindersley, whose three months’ work on an identical copy—as against one week Mr. Bompas spent on a different printing—resulted in her verification of nearly all the letters studied. It is still more forcibly proved by the table of headings Mr. Bompas prints, the Italics in which do not at all correspond in the different forms with the book I used. It therefore follows that the entire argument, from pages 169 to and including part of 176, so far as relates toHenry VII., is founded upon a false premise and falls to the ground.
Mr. Bompas says, “Either each copy contains a different cipher, which is absurd,” &c.
On the contrary, that is just what occurs in unlike copies. Those widely differing belong to different editions, although published in the same year, as I have found to be true, and stated in my article inBaconianapublished in 1901. Two issues of theTreatise of Melancholyappeared in 1586 with differing Italic printing. I have deciphered both. One ends with an incomplete cipher word, which is completed in the other where the narrative is continued, and the book ends with the signature of Bacon on the last page. I have also found that in two editions of Bacon’s acknowledged works one had the cipher and one had not. The peculiar Italicizing and the same forms of letters were in both. In one the arrangement of the letters followed the cipher system, in the other no amount of study could make them “read.” Bacon refers in the cipher to some false and surreptitious copies issued without his authority.
The differences in print ofHenry VII.first came to light, apparently, through the comparisons made with my MS. in London, and the report of it was a great surprise to me. Mrs. Kindersley was kind enough to send me one of her copies, and, as before stated, this was found to be identical with the one I used except that three or four typographical errors in her copy were corrected in mine, and one in mine did not occur in hers, but in no case was a verbal change made and only one orthographical.
About the same time it chanced that a copy of the work—a recent importation from London—was sent me from Chicago for examination. This I found quite different in the use of Italics. I did not decipher the work, but became convinced that it either contained another cipher story, or was one of the “false and surreptitious copies” before referred to.
In addition to the criticism ofHenry VII., Mr. Bompas refers to some typographical errors making slight differences in our own editions of theBi-literal Cipher, and to the examples in the editions ofDe Augmentisof 1623 and 1624.
I have to admit there are some printers’ errors in my book that escaped the closest proof reading, much to my regret. The proof reading was extremely difficult because of the care required to keep the unusual spelling and occasional abbreviations. Some errors were corrected in the third edition. Mr. Bompas found two or three—probably not all. I have had no opportunity to note the errata in a later publication. I can, however, make the broad assertion that in no single instance has any of these slight technical errors changed the meaning of a phrase, or made it obscure, or been of sufficient importance to affect in the least the overwhelming evidences of the existence of the system of the cipher and the correctness of its deciphering.
Manifest errors occurred in the text of the old books, which were corrected in the deciphering, but they were so few and so evident as to prove rather than to disprove the system. They occur mostly in long groups, as in the example of the cipher inDe Augmentis, occasionally a short group of four letters, once in a while a wrong font letter, but the meaning of the context was always sufficiently clear in itself to correct the error. I cannot better illustrate this than by quoting from my “Replies to Criticisms,” issued in pamphlet form, but which has not appeared in public print. The explanation covers explicitly a number of points raised by Mr. Bompas, and being an analysis of Bacon’s own illustration of the cipher in the 1624De Augmentis, has the weight of the author’s own methods of correction, and the suggestion, at least, that the errors were purposely made to educate the decipherer as towhat would be encountered in the books; also the manner of overcoming the difficulties as they should arise.
“In the 1624 edition the secondiinofficiois changed by the law of tied letters; the seconduinnunquamhas position or angle of inclination, to make it an 'afount’ letter;qinconquiestiis from the wrong fount, and theuhas features of both founts but is clear in one distinctive difference—the width at the top; theqinquiais reversed by a mark; thea's in the firstcausaare formed like 'bfount’ letters but are taller; theqofquosis from the wrong fount; the secondainaderasis reversed, being a tied letter;linvelintis from the wrong fount, also thepofparati, thelofcalumniamand thelofreligione.
“In line twelve 'pauci sunt’ in 1623 ed. is 'parati sunt’ in the 1624 ed. The correct grouping isntqui velin tquip ratis untom nesad, the firstain 'parati’ must be omitted to readdiutiusaccording to the Spartan dispatch. Otherwise the groups would bearati sunto mnesa. Themandnare both 'bfount,’ thus bringing twob's at the beginning of this last group, indicating at once a mistake, for no letter in the bi-literal alphabet begins with twob's and wherever encountered may be known to indicate either a wrong fount letter or a wrong grouping. It is one of the guards against error. To continue the groups after the one last given several would be found to commence withbb, and the resulting letters would not 'read.’
“Here, too, is an example of diphthongs, digraphs, and double letters, which are troublesome to 'A Correspondent.’ The diphthong æ of 'cæteris,’ the digraphctinperfectare, and the doubleff's andpp's are shown as separate letters and must be treated as such in deciphering Italics.
“A very important feature, that most seem to forget, is that ciphers are made to hide things, not to make them plain or easy to decipher. They are constructed to be misleading, mysterious, and purposely made difficult except to those possessing the key. Seekers after knowledge through them must not abandon the hunt upon encountering the first difficulty, improbability, inaccuracy, or stumbling block set for their confusion.”
The article says: “The plain inference is that the Cipher and Cipher story are imaginary.”
Well, this is at least complimentary, but I doubt whether Mr. Bompas stopped to think what that statement would mean with all that it implies. I do not think he would, on reflection, give me credit for a genius so broad, for it would be equal to the production of the plays themselves.
Were I the possessor of an imagination so boundless, I would certainly not have spent it upon a production foredoomed to be unpopular, or have subjected myself to the strain upon nerves and eyesight of six years’ hard study of old books and their typographical peculiarities for a Baconian cloak to hide the brilliancy of that imagination. Yet if the material for the three hundred and ninety pages of my book were not found in Cipher in the old originals, then it must be the conception of my own brain. First, the plot of each story worked out; the account of Bacon’s discovery of his parentage; the variations from historic records; the death of Amy Robsart; the tragedy of Essex, and that of Mary, Queen of Scots, and other scraps of added history; the love of Bacon for Margaret, and all the rest. All this thought out, in diction, much of it, of the highest order, in the old English spelling and phraseology of the 16th century and fitted with such nice exactness to the Italic letters of the old books, “separated into groups of five”—letters that even the sceptics admit the capitals at least agree with the alleged system—the study of months in the British Museum; the explanations and demonstrations to numberless people—all to hide a genius so magnificent! In the language of Mr. Bompas, “Absurd!” And yet, I repeat, if not Cipher it must be my own production.
It is useless to discuss the probability of Bacon’s committing State secrets to such a Cipher. It is not a time to ask the question, “Is it likely?”The Cipher is there, and it only remains to master its intricacies and search out what it has to reveal.
Elizabeth Wells Gallup.