| Cryptographic Shakespeare |
| Cryptographic Shakespeare |
The Northumberland Manuscript
The following is from Baconiana, March, 1960, by Martin Pares:
Let us begin with the Northumberland MS. which was discovered in 1867 in an old black box of papers at
Northumberland House by a Mr. John Bruce. In 1870 it was edited and a few pages of it were printed by James
Spedding; in 1904 it was more fully examined and reproduced in facsimile with a transcription by Frank J.
Burgoyne. It is written in the flowing calligraphy of more than one 16th century copyist, and parts of it have been
attributed to a scrivener, John Davies, who was once in Bacon's employ. The very suggestive scribbling on the
cover might be by him or by anyone of the period. Like all scribbling it is not easy to identify, and could even be
by Bacon himself, since the document is headed with his name and was evidently at one time his property.
It is the fact that such a document has survived, and not simply the possibility of a cryptogram on the cover, that
lends weight to the Baconian case. Colonel Friedman's amusing chapter disputing the validity of a number of
anagrams of the long word, but ignoring the historical significance of the manuscript, is an example of the skilful
advocate concealing the weak part of his case. Commenting on the peculiar recurrence of the long word in Bacon,
Shakespeare and in this MS., he writes as follows:
These facts taken together are of course hardly conclusive. That a scrivener linked the names (both pretty well
known to Londoners) of Bacon and Shakespeare on a page of rough notes, and also wrote out a long and unusual
word found in the writings of both of them, by itself provides only a tenuous thread of reasoning to uphold a
weighty conclusion.
This disclaimer is so brilliantly put that the more we read it, the more we are fascinated. It contrives to suggest
that there is no other Baconian evidence than a few scribbles, and it does this in so nimble a fashion as to make
one suspect that the critic knows much more than he cares to profess. For, as a highly skilled cryptographer, he
could hardly be blind to the fact that the conjunction of Bacon's and "Shakespeare's" writings in manuscript form
shortly before their first appearance in print, coupled with the complete absence of any Shakespearean MS. at all,
has a certain significance; as indeed has the more intimate association of their names in the jottings on the cover. If
these two individuals were "both pretty well known to Londoners" why were they apparently unknown to each
other?
If the name and writings of "ffrauncis Bacon" had not been so much in evidence, or if the works originally listed
(apart from those by Shakespeare) had been by any other writer than Bacon e.g. those of Spenser, Marlowe, Peele,
Nashe, Greene or Jonson this manuscript might well have received the recognition it deserves. It might even now
be reposing beside 79 copies of the First Folio in the Folger Library at Washington. As it is, the fact of its survival
is so unwelcome to orthodox scholarship that comparatively few students are made aware of its existence
Facsimiles of the Northumberland MS. are scarce. The fine edition of 1904 by Frank J. Burgoyne was limited to
250 copies; each folio page was there reproduced in photo-facsimile on a full scale, and the cost of reprinting this
would now be prohibitive. No Baconian theories are expounded, and the introductory chapter is entirely factual.
Here are some of Burgoyne's notes on the original list of contents and the jottings on the cover.
revealing
day through
every crany
peepes and
see
Shak
This is practically line 1,086 of the Rape of Lucrece, the only difference being that the word "spies" is there
employed instead of "peepes," It seems, therefore, probable that "see Shak" was intended by the scribbler to refer
to the poem of Lucrece, which was first published in 1594. It has already been stated that the date of the writing
of the manuscript is probably 1597. If this be so, this quotation is interesting as an almost contemporary notice of
the poem.
The name Shakespeare, or William Shakespeare, and the name Baco, Bacon, or Francis Bacon, have been written
upon the page eight or nine times. The initial letters S, Wlm, B, Sh and Mr, also frequently occur. This association
of the names and their conjunction on the title-page of a collection of manuscripts ascribed to each, must be of
deep interest to all students of English literature. It should be remembered that no trace of an original manuscript
of any play or poem ascribed to Shakespeare has ever been discovered. On the title-page of the collection of
manuscripts here facsimiled however, mention is made of Shakespeare's plays of Richard II and Richard III, as
having formed part of the original contents. And the fact that this title-page is scribbled over in a contemporary
handwriting, with the names of "Bacon" and "Shakespeare" in close proximity, and seemingly of set purpose, has
caused believers in the Baconian authorship of the Shakespeare plays to cite this page as confirmatory evidence of
their theory.
Attention is more particularly called to the line written above the entry "Rychard the Second."
ffrauncis [upside down]
By Mr. ffrauncis William Shakespeare.
The word "ffrauncis" has been twice written (the second entry being upside down and over the first) as if by this
device it had been intended to emphasise the name. It is worthy of notice that the name of "Shakespeare" does not
appear upon any of the plays printed prior to 1598. The writing upon folio I would seem therefore to be one of
the earliest ascriptions of authorship, and it is especially remarkable that the author's name appears as "Mr.
ffrauncis William Shakespeare." Where the name "William Shakespeare" is repeated lower down, another device
is employed to emphasise the entry, the word "Your" being twice written across the name, so that it is difficult to
imagine that it was written without intelligent purpose.
Other suggestive jottings connect the document directly with Francis Bacon; as for instance "Anthony comfort
and consorte," and, in particular, the long word "Honorificabiletudine" in which (like "Shakespeare" and Marlowe)
he also seems to have been interested. Now let us briefly consider the main contents of the manuscript; and again
we cannot do better than refer to Burgoyne, who wrote as follows:
"The date when the manuscript was written cannot be fixed with certainty. Mr. Spedding says that, while it is
impossible to give an exact date, he could find nothing either in the scribbling upon the outside page, nor in what
remains of the book itself, to indicate a date later than the reign of Queen Elizabeth.
The list of contents on the outside page shows that the manuscript originally contained a copy of Bacon's Essays.
The first edition of these appeared in 1597, but they were circulated in manuscript several years prior to that date.
Bacon in his "Epistle Dedicatorie" to the first edition, dated January 30, 1597, complaining of some piratical
publisher who contemplated printing them without his consent, writes as follows:
I doe nowe like some that haue an Orcharde ill neighbored, that gather their fruit before it is ripe, to preuent
stealing. These fragments of my conceites were going to print . . . Therefore I helde it best discreation to publish
them my selfe as they passed long agoe from my pen.
This letter points to the extensive circulation of the essays in manuscript form, which would cease on their issue
as a book. They were printed in January, 1597, and again in 1598, and so were easily to be procured in book form
after February, 1597. This appears to fix the date of the manuscript as about that period, for it is not reasonable to
suppose that the expensive and imperfect method of copying in manuscript would be continued after the printed
editions had appeared. The same argument applies to the plays of "Rychard II." and "Rychard III.," which are
included in the list of contents. These also were first printed in 1597, and issued at a published price of sixpence
each. It seems, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the manuscript was written not later than January, 1597, and
it seems more probable that no part of the manuscript was written after 1596. Corroboration for this approximate
date is obtained from the composition of the various parts of the manuscript. The first item, "Of Tribute," was
written by Bacon for a masque or device played in I 592. The "Controversies of the Church of England ," was
written in 1589. The "Letter to a French gent." was written between 1589 and 1590. The "Speeches of the Hermit,
the Soldier, the Secretary, and the Squire," were spoken in a masque performed in 1595. The Earl of Sussex's
speech was spoken "an. (15) 96," The "Letter of Sir Philip Sydney to Queen Elizabeth" was written about 1580. The
stinging political pamphlet, "Leicester's Commonwealth," part of which concludes the manuscript in its present
state, was printed secretly on the Continent in 1584. We know that its circulation was forbidden, the copies seized
and the printers prosecuted. This being so, there would be difficulty in obtaining the printed book in England,
and it was therefore necessary to continue to produce manuscript copies of the pamphlet."
After reading what Mr. Burgoyne has to say in his introduction, I do not think any serious student of history
could deny the literary and historical interest of this document. To dismiss it as "scribbling "suggests a certain
reluctance to give its contents due consideration; and this does not consort with the more candid and judicial
references to Baconian evidence in Colonel Friedman's introductory chapter.
The following is from Baconiana, March, 1960, by Martin Pares:
Let us begin with the Northumberland MS. which was discovered in 1867 in an old black box of papers at
Northumberland House by a Mr. John Bruce. In 1870 it was edited and a few pages of it were printed by James
Spedding; in 1904 it was more fully examined and reproduced in facsimile with a transcription by Frank J.
Burgoyne. It is written in the flowing calligraphy of more than one 16th century copyist, and parts of it have been
attributed to a scrivener, John Davies, who was once in Bacon's employ. The very suggestive scribbling on the
cover might be by him or by anyone of the period. Like all scribbling it is not easy to identify, and could even be
by Bacon himself, since the document is headed with his name and was evidently at one time his property.
It is the fact that such a document has survived, and not simply the possibility of a cryptogram on the cover, that
lends weight to the Baconian case. Colonel Friedman's amusing chapter disputing the validity of a number of
anagrams of the long word, but ignoring the historical significance of the manuscript, is an example of the skilful
advocate concealing the weak part of his case. Commenting on the peculiar recurrence of the long word in Bacon,
Shakespeare and in this MS., he writes as follows:
These facts taken together are of course hardly conclusive. That a scrivener linked the names (both pretty well
known to Londoners) of Bacon and Shakespeare on a page of rough notes, and also wrote out a long and unusual
word found in the writings of both of them, by itself provides only a tenuous thread of reasoning to uphold a
weighty conclusion.
This disclaimer is so brilliantly put that the more we read it, the more we are fascinated. It contrives to suggest
that there is no other Baconian evidence than a few scribbles, and it does this in so nimble a fashion as to make
one suspect that the critic knows much more than he cares to profess. For, as a highly skilled cryptographer, he
could hardly be blind to the fact that the conjunction of Bacon's and "Shakespeare's" writings in manuscript form
shortly before their first appearance in print, coupled with the complete absence of any Shakespearean MS. at all,
has a certain significance; as indeed has the more intimate association of their names in the jottings on the cover. If
these two individuals were "both pretty well known to Londoners" why were they apparently unknown to each
other?
If the name and writings of "ffrauncis Bacon" had not been so much in evidence, or if the works originally listed
(apart from those by Shakespeare) had been by any other writer than Bacon e.g. those of Spenser, Marlowe, Peele,
Nashe, Greene or Jonson this manuscript might well have received the recognition it deserves. It might even now
be reposing beside 79 copies of the First Folio in the Folger Library at Washington. As it is, the fact of its survival
is so unwelcome to orthodox scholarship that comparatively few students are made aware of its existence
Facsimiles of the Northumberland MS. are scarce. The fine edition of 1904 by Frank J. Burgoyne was limited to
250 copies; each folio page was there reproduced in photo-facsimile on a full scale, and the cost of reprinting this
would now be prohibitive. No Baconian theories are expounded, and the introductory chapter is entirely factual.
Here are some of Burgoyne's notes on the original list of contents and the jottings on the cover.
revealing
day through
every crany
peepes and
see
Shak
This is practically line 1,086 of the Rape of Lucrece, the only difference being that the word "spies" is there
employed instead of "peepes," It seems, therefore, probable that "see Shak" was intended by the scribbler to refer
to the poem of Lucrece, which was first published in 1594. It has already been stated that the date of the writing
of the manuscript is probably 1597. If this be so, this quotation is interesting as an almost contemporary notice of
the poem.
The name Shakespeare, or William Shakespeare, and the name Baco, Bacon, or Francis Bacon, have been written
upon the page eight or nine times. The initial letters S, Wlm, B, Sh and Mr, also frequently occur. This association
of the names and their conjunction on the title-page of a collection of manuscripts ascribed to each, must be of
deep interest to all students of English literature. It should be remembered that no trace of an original manuscript
of any play or poem ascribed to Shakespeare has ever been discovered. On the title-page of the collection of
manuscripts here facsimiled however, mention is made of Shakespeare's plays of Richard II and Richard III, as
having formed part of the original contents. And the fact that this title-page is scribbled over in a contemporary
handwriting, with the names of "Bacon" and "Shakespeare" in close proximity, and seemingly of set purpose, has
caused believers in the Baconian authorship of the Shakespeare plays to cite this page as confirmatory evidence of
their theory.
Attention is more particularly called to the line written above the entry "Rychard the Second."
ffrauncis [upside down]
By Mr. ffrauncis William Shakespeare.
The word "ffrauncis" has been twice written (the second entry being upside down and over the first) as if by this
device it had been intended to emphasise the name. It is worthy of notice that the name of "Shakespeare" does not
appear upon any of the plays printed prior to 1598. The writing upon folio I would seem therefore to be one of
the earliest ascriptions of authorship, and it is especially remarkable that the author's name appears as "Mr.
ffrauncis William Shakespeare." Where the name "William Shakespeare" is repeated lower down, another device
is employed to emphasise the entry, the word "Your" being twice written across the name, so that it is difficult to
imagine that it was written without intelligent purpose.
Other suggestive jottings connect the document directly with Francis Bacon; as for instance "Anthony comfort
and consorte," and, in particular, the long word "Honorificabiletudine" in which (like "Shakespeare" and Marlowe)
he also seems to have been interested. Now let us briefly consider the main contents of the manuscript; and again
we cannot do better than refer to Burgoyne, who wrote as follows:
"The date when the manuscript was written cannot be fixed with certainty. Mr. Spedding says that, while it is
impossible to give an exact date, he could find nothing either in the scribbling upon the outside page, nor in what
remains of the book itself, to indicate a date later than the reign of Queen Elizabeth.
The list of contents on the outside page shows that the manuscript originally contained a copy of Bacon's Essays.
The first edition of these appeared in 1597, but they were circulated in manuscript several years prior to that date.
Bacon in his "Epistle Dedicatorie" to the first edition, dated January 30, 1597, complaining of some piratical
publisher who contemplated printing them without his consent, writes as follows:
I doe nowe like some that haue an Orcharde ill neighbored, that gather their fruit before it is ripe, to preuent
stealing. These fragments of my conceites were going to print . . . Therefore I helde it best discreation to publish
them my selfe as they passed long agoe from my pen.
This letter points to the extensive circulation of the essays in manuscript form, which would cease on their issue
as a book. They were printed in January, 1597, and again in 1598, and so were easily to be procured in book form
after February, 1597. This appears to fix the date of the manuscript as about that period, for it is not reasonable to
suppose that the expensive and imperfect method of copying in manuscript would be continued after the printed
editions had appeared. The same argument applies to the plays of "Rychard II." and "Rychard III.," which are
included in the list of contents. These also were first printed in 1597, and issued at a published price of sixpence
each. It seems, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the manuscript was written not later than January, 1597, and
it seems more probable that no part of the manuscript was written after 1596. Corroboration for this approximate
date is obtained from the composition of the various parts of the manuscript. The first item, "Of Tribute," was
written by Bacon for a masque or device played in I 592. The "Controversies of the Church of England ," was
written in 1589. The "Letter to a French gent." was written between 1589 and 1590. The "Speeches of the Hermit,
the Soldier, the Secretary, and the Squire," were spoken in a masque performed in 1595. The Earl of Sussex's
speech was spoken "an. (15) 96," The "Letter of Sir Philip Sydney to Queen Elizabeth" was written about 1580. The
stinging political pamphlet, "Leicester's Commonwealth," part of which concludes the manuscript in its present
state, was printed secretly on the Continent in 1584. We know that its circulation was forbidden, the copies seized
and the printers prosecuted. This being so, there would be difficulty in obtaining the printed book in England,
and it was therefore necessary to continue to produce manuscript copies of the pamphlet."
After reading what Mr. Burgoyne has to say in his introduction, I do not think any serious student of history
could deny the literary and historical interest of this document. To dismiss it as "scribbling "suggests a certain
reluctance to give its contents due consideration; and this does not consort with the more candid and judicial
references to Baconian evidence in Colonel Friedman's introductory chapter.
 |
 |