LITERARY WORLD.
London.
To The Editor.
Sir:—There is a sense of relief after the worst has been said, in the assurance that nothing more dreadful can be expected. Since the “critic” of theLiterary Worldhas consigned me to thatAvernuswhose horrors all good people hope to escape, I should be beyond attack, as none would willingly follow me into the infernal regions.
After reading the article entitledGalluping in Avernum, my eyes fell upon a clipping in which George Brandes is named as the “famous Danish critic, and the greatest of living Shakespearean commentators.” It says: “He dismisses the whole 'Baconian Craze’ with the remark that it is on the one hand a piece of weak and inartistic feminine criticism, and on the other an Americanism and therefore lacking in spiritual delicacy.”
The criticism in theLiterary Worldof Bacon’sBi-literal Cypherand of theTragedy of Anne Boleynis not, I think, feminine nor American, but somehow the quality ofspiritual delicacyseems lacking, and it can hardly be calledartistic.
It is only recently that I have noticed—this rule has not reached America—that some writers apparently think it is good form to pun, or play, upon another’s surname. If the name is not pleasing to the ear, the mortal who bears it has perhaps a lifelong affliction, yet it is certainly a misfortune rather than a fault. Nor did I suppose, until I saw the articles of a large number of reviewers, that any—except writers more intent on filling space than careful of the value of the matter—rushed into print before the subject discussed, or book reviewed was half read. And yet it is this critic’s own confession, regarding theBi-literal Cypher, that he has read but “half the book, and a few scattered sentences of the rest.” From this admittedly superficial reading he concludes a “Phantom personatingBacon claims to have written all the plays” etc.—the literature throughout which the ciphers have with infinite pains been traced, and the principles upon which they are based, the keys and directions for their decipherment, ascertained and set out in the work he attempts to criticise.
After quoting the statement that Elizabeth and Dudley were honorably married, and that Bacon and Essex were the issue of this union, our critic asks, “when were Elizabeth and Leicester again married?” This is answered in theBi-literal Cypher(p. 154).
A little farther on critic says: “Ifthere had been a marriage, which there wasn’t, sometime in the four months between Lady Dudley’s (Amy Robsart’s) death and (the supposed) Bacon’s birth, it would have legitimated Bacon; but then he would not have been a Tudor but aDudley.”
Bacon evidently considered himself legitimated by “this second nuptial rite,” and when he wrote, probably knew quite as much of the law, and of the time the marriage took place, as our critic. It was not descent from Dudley that made him prince. Long-established custom was the law that gave “to the first borne of the sovereign the title of Prince of Wales.”
Our critic makes a point of the use and spelling ofBrittainand of the expression 'inthe throne,’ quoting: “Ended now is my great desire to sit in the British throne.”
In theAdvancement of Learning(1605) he may read: “Queene Elizabeth, your immediate Predecessor in this part ofBrittaine” (B. 1, p. 36); while in Shakespeare he will find:
Our critic has not read his Shakespeare well, if he thinks the term unusual in Bacon’s time.
He also objects to the phrase, “Every landin which the English language hath a place.” Bacon wrote his cipher history to be read, when deciphered, in all parts of the world. The reference to our colonies, etc., was a prophecy more than half realized even then, and he claimed for Elizabeth command of the sea which he called a “universal monarchy.”
Critic again quotes: “We spent our greatest labours in making cyphares’ (a noble occupation!)” Certainly, and a natural one when seeking means of communicating important matters. Some one has suggested that instead of committing his secret history to ciphers, he should have written it out and confided the papers to the keeping of trusted literary executors. But that would have been the action of mature years, or of one who believed he was about to leave this life. Bacon then was an eager youth, hardly yet upon the threshold of manhood, and he believed his claims would ultimately be acknowledged. As to the nobleness of the occupation, Bacon says of it: “These Arts (cyphers) being here placed with the principal and supreame Sciences, seeme petty thinges: yet to such as have chosen them to spende their labours studies in them, they seem great Matters”—Adv. of Learn.B. 2, p. 61. (1605).
Our critic states: “To the real Bacon Elizabeth’s movements in January 1560-1 would have been known.”
To aninfant of days? That is very good. These thingsbecameknown to him in the way he states.
Again, “Robert Cecil, at the period referred to, was about fourteen years of age.” Critic must have copied this from Mr. Andrew Lang who makes the same mistake. The encyclopaedias give the date of Robert Cecil’s birth as 1550. He was therefore eleven years older than Bacon and about twenty-seven years of age when, Bacon says, he caused the tempestuous scene that resulted in the disclosure to Francis that he was the son of the Queen.
Then, “Hamlet was not in 1611 a new play.”
Could Bacon record in the types of a play then appearing for the first time, that it had “breasted the wave gallantly?” Whatever the play or whenever it was “new,” it could not be the 1611 edition of Hamlet.
The critic further says: “For Bacon’s style we know—compact, well-built, grammatical, lucid; no feeble tautology, dilutions, or repetitions; harmonious, and satisfying to the ear; pregnant with meaning, and grateful to the intellect. But what about the Phantoms? Here we find clumsy and sprawling sentences of half a page, or nearly, with shambling subordinate clauses 'spatch-cocked’ in between brackets or dashes” etc.
Refer again to theAdvancement of Learning(1605):
“Antonius Pius, who succeeded him, was a Prince excellently learned; and had the Patient and subtile witte of a Schoole man: insomuch as in common speech, (which leaves no vertue untaxed) hee was calledCymini Sector, a carver, or a divider of Comine seede, which is one of the least seedes: such a patience hee had and setled spirite, to enter into the least and most exact differences of causes; a fruit no doubt of the exceeding tranquillitie, and serenitie of his minde: which being no wayes charged or incombred, either with feares, remorses, or scruples, but having been noted for a man of the purest goodnesse without all fiction or affectation, that raigned or lived: made his minde continually present and entier: he likewise approached a degree neerer unto Christianitie, and became asAgrippasayd unto S.Paule, Halfe a Christian; holding their Religion and Law in good opinion: and not only ceasing persecution, but giving way to the advancement of Christians.” (B. 1, p. 35).
“Compact, well-built, lucid,” “satisfying to the ear,” “not clumsy, sprawling sentences of half a page”—and yet here is nearly a page before Bacon completed his period, and what about unity of subject?
And again from the same work:
“In which kind I cannot but mencionHonoris causayour Maiesties exellent book touching the duty of a king: a woorke ritchlye compounded ofDivinity Morality and Policy, with great aspersion of all other artes: & being in myne opinion one of the moste sound & healthful writings that I have read: not distempered in the heat of invention nor in the Couldnes of negligence: not sick of Dusinesse as those are who leese themselves in their order; nor of Convulsions as those which Crampe in matters impertinent; not savoring of perfumes & paintings as those doe who seek to please the Reader more than Naturebeareth, and chiefelye wel disposed in the spirits thereof, beeing agreeable to truth, and apt for action: and farre remooved from that Natural infirmity, whereunto I noted those, that write in their own professions to be subject, which is, that they exalt it above measure.” (B. 1, 2d p. 69).
I quote again:
“This kinde of degenerate learning did chiefely raigne amongst the Schoole-men, who having sharpe and stronge wits, and aboundance of leasure, and smal varietie of reading; but their with being shut up in the Cels of a few Authors (chiefelyAristotletheir Dictator) as their persons were shut up in the Cells of Monasteries and Colledges, and knowing little Historie, either of Nature or time, did out of no great quantitie of matter, and infinite agitation of wit, spin out unto us those laborious webbes of Learning which are extant in their Bookes,” (B. 1, 2d p. 18).
In eleven lines we are told that 'this kind of learning did reign among schoolmen who did spin out to us those webs of learning extant in their books.’
Many such examples could be quoted, but these will suffice to show that this critic has not read Bacon well even in modern editions, and not at all in the old English of the original editions. So slightly familiar is he with the great author, that he has failed to discriminate betwen the compact, forceful style of theEssaysandApothegmsand the “clumsy, sprawling sentences,” of his scientific works—a variation in the manner of writing so marked that one might think these were not from the same pen.
Mr. Candler has kindly replied to the objection to the sentence, “Such thingsdothburn,” but I will add other instances: “Which Religion and the holy faithdothconduct men unto” (A. of L. B. 2, 4th p. 69); “which the example and countenance of twoo so learned Princes ... hath wrought” (A. of L. B. 1, p. 11); “like Ants which is a wise creature for itself” (B. 2, st p. 93).
Our critic next quotes: “'Whilst writing these interior works these keies and joining words diddeter[it meansretard] th’ advancement’ (pretty, to see keys and words writing).”
On page 26 of theAdvancement of LearningBacon says: “For I am not ignorant howe much that diverteth and interrupteththe prosecution, and advancement of knowledge”; and on page 27, “which hath not onely given impediment to the proficience of Learning.”
Preceding examples have shown want of unity in the subject, but I will give an additional illustration to follow “whilst writing these interior works” etc. It is this: “Hearing that you are at leisure to peruse Stories a desire took me to make an Experiment,” (Letter to the King).
A little farther on the critic states: “Especially careful is the real Bacon in the use of the present conditional, (if, lest, tho’)it be, &c.; but here we sometimes findmaystuck in,—'Dread lest our secret historymaybe found out’; 'ere the pleasuremaydisappear,’” &c.
In a letter to Essex (1598) the critic will find: “If the main conditionsmaybe good.”
And again: “Sometimes a future indicative, 'If itshall not be(forbe not) found.’”
In a letter to the King we have: “If itshall bedeprived”; inA. of L.(p. 5) “if any manshallthinke.”
Again: “Many of the Phantom’s tautologies are positively imbecile,e.g.: 'Frequently, ayemany a time'; 'anarrativeof astory'; 'the play previouslynamedormentioned'; 'verypleasingto such a degree'; 'a mostcleare playneensample’; 'fulmin’d lightning'; 'a comingpeoplein the future'; and the like.”
In theHistory of Henry the Seventhis the peculiar combination, “then ayoung Youth” (p. 247); and in theAdvancement of Learning(1605) these lines: “Trueboundsandlimitations, whereby humane knowledge isconfinedandcircumscribed: and yet without any suchcontractionorcoarctation”; “beingsteepedandinfusedin the humors of the affections”; “not referred to the good ofMenandMankind” (p. 5); “let men endeavour an endlesseprogresseorproficiencein both ... and again that they doe not unwiselymingleorconfoundthese learnings together” (p. 6); “the accuser ofSocrateslayd it as an Article ofcharge&accusationagainst him”; “and to suppresse truth by force ofeloquenceandspeech”; “there hath beene ameeting, andconcurrence” (p. 7); “the modernloosenesornegligence;” “it is a thingpersonallandindividual”; “have aninfluenceandoperation” (p. 13); “topierceandpenetrate” (p. 15); “fitandproperfor”; “cantaxeorcondemme” (1st p. 16); “have sought tovaile overandconceale” (p. 22); “Man’s owneindividuallNature” (B. 2, p. 56); “which cannot butceaseandstoppeall progression. For no perfect discoverie can bee made uppon aflatte, or alevell” (p. 34); “which hath been likewise handled. But howe? rather in asatyre & Cinicaly, thenseriously & wiselyfor men have rather sought by witto derideandtraduce” (B. 2, 1st p. 77); “beingset downeand stronglyplanteddothjudgeand determine most of the Controversies” (B. 2, p. 72); “ForNarrationsandRelations” (B. 2, p. 14); also “But as for theNarrations... they are either not true, or not Naturall; and therefore impertinent for theStorieof Nature” (B. 2, 2d p. 6).
Again “The real Bacon, as a pretty good classic, could not have speltIlliad,spirrit,Brittain,Citty,instructted&c., with doubled consonants; orcomon,sufer’d, &c., with a single one; and rarely, if ever, did he adopt that curious growth of the old genitive suffix (-es)—isinto the detached possessivehis(in imitation of which, her came to be similarly used); yet in the Phantom’s twaddle instances abound—'Essexhisplea’; 'the authorhispoems’; 'the Queenhercrown’; &c., &c.”
InLove’s Labours Lost(5-2)Illion; inTroilus and Cressida(1-2)Illium; inAll’s Well(3-5)Citty; inAdvancement of Learning(B. 2, p. 32)Brittaine; Book 2, (p. 18)maner,comonly; (p. 36)canot; (p. 74)amogst,comand; (p. 74)comoly; (p. 87)wisedom; and on page 92circurence(circumference).
In printing the deciphered work, similar elisions when they occurred were marked with an apostrophe, the modern abbreviation, rather than mar the page with such seeming errors.
I have already given six examples from theHistory of Henry the Seventhof the detached possessivehis, and many others could be cited. “A thing familiar in my Mistrishertimes” occurs in a letter to Northumberland; “I. S.hisday is past and well past”—Letter to the King (29th of April, 1615).
“It needeth no proofof the factthat” is characterized as modern padding, but inAdvancement of Learningwe read, “where there is assurance and cleere evidenceof the fact.”
Most, if not all the so-called modern expressions that have been criticized—including some noted by another critic—arefound (mildly, exciting, headings), and in 2H. IV.(1-1) is the line, “You cast the event of war.”
A prominent assertion is that concerning repetitions. Most overlook the fact that the cipher narrative was placed in a large number of books and at different dates. The contents of theBi-literal Cypher of Francis Baconwere deciphered from fifty-five works, some of them subdivided into many separate parts, as in the Shakespeare First Folio and Ben Jonson’s Folio. Bacon declares his reason for reiteration was that he could not know in which book the cipher would be discovered, nor could he suppose that it would be followed through all the works.
The article concludes with a promise of more to follow—then I trust I may be granted space for further reply.
Yours very sincerely,Elizabeth Wells Gallup.
REPLY II.
To the Editor of the Literary World:
Sir:—It is unnecessary to explain again the principles of the cipher I have set forth. Mr. Fulcher, Mr. Sinnett, Mr. Mallock, Mr. John Holt Schooling, the critic of theLiterary World, and others, have done this with sufficient elaboration. Then, too, inDe Augmentis Scientiarumthey are fully illustrated and clearly taught by the great inventor himself.
Few realize that Bacon’s own explanation was withheld until the very last of his career. Without the key, the cipher could not have been discovered, and in that lay his safety. In that, too, the importance of the cipher was shown, for in stating that he invented it in his youth, and explaining the same in his age, he set his seal upon it, so to speak, as something useful and worthy of preservation.
And again, there is that very marked reference to this cipher in the 1605 edition of theAdvancement of Learning—that “quintuple proportion required in no other”—so that a summary gives us: Invented 1579, mentioned 1605, illustrated 1623, employed a lifetime before it was explained, as I have now proved true by actual decipherment from fifty-five different books.
The critic states: “With respect to the Shakespeare Folio of 1623, Mr. Sidney Lee, the final authority, declares that no cipher exists in it. On this point, having examined a large number of detached passages up and down the volume, we can bear subsidiary testimony. Not but what there are many individual non-normal letters,” etc.
These 'individual non-normal letters’ can be separated into two distinct classes. The practical application of Bacon’s invention was merely a selection of the different forms as far as they existed, and the production of others where there was a lack. In the cipher, this is clearly stated. There was no impropriety in such an adaptation—of forms already existing—so long as in their use there was uniformity throughout each work.
Our critic says, “Nothing is more frequent than such mixtures in books,” but there should also be added, what I have learned to be true, that in Bacon’s works the different founts were used with asystem, have a rational dependence and connection, demonstrating the incorporation of the bi-literal cipher. He admits there was a careless use of the initial and interior forms, especially of the smallvandw.
This very fact assured Bacon that their methodical employment would pass unnoticed. One form is consistently used as an 'afount’ letter, and the other asb, unless there be a printer’s error, in which case it is easily corrected by the context.
Our critic further states: “The book contains nearly 400 pages ... which must equal more than three million cipher letters, distributed it is asserted, over numerous old books printed in different years, by different printers,” etc., and that “to deal reliably with the supposed 'normal’ and 'twin’ fonts requires a special training and experience.”
His estimate is approximately correct. Having examined with the care that was requisite—usually with a magnifying glass—every letter in that 'three million,’ may I not say I am “fitted by experience” to differentiate the forms, and that Iknowwhereof I speak?
I make no claim to genius but the 'genius of hard work,’ nor to inspiration except that coming from success which gave me courage to persevere.
There has been a slight misunderstanding regarding the method of deciphering. Both ways suggested by the critic were tried in the beginning, as well as other methods, but the one finally adopted was found to be most expeditious. I have many times given this in detail, perhaps to some of your readers.
The Italic letters of a page or two of the text were first copied in consecutive order by an operator using a typewriting machine that, arranged to space after each fifth letter, automatically formed the requisite cipher groups. When sufficient study had made me familiar with the forms and classification of letters in the book—sometimes a matter of days and even weeks—I placed a mark under the copied letters indicating the fount to which each Italic letter belonged. Tentative divisions were required to ascertain the correct grouping, and to determine the starting point, but when these had been unmistakably found, the copying would be resumed and the sheets containing the transcribedItalicsthus properly grouped—but always in their consecutive order as they stand in the books—would be brought to me.
Having in the meantime memorized the alphabets, I noted each 'bfount’ letter and placed a stroke (/) under the corresponding letter on the typewritten sheet. All the others, belonging to the 'afount,’ were marked with a short dash underneath, by an assistant, and the resulting bi-literal letter was then set down. This was the MS. to which I referred, and it is of this that “critic” facetiously asks: “What need of MSS. if the cypher was already embodied in the printed texts?”
Had he been at all familiar with ciphers he would have known they are not to be read at a glance. They are purposely made obscure, and are designed to be impossible to decipher by those not possessing the key, and difficult in any case.
Before reviewers cite Mr. Lee as authority upon the cipher, they should know whether or not his premises are correct. Mr. Lee says: “Italic andRomantypes are never intermingled in the manner that would be essential if the words embodied Bacon’s bi-literal cypher.”—this shows, as I have before pointed out, in print and otherwise, that Mr. Lee misapprehends the essentials. The Roman and Italic types are not intermingled to form bi-literal letters. From 1579 to 1623, a period of forty-four years, no Roman type was employedfor cipher purposes. On pages 66-67 of theBi-literal Cypherreference is made to their use in a few short passages, only, of the later publications—the preliminary pages of theFirst Folio, and ofVitae et Mortis, etc. Mr. Lee is, therefore, not good authority, because he does not understand the principles of the cipher, and, drawing his conclusion from false premises, declares the cipher non-existent that I knowdoesexist.
My critic says: “Just as in the Spenserian passage, the Gallupianb-type has been somehow introduced into the reproduced text [of theNovum Organum] so as to give the desired cipher-groups: but how, and by whom?”
If he refers to the 'btype’ of the photographic facsimiles, it is a frank acknowledgment that he can see the differences in the types. He could, therefore, become a cipher expert if he chose. The 'b-type’ was introduced when the originals were printed, the one in 1620, the other in 1591.
If the reference is to the passages that were set up in modern type by our printers, for the purpose of illustrating the method of deciphering, the answer is in the statement itself. The two founts were purposely selected with differences sufficiently marked to be apparent to the dullest vision.
The facsimiles were omitted from the third edition of the book, not because they proved too much but too little. In spite of the care taken to secure accuracy, some distinctive differences were lost, and, as a consequence, deciphering from the reproductions, was much more difficult than from the originals, therefore not suited to novices in the art.
Our critic makes a misstatement in saying that one section of the book “purports to be a translation of Homer’sIliadmade by Bacon and buried in cipher in Burton’s 'Anatomy of Melancholy.’”
This section is fully explained to be but an epitome—argument, Bacon calls it—of the chief events, with the names of the principal characters, to be used as a guide and framework of the fuller translation. The complete poem is embodied in the works and is to be extracted by means of the word-cipher, a very different method. Our critic also repeats the baseless aspersion made by Mr. Marston that the Argument is a prose paraphrase of Pope’s translation. I have, in replyingto Mr. Marston’s criticism of my work, fully refuted this charge, and I repeat that it is wholly without foundation.
That our critic understands little of the books he reviews, is apparent in his reference to the method of constructing theTragedy of Anne Boleyn, and this requires that I again explain the difference of method in the two ciphers. The bi-literal is in theItalicletters of the original volumes—in two founts or forms of type—and has been extracted letter by letter, separated into cipher groups of five, and the result set down. The word-cipher is much more elaborate, and consists in a reconstructing of the history, poem, or drama that had been disseminated through the works. Words, phrases, and passages, pertaining to the same subject, are brought together by the keys and joining-words, and in this new sequence relate an entirely different story. Yet this interior history is the original. If our critic had thoroughly read the introductory pages of theTragedy of Anne Boleyn, he would have understood that the lines were taken bodily fromHenry VIII—and the 107 other works—in accordance with this clear and definite plan. The “argument” or synopsis, 'framework’ if he pleases, of thisTragedy of Anne Boleyn, is given in theBiliteral Cypherto aid in collecting the scattered passages, as theArgument of the Iliadis given to aid in gathering the scattered fragments of the fuller translation of the great Greek poem. Some of the fragments of this work are in the text of theAnatomy of Melancholy, but it is seldom that many consecutive lines are found there. The following will however be recognized:—“Pandarus, Lycaon’s son, when he shot at Menelaus the Grecian with a strong arm and deadly arrow, Pallas as a good mother keeps flies from her child’s face asleep, turned by the shaft, and made it hit on the buckle of his girdle.”—Part. ii, Sect, iii, Mem. iii. Many of the proper names are also found in theAnatomy of Melancholy. These fragments of theIliadare scattered throughout all the works, but the largest portions are to be found in Greene’s prose. I am explicit regarding this because so few understand that Bacon refers to the poem in the word-cipher, when he mentions works that contain portions of Homer.
Some writers, too, who have become acquainted with Bacon’s bi-literal cipher, are not equally familiar with theword-cipher, although it is mentioned in theAdvancement of Learning(1605) in the first lines of the paragraph on ciphers: “For Cyphers they are commonly in Letters or Alphabets but may be in Wordes.” Bacon chose an epistle of Cicero for the illustration of the bi-literal, and it appears that it was in that philosopher’s writings that he found the suggestion of the word-cipher plan, for he says: “And Cicero himselfe being broken unto it by great experience, delivereth it plainely; That whatsoever a man shall have occasion to speak of, (if he will take the paines) he may have it in effect premediate, and handled in these. So that when hee commeth to a particular, he shall have nothing to doe but to put too Names, and times, and places; and such other Circumstances of individuals.”
Bacon saw how the lines of history, or drama, or translation could be separated and used in more than one place, and his invention consisted in the use of certain key-words that marked the passages belonging together. By making use of these in the original works, and taking the work apart by the same keys that must be used in reassembling the portions, his idea was successfully carried out. To guard against mistakes, and to make the work less laborious to the decipherer, he gave short “arguments” of the hidden work, as well as the keys, in this auxiliary bi-literal cipher.
It is an error, then, to suppose that the sections are not brought together “in any rational order.”
It would of course be possible to give the entire interior play or poem in a single work, but this was not Bacon’s plan; and he adopted a very ingenious manner of directing the decipherer by guide-words to the different works, containing the scattered sections.
This disseminating of the original work that was to be brought together again by this cipher, caused the anachronisms in the plays—the dispersing of the Armada inKing John, Cleopatra’s billiards, artillery before it was in use, etc.—but it enabled him to hide his principal and dangerous history, as well as other important writings, to be collected again at a safe distance of time and place, and theendjustified themeans.
Elizabeth Wells Gallup.