| Cryptographic Shakespeare |
| Cryptographic Shakespeare |
The Northumberland Manuscript
by Sir George Greenwood
From Sir George Greenwood's "The Northumberland Manuscript," 1922; in "Baconian Essays" 185-221
In the year 1867 there was discovered at old Northumberland House in the Strand, in a box which had been for
many years unopened, an Elizabethan manuscript volume containing, amongst other things, the transcripts of certain
compositions admittedly the work of Francis Bacon. It commences with four speeches written by Bacon in 1592 for
Essex's Device, viz.: "The praise of the worthiest virtue"; "The praise of the worthiest affection"; "The praise of the
worthiest power"; "The praise of the worthiest person."These speeches were published in 1870 by Mr. James
Spedding, with an introductory notice of the manuscript, and a facsimile of its much bescribbled outside page, or
cover, of which more anon. The speech in praise of knowledge professes to have been spoken in "A conference of
Pleasure," and Mr. Spedding adopted this as the title of his little work. The manuscript book is thus described by
him: "It is a folio volume of twenty-two sheets which have been laid one upon the other, folded double (as in an
ordinary quire of paper) and fastened by a stitch through the centre. But as the pages are not numbered and the
fastening is gone, it may once have contained more, and if we may judge by what is still legible on the much
bescribbled outside leaf which once served for a table of contents, there is some reason to suspect that it did. "In a
note he adds: "One leaf, however-- that which would have been the tenth-- is missing, and one, which is the fourth,
appears to have been glued or pasted in." It is clear that he included this missing "tenth" leaf in his "twenty-two
sheets."
Mr. Spedding, therefore, carefully examined the volume in the condition in which it was when found at
Northumberland House, and, as his accuracy is well known, we may be content to rely upon his evidence in this
matter. At any rate it is the best that we can now get, for as Mr. Frank Burgoyne, the Librarian of the Lambeth Public
Libraries (who in 1904 edited and published a transcript and colotype facsimile of the whole of the contents of the
volume) informs us: "Since Mr. Spedding wrote, the manuscript has been taken to pieces and each leaf carefully
inlaid in stout paper, and these have been bound up with a large paper copy of his pamphlet entitled 'A conference
of Pleasure.' The manuscript in its present condition contains 45 leaves, so Mr. Spedding does not appear to have
included the outside page in his enumeration. The pages are not numbered, and there are no traces of stitching, or
sewing; it is therefore quite impossible even to conjecture what was the number of sheets in the original volume."
(*Author's footnote: My italics. The manuscript has been damaged by fire (probably in 1780), the edges of the
pages being much scorched and singed.)
This statement will be found not unimportant when we come to consider yet another work on these old
manuscripts, also published in 1904, by Mr. T. Le Marchant Dowse. Mr. Dowse is anxious to limit the original
volume to a quire of 24 sheets. Spedding, he says, "tells us it was a quire of 22 sheets, [Spedding however, only says
it was folded double "as in an ordinary quire of paper "] but he omits to take into account the outer sheet, which was
of the same fold of paper and served as a cover; this made 23 sheets. Moreover he tells us leaf 10 was missing (the
written matter, however runs on without a break); but as leaf 10 must have formed one half of a sheet, the other half,
in the latter part of the MS., should also have been missing, consequently the 'quire' was originally a full and proper
quire of 24 sheets."
But as I have already pointed out, Spedding evidently includes the missing leaf, which he numbers "the tenth," in
his twenty-two sheets, equally with the leaf which, as he says, "appears to have been glued or pasted in." Mr.
Dowse's ingenious attempt to limit the volume to 24 sheets therefore fails, and, in the present condition of the
manuscripts, the only safe conclusion is that stated by Mr. Burgoyne, viz., that "it is quite impossible even to
conjecture what was the number of sheets in the original volume." But of this more presently.
On the outside page or cover, besides a number of very interesting scribblings, we find a list which has been
generally looked upon as a table of contents of the volume as it originally existed. It runs as follows:
(1) Mr. ffrancis Bacon. Of tribute or giving what is dew. [With the four "praises" above mentioned.]
(2) Earle of Arundells letter to the Queen.
(3) Speaches for my lord of Essex at the tylt.
(4) A speach for my lord of Sussex tilt.
(5) Leycester's Common Wealth. Incerta autore.
(6) Orations at Graies Inne revells.
(7) . . . Queenes Mate [Probably Letters to the Queen's Majesty]. By Mr. ffrancis Bacon.
(8)Essaies by the same author.
(9) Rychard the Second.
(10) Rychard the Third.
(11) Asmund and Cornelia.
(12) Ile of dogs frmnt [i.e. fragment] by Thomas Nashe.
But, as Mr. Spedding points out, just above the writing, "Earle of Arundells letter to the Queen," stand the words
"Philipp against Mounsieur," a title which he says seems to have been inserted afterwards, and is imperfectly
legible."
(*Author's footnote: See Spedding's Introduction, p. xix. It is, I believe, contended by some that the word here is
not "Philipp," but as Mr. Spedding so read it when the manuscript was very much clearer than it is now, we may, I
think, be content to accept his evidence, more especially as close to it, a little to the left, stands the word "Phillipp"
still plain for all to read. Mr. Burgoyne, therefore, includes this letter of Sir Philip Sydney among the subjects
mentioned in the supposed list of contents.)
This evidently refers to Sir Philip Sydney's letter to the Queen dissuading her from marrying the Duke of Anjou,
which is part of the contents of the volume as it has come down to us. The Gray's Inn Revels are, no doubt, those of
I594-5 of which the history is related in the Gesta Grayorum.
Now of this list, besides the four Discourses or "Praises," only four items are found in the volume as it at present
exists, viz., the "Speaches for my lord of Essex at the tylt"; the "Speach for my lord of Sussex at the tilt "; "Leycester's
Common Wealth," and Sir Phjlip Sydney's letter. The actual contents of the volume in its present condition are as
follows:
(*Author's footnote: The items in italics are mentioned in the list on the outside page. It will be seen that the
latest date of any article of the contents is 1596. Note that six of the nine pieces are by Francis Bacon.)
(1) Of Tribute, or giving what is due. By Bacon
(1592).
(2) Of Magnanimitie or heroicall vertue. By Bacon.
(3) An Advertisement touching private censure. By Bacon.
(4) An Advertisement touching the controversies of the church of England. By Bacon (written 1589).
(5) A letter to a French gent: touching ye proceedings in Engl.: in Ecclesiasticall causes translated out of French
into EngIish by W. W. By Bacon. (*Author's footnote: See Spedding's Introduction, p. xvi.) (6) Speeches for my lord
of Essex at the tylt, viz., five speeches spoken in a Device presented by Essex, and performed before Queen
Elizabeth in I595. By Bacon.
(7) For the Earl of Sussex at the tilt. By Bacon
(1596).
(8) Sir Philip Sydney's letter to the Queen, dissuading her from marrying the Duke of Anjou. (1580).
(9) Leycester's Common Wealth, imperfect both at beginning and end (printed 1584).
On comparing these two lists we find also that four of the articles now contained in the volume are not mentioned
in the list on the outer page, viz.:
No. 2. Of Magnanimitie.
No. 3. Advertisement touching private censure.
No. 4. Advertisement touching the controversies of the Church.
No. 5. Letter to a French gent, etc.
On the other hand if this list was really a list of the original contents of the volume then eight articles have
disappeared from the book, besides the missing portions of Leycester's Commonwealth, viz.:
(1) The Earle of Arundell's letter to the Queen.
(2) The Orations at Gray's Inn revels.
(3) An address or letter to the Queen, by Bacon.
(4) Essays by Bacon. and
(5) Shakespeare's plays of Richard II and Richard III.
(6) Asmund and Cornelia (of which nothing is known).
(7) The Ile of Dogs, by Thomas Nashe.
Now, on this state of things, Mr. Dowse vehemently contends that the list on the outside cover is not, and never
was meant to be a "table of contents." He asserts that all this matter could not have been either accidentally lost, or
(as seems much more probable) intentionally abstracted from the volume. First, because he says the volume
originally consisted of a quire and no more; but as I have already said this is a mere conjecture, which in the face of
Mr. Spedding's evidence, is quite untenable. Secondly, because, "on the said assumption, the MS, as found, should
have shown a considerable bulge, from top to bottom, alongside the fold," and Spedding must have seen this
"considerable bulge" if it had been there, and must have mentioned it if he had seen it! Mr. Dowse goes on to say
that there is other "evidence on the point quite sufficient to satisfy reasonable beings," which is an expression
commonly used when a writer wishes to imply that those who do not accept his conclusions are not endowed with
the reasoning faculty. Mr. Dowse's idea of "evidence" is, as I shall show, somewhat peculiar, but in any case, I do not
think many of his readers will be much impressed with the "considerable bulge," or "the silence of Mr. Spedding"
line of argument, especially as Mr. Spedding, though not mentioning the "bulge," has definitely put on record his
opinion that the volume may have originally included much more matter than it now contains. It is almost certain,
for example, that it contained, with the other speeches written by Bacon for Essex's Device in 1595, The Squire's
speech in the tilt-yard, as well as the beginning and the end of Leycester's Common Wealth. But let us hear Mr.
Spedding.
After enumerating the speeches written for this Device, which are now contained in the volume (viz., The
Hermits fyrst speach: The Hermits second speach: The Soldier's speach: The Squire's speach), he writes: "These are
the speeches written by Bacon for a Device presented by the Earl of Essex on the Queen's day 1595, concerning
which see Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, vol. I. pp. 374-386. The principal difference between this copy and that
at Lambeth, from which the printed copy was taken, is that this does not contain "The Squire's speech in the
tilt-yard," with which the other begins, and does contain a short speech from the Hermit--'the Hermitt's fyrst
speach'--which seems to be a reply to it. It is possible that the beginning has been lost, as any number of sheets may
have dropped out at this place, without leaving any evidence of the fact."
Further on (p. xix), after giving the list of the titles on the outside cover, which he takes to have been a table of
contents, Mr. Spedding writes: "The principal difficulties which I find in it are, first, the absence from the list of all
allusion to the Advertisement touching the controversies of the Church of England, which can never have been
separated from the volume, and has all the appearance of having been transcribed about the same time, and is too
large a piece to have been overlooked; secondly, the absence from the volume itself of all trace of the Earl of
Arundell's letter to the Queen, which appears in the list, and thirdly, the misplacing of the entry of Sir Philip
Sydney's Letter against Monsieur, which stands higher in the list than it should. All this however may be explained
by a few suppositions, not in themselves improbable, namely that the transcriber of the first five pieces left his list of
contents incomplete; that the transcriber who followed him set down the contents only of his own portion; that the
first sheet or two of his transcript has been lost, and that Sydney's letter had been at first overlooked. I have already
observed that the sheet on which the fifth piece ends and what is now the sixth begins, is the middle sheet of the
volume; and therefore if anything came between these two, it may have been taken out without leaving any traces of
itself. I have noticed also that Sir Philip's letter has no heading, and may therefore have been easily overlooked. Now
if we may suppose that the Earl of Arundell's letter, having been transcribed on a central sheet, has dropped out,
and that Sir Philip's having been overlooked, the title was entered afterwards in the place where there was most
room, we shall find that the first four titles represent correctly the rest of the contents of the volume. . . .The titles
which follow have nothing corresponding to them in this manuscript, but probably indicate the contents of another
of the same kind, once attached to this and now lost."
Thus Mr. Spedding, who had the great advantage of seeing the manuscripts as they were found in 1867. But Mr.
Le Marchant Dowse will have nothing of all this. He speaks loftily of the "folIy" of supposing that the list on the
outside page was a table of contents. Apparently he cannot tolerate the idea that two plays of Shakespeare, before
they found their way into print, should have been transcribed by the same man, and included in the same volume,
with certain works of Francis Bacon! Id sane intolerandum. But if not a table of contents what is the meaning of this
outside list ? How did it come to be written "at all, at all"? Well, Mr. Dowse's theory is as follows: The supposed
"quire" originally contained only the "Praises." It came into the possession of the Earl of Northumberland. "It then
came under the control of somebody (I shall name him hereafter) who jotted down at intervals the titles of other
papers which he judged worth copying, or which were of interest as having reference to, or connexion with, or as
having been written by, people whom he knew; but, on the one hand, he probably found it difficult to procure the
papers he wanted; and meanwhile, on the other hand, papers that he had not previously thought of were
unexpectedly placed at the Earl's disposal; and these were copied as they came to hand." According to this theory,
therefore, a scribe in the employ of the Earl of Northumberland, entrusted with a paper volume in which four
speeches, composed by Bacon for Lord Essex, had been transcribed, and very carefully and beautifully transcribed,
(*Author's footnote: "The Northumberland House Manuscript," says Spedding, "is for the most part remarkably
clear and correct; it is very seldom, that there can be any doubt what letter is intended, and the mistakes are very
few." See Mr. Burgoyne's Facsimile.)
and finding these noted on the outside cover, which up to that point certainly had done duty as a "table of contents,"
amuses himself by jotting down beneath, and on the same page, the titles of a number of works which he had not in
his possession but which he "judged worth copying," or thought of interest, such as the orations at Gray's Inn, and
Bacon's Essays, and Shakespeare's plays of Richard II and Richard III. These, on this hypothesis, he was never able to
procure, and therefore their titles on the cover stood for nothing, except as reflections of his inner consciousness.
But, meanwhile, other papers, "that he had not previously thought of, were unexpectedly placed at the Earl's
disposal; and these were copied as they came to hand." This theory we are asked, nay ordered, to accept on pain of
being dismissed as creatures beyond the pale of reason. Quite unappalled by that terrible threat I venture to think
that Mr. Dowse's theory is itself unreasonable. I do not think a scribe entrusted with a nobleman's manuscript
volume, in which his duty was to enter further transcripts, would be at all likely to act in such a manner. I think it far
more reasonable to suppose that these works had been copied or entered, that they were originally included in the
volume, the original dimensions of which it is now impossible to estimate, and that they were subsequently
abstracted, probably for some very good reason. In fact I think the evidence of Mr. Spedding, the eyewitness, is a
great deal better than the hypothesis and conjectures of Mr. Dowse.
But the fact is that Mr. Dowse entered upon his investigation with two preconceived ideas. In the first place his
purpose was to have a tilt at the Baconians who had founded some arguments on the close juxtaposition of the
names, and certain of the works, of Bacon and Shakespeare in this manuscript. And, secondly, his purpose was to
find evidence for his preconceived belief that John Davies of Hereford was the "scribbler " who had written so freely
on the outside page of the volume. So much Mr. Dowse, unless I much misunderstand him, himself confesses. "The
following investigation," he says in his Preface, "was suggested to me by sundry mistaken notions respecting the
MSS. hereinafter examined, which had found their way into print, and so had caught my eye from time to time." Mr.
Dowse, as will be seen, is violently anti-Baconian, by which I mean that he is not only altogether contemptuous of
"the Baconian theory," but also that he entertains a very low conception indeed of the personal character of Francis
Bacon. I think, therefore, I have correctly interpreted the meaning of the above extract. Then as to "the writer of the
scribble," he says, "in point of fact upon my first scrutiny, several years ago, of Spedding's facsimile, I provisionally
formed an opinion as to who the scribbler was." It will be seen, therefore, that Mr. Dowse set out to prove that the
scribbler was John Davies, though, of a certainty, the bare inspection of Spedding's facsimile of the outer page of the
manuscript could not justify any belief in the matter, and could, at most, only give occasion for the merest guess.
But before we come to the "scribbler" let us examine the scribble, and see what date we can assign to the writings.
What Mr. Spedding calls "the title page," forming half of the outside sheet, "which appears to be the only cover the
volume ever had," is covered all over with the so-called scribblings. "It contains," says Mr. Dowse, "some two
hundred entries, independently of the 'Praises,' and the list of titles." Mr. Spedding, Mr. Dowse, and Mr. Burgoyne
have reproduced this leaf in facsimile, and the latter has provided us with a modern script rendering of it. It may be
said to be divided into two columns. At the top of the right-hand column stands the name "Mr. ffrancis Bacon,"
followed by the list of "Praises," which again is succeeded by what Mr. Spedding has called the table of contents. At
the top of the left-hand column stands the name of Nevill, twice written, and not far below it is the punning motto of
the Nevill family, Ne vile velis. "Perhaps,'' says Mr. Burgoyne, "this gives a clue to the original ownership of the
volume as it seems to indicate that the collection was written for or was the property of some member of the Nevill
family." It is suggested that this was Sir Henry Nevil (1564- 1615), Bacon's nephew, and a friend of Essex. Then high
up, in the middle of the page, occur the words "Anthony Comfort and consorte," which is, without doubt, as I think,
an allusion to Anthony Bacon. Lower down in the left-hand column are the words:
Multis annis iam transactis Nulla fides est in pactis Mell in ore Verba lactis ffell in Corde ffraus in factis;
as to which Mr. Burgoyne points out that among the Tenison MSS. at Lambeth Palace is a letter from Rodolphe
Bradley to Anthony Bacon in which he writes: "Your gracious speeches be the words of a faithfull friende, and not of
a courtiour, who hath Mel in ore et verba lactis, sed fel in corde et fraus in factis."
(*Author's footnote: Mr. Dowse says that the only explanation of this entry that he has heard is that it was
suggested by Bacon's behaviour in the Essex case. I have, however, heard another, viz.. that it is Bacon's own
reaction on the deceits and vanities of life.)
The Manuscript itself (modernized)
But the most interesting of these writings are those which refer to Shakespeare. In the right-hand column,
somewhat below the centre, occurs the reference to a letter to the Queen's Majesty "By Mr. ffrauncis Bacon." Below
this we read "Essaies by the same author." Then the name "William Shakespeare," with the word "Shakespear" just
below, at the right-hand edge of the page. Then follows "Rychard the second," with "ffrauncis" close under the word
"second." Then "Rychard the third." Then, towards the bottom of the right-hand column, occurs the name "William
Shakespeare" thrice repeated,
(*Author's footnote: "The name of Shakespeare," writes Mr. Spedding (p. xxv.) "is spelt in every case as it was
always printed in those days, and not as he himself in any known case ever wrote it.")
and besides this we find "Shakespeare," "Shakespear," "Shakespe," "Shak" (several times), "Sh" (several times),
"William," "Will," and so on; just as we find in other places "Mr. ffrauncis Bacon," "Mr. Ffrauncis," "ffrauncis,"
"Bacon," etc., several times repeated.
Upon this Mr. Spedding writes: "That Richard the second, and Richard the third, are meant for the titles of
Shakespeare's plays so named, I infer from the fact--of which the evidence may be seen in the facsimile --that the list
of contents being now complete, the writer (or more probably another into whose possession the volume passed)
has amused himself with writing down promiscuously the names and phrases that most ran in his head; and that
among these the name of William Shakespeare was the most prominent, being written eight or nine times over for no
other reason that can be discerned. That the name of Mr. Frauncis Bacon, which is also repeated several times,
should have been used for the same kind of recreation requires no explanation; its position at the top of the page
would naturally suggest it."
But these are not the only Shakespearean references which we find on this remarkable page. About the centre
occurs the word "honorificabiletudine," a reminiscence of the "honorificabilitudinitatibus" of Love's Labour's Lost.
And lower down in the left-hand column we have,
"revealing day through every Crany peepes and see Shak"
which seems to be an imperfect reminiscence of the line in Lucrece," revealing day through every cranny spies,"
(*Author's footnote: "Peeps" certainly seems better than "spies," and it has been suggested, therefore, that this
gives the line as the poet first conceived it, the alteration having been made to meet the exigency of rhyme.)
and is a very interesting contemporary notice of the poem which was first published in 1594 with the name "William
Shakespeare" subscribed to the dedication addressed to the Earl of Southampton.
Here, then we have the names and the works of Shakespeare and Bacon brought into curiously close juxtaposition
in (as it will presently be seen) a contemporary document. Here are speeches and Essays written by Bacon, and
Plays by "William Shakespeare," put together in the same volume (pace Mr. Dowse), and we find some penman with
these two names so much in his mind that he writes them both, either fully or in abbreviated form, many times over
on the outside sheet of the paper book.
Now as to the date of these writings, Mr. Spedding states that he could find nothing, either in the "scribblings" or
in what remains of the book itself, to indicate a date later than the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Mr. Burgoyne gives
reasons for concluding that the manuscript was written not later than January, 1597, and he says "it seems more
probable that no part of the manuscript was written after 1596." There are several reasons for assigning this date to
the work. One is that the outside list shows that the volume originally contained a copy of Bacon's Essays. These--
the ten short essays which appeared in the first edition-- were published in January, 1597,
(*Author's footnote: "Bacon," writes Mr. A. W. Pollard, "as we should expect, reckoning his year from January."
The copy in the British Museum was bought Septimo die Februarii 39 E. R.)
after having been extensively circulated in manuscript. After they were printed It is not likely that the expensive and
imperfect method of copying in manuscript would have been resorted to.
(*Author's footnote: This argument holds even if, as Mr. Dowse seeks to prove, the transcription was never
carried out in the Northumberland volume. No penman would have noted the Essays for future copying if they
were already in print.)
Again the plays of Richard II and Richard III were first printed in 1597, "and issued," says Mr. Burgoyne, "at a
published price of sixpence each." After that date, therefore, it seems reasonable to suppose that they would not
have been transcribed, or noted for transcription. It is not unimportant to remember that when they were first issued
the name of Shakespeare was not on them. In the editions of 1598, however, the hyphenated name, "William
Shake-speare," appears on each, and this is the first appearance of that name on any play. Nash's "Isle of Dogs"
referred to in the outside list was produced at Henslowe's theatre in 1597, but never printed. Of course all the
contents of the volume may not have been written in one year, and it is impossible to fix the exact date of the
scribblings. But if, as it appears only reasonable to believe, the Shakespearean plays were transcribed (or even only
noted for transcription) before 1597, we have here references to "Shakespeare" as the author of these plays before his
name had come before the public as a dramatic author at all, and more than a year before his name appeared on any
title page; and, what is certainly remarkable, we find this, at that time little known name closely associated with the
name of Francis Bacon.
Who was the writer of the scribble ? Mr. Dowse would identify him with John Davies of Hereford, who was born
a year after Shakspere of Stratford and died two years after him. This John Davies was of Magdalen College, Oxford,
a poet, and, says Mr. Dowse, "a competent scholar." He took up penmanship as a calling, and "became the most
famous teacher of his age; and he taught, not only in many noble and gentle families, but in the royal family itself,
for in those days not even nobles and princes were ashamed to write well." How we could wish that William
Shakspere of Stratford had been among his pupils! But what is the evidence that Davies was "the Scribbler" ? Let Mr.
Dowse state it in his own words: "His numerous sonnets and other poems, as well as his many dedications,
addressed to people of note, while friendly, are also respectful and manly (though he could neatly flatter): and their
number shows the extent of the circle in which he moved. Within this circle, or rather a section of it, I felt myself to
be, while dealing with the page of scribble; and that feeling has been amply justified out of the mouth, or rather by
the pen of John Davies himself, for his Works show that he was directly and closely acquainted with nearly all the
persons his contemporaries there mentioned; with some indeed he was friendly and familiar. The overwhelming
evidence of this fact is of itself sufficient to identify Davies as the scribbler " (p. 8).
This strikes one as rather curious logic. Davies was closely acquainted with nearly all the persons mentioned in
"the page of scribble." Ergo, Davies wrote the scribble!
by Sir George Greenwood
From Sir George Greenwood's "The Northumberland Manuscript," 1922; in "Baconian Essays" 185-221
In the year 1867 there was discovered at old Northumberland House in the Strand, in a box which had been for
many years unopened, an Elizabethan manuscript volume containing, amongst other things, the transcripts of certain
compositions admittedly the work of Francis Bacon. It commences with four speeches written by Bacon in 1592 for
Essex's Device, viz.: "The praise of the worthiest virtue"; "The praise of the worthiest affection"; "The praise of the
worthiest power"; "The praise of the worthiest person."These speeches were published in 1870 by Mr. James
Spedding, with an introductory notice of the manuscript, and a facsimile of its much bescribbled outside page, or
cover, of which more anon. The speech in praise of knowledge professes to have been spoken in "A conference of
Pleasure," and Mr. Spedding adopted this as the title of his little work. The manuscript book is thus described by
him: "It is a folio volume of twenty-two sheets which have been laid one upon the other, folded double (as in an
ordinary quire of paper) and fastened by a stitch through the centre. But as the pages are not numbered and the
fastening is gone, it may once have contained more, and if we may judge by what is still legible on the much
bescribbled outside leaf which once served for a table of contents, there is some reason to suspect that it did. "In a
note he adds: "One leaf, however-- that which would have been the tenth-- is missing, and one, which is the fourth,
appears to have been glued or pasted in." It is clear that he included this missing "tenth" leaf in his "twenty-two
sheets."
Mr. Spedding, therefore, carefully examined the volume in the condition in which it was when found at
Northumberland House, and, as his accuracy is well known, we may be content to rely upon his evidence in this
matter. At any rate it is the best that we can now get, for as Mr. Frank Burgoyne, the Librarian of the Lambeth Public
Libraries (who in 1904 edited and published a transcript and colotype facsimile of the whole of the contents of the
volume) informs us: "Since Mr. Spedding wrote, the manuscript has been taken to pieces and each leaf carefully
inlaid in stout paper, and these have been bound up with a large paper copy of his pamphlet entitled 'A conference
of Pleasure.' The manuscript in its present condition contains 45 leaves, so Mr. Spedding does not appear to have
included the outside page in his enumeration. The pages are not numbered, and there are no traces of stitching, or
sewing; it is therefore quite impossible even to conjecture what was the number of sheets in the original volume."
(*Author's footnote: My italics. The manuscript has been damaged by fire (probably in 1780), the edges of the
pages being much scorched and singed.)
This statement will be found not unimportant when we come to consider yet another work on these old
manuscripts, also published in 1904, by Mr. T. Le Marchant Dowse. Mr. Dowse is anxious to limit the original
volume to a quire of 24 sheets. Spedding, he says, "tells us it was a quire of 22 sheets, [Spedding however, only says
it was folded double "as in an ordinary quire of paper "] but he omits to take into account the outer sheet, which was
of the same fold of paper and served as a cover; this made 23 sheets. Moreover he tells us leaf 10 was missing (the
written matter, however runs on without a break); but as leaf 10 must have formed one half of a sheet, the other half,
in the latter part of the MS., should also have been missing, consequently the 'quire' was originally a full and proper
quire of 24 sheets."
But as I have already pointed out, Spedding evidently includes the missing leaf, which he numbers "the tenth," in
his twenty-two sheets, equally with the leaf which, as he says, "appears to have been glued or pasted in." Mr.
Dowse's ingenious attempt to limit the volume to 24 sheets therefore fails, and, in the present condition of the
manuscripts, the only safe conclusion is that stated by Mr. Burgoyne, viz., that "it is quite impossible even to
conjecture what was the number of sheets in the original volume." But of this more presently.
On the outside page or cover, besides a number of very interesting scribblings, we find a list which has been
generally looked upon as a table of contents of the volume as it originally existed. It runs as follows:
(1) Mr. ffrancis Bacon. Of tribute or giving what is dew. [With the four "praises" above mentioned.]
(2) Earle of Arundells letter to the Queen.
(3) Speaches for my lord of Essex at the tylt.
(4) A speach for my lord of Sussex tilt.
(5) Leycester's Common Wealth. Incerta autore.
(6) Orations at Graies Inne revells.
(7) . . . Queenes Mate [Probably Letters to the Queen's Majesty]. By Mr. ffrancis Bacon.
(8)Essaies by the same author.
(9) Rychard the Second.
(10) Rychard the Third.
(11) Asmund and Cornelia.
(12) Ile of dogs frmnt [i.e. fragment] by Thomas Nashe.
But, as Mr. Spedding points out, just above the writing, "Earle of Arundells letter to the Queen," stand the words
"Philipp against Mounsieur," a title which he says seems to have been inserted afterwards, and is imperfectly
legible."
(*Author's footnote: See Spedding's Introduction, p. xix. It is, I believe, contended by some that the word here is
not "Philipp," but as Mr. Spedding so read it when the manuscript was very much clearer than it is now, we may, I
think, be content to accept his evidence, more especially as close to it, a little to the left, stands the word "Phillipp"
still plain for all to read. Mr. Burgoyne, therefore, includes this letter of Sir Philip Sydney among the subjects
mentioned in the supposed list of contents.)
This evidently refers to Sir Philip Sydney's letter to the Queen dissuading her from marrying the Duke of Anjou,
which is part of the contents of the volume as it has come down to us. The Gray's Inn Revels are, no doubt, those of
I594-5 of which the history is related in the Gesta Grayorum.
Now of this list, besides the four Discourses or "Praises," only four items are found in the volume as it at present
exists, viz., the "Speaches for my lord of Essex at the tylt"; the "Speach for my lord of Sussex at the tilt "; "Leycester's
Common Wealth," and Sir Phjlip Sydney's letter. The actual contents of the volume in its present condition are as
follows:
(*Author's footnote: The items in italics are mentioned in the list on the outside page. It will be seen that the
latest date of any article of the contents is 1596. Note that six of the nine pieces are by Francis Bacon.)
(1) Of Tribute, or giving what is due. By Bacon
(1592).
(2) Of Magnanimitie or heroicall vertue. By Bacon.
(3) An Advertisement touching private censure. By Bacon.
(4) An Advertisement touching the controversies of the church of England. By Bacon (written 1589).
(5) A letter to a French gent: touching ye proceedings in Engl.: in Ecclesiasticall causes translated out of French
into EngIish by W. W. By Bacon. (*Author's footnote: See Spedding's Introduction, p. xvi.) (6) Speeches for my lord
of Essex at the tylt, viz., five speeches spoken in a Device presented by Essex, and performed before Queen
Elizabeth in I595. By Bacon.
(7) For the Earl of Sussex at the tilt. By Bacon
(1596).
(8) Sir Philip Sydney's letter to the Queen, dissuading her from marrying the Duke of Anjou. (1580).
(9) Leycester's Common Wealth, imperfect both at beginning and end (printed 1584).
On comparing these two lists we find also that four of the articles now contained in the volume are not mentioned
in the list on the outer page, viz.:
No. 2. Of Magnanimitie.
No. 3. Advertisement touching private censure.
No. 4. Advertisement touching the controversies of the Church.
No. 5. Letter to a French gent, etc.
On the other hand if this list was really a list of the original contents of the volume then eight articles have
disappeared from the book, besides the missing portions of Leycester's Commonwealth, viz.:
(1) The Earle of Arundell's letter to the Queen.
(2) The Orations at Gray's Inn revels.
(3) An address or letter to the Queen, by Bacon.
(4) Essays by Bacon. and
(5) Shakespeare's plays of Richard II and Richard III.
(6) Asmund and Cornelia (of which nothing is known).
(7) The Ile of Dogs, by Thomas Nashe.
Now, on this state of things, Mr. Dowse vehemently contends that the list on the outside cover is not, and never
was meant to be a "table of contents." He asserts that all this matter could not have been either accidentally lost, or
(as seems much more probable) intentionally abstracted from the volume. First, because he says the volume
originally consisted of a quire and no more; but as I have already said this is a mere conjecture, which in the face of
Mr. Spedding's evidence, is quite untenable. Secondly, because, "on the said assumption, the MS, as found, should
have shown a considerable bulge, from top to bottom, alongside the fold," and Spedding must have seen this
"considerable bulge" if it had been there, and must have mentioned it if he had seen it! Mr. Dowse goes on to say
that there is other "evidence on the point quite sufficient to satisfy reasonable beings," which is an expression
commonly used when a writer wishes to imply that those who do not accept his conclusions are not endowed with
the reasoning faculty. Mr. Dowse's idea of "evidence" is, as I shall show, somewhat peculiar, but in any case, I do not
think many of his readers will be much impressed with the "considerable bulge," or "the silence of Mr. Spedding"
line of argument, especially as Mr. Spedding, though not mentioning the "bulge," has definitely put on record his
opinion that the volume may have originally included much more matter than it now contains. It is almost certain,
for example, that it contained, with the other speeches written by Bacon for Essex's Device in 1595, The Squire's
speech in the tilt-yard, as well as the beginning and the end of Leycester's Common Wealth. But let us hear Mr.
Spedding.
After enumerating the speeches written for this Device, which are now contained in the volume (viz., The
Hermits fyrst speach: The Hermits second speach: The Soldier's speach: The Squire's speach), he writes: "These are
the speeches written by Bacon for a Device presented by the Earl of Essex on the Queen's day 1595, concerning
which see Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, vol. I. pp. 374-386. The principal difference between this copy and that
at Lambeth, from which the printed copy was taken, is that this does not contain "The Squire's speech in the
tilt-yard," with which the other begins, and does contain a short speech from the Hermit--'the Hermitt's fyrst
speach'--which seems to be a reply to it. It is possible that the beginning has been lost, as any number of sheets may
have dropped out at this place, without leaving any evidence of the fact."
Further on (p. xix), after giving the list of the titles on the outside cover, which he takes to have been a table of
contents, Mr. Spedding writes: "The principal difficulties which I find in it are, first, the absence from the list of all
allusion to the Advertisement touching the controversies of the Church of England, which can never have been
separated from the volume, and has all the appearance of having been transcribed about the same time, and is too
large a piece to have been overlooked; secondly, the absence from the volume itself of all trace of the Earl of
Arundell's letter to the Queen, which appears in the list, and thirdly, the misplacing of the entry of Sir Philip
Sydney's Letter against Monsieur, which stands higher in the list than it should. All this however may be explained
by a few suppositions, not in themselves improbable, namely that the transcriber of the first five pieces left his list of
contents incomplete; that the transcriber who followed him set down the contents only of his own portion; that the
first sheet or two of his transcript has been lost, and that Sydney's letter had been at first overlooked. I have already
observed that the sheet on which the fifth piece ends and what is now the sixth begins, is the middle sheet of the
volume; and therefore if anything came between these two, it may have been taken out without leaving any traces of
itself. I have noticed also that Sir Philip's letter has no heading, and may therefore have been easily overlooked. Now
if we may suppose that the Earl of Arundell's letter, having been transcribed on a central sheet, has dropped out,
and that Sir Philip's having been overlooked, the title was entered afterwards in the place where there was most
room, we shall find that the first four titles represent correctly the rest of the contents of the volume. . . .The titles
which follow have nothing corresponding to them in this manuscript, but probably indicate the contents of another
of the same kind, once attached to this and now lost."
Thus Mr. Spedding, who had the great advantage of seeing the manuscripts as they were found in 1867. But Mr.
Le Marchant Dowse will have nothing of all this. He speaks loftily of the "folIy" of supposing that the list on the
outside page was a table of contents. Apparently he cannot tolerate the idea that two plays of Shakespeare, before
they found their way into print, should have been transcribed by the same man, and included in the same volume,
with certain works of Francis Bacon! Id sane intolerandum. But if not a table of contents what is the meaning of this
outside list ? How did it come to be written "at all, at all"? Well, Mr. Dowse's theory is as follows: The supposed
"quire" originally contained only the "Praises." It came into the possession of the Earl of Northumberland. "It then
came under the control of somebody (I shall name him hereafter) who jotted down at intervals the titles of other
papers which he judged worth copying, or which were of interest as having reference to, or connexion with, or as
having been written by, people whom he knew; but, on the one hand, he probably found it difficult to procure the
papers he wanted; and meanwhile, on the other hand, papers that he had not previously thought of were
unexpectedly placed at the Earl's disposal; and these were copied as they came to hand." According to this theory,
therefore, a scribe in the employ of the Earl of Northumberland, entrusted with a paper volume in which four
speeches, composed by Bacon for Lord Essex, had been transcribed, and very carefully and beautifully transcribed,
(*Author's footnote: "The Northumberland House Manuscript," says Spedding, "is for the most part remarkably
clear and correct; it is very seldom, that there can be any doubt what letter is intended, and the mistakes are very
few." See Mr. Burgoyne's Facsimile.)
and finding these noted on the outside cover, which up to that point certainly had done duty as a "table of contents,"
amuses himself by jotting down beneath, and on the same page, the titles of a number of works which he had not in
his possession but which he "judged worth copying," or thought of interest, such as the orations at Gray's Inn, and
Bacon's Essays, and Shakespeare's plays of Richard II and Richard III. These, on this hypothesis, he was never able to
procure, and therefore their titles on the cover stood for nothing, except as reflections of his inner consciousness.
But, meanwhile, other papers, "that he had not previously thought of, were unexpectedly placed at the Earl's
disposal; and these were copied as they came to hand." This theory we are asked, nay ordered, to accept on pain of
being dismissed as creatures beyond the pale of reason. Quite unappalled by that terrible threat I venture to think
that Mr. Dowse's theory is itself unreasonable. I do not think a scribe entrusted with a nobleman's manuscript
volume, in which his duty was to enter further transcripts, would be at all likely to act in such a manner. I think it far
more reasonable to suppose that these works had been copied or entered, that they were originally included in the
volume, the original dimensions of which it is now impossible to estimate, and that they were subsequently
abstracted, probably for some very good reason. In fact I think the evidence of Mr. Spedding, the eyewitness, is a
great deal better than the hypothesis and conjectures of Mr. Dowse.
But the fact is that Mr. Dowse entered upon his investigation with two preconceived ideas. In the first place his
purpose was to have a tilt at the Baconians who had founded some arguments on the close juxtaposition of the
names, and certain of the works, of Bacon and Shakespeare in this manuscript. And, secondly, his purpose was to
find evidence for his preconceived belief that John Davies of Hereford was the "scribbler " who had written so freely
on the outside page of the volume. So much Mr. Dowse, unless I much misunderstand him, himself confesses. "The
following investigation," he says in his Preface, "was suggested to me by sundry mistaken notions respecting the
MSS. hereinafter examined, which had found their way into print, and so had caught my eye from time to time." Mr.
Dowse, as will be seen, is violently anti-Baconian, by which I mean that he is not only altogether contemptuous of
"the Baconian theory," but also that he entertains a very low conception indeed of the personal character of Francis
Bacon. I think, therefore, I have correctly interpreted the meaning of the above extract. Then as to "the writer of the
scribble," he says, "in point of fact upon my first scrutiny, several years ago, of Spedding's facsimile, I provisionally
formed an opinion as to who the scribbler was." It will be seen, therefore, that Mr. Dowse set out to prove that the
scribbler was John Davies, though, of a certainty, the bare inspection of Spedding's facsimile of the outer page of the
manuscript could not justify any belief in the matter, and could, at most, only give occasion for the merest guess.
But before we come to the "scribbler" let us examine the scribble, and see what date we can assign to the writings.
What Mr. Spedding calls "the title page," forming half of the outside sheet, "which appears to be the only cover the
volume ever had," is covered all over with the so-called scribblings. "It contains," says Mr. Dowse, "some two
hundred entries, independently of the 'Praises,' and the list of titles." Mr. Spedding, Mr. Dowse, and Mr. Burgoyne
have reproduced this leaf in facsimile, and the latter has provided us with a modern script rendering of it. It may be
said to be divided into two columns. At the top of the right-hand column stands the name "Mr. ffrancis Bacon,"
followed by the list of "Praises," which again is succeeded by what Mr. Spedding has called the table of contents. At
the top of the left-hand column stands the name of Nevill, twice written, and not far below it is the punning motto of
the Nevill family, Ne vile velis. "Perhaps,'' says Mr. Burgoyne, "this gives a clue to the original ownership of the
volume as it seems to indicate that the collection was written for or was the property of some member of the Nevill
family." It is suggested that this was Sir Henry Nevil (1564- 1615), Bacon's nephew, and a friend of Essex. Then high
up, in the middle of the page, occur the words "Anthony Comfort and consorte," which is, without doubt, as I think,
an allusion to Anthony Bacon. Lower down in the left-hand column are the words:
Multis annis iam transactis Nulla fides est in pactis Mell in ore Verba lactis ffell in Corde ffraus in factis;
as to which Mr. Burgoyne points out that among the Tenison MSS. at Lambeth Palace is a letter from Rodolphe
Bradley to Anthony Bacon in which he writes: "Your gracious speeches be the words of a faithfull friende, and not of
a courtiour, who hath Mel in ore et verba lactis, sed fel in corde et fraus in factis."
(*Author's footnote: Mr. Dowse says that the only explanation of this entry that he has heard is that it was
suggested by Bacon's behaviour in the Essex case. I have, however, heard another, viz.. that it is Bacon's own
reaction on the deceits and vanities of life.)
The Manuscript itself (modernized)
But the most interesting of these writings are those which refer to Shakespeare. In the right-hand column,
somewhat below the centre, occurs the reference to a letter to the Queen's Majesty "By Mr. ffrauncis Bacon." Below
this we read "Essaies by the same author." Then the name "William Shakespeare," with the word "Shakespear" just
below, at the right-hand edge of the page. Then follows "Rychard the second," with "ffrauncis" close under the word
"second." Then "Rychard the third." Then, towards the bottom of the right-hand column, occurs the name "William
Shakespeare" thrice repeated,
(*Author's footnote: "The name of Shakespeare," writes Mr. Spedding (p. xxv.) "is spelt in every case as it was
always printed in those days, and not as he himself in any known case ever wrote it.")
and besides this we find "Shakespeare," "Shakespear," "Shakespe," "Shak" (several times), "Sh" (several times),
"William," "Will," and so on; just as we find in other places "Mr. ffrauncis Bacon," "Mr. Ffrauncis," "ffrauncis,"
"Bacon," etc., several times repeated.
Upon this Mr. Spedding writes: "That Richard the second, and Richard the third, are meant for the titles of
Shakespeare's plays so named, I infer from the fact--of which the evidence may be seen in the facsimile --that the list
of contents being now complete, the writer (or more probably another into whose possession the volume passed)
has amused himself with writing down promiscuously the names and phrases that most ran in his head; and that
among these the name of William Shakespeare was the most prominent, being written eight or nine times over for no
other reason that can be discerned. That the name of Mr. Frauncis Bacon, which is also repeated several times,
should have been used for the same kind of recreation requires no explanation; its position at the top of the page
would naturally suggest it."
But these are not the only Shakespearean references which we find on this remarkable page. About the centre
occurs the word "honorificabiletudine," a reminiscence of the "honorificabilitudinitatibus" of Love's Labour's Lost.
And lower down in the left-hand column we have,
"revealing day through every Crany peepes and see Shak"
which seems to be an imperfect reminiscence of the line in Lucrece," revealing day through every cranny spies,"
(*Author's footnote: "Peeps" certainly seems better than "spies," and it has been suggested, therefore, that this
gives the line as the poet first conceived it, the alteration having been made to meet the exigency of rhyme.)
and is a very interesting contemporary notice of the poem which was first published in 1594 with the name "William
Shakespeare" subscribed to the dedication addressed to the Earl of Southampton.
Here, then we have the names and the works of Shakespeare and Bacon brought into curiously close juxtaposition
in (as it will presently be seen) a contemporary document. Here are speeches and Essays written by Bacon, and
Plays by "William Shakespeare," put together in the same volume (pace Mr. Dowse), and we find some penman with
these two names so much in his mind that he writes them both, either fully or in abbreviated form, many times over
on the outside sheet of the paper book.
Now as to the date of these writings, Mr. Spedding states that he could find nothing, either in the "scribblings" or
in what remains of the book itself, to indicate a date later than the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Mr. Burgoyne gives
reasons for concluding that the manuscript was written not later than January, 1597, and he says "it seems more
probable that no part of the manuscript was written after 1596." There are several reasons for assigning this date to
the work. One is that the outside list shows that the volume originally contained a copy of Bacon's Essays. These--
the ten short essays which appeared in the first edition-- were published in January, 1597,
(*Author's footnote: "Bacon," writes Mr. A. W. Pollard, "as we should expect, reckoning his year from January."
The copy in the British Museum was bought Septimo die Februarii 39 E. R.)
after having been extensively circulated in manuscript. After they were printed It is not likely that the expensive and
imperfect method of copying in manuscript would have been resorted to.
(*Author's footnote: This argument holds even if, as Mr. Dowse seeks to prove, the transcription was never
carried out in the Northumberland volume. No penman would have noted the Essays for future copying if they
were already in print.)
Again the plays of Richard II and Richard III were first printed in 1597, "and issued," says Mr. Burgoyne, "at a
published price of sixpence each." After that date, therefore, it seems reasonable to suppose that they would not
have been transcribed, or noted for transcription. It is not unimportant to remember that when they were first issued
the name of Shakespeare was not on them. In the editions of 1598, however, the hyphenated name, "William
Shake-speare," appears on each, and this is the first appearance of that name on any play. Nash's "Isle of Dogs"
referred to in the outside list was produced at Henslowe's theatre in 1597, but never printed. Of course all the
contents of the volume may not have been written in one year, and it is impossible to fix the exact date of the
scribblings. But if, as it appears only reasonable to believe, the Shakespearean plays were transcribed (or even only
noted for transcription) before 1597, we have here references to "Shakespeare" as the author of these plays before his
name had come before the public as a dramatic author at all, and more than a year before his name appeared on any
title page; and, what is certainly remarkable, we find this, at that time little known name closely associated with the
name of Francis Bacon.
Who was the writer of the scribble ? Mr. Dowse would identify him with John Davies of Hereford, who was born
a year after Shakspere of Stratford and died two years after him. This John Davies was of Magdalen College, Oxford,
a poet, and, says Mr. Dowse, "a competent scholar." He took up penmanship as a calling, and "became the most
famous teacher of his age; and he taught, not only in many noble and gentle families, but in the royal family itself,
for in those days not even nobles and princes were ashamed to write well." How we could wish that William
Shakspere of Stratford had been among his pupils! But what is the evidence that Davies was "the Scribbler" ? Let Mr.
Dowse state it in his own words: "His numerous sonnets and other poems, as well as his many dedications,
addressed to people of note, while friendly, are also respectful and manly (though he could neatly flatter): and their
number shows the extent of the circle in which he moved. Within this circle, or rather a section of it, I felt myself to
be, while dealing with the page of scribble; and that feeling has been amply justified out of the mouth, or rather by
the pen of John Davies himself, for his Works show that he was directly and closely acquainted with nearly all the
persons his contemporaries there mentioned; with some indeed he was friendly and familiar. The overwhelming
evidence of this fact is of itself sufficient to identify Davies as the scribbler " (p. 8).
This strikes one as rather curious logic. Davies was closely acquainted with nearly all the persons mentioned in
"the page of scribble." Ergo, Davies wrote the scribble!
 |
 |