Concerning the bi-literal cypher of Francis Bacon discovered in his works

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Concerning the bi-literal cypher of Francis Bacon discovered in his works
Author: Bacon, Francis, Gallup, Elizabeth Wells, Shakespeare, William
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Concerning the bi-literal cypher of Francis Bacon discovered in his works" ***
CYPHER OF FRANCIS BACON DISCOVERED IN HIS WORKS ***

Transcriber’s Notes

Obvious typographical errors in punctuation have been silently
corrected. All other spelling and punctuation remains unchanged.

Italics are represented thus _italic_, the second italic font is
represented thus ~italic~.

[Illustration: ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP]

CONCERNING THE

BI-LITERAL CYPHER OF

FRANCIS BACON

DISCOVERED IN HIS WORKS BY

ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP

PROS AND CONS OF THE
CONTROVERSY

_Explanations, Reviews,
Criticisms and Replies_

DETROIT, MICH., U. S. A.:
HOWARD PUBLISHING CO.

LONDON:
GAY & BIRD.

ANNOUNCEMENT.

_THE BI-LITERAL CYPHER OF FRANCIS BACON_,

Deciphered by ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

THIRD EDITION

This edition embraces decipherings from the commencement of the use
of Bacon’s Cipher inventions--now found to be 1579--and covering the
entire period of his literary career, including some works published by
Rawley subsequent to 1626. The Cypher has been traced with certainty
down to 1651.

This _Bi-literal Cypher_ reveals much secret history concerning Queen
Elizabeth, who, it is now learned, was the wedded wife of Robert, Earl
of Leicester--while posing as the Virgin Queen--and was the mother of
Francis Bacon.

It also discloses the existence of a second so-called Key-Word Cipher,
of broader scope, running through all of Bacon’s literary works, with
instructions by which they may be deciphered to disclose other hidden
dramatical and historical productions of larger importance and greater
historical accuracy than those upon the printed pages which enfold
them. These are found also to contain secret history, dangerous to
Bacon, who sought by this means to transmit it to a future time in
which he hoped the Ciphers would be discovered and the truth proclaimed.

The method of the Word Cipher is shown in the deciphered _Tragedy of
Anne Boleyn_, published simultaneously with this Third Edition,--also
in the _Tragedy of Robert, Earl of Essex_,--and the Tragedy of _Mary,
Queen of Scots_.

_THE TRAGEDY OF ANNE BOLEYN_,

Deciphered by ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP,

One of the Historical Dramas in Cipher named in the _Bi-literal Cypher_
as concealed in the works of Bacon.

Part I.

Contains extracts from the Bi-literal, with Bacon’s instructions and
the Keys by which this Tragedy has been extracted fully illustrating
the Word Cipher method of its reconstruction.

An appendix gives the editions used and pages on which may be found the
scattered sections brought together in new sequence to form the new
play.

Included in Part I will also be found the decipherings made by Mrs.
Gallup in the British Museum subsequent to the publication of the
Second Edition of the _Bi-literal Cypher_, and are from Old Editions
appearing between 1579 and 1590, establishing the earliest dates this
Cypher appeared. They are placed here for the convenience of these
having Second Editions only.

_THE TRAGICAL HISTORIE_

OF OUR LATE BROTHER,

ROBERT, EARL OF ESSEX.

Deciphered by _Orville W. Owen, M. D._ One of the Historical Dramas in
Cipher.

_THE HISTORICAL TRAGEDY OF MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS._

Deciphered by _Orville W. Owen, M. D._ One of the Historical Dramas in
Cipher.

HOWARD PUBLISHING CO.,
_Detroit, Michigan, U. S. A._

GAY & BIRD,
_London, England_.

CONTENTS

(OF THIS VOLUME)

Frontispiece Portrait Elizabeth Wells Gallup

Announcements 6

Title Page “The Bi-literal Cypher” 11

(Plates from the book)

Contents of “Bi-literal Cypher”

Personal 15

Publishers Note. Third Edition 19

De Augmentis, Original Title page 1624 21

Cyphars in Advancement of Learning, 1605 22

Cyphars in De Augmentis, Wats Translation, 1640 23

Bi-literarie Alphabet 24

Bi-formed Alphabet 25

Cicero’s First Epistle--Method of deciphering 26

Cicero’s First Epistle--Cipher infold 27

Tragedy of Anne Boleyn 29

(Plates from the book)

Preface 30

Argument of the Play 35

Keys for Deciphering 38

FROM MAGAZINES, ETC.

BACONIANA--LONDON:

Elizabeth Wells Gallup--Descriptive 43
--Explanatory 122
--Henry VII. 222

Editorial--Book Review 74
Cannonbury Tower 227

D. J. Kindersley--Henry VII. 218

COURT JOURNAL--LONDON:

Fleming Fulcher Review 81

COSMOPOLITAN--NEW YORK:

Garrett P. Serviss Review 112

FREE PRESS--DETROIT:

Editorial, Book Review 69

LITERARY WORLD--LONDON:

Elizabeth Wells Gallup. Replies I-II. 150

NINETEENTH CENTURY AND AFTER-LONDON:

W. H. Mallock, Review 94

NEW YORK TIMES--LITERARY REVIEW:

Elizabeth Wells Gallup--Reply to C. L. Dana 163

PALL MALL MAGAZINE--LONDON:

Elizabeth Wells Gallup--Descriptive 51
Explanatory 126

TIMES--LONDON:

Elizabeth W. Gallup 144

W. H. Mallock 169

A. P. Sinnett 172

A. P. Sinnett 176

Parker Woodward 175

REPLIES TO CRITICISMS:

Elizabeth Wells Gallup 179

Illustration of Method 198

Fac-Simile Plates De Augmentis Scientiarum, London
Ed., 1623 201

Fac-Simile Plates Paris Ed., 1624 205

Henry Irving, Princeton Address 211

[Illustration: THE

Bi-literal Cypher

Sir Francis Bacon

discovered in his works

AND DECIPHERED BY

_MRS. ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP_

THIRD EDITION

DETROIT, MICHIGAN, U.S.A.:
HOWARD PUBLISHING COMPANY

LONDON:
GAY & BIRD
22 Bedford St.
]

CONTENTS.

PART I.

PAGE
Personal--Mrs. Elizabeth Wells Gallup 1

Explanatory Introduction First Edition 5

Preface, Second Edition 15

Argument 18

Notes on the Shakespeare Plays 28

Stenography in the time of Queen Elizabeth 35

Francis Bacon, Biographical 39

Ciphers 47

Cyphars in Advancement of Learning, 1605 51

Cyphars in De Augmentis 52

Bi-literal Cipher Plan and Illustration 53

Fac-simile pages from De Augmentis, 1624 57

Fac-simile pages from Novum Organum, 1620 63

Fac-simile title page Vitae et Mortis 67

Shakespeare Plays--Fac-simile Quarto Title Pages 69

Publisher’s Note 76

BI-LITERAL CYPHER.

DECIPHERED SECRET STORY. 1579 to 1590.

Shepheard’s Calender 1579 Anonymous 79

The Araygnement of Paris 1584 George Peele 80

The Mirrour of Modestie 1584 Robert Greene 82

Planetomachia 1585 Robert Greene 87

A Treatise of Melancholy 1586 T. Bright 89

Euphues-Morando 1587 Robert Greene 91

Perimedes-Pandosto 1588 Robert Greene 93

Spanish Masquerado 1589 Robert Greene 94

PART II.

DECIPHERED SECRET STORY FROM

EDMUND SPENSER:

PAGE
Complaints, 1591 1

Colin Clout, 1595 3

Faerie Queene, 1596 4

Faerie Queene, second part 7

SHAKESPEARE QUARTO:

Richard Second, 1598 10

GEORGE PEELE:

David and Bethsabe, 1599 11

SHAKESPEARE QUARTOS:

Midsommer Night’s Dream, 1600 12

Midsommer Night’s Dream, Fisher Ed. 13

Much Ado About Nothing, 1600 14

Sir John Oldcastle and Merchant of Venice, Roberts Ed.,
1600 15

Richard, Duke of York, 1600 18

FRANCIS BACON:

Treasons of Essex, 1601 20

SHAKESPEARE QUARTO:

London Prodigal, 1605 23

FRANCIS BACON:

Advancement of Learning, 1605 25

SHAKESPEARE QUARTOS:

King Lear, 1608 33

King Henry The Fifth, 1608 34

Pericles, 1609 35

Hamlet, 1611 36

Titus Andronicus, 1611 38

EDMUND SPENSER:

Shepheards Calender, 1611 40

Faerie Queene, 1613 43

BEN JONSON:

Plays in Folio, 1616 49

SHAKESPEARE QUARTOS:

Richard The Second, 1615 72

Merry Wives of Windsor, 1619 73

Contention of York and Lancaster, 1619 74

Pericles, 1619 77

Yorkshire Tragedy, 1619 78

Romeo and Juliet, no date 79

ROBERT GREENE:

A Quip For an Upstart Courtier, 1620 80

FRANCIS BACON:

Novum Organum, 1620 81

The Parasceve 133

Henry The Seventh, 1622 136

CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE:

Edward The Second, 1622 151

FRANCIS BACON:

Historia Vitæ & Mortis, 1623 153

SHAKESPEARE PLAYS:

First Folio, 1623 165

ROBERT BURTON:

Anatomy of Melancholy, 1628 218

“Argument of the Iliad” 220

FRANCIS BACON:

De Augmentis Scientiarum, 1624 310

“Argument of the Odysses” 313

New Atlantis, 1635 334

Sylva Sylvarum, 1635, Rawley’s Preface 339

Natural History 341

William Rawley’s Note 368

PERSONAL.

TO THE READER:

The discovery of the existence of the Bi-literal Cipher of Francis
Bacon, found embodied in his works, and the deciphering of what it
tells, has been a work arduous, exhausting and prolonged. It is
not ended, but the results of the work so far brought forth, are
submitted for study and discussion, and open a new and large field of
investigation and research, which cannot fail to interest all students
of the earlier literature that has come down to us as a mirror of the
past, and in many respects has been adopted as models for the present.

Seeking for things hidden, the mysterious, elusive and unexpected, has
a fascination for many minds, as it has for my own, and this often
prompts to greater effort than more manifest and material things
would command. To this may be attributed, perhaps, the triumph over
difficulties which have seemed to me, at times, insurmountable, the
solution of problems, and the following of ways tortuous and obscure,
which have been necessary to bring out, as they appear in the following
pages, the hidden messages which Francis Bacon so securely buried in
his writings, that three hundred years of reading and close study have
not until now uncovered them.

This Bi-literal Cipher is found in the Italic letters that appear in
such unusual and unexplained prodigality in the original editions of
Bacon’s works. Students of these old editions have been impressed with
the extraordinary number of words and passages, often non-important,
printed in Italics, where no known rule of construction would require
their use. There has been no reasonable explanation of this until now
it is found that they were so used for the purposes of this Cipher.
These letters are seen to be in two forms--two fonts of type--with
marked differences. In the Capitals these are easily discerned, but the
distinguishing features in the small letters, from age of the books,
blots and poor printing, have been more difficult to classify, and
close examination and study have been required to separate and sketch
out the variations, and educate the eye to distinguish them.

How I found the Cipher, its difficulties, methods of working, and
outline of what the several books contain, will more fully appear in
the explanatory introduction.

In assisting Dr. Owen in the preparation of the later books of “Sir
Francis Bacon’s Cipher Story,” recently published, and in the study
of the great Word-Cipher discovered by him, in which is incorporated
Bacon’s more extensive, more complete and important writings, I became
convinced that the very full explanation found in De Augmentis, of the
bi-literal method of cipher-writing, was something more than a mere
treatise on the subject. I applied the rules given to the peculiarly
Italicised words and “letters in two forms,” as they appear in the
photographic Fac-simile of the original 1623, Folio edition, of the
Shakespeare Plays. The disclosures, as they appear in this volume, were
as great a surprise to me, as they will be to my readers. Original
editions of Bacon’s known works were then procured, as well as those
of other authors named in these, and claimed by Bacon as his own. The
story deciphered from these will appear under the several headings.

From the disclosures found in all these, it is evident that Bacon
expected this Bi-literal Cipher would be the first to be discovered,
and that it would lead to the discovery of his principal, or
Word-Cipher, which it fully explains, and to which is intrusted the
larger subjects he desired to have preserved. This order has been
reversed, in fact, and the earlier discovery of the Word-Cipher, by Dr.
Owen, becomes a more remarkable achievement, being entirely evolved
without the aids which Bacon had prepared in this, for its elucidation.

The proofs are overwhelming and irresistible that Bacon was the author
of the delightful lines attributed to Spenser,--the fantastic conceits
of Peele and Greene,--the historical romances of Marlowe,--the immortal
plays and poems put forth in Shakespeare’s name, as well as the Anatomy
of Melancholy of Burton.

The removal of these masques, behind which Bacon concealed himself, may
change the names of some of our idols. It is, however, the matter and
not the name that appeals to our intelligence.

The plays of Shakespeare lose nothing of their dramatic power or
wondrous beauty, nor deserve the less admiration of the scholar and
critic, because inconsistencies are removed in the knowledge that they
came from the brain of the greatest student and writer of that age, and
were not a “flash of genius” descended upon one of peasant birth, less
noble history, and of no preparatory literary attainments.

The Shepherds’ Calendar is not less sweetly poetical, because Francis
Bacon appropriated the name of Spenser, several years after his death,
under which to put forth the musical measures, that had, up to that
time, only appeared as the production of some Muse without a name;
nor will Faerie Queene lose ought of its rythmic beauty or romantic
interest from change of name upon the title page.

The supposed writings of Peele, Greene and Marlowe are not the less
worthy, because really written by one greater than either.

The remarkable similarity in the dramatic writings attributed to
Greene, Peele, Marlowe and Shakespeare has attracted much attention,
and the biographers of each have claimed that both style and
subject-matter have been imitated, if not appropriated, by the others.
The practical explanation lies in the fact that one hand wrote them
all.

I fully appreciate what it means to bring forth new truth from
unexpected and unknown fields, if not in accord with accented theories
and long held beliefs. “For what a man had rather were true, he
more readily believes,”--is one of Bacon’s truisms that finds many
illustrations.

I appreciate what it means to ask strong minds to change long standing
literary convictions, and of such I venture to ask the withholding of
judgment until study shall have made the new matter familiar, with the
assurance meanwhile, upon my part, of the absolute veracity of the work
which is here presented. Any one possessing the original books, who has
sufficient patience and a keen eye for form, can work out and verify
the Cipher from the illustrations given. Nothing is left to choice,
chance, or the imagination. The statements which are disclosed are such
as could not be foreseen, nor imagined, nor created, nor can there
be found reasonable excuse for the hidden writings, except for the
purposes narrated, which could only exist concerning, and be described
by, Francis Bacon.

I would beg that the readers of this book will bring to the
consideration of the work minds free from prejudice, judging of it with
the same intelligence and impartiality they would themselves desire, if
the presentation were their own. Otherwise the work will, indeed, have
been a thankless task.

To doubt the ultimate acceptance of the truths brought to light would
be to distrust that destiny in which Bacon had such an abiding faith
for his justification, and which, in fact, after three centuries,
has lifted the veil, and brought us to estimate the character and
accomplishments, trials and sorrows of that great genius, with a
feeling of nearness and personal sympathy, far greater than has been
possible from the partial knowledge which we have heretofore enjoyed.

ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

Detroit, March 1st, 1899.

PUBLISHERS’ NOTE.

THIRD EDITION.

The publication of the second edition of the _Bi-literal Cypher of
Francis Bacon_, which embraced the period of his Cipher writing between
1590 and the end of his career, emphasized the importance of finding
the earlier writings--preceding 1590. The old books necessary to the
research could not be procured in America, and during the summer of
1900 Mrs. Gallup and her assistant, Miss Kate E. Wells, visited England
to carry on the work in that treasure house of early literature,
the British Museum. The investigations yielded rich returns, for in
Shepheard’s Calender of 1579 was found the commencement of what proved
to be an important part of Bacon’s life work.

Following Shepheard’s Calender, the works between 1579 and 1590, so far
deciphered, are:

Araygnement of Paris, 1584; Mirrour of Modestie, 1584.

Planetomachia, 1585.

Treatise of Melancholy, 1586. Two editions of this were issued the same
year, with differing Italics. The first ends with an incomplete cipher
word which is completed in the second for the continued narration, thus
making evident which was first published, unless they were published at
the same time.

Euphues, 1587; Morando, 1587. These two also join together, with an
incomplete word at the end of the first finding its completion in the
commencement of the Cipher in the second.

Perimedes the Blacke-smith, 1588; Pandosto, 1588. These two also join
together.

Spanish Masquerado, 1589. Two editions of this work bear date the same
year, but have different Italicising. In one edition the Cipher Story
is complete, closing with the signature: “Fr., Prince.” In the other
the story is not complete, the book ending with an incomplete cipher
word, the remainder of which will be found in some work of a near date
which has not yet been indicated.

Several months were spent in following, through these old books, the
thread of the concealed story until it joined the work which had
already been published. Overstrained eye-sight, from the close study
of the different forms of Italic letters, and consequent exhaustion
on the part of Mrs. Gallup, compelled a cessation of the work before
all that would have been desirable to know concerning that early
period was deciphered; and while these are not all the works in which
Cipher will be found, between the years 1579 and 1590, they are
sufficient unmistakably to connect the earlier writings with those
of later date which had already been deciphered--as published in the
_Bi-literal Cypher_--so that we now know the Cipher writings were being
continuously infolded in Bacon’s works, for a period of about forty-six
years, from the first to the last of his literary productions,
including some matter he had prepared, which was published by Rawley
subsequent to 1626.

These few pages of deciphered matter, now added to that published in
the Second Edition, have a unique distinction in the costliness of
their production, but they are of inestimable value, historically, as
well as from a literary point of view, in demonstrating with certainty
the scope and completeness of the Cipher plan which has so long hidden
the secrets of a most eventful period.

[Illustration:
FRANCISCI
BARONIS
DE VERVLAMIO,
VICE-COMITIS
SANCTI ALBANI.

_DE DIGNITATE ET AVGMENTIS
SCIENTIARVM._

LIBRI IX.

_AD REGEM SVVM_

Iuxta Exemplar Londini Impressum.

PARISIIS,
Typis PETRI METTAYER, Typographi Rygij

M. DC. XXIV.
]

_Of the Advancement of Learning._

(London, 1605.)

CYPHARS

For _CYPHARS_; they are commonly in Letters or Alphabets, but
may bee in Wordes. _T_he kindes of _CYPHARS_, (besides the
_SIMPLE CYPHARS_ with Changes, and intermixtures of _NVLLES_,
and _NONSIGNIFICANTS_) are many, according to the Nature or
Rule of the infoulding: _WHEELE-CYPHARS_, _KAY-CYPHARS_,
_DOVBLES_, &c. But the vertues of them, whereby they are to be
preferred, are three; that they be not laborious to write and reade;
that they bee impossible to discypher; and in some cases, that they bee
without suspition. The highest Degree whereof, is to write _OMNIA PER
OMNIA_; which is vndoubtedly possible, with a proportion Quintuple
at most, of the writing infoulding, to the writing infoulded, and
no other restrainte whatsoeuer. This Arte of _Cypheringe_, hath for
Relatiue, an Art of _Discypheringe_; by supposition vnprofitable; but,
as things are, of great vse. For suppose that _Cyphars_ were well
mannaged, there bee Multitudes of them which exclude the _Discypherer_.
But in regarde of the rawnesse and vnskilfulnesse of the handes,
through which they passe, the greatest Matters, are many times carryed
in the weakest _Cyphars_.

DE AUGMENTIS SCIENTIARUM

(Translation, Gilbert Wats, 1640.)

_Wherefore let us come to_ _CYPHARS_. Their kinds are many, as
_Cyphars simple_; _Cyphars intermixt with Nulloes_, or non-significant
Characters; _Cyphars of double Letters under one Character_;
_Wheele-Cyphars_; _Kay-Cyphars_; _Cyphars of Words_; _Others_. But the
virtues of them whereby they are to be preferr’d are Three; _That they
be ready, and not laborious to write_; _That they be sure, and lie not
open to Deciphering_; _And lastly, if it be possible, that they be
managed without suspition_.

But that jealousies may be taken away, we will annexe an other
invention, which, in truth, we devised in our youth, when we were at
_Paris_: and is a thing that yet seemeth to us not worthy to be lost.
It containeth the _highest degree of Cypher_, which is to signifie
_omnia per omnia_, yet so as the _writing infolding_, may beare a
quintuple proportion to the _writing infolded_; no other condition or
restriction whatsoever is required. It shall be performed thus: First
let all the _Letters_ of the _Alphabet_, by transposition, be resolved
into two _Letters_ onely; for the transposition of two _Letters_ by
five placings will be sufficient for 32. Differences, much more for
24, which is the number of the _Alphabet_. The example of such an
_Alphabet_ is on this wise.

_An Example of a Bi-literarie Alphabet._

A B C D E F
Aaaaa aaaab aaaba. aaabb. aabaa. aabab.

G H I K L M
aabba aabbb abaaa. abaab. ababa. ababb.

N O P Q R S
abbaa. abbab. abbba. abbbb. baaaa. baaab.

T V W X Y Z
baaba. baabb. babaa. babab. babba. babbb.

Neither is it a small matter these _Cypher-Characters_ have, and may
performe: For by this _Art_ a way is opened, whereby a man may expresse
and signifie the intentions of his minde, at any distance of place,
by objects which may be presented to the eye, and accommodated to
the eare: provided those objects be capable of a twofold difference
onely; as by Bells, by Trumpets, by Lights and Torches, by the report
of Muskets, and any instruments of like nature. But to pursue our
enterprise, when you addresse your selfe to write, resolve your
inward-infolded Letter into this _Bi-literarie Alphabet_. Say the
_interiour Letter_ be

_Fuge._

_Example of Solution._

F V G E
aabab. baabb. aabba. aabaa.

Together with this, you must have ready at hand a _Bi-formed Alphabet_,
which may represent all the _Letters_ of the _Common Alphabet_, as well
Capitall Letters as the Smaller Characters in a double forme, as may
fit every mans occasion.

_An Example of a Bi-formed Alphabet._

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_A_ ~A~ _a_ ~a~ _B_ ~B~ _b_ ~b~ _C_ ~C~ _c_ ~c~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_D_ ~D~ _d_ ~d~ _E_ ~E~ _e_ ~e~ _F_ ~F~ _f_ ~f~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_G_ ~G~ _g_ ~g~ _H_ ~H~ _h_ ~h~ _I_ ~I~ _i_ ~i~

{a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_K_ ~K~ _k_ ~k~ _L_ ~L~ _l_ ~l~ _M_ ~M~ _m_ ~m~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_N_ ~N~ _n_ ~n~ _O_ ~O~ _o_ ~o~ _P_ ~P~ _p_ ~p~

{a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_Q_ ~Q~ _q_ ~q~ _R_ ~R~ _r_ ~r~ _S_ ~S~ _s_ ~s~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_T_ ~T~ _t_ ~t~ _V_ ~V~ _v_ ~v~ _u_ ~u~ _W_ ~W~ _w_ ~w~

{a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_X_ ~X~ _x_ ~x~ _Y_ ~Y~ _y_ ~y~ _Z_ ~Z~ _z_ ~z~

Now to the interiour letter, which is Biliterate, you shall fit a
biformed exteriour letter, which shall answer the other, letter for
letter, and afterwards set it downe. Let the exteriour example be,

_Manere te volo, donec venero._

_An Example of Accommodation._

_F_ _V_ _G_ _E_
_aa b a b.b aa bb. aa bb a.aa b aa._

_Ma_~n~_e_~re~ _te_ ~vo~_lo_ ~do~_nec_ ~v~_enero_

We have annext likewise a more ample example of the cypher of writing
_omnia per omnia_: An interiour letter, which to expresse, we have made
choice of a Spartan letter sent once in a _Scytale_ or round cypher’d
staffe.

_Spartan Dispatch._

_All is lost. Mindarus is killed. The soldiers want food. We
can neither get hence nor stay longer here._

An exteriour letter, taken out of the first Epistle of _Cicero_,
wherein a Spartan Letter is involved.

_Cicero’s First Epistle._

(Note)—This Translation from Spedding, Ellis & Heath Ed.
(REPRODUCTION)

_to_~w~|_a_~r~_d_~s~_y|o_~u, I~ _s_~a|t~_isf_~y~|
aa b | a b a b a|a b b a b|b aaa b |
| _L_ | _O_ | _S_ |

_ne_|~v~_er sa_|~t~_is_~fy.| F~_or s_~o~ |_g_~r~_eat_| ~a~_re_
aa | b aa aa | b aa bb | b aa a b | a b aaa | b aa
| _R_ | _U_ | _S_ | _I_ | _S_

_t_~h~|_e ~s~_er_~v~|_i_~c~_es w|h_~i~_c_~h~ _y|o_~u~ _h_~a~_v|e_
a b | a b aa b | a b aa a|a b a b a|a b a b a|a
| _K_ | _I_ | _L_ | _L_ |

~m~_y b_|~e~_half_| ~t~_ill_ ~t|h~_e_ ~t~_hi|ng was_| _d_~on~_e, I_|
b a a | b aaaa | b aaa b|b a b aa|aa aaa | a bb a a |
_E_ | _R_ | _S_ | _W_ | _A_ | _N_ |

~o~_cc_|~a~_sion|s a_~re~ _t|he_~s~_e:_ _A_|~m~_mo_~n~_i|us,_ ~the~ |
b aa | b aaaa|a a bb a|aa b a a | b aa b a|aa bbb |
_E_ | _R_ | _G_ | _E_ | _T_ | _H_ |

~u|s~ _with_| ~m~_one_~y.| T~_he_ b~_u|sines_|~s~ _i_~s~
b|b aaaa | b aaa b | b aa b a|aaaaa | b a b
| _R_ | _S_ | _T_ | _A_ | _Y_

~c~_a|r_~r~_i_~e~_d| o_~n t~_h_~r~|_o_~ug~_h t|he_ ~sa~_m|e_
b a|a b a b a| a b b a b | a bb a a|aa bb a|a
| _L_ | _O_ | _N_ | _G_ |

_w|hen you were here &c._
a|aaa aaa aaaa
|

(REPRODUCTION.)

_Epistle._

_In all d_~u~_t_~y~ _or_ ~r~_a_~t~_he_~r~ _pie_~t~_y_
_to_~w~_a_~r~_d_~s~_yo_~u, I~ _s_~at~_isf_~y e~_ve_~r~_y_
_b_~o~_d_~y e~_x_~c~_ept m_~ys~_elf. My_~se~_lf I ne_~v~_er_
_sa_~t~_is_~fy. F~_or s_~o~ _g_~r~_eat_ ~a~_re_ _t_~h~_e_
~s~_er_~v~_i_~c~_es wh_~i~_c_~h~ _yo_~u~ _h_~a~_ve_
_r_~e~_ndere_~d me,~ _th_~a~_t_ _se_~ein~_g y_~o~_u d_~i~_d_
_no_~t~ _r_~es~_t_ ~i~_n_ ~y~_o_~u~_r_ _end_~ea~_v_~o~_urs on_
~m~_y b_~e~_half_ ~t~_ill_ ~th~_e_ ~t~_hing was_ _d_~on~_e_,
_I_ ~f~_ee_~l~ _as_ _i_~f~ _l_~i~_f_~e h~_a_~d~ _l_~os~_t_
~a~_ll_ _i_~ts s~_w_~e~_etne_~s~_s, beca_~u~_se I cann_~ot~
_do a_~s~ ~m~_uch i_~n~ _thi_~s~ _cau_~s~_e o_~f~ _you_~rs~.
~T~_he ~o~_cc_~a~_sions a_~re~ _the_~s~_e:_ _A_~m~_mo_~n~_ius,_
~the~ _ki_~n~_g’s a_~mb~_assad_~o~_r, op_~e~_nl|y_
~be~_sie_~ge~_s_ ~us~ _with_ ~m~_one_~y. T~_he_ b~_usines_~s~
_i_~s~ ~c~_ar_~r~_i_~e~_d o_~n t~_h_~r~_o_~ug~_h the_ ~sa~_me_
_c_~r~_ed_~i~_tors_ _wh_~o we~_re_ ~e~_mp_~l~_oyed in_ ~i~_t_
_when you were here &c._

_Cipher infolded._

_All is lost. Mindarus is killed. The soldiers want food. We
can neither get hence nor stay longer here._

* * * * *

_The knowledge of Cyphering_, hath drawne on with it a knowledge
relative unto it, which is the knowledge of _Discyphering_, or of
Discreting _Cyphers_, though a man were utterly ignorant of the
_Alphabet_ of the _Cypher_, and the Capitulations of secrecy past
between the Parties. _Certainly_ it is an Art which requires great
paines and a good witt and is [as the other was] consecrate to the
Counsels of Princes: yet notwithstanding by diligent prevision it may
be made unprofitable, though, as things are, it be of great use. For if
good and faithfull _Cyphers_ were invented & practised, many of them
would delude and forestall all the Cunning of the _Decypherer_, which
yet are very apt and easie to be read or written: but the rawnesse and
unskilfulnesse of Secretaries, and Clarks in the Courts of Princes, is
such, that many times the greatest matters are committed to futile and
weake Cyphers.

THE
TRAGEDY OF
ANNE BOLEYN.

A DRAMA IN CIPHER

FOUND IN THE WORKS OF

SIR FRANCIS BACON.

DECIPHERED BY

ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

DETROIT, MICHIGAN, U. S. A.:
HOWARD PUBLISHING COMPANY.

LONDON:
GAY & BIRD,
22 BEDFORD ST. STRAND.

PREFACE.

The Cipher discoveries in some of the literature of the Elizabethan
period, as set forth in _Francis Bacon’s Biliteral Cypher_--a book
recently published in America and England--are most strange and
important. To those not familiar with them, a few words are requisite
for an understanding of the methods of the production of this Cipher
play--_The Tragedy of Anne Boleyn_.

Two principal Ciphers have been found to exist in the works of Bacon.
The first, the Bi-literal, by the use of Italic letters in different
forms, concealed the rules and directions for writing out a second of
greater scope--a so-called Word Cipher, in which key words indicate
sections of similar matter, that, brought together in a new sequence,
tell a different story. Both were invented by Bacon in his youth. The
primary, or Bi-literal Cypher, is fully explained in _De Augmentis
Scientiarum_, but it is only recently that it has been found to exist
in the Italic printing of a number of the books of the Elizabethan
era--books ascribed to different authors but now proved to have been
written by Bacon.

On pages following are extracts from the _Bi-literal Cypher_, as
published, relating in the words of the inventor himself the manner of
using the Key-Word Cipher for the segregation and reconstruction of
the hidden narratives, infolded in the pages as originally printed,
with which we are familiar. These directions are fragmentary, scattered
through many of the books deciphered, and are many times repeated in
varying forms of expression.

The more important only are here gathered, which, with the “Argument”
and the keys, now given, of this tragedy, will outline the plan of
this work. It may be interesting to know that the use of the key words
is progressive, and that a small number only are used at one time: the
first six or seven writing the prologue, a few of the next the opening
scenes of the play, and so on through the entire work, some being
dropped as others are taken up successively until all have been used.
An appendix gives the book and page from which the lines are taken that
have been brought together as the “great architect or master-builder
directed.”

In the reconstruction, especially when prose is changed to verse, the
order of the words is slightly changed to meet the requirements of
“rythmic measure in the Iambic.” The great author used large parts of
many scenes in two distinct plays--open and concealed--now and then
with the same _dramatis personae_, again with others clearly indicated
as belonging, historically, to these particular scenes. This fact may
jostle our ideas somewhat, as we find new speakers using the familiar
lines, but there is an added interest, when the transposition gives
the accuracy of history to the beauty of dramatic expression. This
_seems_ the reverse of the natural order, but it is seeming only, for
the literary world became acquainted with the rewritten plays three
centuries before the hidden originals came to light.

In the banquet scene of this tragedy, the first part is almost
identical with that of _Henry Eighth_, although--when “like joins
like,” something from Macbeth, from Hamlet, from Romeo and Juliet,
etc., etc., is added--while other diversions of that festival night are
not given openly in any of the works. The handkerchief scenes of the
imagined tragedy of Othello belong to this real, but concealed, tragedy
of Anne Boleyn, and the accusations against the Queen of Sicilia are a
part of the charge against this martyred Queen; the reply, a part of
the pathetic but brave response she made. The second part was never
before in any published drama.

It would seem that Bacon learned from Cicero the method of preparing
matter which could with slight variations be adapted to more than one
purpose. We find this in the _Advancement of Learning_ (1605, p. 52).

“And Cicero himselfe, being broken unto it by great experience,
delivereth it plainely; That whatsoever a man shall have occasion
to speake of, (if he will take the paines) he may have it in effect
premediate, and handled in these. So that when hee cometh to a
particular, he shall have nothing to doe, but to put too Names and
times, and places; and such other Circumstances of Individuals.”

A little further on (p. 56), is an instance where an inquiry about
the tablets in Neptune’s Temple is ascribed to Diagoras, while in the
_Apothegms_ this same question is put in the mouth of Bion. And, in the
First Folio of the Shakespeare Plays, a very marked example occurs in
_Romeo and Juliet_.

Romeo speaking, says:

“The gray ey’d morne smiles on the frowning night,
Checkring the Easterne Clouds with streakes of light,
And darknesse fleckel’d like a drunkard reeles,
From forth dayes pathway, made by Titans wheeles.”

Then almost immediately after, the Friar gives the same lines, with
very slight but distinctive changes:

“The gray ey’d morne smiles on the frowning night,
Checkring the Easterne Cloudes with streaks of light,
And fleckled darknesse like a drunkard reeles,
From forth daies path, and Titans burning wheeles.”

The modern editors cut out one _quatrain_ as a supposed mistake, the
decipherer discovers by the keys and joining-words that each has a
place--the first in one work, and the second in another.

As the tragical events of this period in the history of the ill-fated
queen, now known to be Bacon’s ancestress, have little by little
unfolded in the deciphering, there has been a deepening sense of the
pathos of the story. Like dissolving views the scenes appear, and fade,
and _this_ mightiness meets misery so soon that we feel the shock.
There is the gentle Anne’s appearance at the banquet, “when King Henry
for the first time cometh truely under the spell of her beautie”--his
infatuation--his determination that nothing should stand in the way of
making her his wife--the divorce from Katherine--the coronation--the
disapproval of the people, not of Anne but of the King--the insulting
song at the coronation festivities--the birth of Elizabeth, Bacon’s
mother, and the King’s disappointment that the princess was not a
prince. Later there is the King’s fickleness, which prompted the false
charges against his wife--the mockery of the trial--the true nobleness
of the victim--the injustice of her condemnation--the pathetic message
to the King, as she was led to the scaffold--the cruelty of her
execution.

It is no wonder that Bacon felt this deeply, nor that “every act and
scene is a tender sacrifice, and an incense to her sweet memory.”

ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

Detroit, November, 1901.

ARGUMENT .OF THE PLAY.

As may bee well knowne unto you, th’ questio’ of Elizabeth, her
legitimacie, made her a Protestant, for the Pope had not recognis’d th’
union, tho’ it were royale, which her sire made with fayre Anne Boleyn.
Still we may see that despite some restraining feare, it suited her to
dallie with the question, to make a faint shew of settling the mater as
her owne co’sie’ce dictated, if we take th’ decisions of facts; but the
will of th’ remorse-tost king left no doubt in men’s minds concerning
th’ former marriage, in fact, as th’ crowne was giv’n first to Mary,
his daughter of that marriage, before commi’g to Elizabeth.

In th’ storie of my most infortunate grandmother, the sweet ladie
who saw not th’ headsman’s axe when shee went forth proudly to her
coronation, you shall read of a sadnesse that touches me neere, partlie
because of neerenesse in bloud, partlie from a firme beliefe and trust
in her innocencie. Therefore every act and scene of this play of which
I speake, is a tende’ sacrifice, and an incense to her sweete memorie.
It is a plea to the generations to come for a just judgement upon her
life, whilst also giving the world one of the noblest o’ my plays,
hidden in Cy’hre in many other works.

A short argument, and likewise th’ keies, are giv’n to ayde th’
decypherer when it is to be work’d out as I wish. This doth tell th’
story with sufficient clearnes to guide you to our hidden storie.

This opeth at th’ palace, when King Henry for the first time cometh
truely under the spell of her beautie,--then in th’ highest perfection
of dainty grace, fresh, unspoiled,--and the charme of youthlie manners.
It is thought this was that inquisition which brought out feares
regarding th’ marriage contracted with Katharine of Arragon, so that
none greatly wond’red whe’ prolonged consultation of the secret voyce
in his soule assur’d the questioner noe good could ever come from the
union. Acti’g upon this conviction he doth confer money and titles upon
his last choise to quiet objections on score of unmeetnes.

But tho’ an irksome thing, truth shall be told. Tho’ it be ofttimes
a task,--if selfe-imposed, not by any meanes th’ lesse, but more
wearisome, since the work hath noe voyce of approvall or praise,--I
intend its completion. For many simple causes th’ historie of a man’s
life cometh from acts that we see through stayned glasse darkelie, and
of th’ other sexe, a man doth perceyve lesse, if possible, but th’
picture that I shall heere give is limn’d most carefully. However m’
pen hath greatly digress’d, and to returne.

Despite this mark of royall favour, a grave matter like the divorcement
of a royall spouse to wed a maide, suited not with fayre Anne’s notions
of justice, and with a sweete grace she made answere when the King sued
for favour:--“I am not high in birth as would befit a Queene, but I am
too good to become your mistresse.” So there was no waye to compasse
his desires save to wring a decree out o’ th’ Pope and wed th’ maide,
not a jot regarding her answer unlesse to bee the more eager to have
his waye.

Th’ love Lord Percy shew’d my lady, although so frankly return’d, kept
the wish turning, turning as a restless mill. Soone he resolv’d on
proof of his owne spirit, doe th’ Pope how he might, and securing a
civill decree, privately wedded th’ too youthfull Anne, and hid her for
space of severall daies untill th’ skies could somewhat cleare; but
when th’ earlie sumer came, in hope that there might soone bee borne to
them an heyre of th’ desir’d kinde, order’d willinglie her coronation
sparing noe coste to make it outvie anie other.

And when she was borne along, surrounded by soft white tissew, shielded
by a canopie of white, whilst she is wafted onwards, you would say an
added charme were to paint the lillie, or give the rose perfume.

This was onely th’ beginning of a triumph, bright as briefe,--in a
short space ’twas ore. Henry chose to consider th’ infant princesse in
the light of great anger of a just God brought upon him for his sinnes,
but bearing this with his daring spirit, he compelleth the Actes of
Supremacy and Succession, which placed him at the head of the Church
of England, in th’ one case, and made his heires by Queene Anne th’
successours to th’ throne. Untill that time, onely male heyres had
succeeded to th’ roiall power and the act occasioned much surprise
amongst our nobilitie.

But Henry rested not the’. The lovelinesse of Anne and her natural
opennesse of manner, so potent to winne th’ weake heart o’ th’ King,
awaken’d suspition and much cruell jealousie when hee saw th’ gay
courtiers yielding to th’ spell of gracefull gentility,--heighten’d by
usage forrayn, as also at th’ English Court. But if truth be said, th’
fancy had taken him to pay lovi’g court unto the faire Jane Seymour,
who was more beautifull, and quite young,--but also most ordinary as
doth regard personall manner, and th’ qualitie that made th’ Queene so
pleasing,--Lady Jane permitting marks of gracious favour t’ be freelie
offered.

And the Queene, unfortunately for her secret hope, surpris’d them in
a tender scene. Sodaine griefe orewhelming her so viole’tlie, she
swound before them, and a little space thereafter the infant sonne so
constantly desir’d, borne untimely, disappointed once more this selfish
monarch. This threw him into great fury, so that he was cruellie harsh
where [he] should give comfort and support, throwing so much blame
upon the gentle Queene, that her heart dyed within her not long after
soe sadde ending of a mother, her hopes.

Under pretexte of beleeving gentle Queene Anne to be guilty of
unfaithfullnesse, Henry had her convey’d to London Tower, and subjected
her to such ignominy as one can barelie beleeve, ev’n basely laying to
her charge the gravest sins, and summoning a jury of peeres delivered
the Queene for tryal and sentence. His act doth blacken pitch. Ev’n her
father, sitting amidst the peeres before whom shee was tried, exciteth
not so much astonishment since hee was forc’d thereto.

Henry’s will was done, but hardly could hee restraine the impatience
that sent him forth from his pallace at th’ hour of her execution to
an eminence neare by, in order to catche th’ detonation (ation) of th’
field peece whose hollow tone tolde the moment at which th’ cruell axe
fell, and see the blacke flag, that signall which floated wide to tell
the world she breath’d no more.

Th’ hast with which hee then went forward with his marriage, proclaym’d
the reall rigor or frigidity of his hart. It is by all men accompted
strange, this subtile power by which soe many of the peeres could be
forc’d to passe sentence upon this lady, when proofes of guilt were
nowhere to bee produced. In justice to a memorie dear to myselfe, I
must aver that it is far from cleare yet, upon what charge shee was
found worthie of death. It must of neede have beene some quiddet of th’
lawe, that chang’d some harmlesse words into anything one had in minde,
for in noe other waye could speech of hers be made wrongfull. Having
fayl’d to prove her untrue, nought could bring about such a resulte,
had this not (have) beene accomplish’d.

Thus was her good fame made a reproache, and time hath not given backe
that priceles treasure. If my plaie shal shew this most clearly, I
shall be co’tente. And as for my roiall grandsire, whatever honour hath
beene lost by such a course, is re-gain’d by his descendants from the
union, through this lovi’g justification of Anne Bulle’, his murther’d
Queene.

Before I go further with instructions, I make bold to say that th’
benefits we who now live in our free England reape [are] from her faith
and unfayling devotion to th’ advancement, that she herselfe promoting,
beheld well undertaken. It was her most earnest beliefe in this
remarkable and widelie spread effecte on th’ true prosperitie of the
realme, and not a love o’ dignity or power,--if the evidence of workes
be taken,--that co’strain’d her to take upon her th’ responsibility of
roialtie. And I am fullie perswaded in mine owne minde that had shee
lived to carry out all th’ work, her honours, no doubt, had outvied
those of her world-wide famed and honour’d daughter who continu’d that
which had beene so well commenc’d.

I am aware many artes waned in the raignes of Edward and bloodie Mary,
also that their recovery must have requir’d patient attention and the
expenditure of money my mother had no desire so to imploy, having many
other things at that time by which th’ coffers were drayn’d subtly; but
that it must require farre greater perseverance in order to begin so
noble work, devising th’ plannes and ayding in their execution, cannot
be impugn’d. Many times these things do not shewe lightness or th’
vanitie which some have laid to her charge.

However th’ play doth reveale this better, farre, then I wish t’ give
it in this Cypher, therefore I begge that it shall bee written out and
kept as a perpetual monument of my wrong’d, but innocent ancestresse.

My keies mentio’d in the beginning of this most helpfull work, will
follow in this place:--

The King Henry Sevent, Kath’rine th’ Infanta, Prince Arthur,
Catholicke Spaine, Prince of Wales, King Henry th’ Eight, Rome,
nu’cio, Pope, Protestant, Anne Bullen, prelate, Wolsey, divorce,
fury, excommunication, France, Francis First, marriage, ceremony,
brother, pageant, barge, Richmond, Greenwich, Tower, procession,
cloth, tissue, panoply, canopy, cloth o’ gold, litter, bearing-staves,
pageant, streets, coronation, crowne of Edward, purple robe, roiall
ermine, mace, th’ sword, wand, esses, French, Spanish ambassadours,
advance-guards, mayor, dutchesse, Duke Suffolke, Norfolke, Marquesse
Dorset, Bishop London, same Winchester, th’ Knights of th’ Garter, Lord
Chancellour, judges, Surrey, Earle, quirrestres, lords, ladies, _et
al._, Westminster, Rochford, Wiltshire, manors, castles, land, valew,
titles, Marchionesse of Pembrooke, ports, countesses, roiall scepter,
stile, power, title, pompe, realme, artes, advancement, liberty,
treasure, warre, treaty, study, benefit, trade, priest, monastery,
restitution, acts, supremacy, succession, Elizabeth, daughter, sonne,
heyres, unfaithfulnesse, treason, Norris, Weston, subtile triumph,
hate, losse, evill, jealousie, love, beautie, Tower, tryall, proofe,
sentry, sentence, executed, burning, choyce, the axe, block, uncover’d
face, report, black-flag, freedom, marriage-vow, Edward.

As hath most frequentlie bin said these will write th’ play, but th’
foregoing abridgeme’t, or argument, wil ayde you. In good hope of
saving th’ same from olde Father Time’s ravages, heere have I hidden
this Cypher play. To you I entruste th’ taske I, myselfe, shall never
see complete, it is probable, but soe firme is my conviction that it
must before long put up its leaves like th’ plant in th’ sunne, that I
rest contente awaiting that time.

CONCERNING THE
BI-LITERAL CYPHER

_PROS AND CONS
OF THE CONTROVERSY_

THE BI-LITERAL CYPHER OF FRANCIS BACON.

ARTICLES FROM MAGAZINES AND OTHER SOURCES.

In the following pages will be found the statement of its discovery
in the Works of Bacon, and discussions by the public Press. Inquries,
objections and answers from so many different points of view would
seem to cover every phase of the matter. Unreasoning prejudice is,
of course, beyond reply. To those of open mind this exposition of
the discovery will be most interesting. Its importance cannot be
overestimated. A new literature, buried these three hundred years, as
interesting as it is surprising, has been unearthed. Its authenticity
is placed beyond question.

BI-LITERAL CYPHER OF FRANCIS BACON.

BACONIANA.

To thousands who tread unthinkingly the earth’s fair surface, the
mineral constitution of the globe, or the history of its formation, is
as a sealed book. The geologist, however, pointing out the parallel
lines in a rock will tell us they indicate the glacial period. From a
piece of coal he will describe the forests and plant life which formed
the coal measures of the carboniferous era. He finds where volcanic
action reveals strata from unknown depths, and reads their history like
a printed page.

In architecture, the ages stamped, each its own, peculiarities upon
column and temple, and the student of that science will declare the
date of the ruins which accident or excavation have brought to view.

We see a tapering obelisk inscribed with hieroglyphics, and say this is
Egyptian. The eye educated to discriminate will study the writings upon
the stone that has been preserved from remote ages, and will say, this
is the hieroglyphic proper; this ideographic; this the phonetic, or of
this or that peculiar character, this is the Egyptian Hieratic; this
the Phœnecian; these the Cuniform characters of the ancient Persian or
Assyrian inscriptions, and few will challenge the correctness of the
decipherings.

The _savant_ will tell us that the environment, the nationality and
personality are unmistakably impressed upon the literature of every
country, mark the times and character of its people and the stage
of its progress. Year by year, decade by decade, age by age, time
passed and wrought its changes until that period was reached in which
the English people of the present day are interested because of the
discussion which it has aroused--the latter part of the XVIth and
beginning of the XVIIth Centuries. Knighthood had passed its flower
but the English Court still loved the tales of Knightly deeds and
found delight in the fancies of the Shepheard’s Calender and Faerie
Queene. Legitimate drama began to develop, replacing masques and
mysteries. History was written and its lessons emphasized by dramatic
representations. Essays brought the truth “home to men’s bosoms and
business,” and experimental science made clear that “there are more
things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy.”

This was the age when Francis Bacon lived and wrote, and fantasy, and
essay, and drama began to appear, at first anonymously, and then under
names of men as authors, whose lives, habits and capabilities presented
the most incongruous contrasts to the works produced. They were days of
peril and secret intrigue, when the words from the lips of the Courtier
were often farthest removed from the thought of the brain, and when all
secret communications were committed to cipher.

Of all the weighty secrets of that time, none save the Queen of England
herself bore any more momentous than that prolific author. So momentous
were they that few traces of their import found place upon the public
records in connected or intelligible form, and were supposed to have
died with those most intimately connected with them.

Bacon placed in his De Augmentis Scientiarum the key to a simple but
most useful Cipher, of his own invention, and we now find that through
its instrumentality the secrets so jealously guarded in his life time,
were committed to his works, and waited only the hand and vision of a
decipherer to be revealed to the ages which should follow.

Because the writer of this article has for seven years worked upon the
Ciphers of Bacon, not as a _dilettante_, but as one who realized the
importance and vastness of the undertaking, urged on by the fascination
of a great discovery and a growing interest in the developments of
it, the statements made concerning the “Bi-literal Cypher of Francis
Bacon” are not “uninspired guesses,” nor mere conjecture, but such as
come from knowledge gained by the hardest work and closest application,
until the eye has been trained to that degree of discrimination by
which, like that of the geologist, it is able to make hidden things
plain.

In pursuit of the same objects as other students of things Baconian, my
own investigations have been in quite a different field from theirs,
and have met with most successful, as well as most surprising results,
not less surprising to myself, than they will be to my readers. I
have been glad to submit the results of my years of study for the
edification of those interested in the same subject, for they supply
missing links in the literature of that era and explain much, if not
all, that has been mysterious and difficult of explanation.

The last two numbers of Baconiana have presented varied comments upon
the published results of my investigations. Naturally opinions differ,
according to the point of view. Although the things discovered and
brought to light are those which have been so diligently sought for,
and believed to exist by the deepest students, yet the wider field
unexpectedly disclosed and the marvelousness of it all, prompt to
incredulity.

The objections urged against a belief in the cipher disclosures appear
in a variety of forms. The astounding revelations are beyond the
dreams of the most ardent believers that Bacon’s sphere of action and
achievements were far greater than had been acknowledged, and some
have gone so far as to think the recent publication of the “Bi-literal
Cypher” must have been a romantic creation of my own, the words made
to fit the differing forms of the Italic letters in the old books, and
written out in imitation of the forms of thought and manner of speech
of the old English language, enriched by the vocabulary of the great
Francis. To suggest such a thing, with all that it implies, would bring
its own refutation.

It is true that the Cipher Story does not in all respects accord,
or stop with what has been supposed to be the “facts of history.”
Authorities do not agree as to what the “facts” were, nor is it
believed that all have found place on the records, and historians have
filled gaps with deductions and conjectures, some of which have been
most extravagant and impossible. Especially does this appear to be true
in the light of the cipher disclosures, and whatever of variation there
may be will furnish a profitable field for the investigators, and there
is little reason to doubt their ultimate harmony. Cyphers would not be
used to hide known facts, and could be useful only in recording those
that had been suppressed.

Some have given expression to the thought that the Cipher Story shows
a most unpleasant phase of character in Bacon, and a lack of that
princely spirit which should have actuated the son of Elizabeth,
entitled to the throne, in not trying to possess himself of royal
power at any cost. Essex, of a more martial spirit, essayed to seize
it, when Francis refused to make open claim to being Prince, in the
face of the denials of the Queen,--and Essex was beheaded for the
attempt. The murder of two princes of the blood royal by Richard Third;
the imprisonment and execution of another, by Henry Seventh; the
juggling with all rights by Henry Eighth, were not remote,--quite near
enough to chill the blood of the peace-loving student and deter him
from making himself sufficiently obnoxious to invite a similar fate.
Later, his own account, in the Cipher, of the reasons for not striving
to establish himself upon the throne appear quite adequate,--the
succession established by law, and quite satisfactory to the
people,--“our witnesses dead, our certificates destroyed,” etc., (pages
33, 38, 47, 201, and other references). He submitted to the inevitable
as did Prince Napoleon, and as others have done in our own time,--for
“what will not a man yield up for his life.”

Whether or not Bacon has “told the truth” in the Cipher, is not in the
province of the decipherer to discuss. A decipherer can only disclose
what is infolded. As to “slandering the Queen” in the statements which
the Cipher records,--if so, Bacon would not be alone, for the old MSS,
and as reliable and recent an authority as the National Dictionary of
Biography admit the motherhood of Elizabeth, though they do not give
the names of the offspring. This is supplied by the Cipher, written by
the one person most likely to know. If the Cipher exists, and we _know_
that it does, there must be some more reasonable theory for its being
written into so many published books for more than fifty years, than
for the purpose of slander or falsification. The peril of its discovery
in the early days of its infolding would be enhanced by its being a
slander, and the head would have “stood tickle on the shoulders” of
anyone guilty of so causeless a crime.

Francis would have been more “lunatic” for risking such matter in
cipher if not true, than “coward” for not daring openly to proclaim the
truth which was being so carefully suppressed.

Many inquiries have reached me, asking “how is the Cipher worked,” and
expressing disappointment that the inquirer had been unable to grasp
the system or its application. It would be difficult to teach Greek or
Sanscrit, in a few written lines, or to learn it by a few hours study.
It is equally so with the Cipher. Deciphering the Bi-literal Cipher, as
it appears in Bacon’s works, will be impossible to those who are not
possessed of an eyesight of the keenest, and perfect accuracy of vision
in distinguishing minute differences in form, lines, angles and curves
in the printed letters. Other things absolutely essential are unlimited
time and patience, persistency, and aptitude, love for overcoming
puzzling difficulties and, I sometimes think, _inspiration_. As not
every one can be a poet, an artist, an astronomer, or adept in other
branches requiring special aptitude, so, and for the same reasons, not
every one will be able to master the intricacies of the Cipher, for in
many ways it is most intricate and puzzling,--not in the system itself,
but in its use in the books. “It must not be made too plain lest it be
discovered too quickly nor hid too deep, lest it never see the light of
day,” is the substance of the inventor’s thought many times repeated in
the work.

The system has been recognized, and used, since the day that De
Augmentis was published, and has had its place in every translation
and publication since, but the ages have waited to learn that it was
embedded in the original books themselves from the date of his earliest
writings (1579 as now known) and infolded his secret personal history.
To disbelieve the Cipher because not “every one” can decipher it, would
be as great a mistake as it would be to say that the translations of
the character writings and hieroglyphics of older times, which have
been deciphered, were without foundation or significance, because we
could not ourselves master them in a few hours of inefficient trial. I
would repeat, Ciphers are used to hide things, not to make them plain.

The different editions of the same work form each a separate study and
tell a different Cipher Story. The two editions of De Augmentis form an
illustration. The first, or “London” edition, was issued, according to
Spedding, in October, 1623. The next, or “Paris” edition, was issued
in 1624. They differ in the Italic printing, and some errors in the
second do not occur in the first. The 1624 edition has been deciphered;
and the hidden story appears in the “Bi-literal Cypher” (page 310).
The 1623 edition has not, as yet, been deciphered. It seems to be a
rare edition. I found a copy in the British Museum, one in the Bodleian
library at Oxford, two in Cambridge, and one in the choice collection
of old books in the library of Sir Edwin Durning Lawrence.

In the course of my work, Marlowe’s Edward Second had been deciphered
before De Augmentis was taken up. At the end of Edward Second occurs
this “veiled” statement, referring to De Augmentis (page 152 Bi-literal
Cypher). “... the story it contains (our twelft king’s nativity since
our sovereign, whose tragedy we relate in this way) shall now know
the day....” Had Francis succeeded to the throne, he would have been
the twelfth king (omitting the queens) after Edward Second, hence the
inference that De Augmentis would contain much of his personal history.
My disappointment was great when instead of this the hidden matter was
found to be the Argument of the Odyssey, something not anticipated,
or wanted, and would never have been the result of my own choice or
imagination. At the close of the deciphered work in Burton’s Anatomy,
in which the Argument of the Iliad was most unexpectedly found--another
great disappointment--is this “veiled” statement: (page 309) “... while
a Latin work--De Augmentis--will give aid upon the other (meaning
the Odyssey). As in this work (meaning the Iliad) favorite parts are
enlarged (in blank verse) yet as it lendeth ayde ...,” etc.,--i. e.,
sets a pattern for the writing out of the Odyssey in the Word Cipher.
This explained the 1624 edition, and the inference is that the 1623
edition will disclose the personal history referred to on page 152.

In the 1624 edition there are some errors in the illustration of the
cipher methods and in the Cicero Epistle which do not occur in the 1623
edition. The Latin words midway on page 282, “qui pauci sunt” in the
1623 edition, are “qui parati sunt” in the 1624, page 309,--an error
referred to on page 10 of the Introduction of the “Bi-literal Cypher”
as wrong termination, there being too many letters for the group, and
one letter must be omitted. Other variations show errors in making up
the forms on pages 307 and 308 in the 1624 edition, whether purposely
for confusion or otherwise, it is impossible to tell. The line on page
307,

“_Exemplum Alphabeti Biformis_,”

should be placed above the Bi-formed Alphabet on page 308, while

“_Exemplum Accommodationis_”

should be placed above the example of the adaptation just preceding.
The repetition of twelve letters of the bi-formed alphabet could hardly
be called a printer’s error, as they are of another form, unlike those
on the preceding page, and may be taken as an example of the statement
that “any two forms will do.” In these illustrations the letters seem
to be drawn with a pen and are a mixture of script and peculiar forms,
and unlike any in the regular fonts of type used in the printed matter.
No part of the Cipher Story is embodied in the script or pen letters
on these pages. Whether or not the changing of the lines was done
purposely, the grouping of the Italic letters from the regular fonts is
consecutive as _the printed lines stand_, the wrong make-up causing no
break in the connected narration. There are many “veiled” statements
throughout the “Bi-literal Cypher,” such as are noted in Edward Second
and in Burton. To the decipherer they have a meaning, indicating what
to look for and where to find that which is necessary for correct
and completed work, as well as to guard against errors and incorrect
translation.

My researches among the old books in the British Museum the past
season have borne rich fruit, for there were found the earlier cipher
writings. Shepheard’s Calendar, which appeared anonymously in 1579,
contains the first, and discloses the signification of the mysterious
initials “E. K.” and the identity of this person with the author of
the work. The Cipher narrative begins thus: “E. K. will be found to
be nothing less than the letters signifying the future Sovereign,
or _England’s King_.... In event of death of Her Ma., who bore in
honorable wedlock, Robert, now known as sonne to Walter Devereaux,
as well as him who now speaketh to the unknown aidant decypherer ...
we, the eldest borne should by Divine right of a law of God, and made
binding on man, inherit scepter and throne.... We devised two Cyphers,
now used for the first time, for this said history, as safe, clear and
undecipherable, whilst containing the keys in each which open the most
important.... Till a decypherer find a prepared or readily discovered
alphabet, it seemeth to us almost impossible, save by Divine gift
and heavenly instinct, that he should be able to read what is thus
revealed.”

Following Shepheard’s Calender, the works between 1579 and 1590, so far
deciphered (but as yet unpublished) are:

Arraignement of Paris, 1584.
Mirrour of Modestie, 1584.
Planetomachia, 1585.

Euphues, 1587; Morando, 1587. These two also join together, with an
incomplete word at the end of the first finding its completion in the
commencement of the Cipher in the second.

Perimedes the Blacke-smith, 1588; Pandosto, 1588. These two also join
together.

Spanish Masquerado, 1589. Two editions of this work bear date the same
year, but have different Italicising. In one edition the Cipher Story
is complete, closing with the signature: “Fr. Prince.” In the other the
story is not complete, the book ending with an incomplete cipher word,
the remainder of which will be found in some work of near that date
which has not yet been indicated and deciphered.

These, while not all the works in which Cipher will be found between
the years 1579 and 1590, unmistakably connect the earlier writings with
those of later date than 1590 which have been deciphered--as published
in the “Bi-literal Cypher”--so that we now know that the Cipher
writings were being continuously infolded in Bacon’s works, from the
first to the last of his literary productions.

ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

THE BI-LITERAL CYPHER OF SIR FRANCIS BACON.

_A NEW LIGHT ON A FEW OLD BOOKS._

BY ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

[_Mrs. Gallup professes to find in certain of Bacon’s works,
the first folio of Shakespeare, and other books of the period,
two distinctive founts of italic type employed. All the letters
of one fount stand for the letter_ a _in the cipher, those of
the other for_ b. _Hence it is possible to translate, as it
were, any given line of type into a series of_ abbba, abaab,
baaba, abaaa. _and so on, according to the type employed,
and thereby, to spell out words and sentences in accordance
with the principles laid down by Bacon himself in his account
of the so-called “Bi-literal” cypher in his “De Augmentis
Scientiarium.” In a further article which she is now preparing
Mrs. Gallup will deal with a number of the individual writers
who have taken part in the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy during
the last few weeks, whose criticisms_, we _learn by cablegram,
and only now before her. This preliminary paper will enable our
readers to acquaint themselves with the nature of Mrs. Gallup’s
laborious investigations._--ED. P. M. M.].

PALL MALL MAGAZINE, MARCH, 1902.

It is a pleasure to respond to the cabled invitation from the PALL MALL
MAGAZINE to write an article upon the “Bacon-Shakespeare Controversy,”
although I have really never been concerned with it, except
incidentally. I did not find myself a Baconian until the discovery
of the Bacon ciphers answered the questions in such a final way that
controversy should end.

I think my best plan will be to give a clear, authoritative, and
somewhat popular exposition of my book, _The Bi-literal Cypher of Sir
Francis Bacon_, which was recently very kindly and appreciatively
reviewed by Mr. Mallock in the _Nineteenth Century and After_. I had
not the pleasure of knowing Mr. Mallock, and his article was wholly a
surprise.

In giving to the world the results of my researches, I have felt, as
have my publishers, that my work should be left without attempt upon
our part to influence or mould opinion in any way other than by setting
forth what I have found.

Some one has said, “any man’s opinion is the measure of his knowledge.”
If his knowledge is ample his judgment should be true, and I am well
aware there has been little opportunity for men of letters or the
reading public to know about this new phase of the old subject.

The book itself is much wider in its range, and much more far-reaching
in its literary and historical consequences, than the mere settlement
of the Bacon-Shakespeare question. It concerns not only the authorship
of much of the best literature of the Elizabethan period, but the
regularity of successions to the throne of England; and it transfers
the “controversy” from the realm of literary opinion and criticism
to the determination of the question whether I have correctly and
truthfully transcribed a cipher.

That this will at once meet with universal acceptance is not expected.
On the face of things it seems improbable--almost as improbable to
the world as the revolution of the earth about the sun was to Lord
Bacon, who declared it could in nowise be accepted. “Galileo built his
theory ... supposing the earth revolved.... But this he devised upon an
assumption that cannot be allowed--_viz. that the earth moves_.” (_Nov.
Org._)

Two limited editions of the book were published, mostly for private
circulation, while my researches were going on, but with little effort
to obtain public audience, awaiting the time, now arrived, when I could
present the first of the cipher writings from early editions of works
in the British Museum.

The interest it has excited has been considerable, varying in its
expression from more or less good-natured doubts as to my sanity and
veracity, from those who are satisfied with first impressions; to the
careful examination by such writers as Mr. Mallock and some others who
have regarded it as worthy of serious consideration.

For myself, I have been satisfied to wait for the verdict. It will be
that I have at great cost put before the public a most detailed and
elaborate hoax--or worse; or that Francis Bacon was a cipher writer and
the most extraordinary personage in literature the world has yet known.

Assuming for the moment the cipher as a fact, what are the claims made
in it for himself? Briefly, but startlingly stated, they are: That he
was the author of the works attributed to Edmund Spenser, and those of
Greene, Peele, Marlowe, and Shakespeare, a portion of those published
by Ben Jonson, also the _Anatomy of Melancholy_ known as Burton’s,
besides the works to which Bacon’s name is attached; that these,
instead of being in fact the outpourings of literary inspiration, are
literary mosaics, the repository of other literature--much of it then
dangerous to Bacon to expose--made consecutive by transposition, and
gaining in literary interest by the new relations. The bi-literal
cipher gives the rules by which the constituent parts of these mosaics
are to be reassembled in their original form by the “word-cipher,” so
called, a second system permeating the same works and hiding a larger
and more varied literature than the first. It is also asserted that
Bacon was the true heir to the throne of England, through a secret
marriage between the Earl of Leicester and Elizabeth, which took
place prior to her accession, while both were confined in the Tower
of London; that for obvious reasons of state the marriage could not
be announced before the coronation, and that the Queen afterwards
refused to acknowledge it publicly; that the unfortunate Essex was in
fact his younger brother, and the otherwise inexplicable rebellion
was undertaken by Essex to compel from the Queen recognition of his
descent, with expectation of the throne if denied to, or not claimed
by, Francis.

The personal matter, scattered in the bi-literal cipher through the
numerous volumes, is repeated in different forms many times--evidently
in the hope that the claims asserted to the throne and the events of
his life would be detected and deciphered, from some, if not from all
his works, at some future time.

The book itself contains about 385 pages of deciphered matter,
written in the old English of the Elizabethan period, and relating to
men and things, literary and historical, then existing. It affords
the most ample and serious materials for what may be called “the
higher criticism”; and such criticism is very cordially invited, for
reasons more important than anything concerning my own abilities or
personality. The most sceptical will admit industry, and some sort of
capability, in producing a work of the kind. It is due to the public
that in a presentation of this kind I should offer a _prima-facie_ case.

The question most nearly related to the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy,
from a literary standpoint, is: Was Bacon’s imagination, fancy and
ability, equal to the production of such poetic and dramatic literature
as is embraced in the Shakespeare plays and other works named?
The dicta obtainable from mere comparisons of style are scarcely
final. Individual judgments, in this field, are far from conclusive
or satisfactory. There is as much difference in style between the
laboured, interminable sentences of Bacon’s philosophical works and the
polished sentences of the Essays as there is between the Essays and the
epigrams of the Plays.

Bacon has been somewhat out of fashion of late. His philosophy, once
strong and new, has been developed into the daily practice of these
forceful and effective times, and is now interesting principally to the
curious. His life,--reduced by Pope to the inconclusive epigram, “the
wisest, brightest, and meanest of mankind,”--ending in his disgrace,
does not now attract the average reader, while the compactness of
the Essays deters many from a second reading. It is well, therefore,
to refresh our minds concerning the man, and the estimation in which
he was held before the present-day rush for new things had become so
absorbing.

Briefly, the well-considered opinions of those best fitted to judge
are, that his abilities were transcendent in every field. Lord Macaulay
tells us that Bacon’s mind was “the most exquisitely constructed
intellect that has ever been bestowed upon any of the children of men”;
Pope, that “Lord Bacon was the greatest genius that England, or perhaps
any other country, ever produced”; Sir Alexander Grant, that “it is as
an inspired seer, the prose-poet of modern science, that I reverence
Bacon”; Alexander Smith, that “he seems to have written his Essays
with the pen of Shakespeare.” Mackintosh calls his literature “the
utmost splendour of imagery.” Addison says, that “he possessed at once
all those extraordinary talents which were divided among the greatest
authors of antiquity ... one does not know which to admire most in
his writings, the strength of reason, force of style, or brightness
of imagination.” Mr. Welch assures us: “Lord Bacon was a poet. His
language has a sweet and majestic rhythm which satisfies the sense,
no less than the superhuman wisdom of his philosophy satisfies the
intellect.” While H. A. Taine, a Frenchman, recognising throughout the
differences of language the force of the poetic thought, gives us this
in his _English Literature_:--

“In this band of scholars, dreamers, and inquirers, appears
the most comprehensive, sensible, originative of the minds of
the age--Francis Bacon, a great and luminous intellect, one
of the finest of this poetic progeny.... There is nothing in
English prose superior to his diction.... His thought is in the
manner of artists and poets, and he speaks after the manner of
prophets and seers.... Shakespeare and the seers do not contain
more vigorous or expressive condensations of thought, more
resembling inspiration.... His process is that of the creators:
it is inspiration, not reasoning.”

Again, Lord Macaulay tells us: “No man ever had an imagination at once
so strong and so thoroughly subjugated. In truth, much of Bacon’s life
was spent in a visionary world, amidst things as strange as any that
are described in the Arabian tales.”--“A man so rare in knowledge of so
many several kinds, endued with the facility and felicity of expressing
it all in so elegant, significant, so abundant, and yet so choice and
ravishing array of words, of metaphors and allusions, as perhaps the
world has not seen since it was a world,” said Sir Tobie Mathew.

The German Schlegel, in his _History of Literature_, calls him
“this mighty genius,” and adds, “Stimulated by his capacious
and stirring intellect ... intellectual culture, nay, the
social organisation of modern Europe generally, assumed a new
shape and complexion.” While again from Lord Macaulay we quote
this: “With great minuteness of observation he had an amplitude
of comprehension such as has never yet been vouchsafed to any
human being.”

In the _Encyclopoedia Britannica_ we read: “The thoughts are weighty,
and, even when not original, have acquired a peculiar and unique tone
or cast by passing through the crucible of Bacon’s mind. A sentence
from the Essays can rarely be mistaken for the production of any other
writer. The short, pithy sayings,

Jewels five words long
That on the stretched forefinger of all Time
Sparkle for ever,

have become popular mottoes and household words. The style is quaint,
original, abounding in allusions and witticisms, and rich, even to
gorgeousness, with piled-up analogies and metaphors.”

In the presence of these acknowledged masters in literary judgment, I
may well be silent. These quotations might be extended indefinitely.
Anything I could add of my own would be repetition. In the face of
these well-considered opinions, the flippant adverse judgment of
newspaper critics, in the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy, thrown off
in the hurry of daily issues, may for the present be disregarded.
The writers of such articles have never read Bacon well, if at
all,--perhaps not Shakespeare thoroughly.

My work in the past eight years of constant study of the subject
has led me, of necessity, through every line and word that Bacon
wrote, both acknowledged and concealed, so far as the latter has been
developed. The work I have done upon the word-cipher in reassembling
his literature from the mosaic to its original form has given me a
critical knowledge at least, and a basis perhaps possessed by few for
forming, to the extent of my abilities, a critical judgment; but I
would merely add, that he was, assuredly, master in many fields of
which even they who knew him best were unaware.

Granting him these literary powers, was he at the same time a cipher
writer? and did he particularly affect this bi-literal method of cipher
writing?

For the first I refer, for brevity’s sake, to the article on
cryptograms in the _Encyclopoedia Britannica_; and for the second to
the original Latin _De Augmentis Scientiarum_ (editions of 1623 and
1624), and its very excellent translation by Messrs. Spedding, Ellis,
and Heath, where the bi-literal cipher precisely as I have used it is
described and illustrated by Bacon in full, with the statement that
he invented it while at the Court of France. This was between his
sixteenth and eighteenth years. His first reference to it was in 1605.
Its first publication was in 1623, after he had used it continuously
forty-four years, confiding to it his wrongs and woes, and intending,
in thus explaining and giving the key, that at some near or distant day
his sorrows and his claims should be known by its decipherment.

The cipher, described by Bacon in _De Augmentis Scientiarum_,
is simplicity itself, being in principle mere combinations and
alternations of any two unlike things, and in practice as used by him
consisting of alternations of letters from two slightly different
founts of Italic type, arranged in groups of five. This affords
thirty-two possible combinations, being eight in excess of the
twenty-four letters of the alphabet he used. The free use of these
Italics is a notable feature in all his literature, and has been the
cause of much speculation. Sometimes the differences between the
letters of the two founts are bold and marked, often delicate and very
difficult for the novice to distinguish, but possible of determination
by the practised eye. The differences, especially in the capitals used
in the 1623 Folio of the Shakespeare Plays, are apparent to the dullest
vision, and photographic copies of it are in nearly every public and
many private libraries, and so accessible to all.

In making up his alphabet the two founts are called by him the
'_a_ fount’ and the '_b_ fount,’ and the several groups of five,
representing each letter of the alphabet he used in the cipher, are as
follows: _aaaaa, a_; _aaaab, b_; _aaaba, c_; etc., etc.

After the full exposition of this cipher by Mr. Mallock, a repetition
here would seem superfluous, and I will only take space to say that the
detailed explanation is to be found in _De Augmentis Scientiarum_ in
every edition of Bacon’s complete works.

One of the interesting incidents of the use of this bi-literal method
is, that it did not at all require taking the printer into the writer’s
confidence. A peculiar mark under the letter would indicate the fount
from which the letter was to be taken. The printer may have thought
Bacon insane, or what not, but the marking gave him no clue to the
cipher.

Perhaps I cannot better illustrate the scope of the researches that
have brought out such strange and unexpected disclosures than by giving
the bibliography of my work. This will have an attraction for many,
who will sympathise with me in the pleasure I have known in working in
these rare and costly old books.

The deciphering has been from the following original editions in my
possession:

The Advancement of Learning 1605
The Shepheards’ Calender 1611
The Faerie Queene 1613
Novum Organum 1620
Parasceve 1620
The History of Henry VII. 1622
Edward Second 1622
The Anatomy of Melancholy 1628*
The New Atlantis 1635*
Sylva Sylvarum 1635*

and also a beautifully bound full folio facsimile of the 1623 edition
of the Shakespeare plays, bearing the name of Coleridge on the title
page.

*These three bear dates after Bacon’s death, and were
undoubtedly completed by Dr. Rawley, his secretary, whose
explanation regarding them is found on pages 339-340 of the
Bi-literal Cypher.

In the Boston Library I obtained:

Richard Second 1598
David and Bethsabe 1599
Midsummer Night’s Dream 1600
Much Ado About Nothing 1600
Sir John Oldcastle 1600
Merchant of Venice 1600
Richard, Duke of York 1600
Treasons of Essex 1601
King Lear 1608
Henry Fifth 1608
Pericles 1609
Hamlet 1611
Titus Andronicus 1611
Richard Second 1615
Merry Wives of Windsor 1619
Whole Contention of York, etc. 1619
Pericles 1619
Yorkshire Tragedy 1619
Romeo and Juliet (without date)

From the choice library of John Dane, M.D., Boston:

The Treasons of Essex 1601
Vitae et Mortis 1623

From the library of Marshall C. Lefferts, of New York, I had:

Ben Jonson’s Plays, Folio 1616
A Quip for an Upstart Courtier 1620

From the Lenox Library, New York:

Midsummer Night’s Dream 1600
Sir John Oldcastle 1600
London Prodigal 1605
Pericles 1619
Yorkshire Tragedy 1619
The Whole Contention, etc. 1619
Shakespeare, first folio 1623

and from Mrs. Pott, of London, England:

Ben Jonson’s Plays 1616
De Augmentis Scientiarum 1624

During the five months spent at the British Museum:

The Shepheards’ Calender 1579
Araygnement of Paris 1584
Mirrour of Modestie 1584
Planetomachia 1585
A Treatise of Melancholy 1586
A Treatise of Mel. (2nd. Ed.) 1586
Euphues 1587
Morando 1587
Perimedes 1588
Spanish Masquerado 1589
Pandosto 1588
Spanish Masq. (2nd Ed.) 1589

In the library of Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence I was able to decipher,
from the _Treatise of Melancholy_, some pages that were missing from
the copy at the British Museum.

I wish here to express my deep obligation to the management of the
British Museum, and to those numerous friends I was so fortunate as
to make while in London, for their uniform kindness to me--a stranger
among them--and for the facilities which they, to the extent of their
power, never failed to afford me in my work.

Every Italic letter in all the books named has been examined,
studied, classified, and set down “in groups of five” and the results
transcribed. Each book deciphered has its own peculiarities and forms
of type, and must be made a separate study.

The 1623 Folio has the largest variety of letters and irregularities;
but the most difficult work was Bacon’s _History of Henry the
Seventh_, the mysteries of which it took me the greater part of three
months of almost constant study to master. The reason came to light as
the work progressed, and will appear from the reading of the first page
of the deciphered matter, with its explanations of “sudden shifts” to
puzzle would-be decipherers.

In the deciphering of the different works mentioned, surprise followed
surprise as the hidden messages were disclosed, and disappointment as
well was not infrequently encountered. Some of the disclosures are of
a nature repugnant, in many respects, to my very soul, as they were to
all my preconceived convictions, and they would never have seen the
light, except as a correct transcription of what the cipher revealed.
As a decipherer I had no choice, and I am in no way responsible for the
disclosures, except as to the correctness of the transcription.

Bacon, throughout the Bi-literal Cypher, makes frequent mention of his
translations of Homer, which he considered one of his “great works
and worthy of preservation,” and which had been scattered through the
mosaic of his other writings. One of the strongest of his expressed
desires was that it should be gathered and reconstructed in its
original form.

Perhaps the greatest surprise that came to me in all my work relates
to what was found in the _Anatomy of Melancholy_. Several other of the
works had been finished before this book was taken up. After a few
pages had been deciphered, relating to points in Bacon’s history, to
my great disappointment the cipher suddenly changed the subject of its
disclosures to this:

“As hath been said, much of th’ materiall of th’ Iliad may be found
here, as well as Homer his second wondrous storie, telling of Odysseus
his worthy adventures. Th’ first nam’d is of greater worth, beautie and
interesse, alone, in my estimation, than all my other work together,
for it is th’ crowning triumph of Homer’s pen; and he outstrips all th’
others in th’ race, as though his wits had beene Atalanta’s heeles.
Next we see Virgill, and close behind them, striving to attaine unto
th’ hights which they mounted, do I presse on to th’ lofty goale. In
th’ plays lately publisht, I have approacht my modell closelie, and yet
it doth ever seem beyond my attainment.

“Here are the diverse bookes, their arguments and sundry examples of
th’ lines, in our bi-literal cipher.”

These “arguments,” or outlines, are intended as a framework about
which, with the aid of the keys given, the fuller deciphering from the
printed lines is to take form through the methods of the Word-Cipher.

The presence of lines, identical--or nearly so--with those of Homer,
have been noted by close students in all the works now named as
belonging to Bacon, and it has needed but to bring the lines together
from their scattered positions, transpose names and arrange the parts
in proper sequence, to form the connected narrative.

I can best illustrate this--and it will be of interest to those fond of
the classics--by adding a few of the lines from some of my unfinished
and unpublished work, before I had discovered the bi-literal cipher in
the typography of the books I was using. I will say regarding this part
of my incomplete work, that a very considerable portion of the material
for the first four books of the fuller translation of the _Iliad_ had
been collected and arranged in sequence by the word-cipher before the
work was laid aside, four years ago, on account of the discovery of
the bi-literal, the development of which, it became at once apparent,
was of first importance. These directions regarding it occur in the
Bi-literal Cypher:

“Keepe lines, though somewhat be added to Homer; in fact, it might be
more truly Homeric to consider it a poeme of the times, rather than a
historie of true events.” (p. 168.) “... In all places, be heedfull
of the meaning, but do not consider the order of the words in the
sentences. I should join my examples and rules together, you will say.
So I will. In the 'Faerie Queene,’ booke one, canto two, second and
third lines of the seventh stanzo, thus speaking of Aurora, write:

“Wearie of aged Tithones saffron bed,
Had spreade, through dewy ayre her purple robe.

“Or in the eleventh canto, booke two, five-and-thirtieth stanzo,
arrange the matter thus, to relate in verse the great attacke at the
ships, at that pointe of time at which the great Trojan took up a
weighty missile, the gods giving strength to the hero’s arme: it begins
in the sixth verse:

“There lay thereby an huge greate stone, which stood
Upon one end, and had not many a day
Removed beene--a signe of sundrie wayes--
This Hector snatch’d and with exceeding sway.” (p. 169.)

Illustrative of the argument, the incident in Book I., where the priest
Chryses “was evilly dismissed by Agamemnon,” the bi-literal epitome
reads:

“And th’ Priest, in silence, walk’d along th’ shore of the resounding
sea. After awhile with many a prayer and teare th’ old man cried aloud
unto Apollo, and his voice was heard.”

In the fuller translation by means of the word-cipher, the lines
collected from the different books result in the following rendering of
the passage:

“The wretched man, at his imperious speech,
Was all abashed, and there he sudden stay’d,
While in his eyes stood tears of bitterness.
The resounding of the sea upon the shore
Beats with an echo to the unseen grief
That swells with silence in the tortur’d soul.
Apart upon his knees that aged sire
Pray’d much unto Latona’s lordly son:

“Hear, hear, O hear, god of the silver bow!
Who’rt wont Chrysa and Cilla to protect,
And reignest in this island Tenedos,
If ever I did honour thee aright,
Thy graceful temple aiding to adorn,
Or if, moreover, I at any time
Have burn’d to thee fat thighs of bulls and goats,
Do one thing for me that I shall entreat--
O Phœbus, with thy shafts avenge these tears.”

A little farther on, after Achilles had “summon’d a councill” and
charged Calchas to declare the cause of the pestilence, Bacon’s
lines--that he warns the decipherer to retain, “though somewhat be
added to Homer”--gives the altercation thus:

To whom Atrides did this answer frame:
“Full true thou speak’st and like thyself, yet, though
Thou speakest truth, methinks thou speak’st not well.
It is because no one should sway but he
He’s angry with the gods that any man
Goeth before him; he would be above the clouds,
His fortune’s master and the king of men,
And here is none, methinks, disposed to yield:
For though the gods do chance him to appoint
To be a warriour and command a camp,
Inserting courage in his noble heart,
Do they give right to utter insults here?”

There interrupting him, noble Achilles
Answer’d the king in few words: “Ay forsooth!
I should be thought a coward, Agamemnon,
A man of no estimation in the world,
If what you will I humbly yield unto,
And when you say, 'Do this,’ it is perform’d.
I, for my part--let others as they list,--
I will not thus be fac’d and overpeer’d.
Do not think so, you shall not find it so:
Some other seek that may with patience strive
With thee, Atrides; thou shalt rule no more
O’er me.”

The transalation by George Chapman, Book I., page 20, line 11, reads:

“All this, good father,” said the king, “is comely and good right;
But this man breaks all such bounds; he affects, past all men, height;
All would in his power hold, all make his subjects, give to all
His hot will for their temperate law: all which he never shall
Persuade at my hands. If the gods have given him the great style
Of ablest soldier, made they that his license to revile
Men with vile language?” Thetis’ son prevented him, and said:
“Fearful and vile I might be thought, if the exactions laid
By all means on me I should bear. Others command to this,
Thou shalt not me; or if thou dost, far my free spirit is
From serving thy command.”

The translation by William Cullen Bryant, book 1, page 13, line 22,
reads:

To him the sovereign Agamemnon said:
“The things which thou hast uttered, aged chief,
Are fitly spoken; but this man would stand
Above all others; he aspires to be
The master, over all to domineer,
And to direct in all things; yet, I think
There may be one who will not suffer this,
For if by favor of the immortal gods,
He was made brave, have they for such a cause
Given him the liberty of insolent speech?”

Hereat the great Achilles, breaking in,
Answered: “Yea, well might I deserve the name
Of coward and of wretch, should I submit
In all things to do thy bidding. Such commands
Lay thou on others, not on me; nor think
I shall obey thee longer.”

The translation by William Sotheby, M. R. S. L., book 1, page 16, line
21, runs as follows:

“Wise is thy counsel”--Atreus’ son reply’d--
“Well thy persuasive voice might Grecia guide,
But this--this man must stretch o’er all his sway,
All must observe his will, his beck obey,
All hang on him--such, such o’erweening pride,
Rage as he may, by me shall be defy’d.
The gods, who to his arm its prowess gave,
Loose they his scornful tongue at will to rave?”
Him interrupting, fierce Pelides said:
“Be on my willing brow dishonor laid,
If I--whate’er thy wish--whate’er thy will,
Imperious tyrant!--thy command fulfil.
O’er others rule; by others be obeyed;
No more Achilles deigns the Atridae aid.”

The Earl of Derby’s translation, book 1, page 16, line 12, reads:

To whom the monarch, Agamemnon, thus:
“Oh, father, full of wisdom are thy words;
But this proud chief o’er all would domineer;
O’er all he seeks to rule, o’er all to reign,
To all dictate, which I will not bear,
Grant that the gods have giv’n him warlike might;
Gave they unbridled license to his tongue?”
To whom Achilles, interrupting thus:
“Coward and slave I might indeed be deemed,
Could I submit to make thy word my law;
To others thy commands; seek not to me
To dicate, for I follow thee no more.”

It is true that the presence of the bi-literal cipher in any work
does not prove authorship, being merely a matter of typography which
can be incorporated in any printed page, as it was in fact in Ben
Jonson’s writings, for Bacon’s purposes. But when it is worked out,
and its chief purpose is found to be to teach the word-cipher, and
that the latter produces practicable results such as given above, the
confirmation of both ciphers is unmistakable. On the other hand, the
word-cipher is a complete demonstration of the fact that the author of
the interior work was the author of the exterior.

I am not infrequently asked, and it is a very natural question, why
should Bacon put translations of the Iliad and Odyssey in his works,
when neither required secrecy? I quote a sentence from the _Bi-literal
Cypher_ (p. 341), deciphered from _Natural History_:

“Finding that one important story within manie others produc’d a most
ordinarie play, poem, history, essay, law-maxime, or other kind,
class, or description of work, I tried th’ experiment of placing my
tra’slations of Homer and Virgil within my other Cypher. When one work
has been so incorporated into others, these are then in like manner
treated, separated into parts and widely scatter’d into my numerous
books.”

In this connection I will add another extract from _Advancement of
Learning_ (original edition, 1605, p. 52):

“And Cicero himselfe, being broken unto it by great experience,
delivereth it plainely: That whatsoever a man shall have occasion to
speake of (if hee will take the paines), he may have it in effect
premeditate, 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.”

In other words, Bacon first constructed, then reconstructed from the
first writing, such portions as would fit the “names and times and
places, and such other Circumstances of Individuals,” about which he
wished to build a new structure of history, drama, or essay. The first
literary mosaic, containing dangerous matter, as well as much that
was not, was transposed--the relative position of its component parts
changed--to form the one we have known. The decipherer’s work is to
restore the fragments to their original form.

As intimated at the beginning, the value of anything I could say upon
the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy resolves itself into a question of
fact--Have I found a cipher, and has it been corectly applied?

I repeat, the question is out of the realm of literary comparisons
altogether. Literary probabilities or improbabilities have no longer
any bearing, and their discussion has become purely agitations of
the air: the sole question is--What are the facts? These cannot be
determined by slight or imperfect examinations, preconceived ideas,
abstract contemplation, or vigour of denunciation.

During a somewhat lengthy literary life, I have come to perceive the
sharp distinction between convictions on any subject and the possession
of knowledge. I know it is no light thing to say to those who love the
literature ascribed to Shakespeare, “You have worshiped a true divinity
at the wrong shrine,” and the iconoclast should come with knowledge
before he assails a faith.

The limits of this article will not permit me to do more in the way of
illustration; but I beg to assure the English public that I speak from
knowledge obtained at a cost of time, money, and injury to eye-sight
and health greater than I should care to mention.

I am satisfied that my work will not be disregarded; but instead, given
a respectful, kindly and intelligent examination in Great Britain, the
home of Shakespeare and Bacon.

I say nothing at this time of the validity of all the claims Bacon has
made; but if they are accepted there will presently be accorded to one
of the line of English kings the royal title of “the greatest literary
genius of all time.”

BOOK REVIEWS

BACON-SHAKESPEARE.

Mrs. Elizabeth Wells Gallup Throws New Light Upon the Mystifying
Question--The Bi-Literal Cipher.

_Detroit Free Press._

It is always difficult to make headway against a well-established
tradition. Hence argument going to prove that Shakespeare did not
write the dramas that have come down to us in his name, is discredited
largely because we have so long accepted his authorship as a matter
of fact. But the literature of the anti-Shakespeareans is increasing,
and the time is past when a contemptuous ejaculation or a shrug of
the shoulders can dispose of the evidence they have so carefully and
patiently constructed. In truth, the opponents of Shakespeare have been
met so often by this sort of rebuttal that they are becoming stronger
and more numerous every year.

That Shakespeare’s plays were not written by the William Shaksper of
Stratford, was probably first suggested by the discrepancy between
the plays and what we know of the man. That Francis Bacon, the great
scholar, profound thinker and literary genius of the Elizabethan era
might be their author was first suggested by similarity of philosophy
and sentiment, and parallelisms of thought and expression.

That Bacon’s was the greatest mind of his age is incontrovertible.
Pope calls him “the greatest genius that England, or perhaps any other
country, ever produced.” Lord Macaulay says: “Bacon’s mind was the most
exquisitely constructed intellect that has ever been bestowed upon any
of the children of men;” while Edmund Burke is even more eulogistic:
“Who is there that, hearing the name of Bacon, does not instantly
recognize everything; of genius, the most profound; of literature, the
most extensive; of discovery, the most penetrating; of observation of
human life, the most distinguishing and refined.”

If we can accept Mrs. Elizabeth Wells Gallup’s new book, “The
Bi-Literal Cipher of Francis Bacon,” as a genuine discovery and
the story it tells for what it purports to be--Bacon’s own--the
Bacon-Shakespeare controversy is forever at rest. There can be
no further doubt that Bacon wrote not only the plays ascribed to
Shakespeare, but also the works appearing under the names of Spenser
and Peele, Greene and Marlowe, and Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy. Mrs.
Gallup’s discovery of a cipher running through them all explains the
remarkable similarities that have perplexed critics by demonstrating
beyond a shadow of doubt--if we accept it at all--that Bacon’s genius
originated them all.

Some inquiries naturally suggest themselves. The first and most
natural question is, Was Bacon a writer of ciphers? The business
of statesmanship required skill in ciphers in his day, and little
important court and diplomatic business was carried on except under
such cover. Bacon’s earliest public experience was with Sir Amyas
Paulet for three years in the court of France, and his was one of the
brightest intellects of his time.

The next question is, Did he possess the cipher here used? This must
be answered in the affirmative, for it is found fully explained and
its uses pointed out in his Latin work, “De Augmentis,” the original
of which, published in 1624, has been submitted to the writer for
examination. It is found also translated in full in the standard
Spedding, Ellis & Heath edition of Bacon’s works, found in every
library.

A third question is, What is the nature and method of the cipher? We
cannot do better than quote directly from Bacon’s “Advancement of
Learning,” copied from this volume:

“For by this art a way is opened whereby a man may express and signify
the intentions of his mind at any distance of place, by objects which
may be presented to the eye and accommodated to the ear, provided
those objects be capable of a two-fold difference only--as by bells,
by trumpets, by lights and torches, by the reports of muskets, and any
instruments of a like nature.

“But to pursue our enterprise, when you address yourself to write
resolve your inward infolded letter into this Bi-literarie alphabet,
* * * together with this you must have a bi-formed alphabet, as well
capital letters as the smaller characters, in a double form, as fits
every man’s occasion.”

Bacon calls this the “omnia per omnia,” the all in all cipher, and
speaks of it as an invention of his own made while at the Court of
France, when he was but 16 or 18 years of age.

This cipher and its obvious adaptations, it is stated, is the basis
of nearly every alphabetical cipher code in present general use--the
alternating dot and dash of the Morse telegraph code, the long and
short exposure of light in the heliographic telegraph and the “wig-wag”
signals of flags or lights in the armies and navies of the world.

As used by Bacon, two slightly differing fonts of Italic type were
employed, one font representing the letter a, the other the letter b.
These were alternated in groups of five in his literature, each group
of five letters representing one letter of the alphabet in the secret
work. The full alphabet and several illustrations of the working of
the cipher in the original works are given; in fact, every possible
aid to the student and investigator who wishes to verify for himself
the existence of the cipher and the mode of its deciphering is freely
offered in the introduction, prefaces and fac-similes in Mrs. Gallup’s
work.

Assuming that the cipher is Bacon’s and that it has been accurately
transcribed, the story told the world in it is beyond the dreams of
romance; it is simply astounding.

The cipher story asserts that Bacon was the grandson of Henry VIII.,
the son of Queen Elizabeth and rightful heir to the throne of England.
That while imprisoned in the Tower of London, where Lord Leicester was
also confined, Elizabeth, before becoming queen, was secretly married
to Leicester. The issue of the marriage was two sons, the so-called
Francis Bacon--whose life was, there is little reason to doubt,
preserved through the womanly pity and compassion of Mistress Anne
Bacon--and Robert Devereaux, afterward Earl of Essex. The political
exigencies of the time did not admit the public acknowledgment of the
marriage. Francis was raised as the son of Nicholas and Anne Bacon, and
Elizabeth crowned as the Virgin Queen. It pleased her to continue the
deceit and Francis remained ignorant of his descent until about sixteen
years of age, when Elizabeth, in one of her historic rages, revealed
the truth to him and banished him to France.

Thenceforward Bacon’s life was one long disappointed hope, which found
expression in the secrecy of the cipher. This he interwove in every
original edition of his works, hoping, and intending, that in the long
future the cipher would be read, and he be justified in the opinion of
mankind. If his cipher was discovered too soon, his life would pay the
forfeit, if never, his labor would be in vain. In 1623, when 62 years
of age and near his death, he published the key to the cipher in “De
Augmentis” in the hope that it would lead to the unraveling. If this
volume is correct, it took 300 years of time and a bright American
woman to separate the web and woof.

If this story seems incredible, the literary claim is still more
so. The literary and philosophical works of Bacon are sufficiently
wonderful, without more. All reviewers and biographers regard him
as possessing one of the most wonderful intellects in the world’s
history. These opinions were based upon his known works. We are now
asked to believe that not only these, but the works ascribed to
Shakespeare, Spenser, Marlowe, Greene, Peele, Burton, and part of Ben
Jonson’s were written by him, and that in each and every one of them
this bi-literal cipher was placed, to the end that his rights and
claims, wrongs and sufferings could become known, at some time, to the
world.

Not the least of these marvels is that the “Anatomy of Melancholy” of
Robert Burton is found to have been published under the name of T.
Bright, when Burton was 10 years of age. A later edition is now found
to contain, in the bi-literal cipher, the Argument of the Iliad, with
portions freely translated into blank verse, differing in form from any
translation heretofore made and remarkable for elegance of style and
diction. Take for example a passage describing the outbreak between the
Greeks and Trojans, incited by Minerva by the order of Jove, at the
solicitation of Juno:

“As in the ocean wide,
A driving wind from the northwest comes forth
With force resistless, and the swelling waves
Succeed so fast that scarce an eye may see
Where one in pain doth bring another forth,
Till, on the rockie shore resounding loud
They spit forth foam white as the mountain snows,
And break themselves upon the o’er-jutting rocks--
Thus mightily, the Grecian phalanxes
Incessantly mov’d onward to th’ battaile.
It might not then be said that anie man
Possessed power of human speech or thought,
So silentlie did they their leaders follow
In reverentiall awe. Each chief commanded
The troops that came with him--each led his owne--
Glitt’ring in arms, bright shining as the sunne,
While in well ordered phalanxes they mov’d.

“The Trojan hosts were like unto a flock
Close in a penne folded at fall of night,
That bleating looked th’ waye their young ones went
And filled th’ avre with dire confusion--
Such was the noyse among the Trojan hosts.
No two gave utterance to the same crye,
So various were the nations and the countries
From whence they came. * * *

“Like wintry mountain torrent roaring loud
That frightes th’ shepheard in th’ deepe ravine
Mixing the floods tumultuously that poure
From forth an hundred gushing springs at once,
Thus did the deaf’ning battaile din arise,
When meeting in one place with direful force
In tumult and alarums th’ armies joyned.
Then might of warriour met an equall might;
Shields clasht on shields, the brazen spear on spear
While dying groans mixt with the battaile cry
In awesome sound; and steedes were fetlock deepe
In blood, fast flowing as the armies met.”

Still another chapter in the romance of Bacon’s life is disclosed in
the cipher. Because of a late and somewhat mercenary marriage, he has
been considered as having a cold nature, a conclusion hightened by
the loveless comments of his Essay on Love. But the cipher writing
discloses an early disappointment as the cause. While in France,
and 17, he was violently enamored of the beautiful but dissolute
Marguerite, wife of Henry of Navarre, and his senior by something
like eight years. A divorce from Henry and her union with Bacon, the
rightful Prince of Wales, was actually planned. The fair Marguerite
proved fickle also, but his writings are filled with references to
his affection for her which her falseness could not, apparently,
extinguish. He tells us himself that “Romeo and Juliet” was written
to picture their love, saying: “The joy of life ebb’d from our hearts
with our parting, and it never came againe into this bosom in full
flood-tide.” Another interesting episode brought out is Bacon’s account
of his brother’s treason and his self-justification and remorse at his
own part in the punishment that was meted out to him.

The verity of the cipher Mrs. Gallup has so painstakingly and with such
unwearied patience unfolded would seem to be sustained by the fact that
it is Bacon’s own invention, fully--even elaborately--set forth in
one of his later writings, when, Elizabeth being dead and he himself
near his end, he had less fear of consequences should his secret be
discovered--indeed, he came to fear it would not be discovered and that
he would not be justified to posterity.

So much of reserve as is due to lack of personal demonstration is
maintained by the writer, but here are 360 pages of deciphered matter,
with sufficient means of proof to satisfy any investigator. There can
be no middle ground; one must accept or deny it in toto. Either the
decipherer has made a most remarkable discovery to which the key has
been open for three centuries, or the book is equally remarkable from
an entirely different point of view. If accepted, truly “th’ tardy
epistle shall turn over an unknowne leaf of the historie of our land.”

FRANCIS BACON’S BI-LITERAL CIPHER.

BACONIANA, LONDON.

Before these lines are printed, Mrs. Gallup’s very important work on
“The Biliteral Cipher of Francis Bacon”[1] will have been for two
months in the hands of the public. Since it is probable that there may
be due discussion of its wonderful contents, it seems desirable to
say a few words, not by way of review or mere expression of personal
opinion (in such a case valueless), but in order to draw attention
to certain points which, if not at present capable of absolute
verification or contradiction, yet surely demand and are worthy of the
closest investigation. Questions of this kind must naturally arise, “Is
this cipher such as any person of ordinary intelligence can follow?
Is it provably correct? Has any one besides Mrs. Gallup succeeded in
depihering by the same means, and with similar results?”

These questions may without hesitation be answered in the affirmative.
With the explanation given by the great inventor himself, anyone can
master the method described in the _De Augmentis_ (Book VI.). Ordinary
patience and contrivance enable us to arrange two different alphabets
of Italic letters and to insert these in the printed type, forming
cipher sentences one-fifth in length of the “exterior” sentence or
passage. Thus to bury one story within another is easy enough. To
unearth it is another matter, and more difficult.

In the first place, there is nothing which particularly invites the
decipherer to discriminate between the two forms of Italic letters
which are essential to this typographical cipher; or, if differences or
deformities in letters are observed, we have been required to believe
them “errors,” defects in printing, carelessness of the compositor, or
anything else which may explain them away. Be not deceived; there is no
error, but consummate skill and subtle contrivance, all helping towards
the cryptographer’s great ends.

Before beginning the work of deciphering, it is needful thoroughly to
learn by heart the Biliteral Alphabet given by its Inventor in the
_De Augmentis_. Here we see that the letters of the common Alphabet
are formed by the combination of the letters A and B in five places,
these two letters (A and B) being represented by two distinct “founts”
of Italic type. To discriminate between these two founts, is the
initial difficulty; but observing that, in the Biliteral Alphabet, _A’s
preponderate_, and that _no combination begins with two B’s_, we judge
that the most frequent forms of Italic letters are almost certain to be
A’s. A decision is best arrived at by repeatedly tracing and drawing
out the various letters; and the decipherer must have keen eyes and
powers of observation to detect the minute differences. For our Francis
would not make things too easy. He speaks of “marks” and “signs” to be
heeded, and Roman letters are often interspersed. It is also patent
(and was found by Mrs. Gallup, and independently by others) that, in
every biliteral alphabet, letters are here and there intentionally
exchanged, as a device to confuse and confound the would-be decipherer.

In many cases we find alphabets suddenly reversed--A becoming B,
and B, A, a change hinted by some “mark” or “sign,” as a tiny dot.
These changes seem to occur most frequently in very small books,
where the limited space makes it the more needful to set snares and
stumbling-blocks at every turn. Such things show that, besides the good
eyes and keen wits required for successful deciphering, there must be
no small amount of that “eternal patience” which Michael Angelo honored
with the title of “genius.”

Let us contemplate the goodly volume presented to us by Mrs. Gallup,
and try to realize the fact that every one of those 350 pages of
deciphered matter was worked out _letter by letter_; that each ONE
letter in this deciphered work represents FIVE letters extracted from
the deciphered book--say, _Shakespeare_, or _Spenser_, _Burton_, or any
of the eight groups of works indicated in the cipher. Not only should
such reflections cause us highly to respect the “endless patience,”
perseverance, and skill of the cryptographer to whose labors we are
so deeply indebted, but they should warn us from depreciating or
discrediting statements or methods which we ourselves are incapable
of testing. “Disparage not the faith thou dost not know,” is a good,
sound principle to begin upon, and Francis (“cunyng in the humours
of persons”) had evidently observed the tendency of the human mind
to fly from things troublesome, or to take refuge in disparagement
and ridicule. His notes teem with reflections on this matter. “Things
above us are nothing to us”--“just nothing.” “Many things are thought
impossible until they are discovered, then men wonder that they had not
been seen long before.” On the other hand, he continually encourages
himself with thoughts, texts and proverbial philosophy, which we find
him instilling into his disciples. “Everything is subtile till it is
conceived.” “By trying, men gained Troy,” and so forth. But we must
“woorke as God woorkes,” wisely, quietly, with persistent patience and
unremitting care, and “from a good beginning cometh a good ending.”

So much, then, for the “biliteral” itself. Another crop of inquiries
springs up when we attempt briefly to rehearse the wonderful
revelations now before us, and which it is within our power to examine
and essay to prove.

Elizabeth, when princess, and prisoner in the hands of Mary, secretly
married Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. Of this secret marriage two
sons were born. Francis the elder would have been “put away privilie”
by the wicked woman whom he never could bring himself to think of as
“mother.” Lady Anne Bacon, however, saved his life, and under an oath
of secrecy adopted him as her own son. The scene when these facts came
to his knowledge, and again when they were tearfully confirmed by his
“deare,” “sweete mother,” Lady Anne, are graphically described in the
cipher narrative extracted from the “_History of Henry VII._” (Ed.
1622). Further details of the same extraordinary episode are, as may be
remembered, introduced in the “word cipher,” discovered, and in part
published, by Dr. Owen, some seven years ago. From the disclosures
made in the books deciphered, “it is evident,” says Mrs. Gallup, “that
Bacon expected the biliteral cipher to be the first discovered, and
that it would lead to the finding of his principal or word cipher
which it fully explains, and to which is intrusted the larger subjects
he desired to have preserved. This order has been reversed, in fact,
and the earlier discovery by Dr. Owen becomes a more remarkable
achievement, being entirely evolved without the aids which Bacon had
prepared in this for its elucidation.”

But to return to our story.

Francis was now sent abroad by Elizabeth’s orders (_not_, as has
been declared by his biographers, because Sir Nicholas Bacon wished
him to see the wonders of the world abroad, but) in order to get him
out of the way at the time when he had been the unwitting cause of a
Court scandal. He left England in the suite of Sir Amyas Paulet, the
English Ambassador. We know a little, and surmise more, concerning his
travels, and the places which he visited, or where he stayed studying
and writing. The sad story of his ill-fated love for “My Marguerite” is
briefly touched upon, rather as a thing understood to the reader than
as a record, and of this more will be related in a future volume. The
present extracts are from the undated 4to. of _Romeo and Juliet_, where
we may read:

“This stage-play, in part, will tell our real love-tale. A part is
in the Play previously nam’d or mention’d as having therein one
pretty scene acted by the two. So rare and most briefe the hard-won
happinesse, it affords us great content to re-live in the Play all that
as mist, in summer morning did roule away. It hath place in the dramas
containing a scene and theame of this nature, since our fond love
interpreted th’ harts o’ others, and in this joy, th’ joy of heaven was
faintlie guessed.”

In the closing lines of _King John_ are these instructions:

“Join _Romeo_ with _Troy’s_ famous _Cressida_ if you wish to know
my story. Cressida in this play with Juliet b----,” which, says the
Editor,[2] “ends the cipher in _King John_ with an incomplete word.
Turning to _Romeo and Juliet_ (p. 53), the remainder of the word and of
the broken sentence is continued, being a part of the description of
Marguerite, and the love Francis entertained for her.”

This love never faded from his heart, although before he married, at
the age of 47, he had, he says, hung up, as it were, the picture of
his love on the walls of memory. We remember the calm and uneffusive
fashion in which he then imparted to his friends the news that he had
found “a handsome maiden who pleased him well.” The tones in which he
bewailed his lost love are pitched in a different key.

“It is sometimes said, _no man can be wise and love_, and yet it would
be well to observe many will be wiser after a lesson such as wee long
ago conn’d. There was noe ease to our sufferi’g heart til our yeares of
life were eight lustres.[3] The faire face liveth ever in dreames, but
in inner pleasances only doth th’ sunnie vision come. This will make
clearlie seene why i’ the part a man doth play heerein and where-ere
man’s love is evident, strength hath remained unto the end--the want’n
Paris recov’ring by his latter venture much previouslie lost.”

A second son was born to Elizabeth, and named Robert, after his father,
the Earl of Leicester. Robert was “made ward” of Walter Devereaux, Earl
of Essex, who “died” conveniently and unexpectedly, when Robert was old
enough to succeed to his title and estates. At what period the brothers
became aware of their kinship has not yet been told in the cipher.
Francis describes the personal beauty, gallantry, and boldness of his
brother, and says that for these qualities Robert was a great favorite
with the Queen, who thought that he resembled herself. The tale is
still incomplete; but enough has already been disclosed to give us a
firm sketch of the miserable outline. We see Robert taking advantage of
the Queen’s doting fondness for him, and Francis endeavoring to keep
his ambition within bounds, and to smooth matters with his irascible
mother when, as was often the case, she became irritated beyond
endurance by his arrogant audacity. The aim of Essex was, not only
in the future to supplant his elder brother, but even in the Queen’s
lifetime to seize the crown, and rule as king. It is a dark and painful
page in history, and the more we read the less we marvel at the efforts
made by Elizabeth to destroy or garble the records of her own private
life, and of the times in which she lived. Having spoilt and indulged
Essex so long as she believed him devoted to herself, she turned upon
him “in a tigerlike spirit” when his treachery became patent, and
because Francis had spoken strongly on his brother’s behalf, and had
endeavored to shield him from the wrath of the Queen, she punished
him by forcing him, under pain of death, to conduct the case (in his
official capacity) against Essex, whom she had foredoomed to execution.
An allusion is made to the ring which the Queen expected Essex to send
her, but which miscarried. This story has been held doubtful, but it
seems as though we may find it true.

The sentence passed upon Essex was just; but the horror of the trial
and the circumstances connected with the execution, haunted Francis for
the rest of his life, his tender and sensitive nature, and his highly
strung imagination continually reviving, whilst they shrank from, the
recollection of the horrible details of which hereafter we shall have
to read. Although Francis speaks in affectionate terms of his “deere”
and cruelly used brother, we cannot but think that the tenderness
grew out of a deep pity; for Robert had long ago proved himself a
most selfish and unsatisfactory person, and a perpetual thorn in his
brother’s side, but, however this may have been, the gruesome tragedy
remained imprinted on his soul, and clouded and embittered his whole
life. “His references to the trial and execution of Essex, and the part
he was forced to take in his prosecution, are the subject of a wail
of unhappiness and ever-present remorse, with hopes and prayers that
the truth hidden in this cipher may be found out, and published to the
world in his justification.

“O God! forgiveness cometh from Thee; shut not this truest book, my
God! Shut out my past--love’s little sunny hour--if it soe please Thee,
and some of man’s worthy work; yet Essex’s tragedy here shew forth;
then posterity shall know him truly.”[4]

The Queen commanded Francis to write for publication an account of
the Earl of Essex’s treasons, and he did so. But the report was too
lenient, too tender for the reputation of the Earl to satisfy his
vindictive mother. She destroyed the document and with her own hand
wrote another which was published under his name, and for which he has
been held responsible. Such matters as these were State secrets, and
we cannot wonder that Elizabeth should have taken care by all means in
her power to prevent them from becoming public property by appearing
in print. We may well believe that, as the cipher tells us, all papers
were destroyed which were likely to bring dark things to light.
Nevertheless much must have gradually leaked out through the actors
themselves, and more must have been suspected, and only through dread
of the consequences withheld from general discussion. “See what a ready
tongue suspicion hath”; in private letters and hidden records the value
of which is perhaps now for the first time fully understood, evidence
is forthcoming to substantiate statements made in the deciphered pages
of Mrs. Gallup, and her forerunner, Dr. Owen.

The matter gathered from the deciphered pages is not limited to
personal or political history. For instance, speaking of the “_Anatomy
of Melancholy_” (edition, 1628), the Editor says:--“The extraordinary
part is that this edition conceals, in cipher, a very full and extended
prose summary--_argument_, Bacon calls it--of a translation of Homer’s
_Iliad_. In order that there may be no mistake as to its being Bacon’s
works, he precedes the translation with a brief reference to his royal
birth, and the wrongs he has suffered.... In the _De Augmentis_ is
found a similar extended synopsis of a translation of the _Odyssey_.
This, too, is introduced with a reference to Bacon’s personal history,
and although the text of the book is in Latin, the cipher is in
English.

“The decipherer is not a Greek scholar, and would be incapable of
creating these extended arguments, which differ widely in phrasing from
any translation extant, and are written in a free and flowing style.”[5]

Readers must not expect to find in this book which we are noticing,
a complete and shapely narrative explaining everything, and pouring
out before us the true story of our wonderful “concealed man” from
beginning to end. The cipher utterances are, for the most part, nothing
if not fragmentary. The writer himself says so, and adds that his
objects in thus trusting his secrets to the care of his friends and
to the judgment of time were, First, that he might hand down to the
future age the only faithful account of himself and his history, which
would ever be allowed to reach them. Secondly, he proposed to link his
unacknowledged works one with another in such a way that hereafter his
sons of science should from the hints given in one work be led on to
another, and so to another, until the vast mass of books, Historical,
Scientific, Poetical, Dramatical, Philosophical, which he wrote, should
be connected, welded together like an endless chain, and the true
history of the Great Restauration and of the English Renaissance fully
revealed.

THE BACONIAN CIPHER[6]--I.

BY FLEMING FULCHER.

THE COURT JOURNAL, LONDON.

Dr. Rawley, “his Lordship’s first and last chaplain,” relates in his
Life of Lord Bacon that “when his _History of King Henry the Seventh_
was to come forth, it was delivered to the old Lord Brooke to be
perused by him, who, when he had dispatched it, returned it to the
author with this eulogy: 'bid him take care to get good paper and inke;
for the work is incomparable.’” We think “the old Lord Brooke” would
have been justified in sending this message (with a change of pronoun)
to the authoress of _The Biliteral Cipher of Sir Francis Bacon_ (for
in its own way it is incomparable), and we think he would have been
satisfied with the result.

The book is divided into two parts, the first containing introductory
chapters, portraits, and facsimiles, while the second, rather more than
three-quarters of the book, consists entirely of the story deciphered.
The introductory chapters are short, pithy, and well-written, and are
full of literary interest. The first chapter, from the pen of Mrs.
Gallup herself, tells how she came to discover the existence of the
cipher in certain books, and gives a brief account of her work, a
work, to quote her own words, “arduous, exhausting and prolonged”;
and shows how, though her discovery “may change the names of some
of our idols,” we are gainers, not losers, by the change. If we can
find a fault in this chapter, it is that there is only enough of it
to whet our appetite for more details of the progress of her work.
Perhaps we may hope that she will satisfy us in this respect on a
future occasion when her work becomes widely known and read, as it
deserves to be. After Mrs. Gallup’s “personal” chapter there follows
the introduction to the first edition--printed for private circulation
only. It gives a short summary of the principal facts of the cipher
story, and touches on points of interest in connection with the cipher,
two of which we will briefly allude to here. It shows how the cipher
explains the reason for the extraordinary mispaging of the original
editions, carefully adhered to in all the copies, and of which no one
had previously been able to offer a satisfactory explanation; and it
touches on the curious history of _The Anatomy of Melancholy_, which
for nearly three centuries has been attributed to Burton, but which
the British Museum catalogue shows to have been first published under
another name when Burton was about ten years old, and of which in the
cipher story Francis Bacon claims the authorship. The preface of the
second edition, the one we are now considering and the first given to
the public, shows the cogent reasons Bacon had for using the cipher.
“Two distinct purposes,” says the author, “are served by the two
ciphers. The Biliteral was the foundation which was intended to lead
to the other, and is of prime importance in its directions concerning
the construction of the Word Cipher, the keys, and the epitome of the
topics which were to be written out by its aid. It seems also to have
been * * * a sort of diary * * * * and, as in many another diary, we
find the trend of the mind as affected by the varying moods--sometimes
sad and mournful--again defiant and rebellious--and again despondent,
almost in despair, that his wrongs might fail of discovery, even in the
times and land afar off to which he looked for greater honor and fame,
as well as vindication.

“Chafing under the cloud upon his birth, the victim of a destiny beyond
his control, which ever placed him in a false position, defrauded
of his birthright, which was of the highest, he committed to this
cipher the plaints of an outraged soul. * * * To the decipherer,
he unbends--to the rest of the world maintains the dignity which
marked his outward life. * * * It is a wonderful revelation of the
undercurrents of a hidden life.”

“Some Notes on the Shakespeare Plays,” and a reprint of an article on
Shorthand in the days of Elizabeth from the able pen of Mrs. H. Pott,
whose clear and logical mind, no less than her deep research into the
literature of Bacon’s time, makes her writings always welcome; and
lastly a brief sketch of the outlines of Bacon’s life, complete the
original portion of Part I. While the importance of these introductory
chapters lies for our immediate purpose in their application to the
Biliteral Cipher of Sir Francis Bacon, it would be difficult to
overestimate their intrinsic merit, literary and historical. We owe a
debt of gratitude to the authoress and publishers for their liberality
in the matter of facsimiles by which they enable us not only to follow
the deciphering but also to familiarize ourselves with the style and
appearance of the original editions of many old favorites, a privilege
hitherto almost confined to those who have time and opportunity for
visiting the great libraries. In this part are comprised Bacon’s
description of his Biliteral Cipher, with examples and double alphabet;
the frontispiece and preface to the _Novum Organum_, preceded by a
table of the double alphabet, by means of which the cipher is unfolded;
the Droeshout portrait and all the introductory pages of the famous
1623 folio of the Shakespeare plays; and the title pages of several
other of the deciphered works. The preface to the _Novum Organum_ is
also given in modern type, the two founts being marked _a_ and _b_
respectively, thus enabling the reader to follow _in extenso_ the
method of deciphering.

The portraits of Bacon, two in number, to which we have alluded, are
the well-known one in which he is seen in his Chancellor’s robes, and
the exquisite miniature of Hilyard surrounded by the noblest halo that
ever adorned a human portrait--“Si tabula daretur digna, animum mallem”
(“If it were possible to have a canvas worthy, I had rather paint his
mind”).

Of the second part, because it is the most important, we shall say
least. The story it tells is startling, fascinating, strange. As
fiction it would be unique; as history, though truth is proverbially
stranger than fiction, it is unparalleled. Nothing that can give
interest to a book is wanting. There is the excitement of discovery;
the triumph of hidden truth brought to light, of error refuted; the
romance of a great prince, robbed of his birthright, who finds his
consolation in winning a nobler realm--the kingdom of the mind; the
tragedy of a younger brother, a wild though generous spirit, seduced
by misdirected ambition into the thorny path of rebellion that leads
to the question and the block; the pathos of a noble soul torn by the
pangs of remorse for the part he was forced to take in that brother’s
death by the inexorable power of the loftiest sense of justice--that
power which impelled Lucius Junius Brutus to “call his sons to
punishment,” Marcus Brutus to robe his dagger in the imperial purple
of liberty drawn from the veins of his “best lover”; while the one
note wanting to complete the full chord of romance is struck in the
tale of a fruitless passion for the fair Queen of Navarre. Besides the
story of Bacon’s own life and times, or rather of that part of his
life and times hitherto unknown to history, the deciphered story gives
directions for working out his “Word Cipher,” and summaries of those
noble poems of Homer, the _Illiad_ and _Odyssey_, with some passages
translated into blank verse, which we think will compare favorably with
any previous translations.

A few words must suffice as to the style. As we have already quoted,
the book is a diary; and the exigencies of secrecy necessitate much
repetition. For, as Bacon himself notes in the cipher story, he could
not tell what book might be lost, or in which of those that survived,
his decipherer would first light on the discovery. Yet in parts the
writing rises to a great height of eloquence. We cannot resist the
temptation to quote two passages from the cipher which seem to us, each
in its own way, eminently beautiful. The first, though it refers only
to the difficulty of constructing the Word Cipher can, we think, hardly
be surpassed for happiness of metaphors or grace of diction. “’Tis the
labour of years,” says Bacon, “to provide th’ widely varied prose in
which the lines of verse have a faire haven, and lye anchor’d untill a
day when th’ coming pow’r may say: 'Hoist sayle, away! For the windes
of heav’n kisse your fairy streamers, and th’ tide is afloode. On to
thy destiny!’”

The second is the cry of a soul in anguish.

“O Source infinite of light, ere Time in existence was, save in Thy
creative plan, all this tragedy unfolded before Thee. A night of
Stygian darknesse encloseth us. My hope banish’d to realms above,
taketh its flight through th’ clear aire of the Scyences unto bright
daye with Thyselfe. As thou didst conceale Thy lawes in thick clouds,
enfolde them in shades of mysterious gloom, Thou didst infuse from Thy
spirit a desire to put the day’s glad work, th’ evening’s thought, and
midnight’s meditation to finde out their secret workings.

“Only thus can I banish from my thoughts my beloved brother’s untimely
cutting off and my wrongfull part in his tryale. O, had I then one
thought of th’ great change his death would cause--how life’s worth
would shrinke, and this world’s little golden sunshine be but as
collied night’s swifte lightning--this had never come as a hound of
th’ hunt to my idle thoughts.” Mrs. Gallup’s claim to have discovered
the existence of Francis Bacon’s Biliteral Cipher in many of the works
of his time is one which, in view of the story deciphered, will, if
substantiated, oblige us to rewrite a page of history and to tear a
mask from many an idol before which we have bowed for three centuries.
We shall, therefore, require the most convincing proofs of the _bona
fides_ of the discovery. The discussion of this question, however, we
leave to a future article.

THE BACONIAN CIPHER.--II.

BY FLEMING FULCHER.

Last week we reviewed the subject matter of “The Biliteral Cipher of
Sir Francis Bacon” by Mrs. Gallup. This week we have to redeem the
promise then made to discuss the claims which the discovery embodied in
it has on our credence. Let us first clearly define what that discovery
claims to be. It is not that Francis Bacon invented a cipher which he
calls “Biliteral.” That is a fact which has been known to the world for
three centuries. What the authoress claims to have discovered is that
this cipher is used in all the original editions of Bacon’s printed
works, and that she has deciphered the hidden story by means of it.
If this claim can be substantiated, it will decide once for all the
Bacon _v._ Shakespeare controversy in favor of the former, for in the
deciphered story Bacon claims the authorship of the Shakespeare plays
and poems, as well as of other works which we have been accustomed to
attribute, in some cases on little or no evidence, to others of his
“masques.”

Some fifty years ago the theory was started, independently on both
sides of the Atlantic, that “Shakespeare” was in reality only a
pen-name of Francis Bacon, and that it is to that great genius, not to
the actor of Stratford-on-Avon, that the world owes its finest dramas.
A storm of derision, of course, greeted the theory, as it does every
theory that attacks a generally accepted belief, however erroneous; and
it was only necessary to hold the theory to be at once classed with
the inmates of a lunatic asylum--though one would hardly have supposed
such an institution a suitable residence (_exempli gratia_) for Lord
Palmerston. Just such a storm of ridicule, coupled with persecution,
happily for “Baconians” impossible in the nineteenth century, greeted
Galileo’s discovery that the earth moves round the sun. “E puo si
muove,” and during the past fifty years the Baconian theory, under
the influence of careful and patient investigation of internal and
external evidence, has been steadily gaining ground. A fair example
of the way in which the Baconian theory is met by its adversaries is
the reply which was given to a friend of the present writer by a
well-known scholar and “Shakespearian” authority: “If Shakespeare were
to rise from the grave and tell me that Bacon was the author of the
plays, I would not believe him.” Take another typical specimen; it is
a criticism (save the mark!) on the work we are now considering that
appeared recently in a daily contemporary:--“A fresh campaign by the
Baconian zealots is threatened. Mrs. Elizabeth Wells Gallup claims to
have discovered and deciphered the mysterious secrets which Bacon,
she would have us believe, buried in his writings. In the 'Biliteral
Cipher of Sir Francis Bacon,’ Greene, Peele, and Marlowe, as well as
Shakespeare, all go by the board; Sir Francis explains to Mrs. Gallup
that their dramatic works were written by him alone. The proofs, she
says, are 'overwhelming and irresistible.’ The day will come when
Macaulay’s New Zealander will debate whether Bacon was a solar myth or
a sort of Homer, who gathered together all Elizabethan literature in
a--cipher.” But ridicule and invective are not argument, prejudice is
not proof. “Some of our friends,” we used to be told in our childhood,
“are for warning, others for example.” Taking those we have quoted
for warning, let us give a fair and open-minded consideration to Mrs.
Gallup’s claims.

To do this it will be necessary to describe Bacon’s Biliteral Cipher.
His own description of it may be seen in any edition of his _De
Augmentis_. Its principle is extremely simple, being, in fact, that
of the Morse Code at present used in telegraphy--namely, various
combinations of two differences. Thus, if we have two dissimilar
things or sets of things, represented, let us suppose, by _a_ and
_b_ respectively, there are thirty-two different ways in which we
can arrange them in sets of five; as, for example, _aaaaa_, _aaaab_,
_aaaba_, and so on. (It should be noted that in these groups _a_ and
_b_ are merely used as symbols to represent two differences which might
be equally well represented by dots and dashes or any other convenient
symbols.) Now, by using twenty-four such groups, out of the possible
thirty-two, and letting each stand for a different letter of the
alphabet (in Bacon’s day I and J counted as one letter, as did also U
and V), we can communicate by means of two differences with anyone who
knows what letter each group stands for. Bacon’s method, the advantage
of which lies in being able to insert anything in anything--_omnia
per omnia_, as he says--is to have two complete sets, or “founts” as
they are called, of type, which he designates the _a_ and _b_ fount
respectively. All that is then necessary is to write out the secret
message in its biliteral form letter for letter over or under the
matter to be printed, and, as each letter is required, to take it from
the _a_ or _b_ fount according as the one or the other letter appears
against it. For example, suppose the words to be printed are “The Court
Journal,” and that we want to “infold” in this the signature “Fr. B.,”
and suppose our _a_ fount to consist of Latin and our _b_ fount of
Italic letters. Now, in Bacon’s biliteral alphabet F is represented
by a a b a b, R by b a a a a, and B by a a a a b. Our MS. would,
therefore, appear thus:

THE COURT JOURNAL,

aab abbaa aaaaaab

In printing we should take the T and H from the _a_ fount, the E from
the _b_ fount, and so on. The words would then appear thus:

TH_E_ _COU_RT JOURNA_L_.

The decipherer would mark the letters according to their respective
founts, divide it into groups of five, and, knowing what letter each
group stands for, would read “Fr. B.”

In these days of publicity we find it hard to accept anything that
savors of mystery, and tolerance of opinion and freedom of speech
have made it difficult to credit that a man should have had motive
sufficient for putting a cipher in his books. Yet, at the present
day all internal state correspondence is carried on in cipher. Why?
Because every other state is a potential enemy. And this same reason
made cipher writing common among individuals in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, for in those days when “a man’s head stood
tickle on his shoulders” every other individual, with perhaps the
exception of a few intimates, was a potential enemy. But in the case of
Francis Bacon there are special reasons why we should not wonder at his
putting a cipher, and that his own Biliteral Cipher, into his published
works; and we shall be able to show that so far from its being strange
that he should do so, it would be strange had he not. He invented
this cipher at the age of about sixteen or seventeen, when he was in
Paris. Nearly thirty years later, in 1605, he published his great
philosophical work _Of the Advancement of Learning_. It is significant
that he should have thought ciphers of sufficient importance to be
touched on in his work, and that he should have alluded to this
particular cipher as “the highest degree of cyphers which is to write
OMNIA PER OMNIA.”

In 1623 he published a Latin version of _The Advancement_ under the
title _De Augmentis Scientiarum_. This is not even a mere translation.
The book has been entirely rewritten and greatly enlarged, and is
translated into Latin professedly because he feared that the English
language wanted stability, while he believed that Latin would be the
language of the learned for all time. Surely now, after nearly two
crowded decades of Statecraft, of Law, of Philosophy, in which he has
“sounded all the depths and shoals of honour,” the eminent statesman,
the learned lawyer, the profound philosopher will find no room in his
immortal work for what we are apt to consider an ingenious amusement
for a schoolboy. Far from being omitted, however, the paragraph on
ciphers is enlarged to some pages, the greater part devoted to a
detailed description and examples of the cipher alluded to by him
nearly a score of years before, invented by him nearly half a century
earlier. But before we can realize the full force of these facts it
will be necessary to glance at some of the leading traits of Bacon’s
character. It is not too much to say that most people’s knowledge of
this great man is derived--directly or indirectly--almost exclusively
from one essay and one line of poetry; while few have read anything of
his writings except his essays. Macaulay’s essay, as far as it deals
with the moral side of Bacon’s character, is probably the greatest
libel on a great man that ever masqueraded in the “weed” of criticism,
and Pope’s line is the text of Macaulay’s essay in half a dozen words.
Both have painted as the portrait of Bacon a figure impossible in
human nature, “a vast idol,” as Hepworth Dixon well expresses it, “the
head of gold and feet of clay.” But this writer and Spedding have
dipped deep into the well of Truth, and with her waters have washed
away the mud which had been flung by the envious hands of the pigmy
contemporaries over whom Francis Bacon towered, and have shown the
whole figure to be sterling gold from head to foot. Even Macaulay and
Pope, however, while they mistake Bacon’s moral nature, acknowledge
the vastness and exquisiteness of his intellect, though again on this
side they fail to appreciate fully his “infinite capacity for taking
pains.” “His understanding,” says the brilliant essayist, “with great
minuteness of observation had an aptitude of comprehension such as has
never yet been vouchsafed to any other human being. The small fine mind
of Labruyere had not a more delicate tact than the large intellect
of Bacon. * * * His understanding resembled the tent which the fairy
Paribanov gave to Prince Ahmed. Fold it; and it seemed a toy for the
hand of a lady. Spread it; and the armies of powerful Sultans might
repose beneath its shade.”

Bacon’s, then, was just such a temperament as would have delighted
in the continual application of his cipher; one to which the
great labor involved--a labor which to most would be insufferable
drudgery--would have been a congenial exercise or might have proved
a welcome distraction from painful memories. There is one more point
which has an important bearing in this connection. The guiding star
of Bacon’s life was utility. Everything he studied--and what did he
not study?--he studied with a view to the use that could be made of
it. And utility was the mainspring of his least actions no less than
of his loftiest philosophy. If this be granted, and we believe no one
will for a moment dispute it, we have the strongest probability, nay,
the absolute certainty, that he used the cipher which he invented and
published. But where? Only one answer is possible--“In his printed
works.” For we have seen that it is to be performed by means of two
founts of type. One more question naturally suggests itself. “Had he
adequate motives for imposing on himself the labor which the extensive
use of the cipher involves?” This can only be answered when the secret
is no longer a secret, when the cipher is deciphered. The story as
deciphered by Mrs. Gallup gives an emphatic answer in the affirmative.
The statements unfolded by her are such that, while their publication
during his lifetime would have been productive of no good, it would
have cost him his life. But in the interests of truth and for his own
justification he wished them to be given to a future age. It was with
this object that he began to use the cipher, and he continued its
use as a distraction from the agonies of retrospection. We have now
established, as we think, beyond contradiction, the fact that so far
from being incredulous as to the existence of the biliteral cipher in
Bacon’s works, we ought to expect it. How is it, then, the reader will
say, that it has remained undiscovered for so long? It is the old story
once more of Columbus and the egg, or, as Mrs. Gallup aptly quotes from
Bacon himself, “in which sort of things it is the manner of men, first
to wonder that such a thing should be possible, and after it is found
out, to wonder again how the world should miss it so long.”

THE BACONIAN CIPHER.--III.

BY FLEMING FULCHER.

Our discussion of this question last week led us by _à priori_ argument
to the conclusion that Francis Bacon had put a cipher story into his
printed works.

Now, either this long-neglected cipher has at last been discovered
and deciphered or it has not. That is a truism. In the latter case
two, and only two, hypotheses are possible; if they can be shown to be
false, the affirmative proposition is established. These two hypotheses
are--(1) that a deliberate fraud is being perpetrated; (2) that with
perfectly honest intentions our authoress has, to use a familiar
expression, “cooked” the cipher, and consequently the story is in
reality the creation of her own brain. It would be a wonderful brain,
indeed, that could have devised and executed such a work. The first
supposition, we do not hesitate to say, will be at once dismissed by
anyone who has even a slight acquaintance with the authoress. But as
this is a privilege necessarily denied to the great majority of our
readers, let us examine the question impersonally and impartially on
its own merits. The “fraud” hypothesis would mean this--that the author
had deliberately invented the whole story, and stated without the
slightest foundation in fact that when resolved into Francis Bacon’s
biliteral alphabet it would be found to correspond, letter by letter,
with the two founts of Italic type which occur in such profusion in the
works deciphered--for it is through the Italics that the cipher runs.
Of the existence of different founts of Italic type in these works
there is no question. It has long been known, though never hitherto
explained; and anyone can verify this assertion by a glance at the
original editions, or at the facsimiles in _The Biliteral Cipher of Sir
Francis Bacon_.

Now, to ensure this correspondence between the cipher story and
the Italic print it would be necessary to count the letters in the
latter--in itself a task almost as great as the genuine deciphering.
And this would be but a small part of the labor required. It would
be far surpassed by the immense amount of literary, linguistic, and
historical knowledge and research indispensable for the avoidance of
errors which would soon be detected by the critics, and which would
at once expose the fraud. Again, we might easily conceive that the
author of our hypothetical fraud would pretend to find a secret history
of Bacon’s time, with all its tragic interest, but it would be hard
indeed to imagine that the idea would suggest itself of pretending
to find summaries of and poetical translations from the _Iliad_ and
the _Odyssey_, or that the author would be capable of expressing them
with such true Baconian intuition and freedom as they display. Still
less is it likely that the author would run the risk of wearying his
readers with directions for working out another cipher, which would
also, presumably, be non-existent, or with frequent repetitions, which,
however, will be seen to be necessary if the cipher is genuine. These
considerations, we are aware, though they amount to a moral certainty
of the impossibility of the “fraud” hypothesis, do not constitute a
mathematical proof of it. There is, however, one which seems to us
to do so. In the case of some of the letters the differences between
the two founts are so slight that it would be difficult, without more
study than most people would be prepared to give, to pronounce with
certainty to which fount these letters belonged. But, on the other
hand, in the case of many of the letters--most of the capitals and
some of the small letters--the differences are “so plaine as thou
canst not erre therein.” Now, as these letters stand in fixed places
and must be marked always _a_ or _b_ according to their respective
founts, the fraud would at once be detected, for it is a mathematical
impossibility that the _a_'s and _b_'s of the biliteral form of a story
not composed with reference to the actual letters could always fall in
the right place. So much for the fraud hypothesis. The hypothesis of
unintentional “cooking” may be very briefly dismissed. We had intended
to give some rough calculations which would have demonstrated the
untenability of this theory, but space and our readers’ patience, or
rather the certain want of the one and the probable exhaustion of the
other, forbid. When, however, it is considered that the cipher story
has to be got out letter by letter from the printed matter; that it
takes five letters of the latter to make one of the former; and that
if one letter were got out it would give no assistance in extracting
the next; unless there were a cipher there, it will be seen that no
assistance would be obtained from the doubtful letters, and that it
would be impossible to obtain any sense in this way. We have now fairly
examined the only two hypotheses on which it is possible that Mrs.
Gallup’s claim can be a “bogus” one, and proved them false. Thus we
are driven by the inexorable force of logic to the only remaining
conclusion: That Francis Bacon did put a cipher into his printed works;
that Mrs. Gallup has discovered it and has translated it.

We had intended to produce much corroborative evidence which, though
we now find it superfluous, we believe would have been interesting.
The exigencies of space again prevent us. One piece, however, is so
curious that we feel sure our readers will pardon us if we produce it.
We can vouch for the fact that it was unknown to our authoress when
the statement it corroborates was deciphered. In the north of London
there is still standing a square building of red brick, dating from
the reign of Henry VIII., which is known as Canonbury Tower. That in
no history of the tower, nor in any life of Bacon is mention made of
its being connected with him, is only one of the numerous instances of
the mystery which always meets us when we try to search deeper into the
life of Francis Bacon. Yet research at one of the public libraries has
recently elicited the fact that he took a lease of it for ninety-nine
years, that he lived there for some time, apparently in charge of the
Princes Henry and Charles, sons of James I., and that he was actually
living there at the time he received the seals.

Close under the ceiling, on the wall, in a dark corner of a passage in
the Tower, is painted an inscription consisting of the Sovereigns of
England from the Conquest. The names are mostly abbreviated, and with
one exception follow each other in the recognized order. But between
Elizabeth and James stands, in the same way as the other abbreviations,
Fr. No explanation of this interpolation appeared until the deciphered
story brought to light the facts that Queen Elizabeth was secretly
married to the Earl of Leicester, and that the great man whom we have
known as Francis Bacon was in reality her first-born son, and therefore
the true, though unacknowledged, heir to the throne.

We must not conclude without a slight tribute, not the less sincere
that it must of necessity be brief, to the merits of Mrs. Gallup’s
brilliant discovery, and the patient diligence with which she has
gradually unrolled the cerements and brought to light one by one truths
so long buried. We feel almost tempted to envy the feelings which
must have swept over her as the first sentence came to light from its
cipher tomb. They must have been such as stirred the soul of Columbus
when, after the long night of impatient expectation, the light of
morning broke and revealed to his triumphant gaze the shores of the
new continent. Let us frankly confess our gratitude to our authoress,
who has enabled us to feel once more the “touch of a vanished hand,”
to hear once more “the sound of a voice that is still”--a hand that
was ever stretched down from lofty height to help and raise humanity,
a voice that will ring trumpet-tongued through all ages--the hand and
voice of one who “had an aspect as if he pitied men.”

The reference to Canonbury Tower, by Mr. Fulcher, renders the
following quotations from a late number of “Baconiana” of
especial interest, as tracing the history of this ancient and
historic pile. The building is in a good state of preservation.
The lines are in an obscure part of the building but are
plainly observable, as was verified by a personal examination
on the part of Mrs. Gallup, in November last. It is one of the
interesting corroborations which are accumulating, and now
being understood in the light of the cipher disclosures, going
to show that Francis was entitled to a place in the line of
England’s kings.

A NEW LIGHT.

ON THE BACON--SHAKESPEARE CYPHER.

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY AND AFTER.--LONDON.

Of all the critical paradoxes that have ever been seriously advocated,
few have been received with such general and derisive indifference
as that which declares Bacon to have been the author of the dramas
ascribed to Shakespeare, and which couples this declaration with
another--more startling still--that these dramas are not dramas only,
but are besides a series of writings in cypher, whose inner meaning
bears no relation whatever to their ostensible meaning as dramas, but
which consist of memoranda or memoirs concerning Bacon himself, and
secrets of Queen Elizabeth. The mere theory that Bacon was the real
author of the plays, though the mass of Shakespeare’s readers still set
it down as an illusion, does not, indeed, contain anything essentially
shocking to common sense. On the contrary, it is generally recognised
that on purely _à priori_ grounds there is less to shock common sense
in the idea that those wonderful compositions were the work of a
scholar, a philosopher, a statesman, and a profound man of the world,
than there is in the idea that they were the work of a notoriously
ill-educated actor, who seems to have found some difficulty in signing
his own name. This latter idea, which is still generally accepted, has
little evidence to support it beyond tradition, which is strong, and
strong only, in the absence of evidence to the contrary; and were such
evidence forthcoming, it would be impossible for the candid mind to
reject it on the grounds that it pointed to any improbable conclusion.

But with regard to the theory of the cypher the case is different. This
is generally rejected or neglected both by scholars and the reading
public, not on the ground that the evidence for it is insufficient,
but on the ground that it is in itself so unlikely, so fantastic,
so impossible that it is not worth a sane man’s while to consider
the misguided ingenuities by which a few literary monomaniacs have
endeavoured to make it plausible. How is it possible, the ordinary
man asks, to believe that the finest and profoundest poetry in the
world--that the verses which give us in music the love of Romeo and
Juliet, the torture of Hamlet’s philosophy, the majestic calm of
Prospero’s--was composed, or rather constructed, as an elaborate verbal
puzzle, the object of which was to preserve for some future decipherer
a collection of political and mainly personal information, which
the author was too timid to confide himself to his contemporaries?
We might just as well believe that _Paradise Lost_ is in reality a
kind of _Pepys’ Diary_, in which the poet has recorded for posterity
the curtain-lectures of Mrs. Milton. Such is the argument which the
ordinary man uses; and if he consents to consider the matter a little
farther, and finds, as he will find, that the advocates of the cypher
theory maintain that Bacon, in the Shakespearian plays, has hidden away
not one cypher but six, his dismissal of their theory will be yet more
curt and contemptuous. Of this attitude of mind I am able to speak with
sympathy, for the excellent reason that it was till lately my own.
A remarkable volume, however, known at present to surprisingly few
readers, has been recently published, dealing with the subject before
us--a volume which at first I glanced at with apathetic distrust,
but which has caused me, when I read it carefully, to reconsider the
question. The contents of this volume I shall here briefly summarise,
leaving the reader to escape from its conclusions if he can. The volume
is called _The Bi-literal Cypher of Francis Bacon_. It was first,
I believe, printed privately, less than two years ago; and a small
second edition was issued last year to the public. I will begin with
describing its exact scope, which is limited. Of the six Baconian
cyphers alleged to exist in _Shakespeare_, this volume deals only
with one; and it is with this one only that I shall ask the reader to
concern himself.

The biliteral cypher possesses two remarkable characteristics, which it
is desirable to mention at starting, because they at once dispose of
all those _à priori_ objections which suggest themselves, as we have
just seen, against the cypher theory generally. In the first place
this cypher, whether it exists in the Shakespearian plays or not, is
demonstrably not the invention of any modern literary lunatic. It was
invented by Bacon himself; and an elaborate account of it, together
with examples of its use, is to be found, as will be shown presently,
in one of his most celebrated works. In the second place--and this is
a point which it is still more important to urge on the _à priori_
sceptic--the biliteral cypher has nothing whatever to do with the
composition or the wording of the works into which it is introduced.
There might be a biliteral cypher in _Hamlet_ from end to end, without
any thought of a cypher having been present to the author when he was
writing it. It is, in other words, altogether a matter of typography.
It depends not on what the author writes, but on the manner in which
he is printed. Accordingly, when what we may call the Baconian party
informs the world that they have discovered a biliteral cypher, of
which the author is Bacon, running through the plays of Shakespeare,
they are really indulging in a gross inaccuracy of language, which
does much to prevent a fair hearing being accorded to them. What they
really mean is that this biliteral cypher runs not through the plays
themselves, but through one particular edition of them--that is to say,
the celebrated first folio. This edition, as every student knows, is
remarkable for many extraordinary anomalies in its typography. Of these
anomalies an explanation is now for the first time offered to us. They
are presented to us--and it is claimed that they are thus explained
completely--as part and parcel of the newly discovered typographical
cypher. If we take these devices away the cypher disappears with them.
If we resort, with the aid of the printer, to devices of the same
kind, we could embody the cypher anew, and every sentence that Bacon
committed to it, in any book we might choose to reprint, so far as
its length permitted--in _Pickwick_, in _Vanity Fair_, in Tupper’s
_Proverbial Philosophy_, in the _Apocalypse of St. John_, or in the
advertisement-sheet of the _Times_.

I will now proceed to describe what the nature of the cypher is; and it
shall first be introduced to the reader in the words of Bacon himself.
In the _De Augmentis Scientiarum_ Bacon writes thus:[7]

Let us come to Cyphars. Their kinds are many, as Cyphars
simple, Cyphars intermixt with Nulloes, or Non-significant
characters; Cyphars of double letters under one character;
Wheele-cyphars, Kay-cyphars, Cyphars of Words, Others.... But
that jealousies may be taken away, we will annexe one other
invention, which, in truth, we devised in our own youth, when
we were in Paris: and it is a thing which yet seemeth to us
not worthy to be lost. It containeth _the highest degree of
Cypher_, which is to signify _omnia per omnia_, yet so as
the writng _infolding_ may bear a quintuple relation to the
writing infolded. No other condition or restriction whatsoever
is required. It shall be performed thus. First, let all the
letters of the alphabet, by transposition, be resolved into two
letters onely; for the transposition of two letters by five
placings will be sufficient for thirty-two differences, much
more for twenty-four, which is the number of the alphabet. The
example of such an alphabet is in this wise:

A aaaaa I abaaa R baaaa
B aaaab K abaab S baaab
C aaaba L ababa T baaba
D aaabb M ababb V baabb
E aabaa N abbaa W babaa
F aabab O abbab X babab
G aabba P abbba Y babba
H aabbb Q abbbb Z babbb

... When you addresse yourself to write, resolve your inward
infolded letter into this Bi-literarie Alphabet. Say the
interior letter be 'Fuge.’

_Example of Solution_

F U G E
aabab baabb aabba aabaa

Together with this you must have ready at hand a bi-formed
Alphabet, which may represent all the letters of the _Common
Alphabet_, as well Capitall Letters as the Smaller Characters,
in _a double forme_, as may fit every man’s occasion.

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b
{ _A_ ~A~ _a_ ~a~ _B_ ~B~ _b_ ~b~ _C_ ~C~ _c_ ~c~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b
{ _D_ ~D~ _d_ ~d~ _E_ ~E~ _e_ ~e~ _F_ ~F~ _f_ ~f~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b a b
{ _G_ ~G~ _g_ ~g~ _H_ ~H~ _h_ ~h~ _I_ ~I~ _i_ ~i~ _j_ ~j~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b
{ _K_ ~K~ _k_ ~k~ _L_ ~L~ _l_ ~l~ _M_ ~M~ _m_ ~m~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b
{ _N_ ~N~ _n_ ~n~ _O_ ~O~ _o_ ~o~ _P_ ~P~ _p_ ~p~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b
{ _Q_ ~Q~ _q_ ~q~ _R_ ~R~ _r_ ~r~ _S_ ~S~ _s_ ~s~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b a b
{ _T_ ~T~ _t_ ~t~ _V_ ~V~ _v_ ~v~ _u_ ~u~ _W_ ~W~ _w_ ~w~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b
{ _X_ ~X~ _x_ ~x~ _Y_ ~Y~ _y_ ~y~ _Z_ ~Z~ _z_ ~z~

Now to the interior letter which is bi-literate, you shall fit
a bi-formed exterior letter, which shall answer the other,
letter for letter, and afterwards set it downe. Let the
_exterior_ example be, _Manere te volo, donec Venero_.

_An Example of Accommodation._

F U G E
a a b a b . b a a b b . a a b b a . a a b a a
_Ma ~n~ e ~r e~ te ~vo~ lo ~do~ n ec ~v~ en [ero]_

From this short example Bacon then proceeds to a longer one. He takes
an entire page from one of Cicero’s letters, and so prints it in
italics from two founts, similar to those in the alphabet just given,
that it infolds an interior letter from a Spartan general, 'Sent once
in a _scytale_, or round cypher’d staffe.’ The quotation from Cicero it
is unnecessary to give here. It is sufficient to say that, as printed
by Bacon, the ordinary reader would detect nothing out of the common
in it; but when once his eye is made alert by the knowledge that its
characters are drawn from two different founts of type, he can, by the
aid of the alphabets supplied by Bacon, easily decipher for himself the
Spartan message infolded in it.

It is the above passage, occurring in Bacon’s own work, which has led
to the alleged discovery set forth in the volume with which we are
now dealing; and the history of the discovery, as we there find it,
is curious. For a considerable time an American student, Dr. Owen,
had been working at the elucidation of another cypher altogether,
also alleged to be Bacon’s, and to exist in the Shakespearian plays.
This is the word-cypher. With its details we need not here concern
ourselves. It is enough to say that an American lady, Mrs. Gallup, was
his assistant. The above passage from Bacon arrested her attention, and
she became convinced that the Bi-literal Cypher had been described by
its inventor with special ulterior purpose and might possibly be found
co-existing in Shakespearian plays with the others. She was fortified
in this idea by the well known and unexplained peculiarities in the
printing of the first folio to which I have already alluded, and she
claims that on examining this volume she found her suspicions correct.
The result has been the book under review. After its publication Mrs.
Gallup came to England, her sole object being to examine certain rare
old books which could not be procured in America and find if possible
the first inception of the cypher writings, and in this she claims
to have been successful.[8] Before going farther I will direct the
reader’s attention once again to the bi-literal cypher itself, and
endeavor to make the nature of it clearer to him than it will probably
have been made by Bacon’s own, somewhat clumsy, exposition of it.

In the first place it should be observed that Bacon’s own name for
it--'bi-literal’--is essentially inaccurate and misleading. He means
by the word 'bi-literal’ that the letters of his second alphabet are
all formed out of two--that is to say, 'a’ and 'b,’ by arranging them
variously in so many groups of five. But the letters 'a’ and 'b,’ when
used for this purpose, are properly speaking not letters at all. They
have no phonetic value, they are simply arbitrary signs. Their function
would be fulfilled equally well or better by dots and dashes (. and
--), or else by the longs and shorts (- and °) which are familiar
to every schoolboy as symbols of prosodical quantity. The cypher is
a cypher of two signs, not of two letters. It is, in fact, merely a
species of Morse Code. Let the reader look back to the bi-literal code
or alphabet, as formulated by Bacon himself; and, for an example, let
him take four letters--a, b, e, and l--which I choose merely because
several different words can be spelt with them. He will see that for
'a’ the symbol is five 'a’s (a a a a a), for 'b’ four 'a’s and a 'b’ (a
a a a b), for 'e’ two 'a’s, a 'b’, and two 'a’s (a a b a a), and for
'l’ two consecutive 'a b’s and one 'a’ (a b a b a). Let him rid himself
of these 'a’s and 'b’s, and substitute dots and dashes; let every 'b’
be a dash, and every 'a’ a dot. The result will be just the same, and
his mind will most likely be clearer. His code signs for these four
letters will be as follows: A .....; B ....--; E ..--..; L.--.--. Now
let him write, in this code, 'ale,’ 'all,’ 'ball,’ 'bell,’ 'Abel.’ No
exercise could be easier. 'Ale’ will be ......--.--. ..--..; 'All’ will
be ......--.--..--.--.; 'Ball’ will be ....-- ..... .--.--..--.--.;
'Bell’ will be ....-- ..--...--.--. .--.--.; and 'Abel’ will be .....
....-- ..--...--.--. Now we come to the next part of our problem.
Having written 'ale,’ 'all,’ 'ball,’ 'bell,’ and 'Abel’ in dots and
dashes--which constitutes, we will suppose, some message which we wish
to convey--our next task is to hide this in a series of words with
which, seemingly, our message shall have no connection. For the moment,
instead of adopting the precise method of Bacon, let us take a much
cruder one, which will be at once grasped by everybody. Let us make
every capital letter signify a dot in our code, and every small letter
a dash; and let us arrange the code symbols of our five words in a
line, thus:

· · · · · | · - · - · | · · - · · | · · · · · | · - · - · | · - · - ·

· · · · - | · · · · · | · - · - · | · - · - · | · · · · - | · · - · ·

· - · - · | · - · - · | · · · · · | · · · · - | · · - · · | · - · - ·

We have here a series of ninety dots and dashes, and all we need now
do is to take any sentence we please--any chance fragment, whether
of prose or poetry--which contains not less than ninety letters, and
ignoring the ordinary use of small letters and capitals, write it
in such a way as to put a capital for every dot and a small letter
for every dash. Let us take, for example, the first verses of Gray’s
'Elegy,’ and write it in this manner. What we shall get is as follows:

THECU RfEwT OLlST HEKNE LlOfP ArTiN GDAYt
HELOW InGhE RdWiN DSSLo WLyOE RtHeL EaThE
PLOUG HMANh OMeWA RdPlO &c.

All the five words with which we started are here contained in our
cypher; and the decipherer has only to perform the childishly simple
task of putting a dot under each capital and a dash under each
small letter, and he has them back again in the form given above.
To illustrate the complete independence of what Bacon calls the
'infolding’ document from the 'infolded,’ let us set, one under the
other, one of Gray’s lines, and some different sets of words altogether.

THECU RfEwT OLlST HEKNE LlOfP ArTiN GDAY
OFMAN SfIrS TDiSO BEDIE NcEaN DtHeF RUIT
SINGA SoNgO FSiXP ENCEA BABfU LlOfR YEFO (ur) &c.

Every one of these lines, when resolved into dots and dashes, will be
the same, and will read thus:

· · · · · | · - · - · | · · - · · | · · · · · | · - · - · | · - · - ·
a | l | e | a | |

( · · · · - &c.)
( (b) &c.)

Bacon’s system differs from this merely in the fact that, instead of
using the capitals and the small letters of one ordinary alphabet as
the equivalents respectively of his 'a’s and 'b’s--that is to say, of
his dots and dashes--he uses two italic alphabets, of capitals and
small letters, complete; both the capitals and small letters of one
meaning dots or 'a’s, and the capitals and small letters of the other
meaning dashes or 'b’s. Let us now proceed to adopt his system a little
more nearly ourselves, diverging from it only in the fact that our two
complete alphabets, instead of being two slightly different varieties
of italics, shall consist, the one of italics and the other of ordinary
type, the italics representing the 'a’s or dots, the ordinary letters
the 'b’s or dashes; and we will, as preliminary examples, imagine
two cases, parallel to that which is alleged to be Bacon’s own. The
following lines are Byron’s, which I quote from memory; and they are
printed in accordance with the principles just laid down:

_S_a_int_ P_e_t_er s_a_t at t_h_e_ c_el_e_s_t_ia_l _gate_;
_The ke_y_s_ wer_e rusty_, a_n_d t_he lock w_as d_ull_,
So _l_i_ttl_e t_rouble h_a_d b_e_en g_ive_n of lat_e.
_No_t t_ha_t _the_ pla_ce_ by _any mea_n_s was_ f_ul_l,
_But_ sin_c_e t_h_e G_allic_ er_a_ E_ig_h_t_y-e_ig_h_t_
_Th_e de_vi_l_s had ta_'en _a_ lo_n_g_er, str_on_ger_ pu_ll_,
_A_nd a _pu_ll _a_l_l t_o_get_her, as _they say_
At _s_ea, _w_h_i_ch _dre_w _mos_t _sou_l_s the ot_he_r way_.

_T_he _a_ng_e_l_s_ al_l w_e_re singing o_u_t of t_un_e_,
_A_n_d ho_a_r_s_e_ wit_h_ ha_vi_ng l_i_t_tle el_s_e to_ d_o_,
_E_xc_eptin_g _to_ w_ind_ u_p th_e su_n_ a_nd moon_,
_And_ c_u_rb _a ru_n_aw_a_y yo_u_ng st_a[r or two, &c.]

To this passage, before examining it, let us add some others from
Milton, printed in the same manner; and let us imagine, for reasons
which will appear presently, that we have an edition of Milton in which
certain passages, and certain passages only--those which we shall
quote being among them--are printed in these two characters, and are
consequently at once distinguishable from the rest of the text.

_O_f _man_'s _fir_s_t_ dis_obe_d_ien_ce, a_n_d _t_he _f_r_uit_
O_f_ t_hat f_o_r_bid_de_n _tre_e, wh_o_s_e mo_r_tal_ t_aste_
B_r_o_u_gh_t de_at_h_ in_t_o t_he_ w_orl_d and _all ou_r wo_e_,
_W_it_h_ l_os_s _of E_d_e_n, ti_ll_ on_e_ g_r_ea_t_er _m_an
_R_e_st_o_re_ u_s, a_nd _r_e_g_a_i_n th_o_se _b_l_iss_f_ul seat_s,
_S_ing _Hea_v_e_n_l_y Muse.

* * * * *

_A l_itt_l_e _onward_ le_nd_ t_hy g_ui_di_ng ha_n_d
_To t_h_es_e _dark s_t_e_p_s--a li_t_tl_e _far_t_h_er _on,_
_For yonde_r _bank_ h_a_s _c_ho_i_c_e o_f _sun an_d _sh_a_de_.

* * * * *

_T_h_e_ su_n to_ me _i_s d_a_r_k_
_A_n_d s_i_le_nt _a_s _t_h_e_ m_o_o_n_
Wh_en sh_e _de_s_erts th_e n_ight,_
_H_i_d in_ h_e_r _v_a_can_t _in_t_erl_un_ar_ c_av_e.

* * * * *

Y_et_ o_n_ce _m_o_r_e, _oh y_e _lau_r_el_s, _and_ o_nce_ mor_e_
_Y_e m_y_r_t_le_s_ br_own, and_ i_v_y _n_ev_e_r _s_er_e_,
I _c_o_m_e _t_o _plu_c_k y_our _b_er_r_ie_s h_ar_s_h _a_n_d cru_de,
_A_n_d wit_h f_orc_ed _f_in_g_e_rs_ rude
Shatter your leaves, &c., &c.

Now in the above passages, if we except only the fact that the dots
and dashes of the cypher are represented in these by italics and
ordinary letters, whereas Bacon employs two slightly different forms of
italics, we have the biliteral cypher exemplified completely, though
with extreme simplicity. But we have not this only. As the reader will
see presently, we have exemplified in them also another of the claims
now made for Bacon in relation to works published under another name.
It may amuse some readers to extract the cypher in these passages for
themselves. They will begin thus, putting dots under the italics and
dashes under the ordinary letters:

_S_a_int_ P_e_t_er s_a_t at_.
.-... -.-.. .-. ..

They will then divide these dots and dashes into groups of five,
thus:.--..., --.--..,.--...; and on turning to Bacon’s code, already
given, they will find that these three groups mean I. W. I. Pursuing
this method, they will find that in the passage from Byron the
following meaning is 'infolded:’

'I, William Wordsworth, am the author of the Byron poems. Don Juan
contains my private prayers.’

In the passages from Milton, the 'infolded’ meaning is this:

'I, S. Pepys, in this and oth’r poems [Now to my Sams’n] hide my secret
frailties [Now to Lycidas] lest my wife, poor fool, should know.’

The reader will see from these examples how easily, if it were not for
the existence of copyright, any author might republish the works of
any other, introducing a cypher into them, in which he claimed them as
his own composition, and deposited in them any secrets which he wished
both to record and hide. The passages taken from Milton illustrate
certain farther points. The bi-literal cypher of Bacon exists, it is
alleged, in the first folio of Shakespeare, in those parts only which
are printed in italics, the end of one fragment of the secret writing
often breaking off in the middle of a letter, which is completed at
the beginning of another italic passage farther on, and sometimes in
another play; and parentheses occur like those in our imagined cypher
by Pepys, directing the decipherer where to look for the continuations.

The general character, then, of this biliteral cypher, and the manner
in which it is alleged to have been inserted in one edition of the
Shakespearian plays, must now be perfectly clear to even the most
careless reader; and we may therefore pass on to another portion of
our subject; for the claim of the Baconian theorists does not by any
means end with what they declare they have proved with regard to
the first folio of Shakespeare. They claim that the same cypher has
been introduced by Bacon into early or first editions of a number
of other works, some bearing his own name, and admittedly written
by himself, others bearing the name of well known persons, his
contemporaries. These include his own _Advancement of Learning_, 1605,
his _Novum Organum_, 1620, and his _History of Henry VII._, 1622; the
_Complaints_, 1591, and the _Colin Clout_, 1595, published under the
name of Spenser, and the edition of the _Faerie Queen_, 1596; certain
editions of certain plays ascribed to the four dramatists, Peele,
Greene, Marlowe, and Ben Jonson; and the edition published in 1628
of _The Anatomy of Melancholy_. Some of these works, in spite of the
presence of the cypher in them, it is not even claimed that Bacon
wrote himself. For example, so we are told, he expressly says in his
cypher that he used certain plays of Ben Jonson, with Ben Jonson’s own
permission, as a vehicle for his secret writing, having had, with the
exception of a few short masques, no part in the composition of any
of them. Bacon does claim, however, unless his cypher is altogether
an illusion, that of many of the works into which the cypher was
printed, he was himself the actual author--notably _The Anatomy of
Melancholy_, and the whole of the plays called Shakespeare’s. On this
latter point he insists over and over again, declaring that he borrowed
Shakespeare’s name as a pseudonym, and describing him as being nothing
more than the most accomplished actor of his time.

I say this, let me repeat, on the supposition that the cypher is not
altogether an illusion. Before considering whether this supposition is
correct, let us accept it for the moment as being so, and see what are
the conclusions which it forces on us. Of the four hundred and fifty
pages of which Mrs. Gallup’s volume, _The Bi-literal Cypher of Francis
Bacon_, consists, about three hundred and fifty are occupied with what
purport to be secret writings of Bacon’s, deciphered letter by letter,
from the passages printed in italics, in certain specified editions of
certain works, some published under other names, some admittedly his
own. Of these three hundred and fifty pages of secret writings, about
fifteen have been extracted from Spenser, Greene, Peele, and Marlowe,
and twenty-three from Ben Jonson; about a hundred and twenty-five from
writings admittedly his own, such as the _Novum Organum_ and _The New
Atlantis_, more than ninety from Burton, and more than fifty from the
first folio of Shakespeare. Much more, however, it is averred, remains
to be deciphered still.

And now let us ask what, continuing to suppose them genuine, these
secret writings contain, and why the author wrote them in such a
way. Described generally, they are a species of diary, comparable to
that of Pepys, also written in cypher--a diary to which the author
confides thoughts and hopes and feelings too intimate to be revealed to
contemporaries, and secrets the mere hinting of which would have placed
his life in danger. Of these it is enough for our present purpose to
mention a few.

Bacon declares in his cypher over and over again that he was not what
he appeared to be. He was not, as the world supposed, the son of Sir
Nicholas Bacon, but the son of the Queen of England by a private
marriage with Leicester--her eldest son and rightful heir to the
throne. He was ignorant of the fact till he reached his sixteenth year,
when he heard the story hinted by one of the ladies of the Court.
The Queen, in a fit of anger, admitted to him that it was true, the
marriage having taken place secretly in the Tower of London, when the
Queen, before her accession, and Leicester were both confined there.
For political reasons it was necessary to keep this a profound secret,
and the child was confided to Anne and Nicholas Bacon, to be brought
up as their own and educated as a private person, the Queen being
determined never, under any circumstances, to acknowledge him. To
reveal the truth himself would, he believed, be to forfeit his life;
and hence, smarting under an obstinate sense of wrong, he confided
his history to the keeping of elaborate cyphers, trusting that future
students would unravel them for a future age. The moment the Queen
found that the boy had discovered his parentage he was sent to France
under the care of Sir Amyas Paulet, and did not come back to England
till the death of his foster-father. When in France he conceived
an absorbing and romantic passion for Marguerite, wife of Henry of
Navarre, who returned or pretended to return it. Expectations were
rife at the time that she and her husband were to be divorced; and Sir
Amyas Paulet attempted to arrange with Queen Elizabeth that, should
the divorce take place, Marguerite and Bacon should be married. The
divorce, however, was not obtained, nor would Queen Elizabeth listen to
the proposal. This early romance made a profound impression on Bacon,
and he wrote, long afterwards, _Romeo and Juliet_ in commemoration of
it.

Another part of the story which he tells is this. He was not, he says,
the Queen’s only child by Leicester. He had a brother, and this brother
was Essex; and of all the incidents of his life with regard to which
he is most anxious to set forth the truth and with regard to which he
fears that his memory is most likely to be wronged, those connected
with his conduct towards his unfortunate brother stand foremost.

That he does not venture openly to give even a hint of the truth with
regard to this matter, or his parentage and rightful position, he
declares with an almost wearisome and not very dignified persistence;
and he is, he says, driven to hide himself in tortuous cyphers, which
will keep him safe as a coney hiding in a valley of rocks.

On the contents of the biliteral cypher, considered under their more
general aspect, we need not dwell longer. Enough has been said to
show that, if it be a genuine document, the author had intelligible
reasons for embodying it in this singular form. What mainly concerns
us here is its purely literary significance, especially as regards
the authorship of the so-called plays of Shakespeare. The mere fact
that this biliteral Baconian cypher is incorporated in the first
collected edition of these plays does not in itself prove, as we have
seen already, that Bacon was the author of _King John_ and _Romeo and
Juliet_, any more than it proves that he was the author of _The Fox_,
which, though the same cypher occurs in it, is admitted to be Ben
Jonson’s. The only evidence as to this point with which the biliteral
cypher supplies us consists not in its existence in an edition of
Shakespeare’s plays, but solely in the assertions which it contains
that Bacon did actually write them, coupled with further statements
relating to other cyphers--the word-cypher more particularly, also
alleged to be contained in them. So far as concerns the biliteral
cypher itself, the mere assertions as to authorship which Bacon makes
by means of it have as much or as little value as they would have
had had he made them openly. Their value depends on the value we are
inclined to attach to his word, coupled with the probabilities of the
case as estimated by the critic and the historian. The word-cypher,
however, stands on a different footing. It depends on the text itself,
not on the manner in which the text is printed; and the author of
this cypher must necessarily have been the author of the plays. Now
the biliteral cypher contains, if it really be a genuine document,
elaborate instructions as to the word-cypher, and directions as to the
method of unravelling it. That such instructions should be given if
the word-cypher is a mere illusion, we need hardly say is incredible.
Hence, according to all rules of common sense, our belief in the former
carries with it a belief in the latter; and a belief in the latter--the
word-cypher--also carries with it the further belief that Bacon
actually was the author of the Shakespearian plays.

Whether such be the case or no, it is not my purpose to inquire. All
that at this moment I am anxious to impress upon the reader is the
fact that, in taking their stand on this new alleged discovery--this
discovery of a cypher heretofore not dreamed of--a typographical cypher
depending on the use of two printer’s alphabets, nearly alike but yet
ascertainably different, the Baconians have shifted this controversy to
wholly novel ground. The word-cypher is a cypher which, even those who
believe in it admit, requires for its interpretation a certain amount
of conjecture; but the biliteral cypher, if it exists at all, can be
proved to exist, or, in the opposite case, it can be proved to be a
mere hallucination, by the aid of a magnifying-glass applied to certain
printed pages. There is no occasion here for any abstruse literary
reasoning. There is no occasion for any literary reasoning at all.
Either certain editions of the various books in question--the first
folio of Shakespeare being the most important and the most famous of
them--are, in so far as the italicised portions of them are concerned,
systematically printed in letters from two different founts of type, or
they are not. If, as is absolutely indisputable, two different founts
are used, the letters from these founts are used in such a manner that,
when separated into groups of five, and expressed as dots and dashes,
each of these groups will denote a single letter, in accordance with
the code set forth by Bacon himself; or else they will not do this,
or will do so only by accident, most of the groups having no meaning
whatsoever. And lastly, if these groups do assume a consecutive
meaning, and actually give us a series of single letters, the letters
will form words and intelligible sentences, or they will not. The whole
case is one for simple ocular demonstration.

To make this demonstration conclusive in the eyes of the world
generally would, no doubt, demand some time and labour. The question
is, are there sufficient _primâ facie_ grounds for supposing that
possibly the Baconian theory is true, to make it worth while for
sceptics to undertake the inquiry? For my own part, unhesitatingly I
venture to say that there are. In the first place, this cypher, as
no one can deny, was familiar to Bacon, who claims to have himself
invented it. He has himself admittedly supplied us with our specimen
page of it, a passage from Cicero, reproduced by Mrs. Gallup in
photographic facsimile, together with a companion page, in which
Bacon has placed side by side the two alphabets employed, so that
the differences between their respective letters may be more easily
realised. Thus the biliteral cypher exists in one page of Bacon’s works
at all events. There is nothing, therefore, fantastic in the idea that
it may exist elsewhere. The only possibility of any doubt with regard
to the question is due altogether to a purely physical circumstance.
The types employed in printing the specimen passage from Cicero were
designedly made of such a size, and the differences between the two
alphabets were accentuated in such a manner, that the ordinary eye
could readily learn to distinguish the letters that stand for dashes
from those that stand for dots. Even here, however, the differences
are for the most part so small and delicate that, in order to perceive
them, we must scrutinise the page attentively; and an hour of such
attention may elapse before we cease to be puzzled. But in the first
folio of Shakespeare, as in most of the other volumes in which it is
contended that the same type occurs, the type is much smaller. Although
even the naked eye can be soon trained to perceive that in many cases
the letters belong to different founts, yet these differences are of so
minute a kind that in other cases they elude the eye without the aid of
a magnifying-glass; and even with the aid of a magnifying-glass--I say
this from experience--the eye of the amateur, at all events, remains
doubtful, and unable to assign the letters to this alphabet or to that.
The majority of educated persons, therefore, in the present state of
the controversy, if they give to the italicised passages of the first
Shakespearian folio and the other books in question only so much
time and attention as may be expected from interested amateurs, may
reasonably, if not rightly, entertain the opinion that the larger part
of the differences alleged to exist between the italic letters employed
are entirely imaginary, since their eyes are unable to detect them;
that the supposed cypher is altogether a delusion, and has been read
into the texts, not out of them, by Mrs. Gallup and her coadjutors.

On the other hand, the fact that the amateur finds himself, after
weeks of study, still completely bewildered in his attempt to allocate
the various letters to two different founts of type, in such a way
as to elicit a sentence or even a word in groups of dots and dashes,
according to the Baconian code, must not be taken too hastily as a
proof that the alleged cypher is imaginary. Mrs. Gallup has done much,
though not so much as she might have done, to enable her readers to
settle this point for themselves. She has reproduced in facsimile from
the original editions Bacon’s preface to the _Novum Organum_, 1620;
and the Epistle Dedicatory of the so-called Spenser’s _Complaints_,
1591, in both of which it is contended that the Baconian cypher occurs.
She gives similar facsimiles also of the Epistle Dedicatory, and the
Commendatory Verses prefixed to the first folio of Shakespeare. She
gives also an enlarged diagram of the different forms of italics used
by Bacon in the printing of the _Novum Organum_; and of his preface to
that work, and of the Epistle Dedicatory of Spenser’s _Complaints_, she
gives the cypher meaning extracted letter by letter, each italic being
thus allocated to its own alleged fount. Is this allocation merely
fanciful or not?

I have studied for some weeks Mrs. Gallup’s facsimilies myself, and
I give my experience, purely as that of an amateur, for what it is
worth. When I examined the facsimiles first I could make nothing out of
them; and of those from the first folio I can make very little still.
All the letters seemed too much alike to allow of my separating them
systematically into two founts of type. Differences which I thought I
had discovered at one moment altogether vanished the next, and gave
place to others, which soon, in their turn, escaped me. But with regard
to the facsimiles from the _Novum Organum_ and Spenser’s _Complaints_
the case was otherwise, and for a very simple reason. In the facsimiles
from the folio the type is extremely small, the original page having
been reduced so as to accommodate it to an octavo volume. But in the
Bacon and Spenser facsimiles the type is of the size of the original.
It is comparatively large, and a study of it is proportionately easier.
In these pages I was very soon able to distinguish the different founts
to which several of the letters belong. I could presently do the same
with regard to several letters more; and at last I was more or less
master of two-thirds of the alphabet in such a way that I was able,
with some confidence, to translate them, when in one form into a dot,
and when in another form into a dash. I have tried this experiment with
a large number of passages, and, comparing my interpretations with
that of Mrs. Gallup herself, I have found that it coincides with hers,
sometimes in four cases out of seven, and not infrequently in five.
Many of the letters still continued to baffle me; but with regard to
some I found myself always right; and the dots or dashes into which I
had resolved these have invariably coincided with the requirements of
the cypher, as Mrs. Gallup interprets it. It appears to me to be almost
inconceivable that multiplied coincidences such as these can be the
work of chance, or that they can originate otherwise than in the fact
that in these pages at all events--the preface to the _Novum Organum_,
printed in 1620, and in the Dedication of Spenser’s _Complaints_,
printed in 1591--a biliteral cypher exists, in both cases the work
of Bacon; and if such a cypher really exists here, the probabilities
are overwhelming that Mrs. Gallup is right, and that we shall find it
existing in the first folio of Shakespeare also.

It is unfortunate that Mrs. Gallup, whilst giving us the facsimiles
already mentioned, has not given us any from the Shakespearian plays
themselves, together with specimens of the cypher in them, interpreted
letter by letter. I doubt, however, if such facsimiles would be
conclusive if the page of the original folio were reduced to the size
of an octavo. The process which ought to be adopted is one entirely the
reverse of this. Passages from the first folio should be given not in
a reduced but in an enlarged facsimile, so that the letters should, if
possible, be something like half an inch high. Copies, moreover, of the
letters, in all the forms in which they occur, should be arranged side
by side in alphabets, according to the founts to which they belong;
and a very few passages, if enlarged and illustrated thus, would be
sufficient to show whether the admitted peculiarities of the type are
merely accidental, as has vaguely been assumed hitherto, or are really
the vehicle of an elaborately arranged cypher.

In order to show the reader that Bacon’s biliteral cypher can easily be
printed in such a way that the inexperienced eye would wholly fail to
detect it, and the uninstructed critic would reject its existence as a
myth, I subjoin a passage taken from Bacon’s own chapter on cyphers:

~N~_ei_~t~_her_ ~is i~_t a_ ~s~_ma_~l~_l th_~in~_g t_~h~_ese_
_cyp_~h~_er cha_~ra~_c_~t~_er_~s~ _h_~av~_e, an_~d~ _ma_~y~
~pe~_rforme._ ~F~_or_ ~b~_y t_~h~_is_ ~A~_rt a_ ~w~_a_~y~
~is~ _ope_~n~_ed_ _where_~b~_y a man m_~a~_y ex_~pre~_sse_
_and s_~i~_g_~n~_ifi_~e~ _th_~e~ _int_~e~_ntio_~ns~ _of_
~his~ _mi_~n~_de at a_~ny~ _dista_~n~_ce of p_~la~_ce_, _b_~y
obj~_ec_~t~_s wh_~i~_ch_ ~m~_ay be pr_~e~_s_~e~_nted_ _t_~o~
_his eye an_~de~ _ac_~com~_modat_~ed~ _to_ ~t~_he_ _e_~ar~_e
p_~r~_ovi_~ded~ ~t~_hose o_~bj~_e_~ct~_s b_~e~ ~c~_ap_~ab~_le
o_~f a tw~_of_~o~_ld d_~iff~_er_~e~_nce_ _on_~ly~,
~a~_s b_~y be~_lls,_ ~b~_y_ ~t~_ru_~m~_pe_~ts~, ~b~_y_
_l_~i~_ght_~s~, _b_~y~ _tor_~c~_hes, by th_~e~ _re_~po~_rt_
~o~_f m_~u~_ske_~t~_s, and by_ ~an~_y instrum_~e~_n_~ts~
_o_~f li~_ke_ ~n~_a_~t~_ure._ ~B~_ut_ ~t~_o pur_~s~_ue o_~ur~
_en_~t~_erpris_~e~ _when...._

Into this passage I have printed the following lines in cypher:

The star of Shakespeare pales; but, brighter far,
Burns, through the dusk he leaves, an ampler star.

Founts of italic type might be found the differences between which
would be much more minute than those existing between the two used
here, but which would yet be visible to the trained eye of a printer’s
reader, and by means of which a cypher might be printed quite legible
to the expert, but undistinguishable for all the world besides. If,
therefore, a biliteral Bacon’s cypher does really exist in the first
folio of Shakespeare, we must be prepared to find that the unravelling
of it is a matter of considerable difficulty, and that the ocular
evidences of its existence are a long time in becoming plain to us.

I must now draw attention to another aspect of the question. If the
cypher does not really exist, the entire matter, amounting to between
three and four hundred pages, which Mrs. Gallup professes to have
deciphered, is an elaborate literary forgery. I recommend the reader
to study these pages, and ask if their character is such as to suggest
this conclusion. I can here quote one passage only, which is alleged
to have been printed, not into the Shakespearian folio, but into the
_New Atlantis_. It refers to the writer’s supposed early love affair.
If it be a forgery, it is one of extraordinary ingenuity; so full does
it seem to me of pathetic and dignified beauty, and so strongly does it
bear the marks of genuine and acute sincerity.

Th’ fame of th’ gay French Court had come to me even then, and
it was flattering to th’ youthfull and most naturall love o’
th’ affaires taking us from my native land, insomuch as th’
secret commission had been entrusted to me, which required
most true wisdome for safer, speedier conduct then ’twould
have if left to th’ common course of businesse. Soe with much
interessed, though sometimes apprehensive minde, I made myself
ready to accompany Sir Amyias to that sunny land o’ th’ South
I learned so supremely to love, that afterwards I would have
left England and every hope of advancement, to remain my
whole life there. Nor yet could this be due to th’ delight of
th’ country by itselfe; for love o’ sweete Marguerite, th’
beautifull young sister o’ th’ king (married to gallant Henry
th’ King o’ Navarre) did make it Eden to my innocent heart; and
even when I learned her perfidie, love did keepe her like th’
angels in my thoughts half o’ th’ time--as to th’ other half
she was devilish, and I myselfe was plung’d into hell. This
lasted duri’g many yeares, and, not until four decades or eight
lustres o’ my life were outliv’d, did I take any other to my
sore heart. Then I married th’ woman who hath put Marguerite
from my memorie--rather I should say hath banished her portrait
to th’ walles of memorie only, where it doth hang in th’ pure
undimmed beauty of those early dayes.

W. H. MALLOCK.

THE NEW SHAKESPEARE-BACON CONTROVERSY.

BY GARRETT P. SERVISS.

THE COSMOPOLITAN, NEW YORK, MARCH, 1902.

That smoldering question which nothing seems able to extinguish, “Did
Shakespeare write the Shakespeare plays?” and the related question, “Is
there a cipher hidden in those plays, which not only reveals their real
authorship but betrays important state secrets of the time of Queen
Elizabeth?” have just been brought before the public mind in a new and
startling aspect.

And this time the problem is presented in a form which renders it
capable of being submitted to something like a scientific test. It
is, in fact, put upon a mechanical basis, so that it becomes a mere
question of distinguishing between different shapes of printers’ types.

Mrs. Elizabeth W. Gallup, of Detroit, Michigan, avers that while
engaged in an examination of old editions of the works of Francis
Bacon, trying to trace there a “Cipher Story,” the key to which was
discovered by Dr. O. W. Owen, to whom she was acting as an assistant,
she became convinced that the careful explanation which Bacon has
given in his celebrated work, _De Augmentis Scientiarum_, of a species
of secret writing, invented by him, and which he calls a “Bi-literal
Cipher,” was intended to serve some other purpose besides that of a
mere treatise on the subject.

This Cipher is based upon the use of two slightly different fonts of
type and, as we shall presently see, has nothing whatever to do with
the literary form or sense of the books in which it is alleged to be
concealed.

Remembering those puzzling italicized passages that occur in the First
Folio edition of Shakespeare’s Plays, published in 1623, and for
which no satisfactory explanation has ever been offered, Mrs. Gallup
immediately examined them to see if, perchance, the bi-literal cipher
described by Bacon might not be found in them. Apparently she was not
confident of success, but, to her great surprise, as she affirms, the
cipher was there!

She began to read it out, and if the story of what she says she found
is true, nobody can wonder that she felt she had made _the_ literary
discovery of the age.

Let us say at once that it is not only in the Shakespeare Plays that
the alleged cipher is hidden, but it appears also in the works that
were published under Bacon’s own name, being confined, as in the plays,
to the italicized portions--italicized for no discoverable reason--and
also, surprising to relate, in a variety of other books of the
Elizabethan period, such as Spenser’s _Shepherd’s Calendar_ and _Faerie
Queene_, Burton’s _Anatomy of Melancholy_, the plays of Peele, Greene
and Marlowe, and even some parts of the plays of Ben Jonson.

Through all of these works, according to Mrs. Gallup, who has just
filled a large octavo volume with her asserted revelations, runs a
story, composed by Francis Bacon, and repeated over and over again, in
varying, but never contradictory, forms, in which he affirms that he
was the son of Queen Elizabeth by Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester,
to whom she was secretly married in the Tower of London when before her
accession to the throne, both she and the Earl were imprisoned there;
that, in order to keep his birth secret, he was given, while a child,
to Sir Nicholas Bacon and his wife Anne, who brought him up as if he
were their own son; that he did not discover the truth about his birth
until he was sixteen years old, when an intimation of it reached his
ears through the indiscretion of a lady of the court, and then his
mother, the Queen, in a fit of passion, confessed the truth to him, and
immediately afterward sent him away to France in charge of Sir Amyas
Paulet; and that while he was in southern France he fell in love with
Marguerite, the beautiful wife of King Henry of Navarre, and the play
of _Romeo and Juliet_ was afterward based upon this romantic episode in
his life. In other parts of the story Bacon is represented as affirming
that Queen Elizabeth had another son from her secret union with the
Earl of Leicester, this being no less a person than the Earl of Essex,
who was afterward executed for high treason by his mother’s command.
Essex was thus, according to the story, Bacon’s younger brother, and,
in the Cipher, Bacon appears as constantly lamenting the share which he
unwillingly had in the tragic fate of his brother.

This story, whether it truly exists in the alleged Cipher or is the
product of imagination, cannot fail to hold the reader’s attention, but
before pursuing it farther let us see what the Bi-literal Cipher is.

In his work, _De Augmentis Scientiarum_, Bacon first shows that a
cipher alphabet can be formed by various transpositions of the two
leading letters of the ordinary alphabet, a and b, in sets of five,
each set representing one letter of the Cipher, thus:

* * * * *

Such an alphabet in itself would be of no use for secret writing. For
instance, let us print the word “Bacon” in it. It would run: aaaab,
aaaaa, aaaba, abbab, abbaa. If a series of sentences were written,
or printed, in that manner it is evident that the merest tyro would
quickly discover the key and decipher the message.

Bacon’s next step, then, is to contrive a way in which the alphabet
above described can be “infolded” in a printed book so that each set
of five successive letters composing the words of the book, without
changing their order and without reference to the meaning that they
convey to the ordinary reader, shall represent one of the letters of
the hidden Cipher. For this purpose it is necessary to employ two fonts
of type, in which the forms of the letters slightly differ. Call one
the “a font” and the other the “b font;” then every letter in the “a
font” will stand for “a” in making up the sets of five a’s and b’s that
compose the letters of the cipher alphabet, and similarly every letter
of the b-font will stand for “b.”

* * * * *

_Note_: _An extended illustration of the working out of
the cipher is omitted here, the manner of it being fully
illustrated in two other parts of the volume._

Thus, by simply printing three sentences, containing one hundred and
twenty-five letters in two kinds of type, another entirely different
sentence, containing only twenty-five letters, is inclosed in them,
and can be read only by one who holds the clue to the double system of
types, which Bacon calls a Bi-literal Cipher. It is not necessary in
any manner to interfere with the order of the words in the original
work, and any book in existence could be made to hold a cipher of this
kind. The only restriction upon the proceedings of the person who
inserts the cipher is imposed by the necessity of using up five letters
of the original for every one letter of his inclosed cipher.

In Bacon’s alleged use of the Cipher he is said to have included it
only in the italicized portions of the books wherein it is found, using
two fonts of Italic letters.

Now, even if the existence of such a Cipher in the Folio Edition of
Shakespeare’s Plays, whose typographical eccentricities have long been
a puzzle, can be established, that fact would not in itself affect the
question of the authorship of the Plays. Being simply a matter of the
types employed, any printer, if he had the opportunity--not to speak of
a sufficient motive--could have inserted the story which Mrs. Gallup
professes to have extracted.

Of course Bacon himself could thus have inserted it without having had
anything to do with the original composition of the Plays. In fact,
however, he claims in the alleged Cipher Story that he was the real
author of those immortal compositions, as well as of other books, such
as Spenser’s _Faerie Queene_ and Marlowe’s plays.

But the reader is likely to say: “This is so simple a matter that
it should have been cleared up long ago. If there are two kinds
of type used in the Folio Edition of Shakespeare’s Plays, and if
all the italicized portions are printed in that manner, and filled
with a secret story, it ought to be the easiest thing in the world
to establish the fact by simple examination.” So it would be if
the fonts of type alleged to have been employed by Bacon were as
clearly distinguished from one another as are those which he used
in illustrating the principle of the Bi-literal Cipher in his _De
Augmentis_, or those which we have selected for a similar purpose.
But, in fact, there is no such clear distinction. It may indeed
be said that Bacon would have defeated his own end by making the
differences of type manifest at the first glance. He had to choose
letters which should be so nearly alike that they would pass under the
ordinary reader’s eyes without exciting suspicion, and yet should be
sufficiently varied to be distinguished without too great difficulty
when at last the key was discovered and the deciphering begun.

Not only are the differences admitted by Mrs. Gallup, especially in
the case of the small characters, to be so slight that very close
examination is required to preceive them, but she avers that Bacon was
not satisfied with using only two fonts; he employed many different
fonts, and sometimes changed the order of their distribution among the
“A’s” and “B’s,” apparently for the purpose of more surely concealing
his cipher, for he is represented as saying that his life would be
in danger if the fact became known that he was using this method of
handing down to posterity secrets concerning the highest personages in
the State which the few who were acquainted with them dared not whisper
above their breath.

As Mr. Mallock has suggested, the thing to do is not to photograph the
pages said to contain the cipher down to the dimensions of an octavo,
as has been done, but to magnify them, in order that the typographical
variations may be made more evident. By adopting that plan it may be
possible to submit the whole question to a decisive test. At any rate,
it is a question that can be tested by a mechanical examination, and
there certainly seems to be no occasion for the display of heat and bad
temper that has been called forth in some quarters by the discussion.
On the contrary, it is full of interest, whichever way it may be
decided.

Returning to the revelations which Mrs. Gallup assures us have been
extracted from the books named with the aid of the Bi-literal Cipher,
we come upon another point more surprising still. The Bi-literal Cipher
is believed by her to have been intended as a key to other, more
difficult, forms of cipher embedded by Bacon in his various works.
The most important of these is described as a “word-cipher,” the
translation of which does not depend upon the use of any special type,
but is to be effected by means of certain key-words and directions
given in the Bi-literal Cipher. This Word-Cipher, if it exists,
could not have been inserted in a work originally composed without
reference to it, but could only be worked into the web and woof of the
composition by the original author, and to assert, as the story does,
that Bacon was able to compose the finest plays that we know under
the name of Shakespeare merely as cloaks for other hidden plays and
narratives is indeed to tax credulity to its limit.

It will be observed that the “word-cipher” does not admit of any such
mechanical test as can be applied to the Bi-literal Cipher, but is a
subject for choice, judgment and ingenuity in interpretation, so that,
to anybody not predisposed to accept it, it can never appeal with
convincing force, as the Bi-literal would do if once the typographical
differences on which it is based could be completely established. Let
the Bi-literal Cipher’s presence be demonstrated beyond a peradventure,
and then the word-cipher would stand a better chance of acceptance,
because the other asserts its existence. The word-cipher compels those
who accept it to believe that the person, who put the ciphers in
Shakespeare’s plays and Bacon’s learned treatises and the poems and
dramatic compositions of Marlowe, Spenser, Peele and Greene and the
_Anatomy of Melancholy_ called Burton’s, actually produced all of those
works.

Using the Word-Cipher, and following the clues accorded by the
Bi-literal, Mrs. Gallup has recently deciphered, as she avers, one of
the concealed tragedies of Bacon. It is called _The Tragedy of Anne
Boleyn_, and is made up of bits from many of Shakespeare’s plays,
matched together. For instance, we find Romeo’s words put into the
mouth of King Henry VIII, and applied by him to Anne Boleyn:

“O she doth teach the torches to burn bright!
It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night
As a rich jewel in an Ethiop’s ear;
Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear!”

All this is well calculated to repel dispassionate investigation of
Mrs. Gallup’s claims because it so far offends the common sense and
judgment of the reader that he must be tempted to throw the whole
thing overboard at once. If the alleged discovery can ever be rendered
acceptable to unprejudiced investigation, it must be on the basis
of the Bi-literal Cipher alone. Let Mrs. Gallup successfully meet
Mr. Mallock’s challenge by taking, as he suggests, the epistle from
Macbeth to Lady Macbeth (_Macbeth_, Act. I, Scene 5), which is one of
the passages in the first Folio printed in Italics, and indicating
under each letter the font to which, according to her interpretation,
it belongs. Then let Mr. Mallock have the passage photographically
enlarged, so that the dullest eye can detect the smallest differences
in the letters, and when the result is printed the public will have a
fair chance to judge for itself.

But, whatever the outcome of the discussion aroused by Mrs. Gallup’s
book may be, the story that Francis Bacon appears to tell in its pages
does not fail in interest. The well-known fact that historical rumor
has long whispered hints touching many of his alleged revelations
serves to draw attention to them. Some of Mrs. Gallup’s critics
intimate that those rumors may really be the sole foundation of her
decipherings. But they do not accuse her of wilful invention, and
if she has dreamed these things it must be admitted that she dreams
interestingly.

Listen to Bacon’s complaint of the injustice done him, as Mrs.
Gallup says she reads it in the double types of the “_Advancement of
Learning_”:

“Queen Elizabeth, the late soveraigne, wedded, secretly, th’
Earle, my father, at th’ Tower of London, and afterwards at th’
house of Lord P---- this ceremony was repeated, but not with
any of the pompe and ceremonie that sorteth wel with queenly
espousals, yet with a sufficient number of witnesses.

“I therfore, being the first borne sonne of this union should
sit upon the throne, ruling the people over whom the Supreame
Soveraigne doth shewe my right, as hath beene said, whilst
suff’ring others to keepe the royall power.

“A foxe, seen oft at our Court in th’ forme and outward
appearance of a man, named Robert Cecill--the hunchback--must
answer at th’ Divine Araignment to my charge agains’ him, for
he despoyled me ruthlessly. Th’ Queene, my mother, might in
course of events which follow’d their revelations regarding my
birth and parentage, without doubt having some naturall pride
in her offspring, often have shewne us no little attenntion
had not the crafty foxe aroused in that tiger-like spiritt th’
jealousy that did so tormente the Queene [that] neyther night
nor day brought her respite from such suggestio’s about my hope
that I might bee England’s King.

“He told her my endeavours were all for sov’raigntie and
honour, a perpetuall intending and constant hourlie practising
some one thing urged or imposed, it should seeme, by that
absolute, inhere’t, honorably deriv’d necessitie of a
conservation of roiail dignity.

“He bade her observe the strength, breadth and compasse, at an
early age, of th’ intellectual powers I displaied, and ev’n
deprecated th’ gen’rous disposition or graces of speech which
wonne me manie friends, implying that my gifts would thus, no
doubt, uproot her, because I would, like Absalom, steale awaie
th’ people’s harts and usurp the throne whilst my mother was
yet alive.”

Bacon appears also as frequently lamenting the tragic death of his
(alleged) brother Robert, Earl of Essex, and in _King Lear_ Mrs. Gallup
reads from the Bi-literal Cipher a statement that Essex’s life might
have been saved if a signet-ring that he desired to have presented to
his mother had reached her: “As hee had beene led to bel’eve he had but
to send the ring to her and th’ same would at a mome’t’s warni’g bring
rescue or reliefe, he relyed vainly, alas! on this promis’d ayde....
It shal bee well depicted in a play, and you wil be instructted to
discypher it fully.”

In Ben Jonson’s _Masques_, Mrs. Gallup says, she finds among other
things this statement in Bacon’s Bi-literal Cipher:

“The next volume will be under W. Shakespeare’s name. As some
which have now been produced have borne upon the title-page his
name though all are my owne work, I have allow’d it to stand on
manie others which I myselfe regard as equal in merite. When I
have assum’d men’s names, th’ next step is to create for each
a stile naturall to th’ man that yet should [let] my owne bee
seene, as a thrid o’ warpe in my entire fabricke soe that it
may be all mine.”

In the same work Bacon is represented as saying that Spenser, Greene,
Peele and Marlowe have sold him their names. This, it would appear, was
not the case with Ben Jonson, of whom he speaks as his friend, and the
implication is that Jonson knew what Bacon was doing with regard to the
others.

Several times Bacon is made to refer to the murder of Amy Robsart, the
Earl of Leicester’s wife, of whom he intimates, as rumor has long done,
that the Earl wished to rid himself in order to marry Elizabeth.

The stories of his royal birth, of his love for Marguerite of Navarre,
and all the rest of the tale are repeated again and again from the
various books in which the Cipher is said to lie. Frequently Bacon
appeals to the unknown decipherer whom he trusts some future time to
produce, urging him to spare no pains to unearth the hidden things and
promising him undying fame for his labor.

Among other things alleged to be contained in Bacon’s Ciphers are
translations of Homer and of Virgil, part of which, in resounding blank
verse, Mrs. Gallup publishes in her book. And some of her critics aver
that it bears evidence of having been based upon Pope’s translation
of the _Iliad_, because it contains names and descriptions that Pope
introduced without any warrant from Homer.

It is strongly urged by some of Mrs. Gallup’s critics that if Bacon
wished to tell such a story as is here put in his mouth he would never
have done it in so cumbrous a fashion, but would simply have written it
down and placed it under seal, in trustworthy hands, to be opened and
read by posterity. But if, in spite of such objections, the existence
of the Cipher should be proved, the question would then arise: “Who did
put it there, if Bacon didn’t, and for what end?”

PROS AND CONS OF THE CONTROVERSY

THE BI-LITERAL CYPHER OF SIR FRANCIS BACON.

BACONIANA, LONDON.

ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

EDITOR BACONIANIA:

From reading the January number of the Magazine, it would seem that
I had at least furnished a new topic for discussion, and given a new
impetus to the study of things Baconian, in the discovery that the
Bi-literal Cipher of Francis Bacon was incorporated in the printing
of his works, and that a secret story of the great Author was hidden
in them. This in itself is a distinct gain for the study had seemed
to languish for material upon which to feed until the opening of new
channels of thought and research and comparison of ideas upon the
new discovery. The object of the Society is investigation, First:
of Bacon’s authorship of a much wider range of literature than has
been accredited to him upon the title pages of the books of his time.
Secondly: many have believed that Ciphers would be found that would
present new phases of his life history which has seemed so mysterious,
if only the right “key” could be touched. The limits of novelty in the
discussion of all these things seemed to have been reached, however.
Paralellisms in philosophy, language and thought had been urged until
variety of phrases had been exhausted in comparing them, yet all
arguments, while morally conclusive to the party urging them, were
tinged with inconclusiveness in the lack of physical demonstration. The
Ciphers found furnish the missing links which explain much, if not all.

Naturally the Ciphers and what they tell invite investigation and the
pages of BACONIANIA would seem a not inappropriate forum for their
discussion.

The understandings of different individuals concerning the same subject
are almost as varied as the individuals themselves, hence we must
expect a variety of opinions. Concourse of words has such different
meanings to different people that we are compelled to believe that
the brain is like a plastic matter of varying degrees of hardness,
receiving but the faintest impression, or none, of some things, while
others are deeply imprinted upon the recording tablets of memory. Then,
too, the sources of information are so varied that the results of
studying them are like looking through glasses of differing color and
focus, and the individual receives and describes the impression from
their own particular lense and confidently asserts that to be the only
truth, hence investigation, comparison and discussion are needful in
the clarifying process.

Investigation, however, does not mean rejection of that which is new or
unpleasant or not in accord with our preconceived ideas, else my own
labors upon old books would have stopped years ago, and I should not
now be engaged in explaining what I have found, and the old beliefs
would not have suffered the jar of a “Cipher discovery”.

Fully conscious of the absolute veracity of the work I have done, and
my responsibility in the expression, I _know_ that the Bi-literal
Cipher exists in the printing of Bacon’s works: I _know_ that others
can follow over the same course, if they have the aptitude and patience
for it, and can reach no other correct results. To those who have
availed themselves of the opportunity carefully to study and follow my
work, no argument is needed to convince them of my assertion. Doubts
and objections come from those who have not had that opportunity or
have given the work but slight attention.

There are those who seem to think the deciphered work as published is
a creation of my own,--or that I am self-deceived. They do me too much
honor,--or _too little_. It is an honor to be thought capable of such
a production, through the gathering of historical facts, aided by a
romantic imagination, and the power to express it all in the pure old
English language of Francis Bacon. Did I possess such creative powers
I would have devoted them to some more popular theme and spared eyes
and brain from the nervous exhaustion of examining seven thousand pages
of old English printing for the peculiarities of the Italic letters in
them. I cannot aspire to the honor of such a “creation.”

On the other hand, it is not complimentary to my judgment, or
that of my publishers, that I, or they, should go through the
constant researches of the last seven years in libraries so widely
scattered,--self deceived as to the resulting work, expending so
much of time and strength and substance in developing something that
was non-existent;--or if not that--and the Cipher has no reason for
existence--what shall be said of so stupendous and brain-racking effort
to deceive my readers with so purposeless a production.

It is urged that the Cipher disclosures do not accord with history.
This is a field for the investigators. I can only record what I find
as I find it. “The facts of history” is an elastic term and the
deductions drawn from public records of the earlier ages vary greatly.
The conviction is growing that much of interest was not recorded and
it is certain that sources of information are too diverse and greatly
scattered to be all brought together into an exact statement of facts.
If the Cipher had a purpose, it was to record that which was being
suppressed. It would have been a work of supererogation to put into
Cipher the open records of the day.

Many inquiries have reached me asking “How is the Cipher worked?” and
expressing disappointment that the writer had been unable after some
hours of study, to grasp the system or its application.

It would be difficult, and hardly to be expected that an understanding
of Greek or Sanscrit could be reached with the aid of a few written
lines or with a few hours study. It is equally so with the Cipher.
Deciphering the Bi-literal Cipher as it appears in Bacon’s works
will be impossible to those who are not possessed of an eyesight of
the keenest and perfect accuracy of vision in distinguishing minute
differences in form, lines, angles and curves in the printed letters.
Other things absolutely essential are unlimited time and patience, and
aptitude, love for overcoming puzzling difficulties and, I sometimes
think, _inspiration_. As not every one can be a poet, an artist, an
astronomer or adept in other branches requiring special aptitude, so,
and for the same reasons, not every one will be able to master the
intricacies of the Cipher, for, in many ways it is most intricate and
puzzling, not in the system itself, but in its application, as it
is found in the old books. It must not be made too plain, lest it be
discovered too quickly, nor hid too deep lest it never see the light
of day, is the substance of the thought of the inventor, many times
repeated in the work. The system has been recognized since the first
publication of _De Augmentis_, but the ages since have waited to
learn of its application to Bacon’s works; and yet the idea seems to
be prevalent that “any one” should be able to do the work, once the
bi-literal alphabet is known. This is as great a mistake as it would be
to reject the translations of the character writings and hieroglyphics
of older times which have been deciphered because we could not in a few
hours master them ourselves. Ciphers are used to hide things, not to
make them clear.

BI-LITERAL CYPHER OF FRANCIS BACON.

A REPLY TO CERTAIN CRITICS.

BY ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

PALL MALL MAGAZINE, MAY, 1902.

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

ED. P. M. M.

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

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

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

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

TEN OBJECTIONS IN THE “TIMES.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“CONFINED TO FEW TYPES.”

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

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

DIFFERENCES DUE TO VARIOUS CAUSES.

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

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

MR. MALLOCK’S EXAMPLES.

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

This is erroneous. There is no “manipulation,” and the rules are
consistent. In a few instances the same kinds of letters are wrongly
marked as _a_ and _b_ because of printers’ errors, which are detected
by methods elsewhere more specifically set out, or they may be
changed in value by a peculiar mark, as explained on the first page
of the deciphered work from _Henry Seventh_. Printers’ errors are not
infrequent in the works. They are found in Bacon’s own illustration in
_De Augmentis Scientiarum_ (1624), _e.g._ In _conquiesti_, line 5, and
in _quos_, line 10, the letter _q_ is from the “_b_ fount.” It should
be an “_a_-fount” letter, and was so printed in the first or “London
edition” (1623). An _l_ in line 12, and another in line 14, is from the
wrong fount. There is also an error in grouping in the 1624 edition,
which does not occur in the 1623.

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

PRINTERS AND “DIGRAPHS.”

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

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

ROMAN TYPES.

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

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

“In order to conceale my Cypher more perfectly, I am preparing for th’
purpose a sette of alphabets in th’ Latine tipe, not for use in th’
greatest or lengthy story or epistle, but as another disguise, for, in
ensample, a prologue, præfatio, the epilogues, and headlines attracted
too much notice. Noe othe’ waie of diverting th’ curious could be used
where th’ exterior epistle is but briefe, however it will not thus
turne aside my decipherer, for his eye is too well practis’d in artes
that easily misleade others who enquire th’ waye.”

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

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

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

THE DECIPHERING WORKROOM.

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

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

THE OPERATOR AND THE ERRORS.

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

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

THE “TIMES” FACSIMILES.

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

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

INSPIRATION.

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

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

MR. LANG AND MRS. GALLUP.

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

In the _Monthly Review_ he cites again, from his _Morning Post_ article
(August 1901), some of the reasons for considering Bacon a lunatic. He
has, however, omitted one query then made regarding “the new Atlantis
men sought beyond the western sea:” “Was Bacon ignorant of the fact
that America was discovered?” The question was not repeated after I
called attention to the fact that in _New Atlantis_ Bacon said, “Wee
sailed from Peru.”

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

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

THE WIFEHOOD AND MOTHERHOOD OF ELIZABETH.

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

In _Love’s Labour’s Lost_ (Act II., Sc. i.) he may read:

at which interview
All liberall reason would I yeeld unto.

In _Troilus and Cressida_ (Act I., Sc. iii.) we find:

To their subsequent volumes.

And in _Henry the Fifth_ (V. Prol.) is the line:

Omit all the occurrences.

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

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

“TIDDER” OR BACON.

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

In the expression, “our law giveth to the first-borne of the royall
house the title of the Prince of Wales,” Bacon did not intend to
say “the _statute_ giveth.” Had he used _custom_ no one would have
cavilled, but _custom_ is defined in law as “long-established practice,
or usage, considered as unwritten _law_, and resting for authority on
long consent,” and, even at that time, it had long been customary to
invest the eldest son of the sovreign with this title. In the _Historie
of Henry the Seventh_ (p. 207), speaking of the time when “Henry, Duke
of Yorke, was created Prince of Wales, and Earle of Chester and Flint,”
he added, “For the Dukedom of Cornewall devolved to him by statute.” We
see _per contra_ that in this place he did not mean by _custom_.

BACON AND THE SMALL POEMS.

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

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

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

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

BACON AND ELIZABETH’S MARRIAGE.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. SCHOOLING AND THE CIPHER.

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

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

THE ITALICS IN SPENSER.

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

_full Ladie the La Marie._

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

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

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

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

The capital _M_ is a striking form, and the plain _M_ of that size of
type must be familiar to Mr. Schooling and others.

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

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

In the line below, an _e_ from the “_b_ fount” and one from the
“_a_ fount” stand together in the word _bee_. These can easily be
discriminated, but the characteristics of the _e_ in this size of type
are the reverse of the same in the large size above.

The _o_ in _long_ is a wider oval than the _o_ from the “_a_ fount” in
_bountifull_. It has already been pointed out why the _n_'s in both
words are “_a_-fount” letters, although the one in _long_ is not a
perfect letter--the lower part of the last stroke being blotted--but,
as I have said on other occasions, where broken or blotted letters
or errors of the printer occur in the original, the context will
unmistakably indicate what they are.

THE “NOVUM ORGANUM.”

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

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

BACON AND THE COMPOSITOR.

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

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

THE POWERS OF IMAGINATION.

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

BACON-SHAKESPEARE.

THE TIMES, LONDON, ENG., JAN. 27, 1902.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES:

Sir,--Your issues of December 19, 20, and 21 have been forwarded to
me by Messrs. Gay and Bird, and, while regretting that distance will
cause much time to elapse between the issues and the time this can
reach London, I yet desire space to reply to the communications of Mr.
Marston and Mr. Lee concerning myself, and the book recently given to
the public, “_The Bi-literal Cypher of Francis Bacon_.” I trust I may
not be refused because of lapse of time, or for any other reason.

I hope the gentlemen do not mean to be rude or do me an injustice, and
I do not think they can persist in the characterization which their
words imply.

The assertion that Mr. Mallock has become “addlepated,” because of
thinking there may be something in the cipher, must be something of a
shock to his friends.

Mr. Marston did me the honour of two favourable notices, in succeeding
issues of the _Publishers’ Circular_. I was about to thank him for
numbers sent to me when I learned that he had prepared and published
an elaborate article attempting to discredit the entire work, because
of doubts arising in his mind upon a single point. He does not base
his disbelief upon any investigation he has made of the cipher itself,
but because a fragment which forms a part of Bacon’s “Argument”
or epitome (but not the full translation) of the Iliad, in that
portion which catalogues the ships and the troops they transported,
is similar--“nearly like”--Pope’s translation of the same passages,
_ergo_, it must be that I paraphrased Pope, and hence that the whole
cipher fabric is tumbled into dust. Because of this similarity he takes
Mr. Mallock to task for considering my work seriously, and declares
that, as I have, as he thinks, copied Pope in this, the results of
my four years’ research in America and in England, set down on 385
printed pages, must be pure invention, and Mr. Mallock a poor deluded
mortal to have gone into the cipher at all. The statement of the case
exhibits the value of the conclusion.

It does not appear just how much variation Mr. Marston would have
between the translations of the identical Greek text, describing
definite things, to prove which was the correct one, and which the
copy. It will also be noted that this is not one of the portions of
Homer’s wondrous story where imagination may run riot, and imagery and
poetic license add lustre to the original.

The claim of identities set me to wondering whom else I might have
paraphrased, or if it was not possible that Pope had copied from
some one other than Bacon. An examination of six different English
translations and one Latin shows me such substantial accord, that
either of them could be called with equal justice a paraphrase of Pope,
or that Pope had copied from the others.

In phrasing no two translations of the Iliad entirely agree, but are
we to conclude that, because the translations of the same text are in
substantial agreement (though not exact), that one of the two most
nearly alike must be a paraphrase? The trifling additions showing some
exterior knowledge of persons and places may be found in Bacon’s other
works.

It will be observed by readers of the “_Bi-literal Cypher_” that the
fragment of the Fourth Book of the Iliad which is injected by Bacon
into the “Argument” is for illustration merely, and is clearly stated
to be only “a supreme effort of memory” of the fuller translation which
he had previously embedded as a part of the mosaic in his works, to be
extracted and reconstructed through the methods of another cipher.

Surely there can be no more distressing condition than when critics
refuse to know all the facts, and are guilty of drawing conclusions
without them. Bacon, who knew human nature, has described this class
of minds most precisely in his aphorisms, and it would almost seem he
had this controversy in view, or at least a permonition of it, when he
says, in Number XXXIII:--

“This must be plainly avowed; no judgment can be rightly formed
either of my method or of the discoveries to which it leads
by means of anticipations ... since I cannot be called upon
to abide by the sentence of a tribunal which is itself on its
trial.”

“One method of delivery alone remains to us: ... we must lead
men to the particulars themselves and their series and order;
while men on their side must force themselves for awhile to
lay their notions by and begin to familiarize themselves with
facts.” (XXXVI.)

Mr. Lee, too, bases his disbelief on most inconclusive grounds. The
witty author of “Democritus to the Reader” said that any one who sought
what he did not want, or that would do him harm when found, wanted
wisdom. To be exact, it was expressed less euphemistically, “He is a
fool that seeks what he does not want.”

Mr. Lee insists that, because he has collated 25 copies of the plays,
during which time he was not looking for a cipher, none exists. As well
say that the stars of late discovery which are as yet unknown to any
but the most skilled eye of the astronomer do not exist because Mr.
Lee, with his unskilled eye, has not discovered them while looking for
something else.

Mr. Sinnett, in the same issue of _The Times_, states the case
fairly in the remark that there are two schools of thinkers on the
subject--those who have studied the matter, and those who have
not--and he illustrates the feelings of a surprisingly large class by
the repetition of the remark of a friend, who, when asked if he had
seriously considered certain points (of the Baconians), replied: “I
would rather hang myself than consider anything so atrocious.” I have
no doubt Mr. Lee would sympathize with, if not echo, this sentiment.

I wish politely, and with all due deference, to assert, with a
positiveness as emphatic as that of Mr. Lee, that the cipher
_does_ exist in the typography of the Plays, and in the “Anatomy
of Melancholy” and in the other works which I have deciphered. The
difference between us is that I found what I was looking for (and much
besides), while Mr. Lee did not find what he was not looking for.

Another aphorism, Number XXXVIII, would apply here:--

“The idols and false notions which are now in possession of the
human understanding, and have taken deep root therein, so beset
men’s minds that truth can hardly find entrance.”

And again, in Number XLVI:--

“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion
(either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to
itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And
though there be a greater weight of instances to be found on
the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or
else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that
by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of
its former conclusions may remain inviolate.”

If Mr. Lee has a vision sufficiently accurate to discriminate in form,
and will spend as much time as I have spent upon the typography of the
old books, he will find the letters can be classified, and starting
from the proper points and placing in “groups of five” the Bi-literal
Cipher will read as I have written, and will not read anything else.

Sincerely yours,

ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

Detroit, January 9.

* * * * *

P. S. Jan. 11.--Copies of your issue of December 26 and 27 have just
reached me.

The articles on the “Bacon Bi-literal Cypher” show that _The Times_ is
not averse to whatever aids in elucidation of this new phase of the
Bacon-Shakespeare question.

I am glad to note that “A Correspondent” has taken some of the
preliminary steps to an actual examination of the cipher and apparently
has the perception required to reach conclusions that Mr. Mallock and
Mr. Sinnett have also reached as to distinctive variations in the forms
of letters used in the old books. This denotes real progress in the
investigation, and I think the gentleman, with patience, would easily
become a decipherer. The peculiarities of the type are clear to the
skilled artist or engraver, but they are not so quickly apparent to
those less fitted for the closest observation.

Some of the difficulties encountered by the novice are explained by
Mr. Sinnett in the issue of the 27th. I shall be greatly pleased
to clear up some of this correspondent’s difficulties, in another
communication, but will only note in this two paragraphs. One
difficulty he mentions is that in certain passages he does not find
sufficient Italic letters to make up the extracted sentences. He had
overlooked the application of the passage in the book, on pp. 66-67:--

“In order to conceale my Cypher more perfectly I am preparing
for th’ purpose a sette of alphabets in th’ Latine tipe not
for use in th’ greatest or lengthy story or epistle, but as
another disguise, for, in ensample, a prologue, praefatio,
the epilogues, and head lines attracted too much notice. I,
therefore, have given much trouble to mine ayders by making
two kinds or formes of these letters. These be not designed
for other use than hath but now beene explain’d, nor must you
looke to see them employ’d if a reason for th’ change appeare,
but there will be warning given you for your instruction or
guidance. Noe othe’ waie of diverting th’ curious could be used
where th’ exteriour epistle is but briefe, however it will not
thus turn aside my decipherer, for his eye is too well practs’d
in artes that easily misleade others who enquire of th’ waie.”

There are a very few dedications, commendatory poems, headings, etc.,
in which Roman letters were used by Bacon. These are in his later
printings.

Another thing this correspondent makes note of is that many of the
old books of the Elizabethan period have the same differences. I have
examined many of these, beside those belonging to Bacon in which
differences occur. In some of them I was led to think the cipher might
be found, but on examination it was seen that the different forms were
used promiscuously, without method, and could not be grouped in fives
to read in the bi-literal.

Replying to Mr. Lee’s communication in the issue of the 27th, I quote
this extraordinary extract:

“I should like to state unmistakably that I hold there to be
not the smallest jot of even _prima facie_ justification ...
in the text of the First Folio for the belief that a cipher
is concealed in that volume. I write with a fine copy on my
desk.... Italic and Roman type appear in the preliminary pages
... they are never intermingled in the manner which would be
essential if the words embodied Bacon’s bi-literal cipher.”

His idea of the intermingling of the Roman and Italic type as an
essential is entirely wrong. If he had read my book understandingly,
he would have known the different founts used by Bacon were in the
differing forms of Italic type, not the Roman, except in the very
few instances noted above. The cipher letters are not produced by
intermingling Roman and Italic type in the Plays. He will find on
every page of the Plays more than one fount or form of these Italic
letters, and that not proper names only, but much besides was printed
in them. See especially pp. 42-43, _Merry Wives of Windsor_.

Quoting again from Mr. Lee:--“To assert that a bi-literal cipher can or
does appear in a text printed as the First Folio is printed is a bold
denial of plain facts.” I wish to repeat, with equal earnestness and
entire certainty, that to assert that the cipher cannot and does not
exist in the text is a denial of a fact which I have demonstrated.

He mistakenly says, “The proper names figuring in the text of the
plays alone appear in a different type.” To these must be added the
abbreviated names of the speakers, the running titles, etc., and all
other words in Italic type, which together make up when deciphered over
50 pages of my book that are extracted from the folio.

What shall we say of this quotation from Mr. Lee?

“Ignorance, vanity, inability to test evidence, lack of
scholarly habits of mind are in each of these instances found
to be the main causes predisposing half-educated members of
the public to the acceptance of the delusion (!). And when any
of the deluded victims have been narrowly examined they have
invariably exhibited a tendency to monomania.... May a second
Hogarth deal as effectually with Mrs. Gallup and Mr. Mallock,
and their feeble-witted followers.”

Mr. Mallock “addlepated!” and “half-educated!” Lord Palmerston
“feeble-witted”--“with a tendency to monomania!” Is this temperate
discussion of a new discovery? Is true criticism of this subject and
its believers reduced to vituperation, and this the end of the argument?

The public will refuse to accept Mr. Lee’s dictum as having any weight
at all over against the examination made, and being made, by Mr.
Mallock, Mr. Sinnett, and many others. I must assume them to be the
peers of Mr. Lee in intelligence and discrimination, for he is most
surely wrong and refuses knowledge, while they are willing to study the
subject with patience and candour.

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 the _Literary World_ has consigned me to that _Avernus_
whose 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 entitled _Galluping 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 the _Literary World_ of Bacon’s _Bi-literal Cypher_
and of the _Tragedy of Anne Boleyn_ is not, I think, feminine nor
American, but somehow the quality of _spiritual delicacy_ seems
lacking, and it can hardly be called _artistic_.

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 the _Bi-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 personating Bacon 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 the _Bi-literal Cypher_ (p. 154).

A little farther on critic says: “_If_ there 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 a
_Dudley_.”

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 of _Brittain_ and
of the expression '_in_ the throne,’ quoting: “Ended now is my great
desire to sit in the British throne.”

In the _Advancement of Learning_ (1605) he may read: “Queene Elizabeth,
your immediate Predecessor in this part of _Brittaine_” (B. 1, p. 36);
while in Shakespeare he will find:

“Shall see me rising _in_ my throne,” R. II. 3-2;

“When I do rouse me _in_ my throne,” H. V. 1-2;

“But one imperious _in_ another’s throne,” 1 H. VI. 3-1;

“_In_ that throne
“Which now the house of Lancaster usurps,” 3 H. VI. 1-1;

“And shall I stand, and thou sit _in_ my throne?” 3 H. VI. 1-1;

“And see him seated _in_ the regal throne,” 3 H. VI. 4-3;

“Once more we sit ~in~ England’s royal throne,” 3 H. VI. 5-7;

“And plant your joys ~in~ living Edward’s throne,” R. III. 2-2;

“We will plant some other ~in~ the throne,” R. III. 3-7;

“You are but newly planted ~in~ your throne,” T. A. 1-1;

“My bosom’s lord sits lightly ~in~ his throne,” R. & J. 5-1

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 land_ in 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 an _infant of days_? That is very good. These things _became_ known
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 the _Advancement 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 called _Cymini
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 as _Agrippa_ sayd 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 mencion _Honoris causa_ your Maiesties
exellent book touching the duty of a king: a woorke ritchlye compounded
of _Divinity 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 Nature beareth,
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 (chiefely _Aristotle_ their 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 the _Essays_ and _Apothegms_ and 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
things _doth_ burn,” but I will add other instances: “Which Religion
and the holy faith _doth_ conduct 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 did _deter_ [it means _retard_] th’
advancement’ (pretty, to see keys and words writing).”

On page 26 of the _Advancement of Learning_ Bacon says: “For I am not
ignorant howe much that diverteth and interrupteth the 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 find _may_ stuck in,--'Dread
lest our secret history _may_ be found out’; 'ere the pleasure _may_
disappear,’” &c.

In a letter to Essex (1598) the critic will find: “If the main
conditions _may_ be good.”

And again: “Sometimes a future indicative, 'If it _shall not be_ (for
_be not_) found.’”

In a letter to the King we have: “If it _shall be_ deprived”; in _A. of
L._ (p. 5) “if any man _shall_ thinke.”

Again: “Many of the Phantom’s tautologies are positively imbecile,
_e.g._: '_Frequently_, aye _many a time_'; 'a _narrative_ of a
_story_'; 'the play previously _named_ or _mentioned_'; '_very_
pleasing _to such a degree_'; 'a most _cleare playne_ ensample’;
'_fulmin’d lightning_'; '_a coming_ people _in the future_'; and the
like.”

In the _History of Henry the Seventh_ is the peculiar combination,
“then a _young Youth_” (p. 247); and in the _Advancement of Learning_
(1605) these lines: “True _bounds_ and _limitations_, whereby humane
knowledge is _confined_ and _circumscribed_: and yet without any such
_contraction_ or _coarctation_”; “being _steeped_ and _infused_ in
the humors of the affections”; “not referred to the good of _Men_
and _Mankind_” (p. 5); “let men endeavour an endlesse _progresse_
or _proficience_ in both ... and again that they doe not unwisely
_mingle_ or _confound_ these learnings together” (p. 6); “the accuser
of _Socrates_ layd it as an Article of _charge_ & _accusation_
against him”; “and to suppresse truth by force of _eloquence_ and
_speech_”; “there hath beene a _meeting_, and _concurrence_” (p. 7);
“the modern _loosenes_ or _negligence_;” “it is a thing _personall_
and _individual_”; “have an _influence_ and _operation_” (p. 13); “to
_pierce_ and _penetrate_” (p. 15); “_fit_ and _proper_ for”; “can
_taxe_ or _condemme_” (1st p. 16); “have sought to _vaile over_ and
_conceale_” (p. 22); “Man’s owne _individuall_ Nature” (B. 2, p.
56); “which cannot but _cease_ and _stoppe_ all progression. For no
perfect discoverie can bee made uppon a _flatte_, or a _levell_” (p.
34); “which hath been likewise handled. But howe? rather in a _satyre
& Cinicaly_, then _seriously & wisely_ for men have rather sought
by wit _to deride_ and _traduce_” (B. 2, 1st p. 77); “being _set
downe_ and strongly _planted_ doth _judge_ and determine most of the
Controversies” (B. 2, p. 72); “For _Narrations_ and _Relations_” (B. 2,
p. 14); also “But as for the _Narrations_ ... they are either not true,
or not Naturall; and therefore impertinent for the _Storie_ of Nature”
(B. 2, 2d p. 6).

Again “The real Bacon, as a pretty good classic, could not have spelt
_Illiad_, _spirrit_, _Brittain_, _Citty_, _instructted_ &c., with
doubled consonants; or _comon_, _sufer’d_, &c., with a single one; and
rarely, if ever, did he adopt that curious growth of the old genitive
suffix (-_es_)--_is_ into the detached possessive _his_ (in imitation
of which, her came to be similarly used); yet in the Phantom’s twaddle
instances abound--'Essex _his_ plea’; 'the author _his_ poems’; 'the
Queen _her_ crown’; &c., &c.”

In _Love’s Labours Lost_ (5-2) _Illion_; in _Troilus and Cressida_
(1-2) _Illium_; in _All’s Well_ (3-5) _Citty_; in _Advancement
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 92 _circurence_
(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 the _History of Henry the
Seventh_ of the detached possessive _his_, and many others could be
cited. “A thing familiar in my Mistris _her_ times” occurs in a letter
to Northumberland; “I. S. _his_ day is past and well past”--Letter to
the King (29th of April, 1615).

“It needeth no proof _of the fact_ that” is characterized as modern
padding, but in _Advancement of Learning_ we read, “where there is
assurance and cleere evidence _of the fact_.”

Most, if not all the so-called modern expressions that have been
criticized--including some noted by another critic--are found (mildly,
exciting, headings), and in 2 _H. 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 the _Bi-literal Cypher
of Francis Bacon_ were 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 the _Literary World_, and others, have
done this with sufficient elaboration. Then, too, in _De Augmentis
Scientiarum_ they 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 the _Advancement 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 a
_system_, 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 small _v_ and
_w_.

This very fact assured Bacon that their methodical employment would
pass unnoticed. One form is consistently used as an '_a_ fount’ letter,
and the other as _b_, 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 I _know_ whereof 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
transcribed _Italics_ thus 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 '_b_
fount’ letter and placed a stroke (/) under the corresponding letter on
the typewritten sheet. All the others, belonging to the '_a_ fount,’
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
and _Roman_ types 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 employed for cipher purposes.
On pages 66-67 of the _Bi-literal Cypher_ reference is made to their
use in a few short passages, only, of the later publications--the
preliminary pages of the _First Folio_, and of _Vitae 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 know
_does_ exist.

My critic says: “Just as in the Spenserian passage, the Gallupian
_b_-type has been somehow introduced into the reproduced text [of the
_Novum Organum_] so as to give the desired cipher-groups: but how, and
by whom?”

If he refers to the '_b_ type’ 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’s _Iliad_ made 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
replying to 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 the _Tragedy of Anne
Boleyn_, and this requires that I again explain the difference of
method in the two ciphers. The bi-literal is in the _Italic_ letters
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 the _Tragedy of Anne Boleyn_,
he would have understood that the lines were taken bodily from _Henry
VIII_--and the 107 other works--in accordance with this clear and
definite plan. The “argument” or synopsis, 'framework’ if he pleases,
of this _Tragedy of Anne Boleyn_, is given in the _Biliteral Cypher_
to aid in collecting the scattered passages, as the _Argument of the
Iliad_ is 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 the _Anatomy 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 the _Anatomy
of Melancholy_. These fragments of the _Iliad_ are 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 the word-cipher, although it is
mentioned in the _Advancement 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 in _King 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 the
_end_ justified the _means_.

ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

MR. DANA AND “MATTOIDS.”

Ed. N. Y. Times, Saturday Review:

Under the caption, “Shakespeare and Bacon. Writers about them are not
exactly lunatics--their cypher essentially a mattoid product.”--Mr.
Charles L. Dana gives what purports to be a review of a book recently
published, “The Bi-literal Cypher of Francis Bacon.”

This cipher I had the fortune to discover, as it exists in the original
editions of the works of that great author, and I have deciphered and
given to the public what is contained in the volume referred to, hence
come under the classification which the gentleman seems to impose upon
a very considerable number of students and fellow-writers.

I hope Mr. Dana does not intend to be rude, but it seems to me that he
has unnecessarily gone out of his way in applying epithets to people
who differ from him in certain literary conclusions, and as the class,
which he condemns for such differing opinion, is a large and growing
one, and embraces names and persons even in his own city--judges,
lawyers, newspaper men, etc.--the peers of Mr. Dana in intelligence,
whom he would not dare personally to face with such aspersions as he
indulges in print, he shows himself inconsistent as well as reckless.
As a specimen of inconsistency, I quote from his opening paragraph:
“The question (Bacon vs. Shakespeare), however, continued to be
agitated or, rather, advocated, because few scholars regarded it
seriously. Some men of note, if not of learning, took it up, and Lord
Palmerston is said to have been a convert.” Certainly this is eminently
respectable company.

Near the close of the article, speaking of those who believe that Sir
Francis Bacon produced a much larger part of the literature of the
world than is accredited to him, and dare offer evidence of it, he
says: “They are not exactly lunatics, for the characteristic of lunacy
is weakness.” I suppose we should be thankful, therefore, that, by
the gentleman’s saving grace, we are not “lunatics, characterized by
weakness.”

Mr. Dana goes on to say: “Such people have received the scientific name
of mattoids”--a word apparently borrowed from the Italian alienist,
Lombroso, as it is not found in many dictionaries or encyclopedias. If
euphemistic, a critic like Mr. Fisk, uses the expression “eccentric”;
if addicted to slang, another would say, “cranks.” The use made, in
the article, of this term “mattoids,” is to designate those who have
“obsessions”--doing things “under the domination of an idea, which is,
as a rule, foolish”--in Mr. Dana’s estimation.

There can hardly be an “obsession” greater than to declare things
do not exist, because the individual is unable to comprehend their
presentation.

“Your opinion, my opinion, any man’s opinion, is the measure of his
knowledge.” If a man’s knowledge is ample and accurate, his opinions
are entitled to consideration. Mr. Dana’s knowledge of the bi-literal
cipher is evidently neither ample nor accurate. The fact is that the
presentation in the book he criticises is by fac-simile pages from
the original Latin edition of _De Augmentis Scientarium_, published
by Bacon in 1624, and by a verbatim reproduction of the first English
translation of the work, published in 1640. This cipher is explained
for the first time in 1623 Latin edition, though invented by Bacon in
1579, and used during the remainder of his life. The explanation is
Bacon’s own, and this cipher has been the basis of the most important
cipher systems that are in use in the world today.

Another thing that strikes me as inconsistent in the writer, and that
lays his article open to his own characterization of “weak logic,
stupendous misrepresentation, and erratic conduct,” is this: The value
of a critique is in telling something of the subject criticised that
will be of value to readers. Mr. Dana fails to make a single quotation,
controvert a single proposition which the book contains or give a
special reason for disbelief in the historical facts that have come to
light through the Cipher. It is simply his _ipse dixit_ that the Cipher
does not exist except in the imagination of the decipherer.

Is it profound criticism which exhausts itself in hurling anathemas
and vituperation? The creed of space writers in the newspapers, when
attacking things Baconian, seems to be that, as with the first man,
Adam, sin came upon all mankind, the insanity of Delia Bacon, who was
the first Baconian, was transmitted to all her successors, and that is
the end of the argument.

I think it only fair to the readers of the _Times_ that something
should be said on the subject, and of the book itself, which has led
to the discovery of “mattoids” among the authors of things not to Mr.
Dana’s taste, first saying that, personally, I have to confess to
mature years, and no little experience in educational work, preliminary
and preparatory to which was quite a thorough course of educational
training in our own country, supplemented by a considerable period of
study, in France and Germany.

Long before I had more than a passing and superficial knowledge of
Bacon’s Bi-literal Cipher, I had observed what all careful students of
Elizabethan literature have noted and remarked upon in the original
editions, that the Italic letters in some of the books were in two
or more forms. Later, when an original _De Augmentis_ came into my
hands, I saw there a clear explanation and elaborate illustration of
a cipher that required simply a biformed alphabet. Bacon there speaks
of the time of its invention as in his youthful days while in Paris.
It is first mentioned in his _Advancement of Learning_, published in
1605, with a hint of its importance. This was twenty-five years after
its invention. Eighteen years later still, in 1623, we find it fully
elaborated, at no small cost and pains, this still further emphasizing
its value after forty-three years of time. These facts, in themselves,
would suggest that the originator had tested its practicability. The
discovery of its application to the Italic letters in differing forms
in the original editions of Bacon’s works, has proved that it was made
the medium (in no “spiritualistic” way) for the transmission of those
secrets concerning Bacon, without the revelation of which many things
in his life seemed obscure and paradoxical.

Seven years of time have I given to the study of Bacon and his
ciphers--not as a dilettante, desultorily, as a means of recreation
or use of spare moments--but as a student in the hardest, most
conscientious sense of the word. A study which has been a weariness to
the brain and destructive to eyesight. Has Mr. Dana given seven days,
or even hours, to real research?

As Bacon said in his _History of King Henry VII._ “We shall make our
judgment upon the things themselves, as they give light one to another,
and (as we can) dig truth out of the mine.”

Spurred on by the fascination of an important discovery, and by its
development, as the concealed story was unfolded, letter by letter,
word by word, revealing the hidden life, the secret thoughts and
emotions of that great mind and personality, concerning which but the
half has been known, I have examined over seven thousand pages of rare
and priceless old original editions, placed at my disposal by the
courtesy of private collectors in this country and in England, or found
in our public libraries, and in that greatest of all receptacles of
literary treasures, the British Museum. Every Italic letter on those
seven thousand pages has been set down in its proper group, classified
according to the rules of the Cipher, and the peculiar characteristics
of each letter studied until they became as familiar as the face of
a friend. The results of the deciphering so far published fill three
hundred and sixty-eight pages of the book under discussion. It would be
a vivid imagination, indeed, that could create an historical narrative
such as the Cipher reveals. I have earned the right to speak with
confidence of what this research has brought to light. I here repeat a
paragraph of the personal preface to the First Edition:

I appreciate what it means to ask strong minds to change long-standing
literary convictions, and of such I venture to ask the withholding of
judgment until study shall have made the new matter familiar, with the
assurance meanwhile, upon my part, of the absolute veracity of the
work which is here presented.... I would beg that the readers of this
book shall bring to the consideration of the work, minds free from
prejudice, judging of it with the same intelligence and impartiality
they would themselves desire if the presentation were their own.
Otherwise the work will, indeed, be a thankless task.

In conclusion, and I speak from knowledge gained at fearful cost, I say
with the utmost positiveness, that there is no more doubt as to the
existence of both the Word Cypher, and the Bi-literal Cypher, in the
works of Francis Bacon, nor as to his authorship of the Shakespeare
Plays, and certain other works accredited to other names, than there
is as to the existence of stars which only students of astronomy have
known.

So long as the “Baconian theory” remained a matter of literary
opinion merely, all had a right to their own, but no one has the
right to place his prepossessions against facts which he has not
properly investigated, and then charge that the result of the careful
investigations of others leads to “stupendous misrepresentations” and
to “mattoidal products.”

ELIZABETH W. GALLUP.

CORRESPONDENCE IN THE “TIMES”

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE “TIMES.”

LONDON.

BACON--SHAKESPEARE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES:

Sir:--Many of the writers who, in your own columns and elsewhere, have
been lately expressing their views with regard to the bi-literal Cipher
alleged to exist in the First Folio of Shakespeare have spoken of me
as a convert to Mrs. Gallup’s theory. I am not so. I am a convert only
to the view that her theory is sufficiently plausible to deserve to
have its truth tested. Regarded as a subject of inquiry, its great
merit lies in the fact that its truth or falsehood can be ascertained
by purely mechanical means, such as photographic enlargements of the
text, coupled with a systematic examination of them. I stated this
opinion in my article in the _Nineteenth Century_. Pending such an
examination, which I intend to undertake myself, other arguments
appear to me a waste of time. They are like arguments as to whether
a piece of plate has been hidden in a locked-up cupboard, when the
sensible course to pursue is to pick the lock and see. Mr. Sidney
Lee’s letters seem to me to contain little but statements--no doubt
true--as to the extent of his own learning, and urbane intimations
that all persons who differ from him are half-witted monomaniacs. With
regard to the general question of the authorship of the Shakespeare
Plays the monomaniacs are those who consider any doubt of Shakespeare’s
authorship unreasonable. The main grounds on which, so far as I know, a
doubt of his authorship rests are grounds which suggest themselves to
the common sense of an ordinary man of the world, and arise from the
few details ascertainable with regard to Shakespeare’s life, as put
before us by writers like Mr. Lee himself. The mere genius displayed
in the Plays offers no difficulty. The difficulty consists in the kind
of knowledge displayed in them. This simple fact Mr. Lee seems wholly
unable to appreciate, as the illustrations he adduces in your issue of
December 27 show. He says that to doubt that Shakespeare wrote the
Plays ascribed to him is like entertaining a similar doubt with regard
to Keats or Dickens, because both these writers, like Shakespeare, the
butcher’s son, were also born in comparatively humble circumstances.
The whole point of the question escapes Mr. Lee altogether. The poetry
of Keats displays no knowledge whatever the possession of which would
be singular in a person situated as he was, and having similar tastes;
whilst the knowledge displayed in the works of Dickens is not only not
inconsistent with what we know of his life, but is, alike in its extent
and its limitations, an accurate reflection of his opportunities for
observation, and of his experiences. It is precisely because the case
of Shakespeare, in this respect, instead of being parallel to that of
Keats and Dickens, as Mr. Lee supposes, is in striking contrast to it
that a doubt as to the possibility of his having written the works
ascribed to him has arisen; and if Mr. Lee does not understand this
initial fact--as it would seem he does not--he is, as yet, despite
all his scholarship, hardly in a position to describe the doubts of
those who differ from him as groundless. It is perfectly true that the
question has another side. Mr. Lee’s error lies in his assumption that
it has only one side.

With regard to his boast that he has collated 25 copies of the First
Folio, this fact is altogether irrelevant unless he has collated them
with a view to examining the forms of the Italic letters used, with
a view to testing the truth of Mrs. Gallup’s theory. This, I gather,
he has not done, for the simple reason that he does not seem to have
taken the trouble to inform himself accurately what her theory is. He
tells us that the Roman type employed in the First Folio is all from
one fount, as if this fact touched the position of Mrs. Gallup; whereas
what Mrs. Gallup alleges is that the Cipher is confined entirely to the
Italic portions of the text, and that the other portions have nothing
whatever to do with it. If he had said that he thought the question not
worth inquiring into, his position would have been quite intelligible;
but to express, as he has done, a vehement opinion with regard to it,
without having given it more than a passing and prejudiced attention,
is not a course which reflects much credit on his critical judgment.

For myself, I should be prepared to accept one solution of the problem
or the other with the same equanimity. Either, in its own way, would
be equally interesting. If Mrs. Gallup’s theory is altogether false,
the manner in which it has been elaborated will form a curious incident
in literary history. Should it prove true, it will be more curious
still. But what strikes me principally in this controversy is the
odd sentimental acerbity with which the upholders of Shakespeare’s
authorship receive the arguments of those who presume to entertain a
doubt of it. Shakespeare is a figure of interest to us only because
we assume him to have written the works that bear his name. What we
know of him otherwise tends to quench interest rather than arouse it.
What reason is there, other than the most foolish form of school-girl
sentiment, for resenting the idea of a transference of our admiration
of the author of the Plays from a man who is personally a complete
stranger to us--or at best a not very reputable acquaintance--to a man
who is universally admitted to be one of the greatest geniuses who have
ever appeared at any period of the world’s history?

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

W. H. MALLOCK.

THE BACON-SHAKESPEARE CYPHER.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES:

Sir:--Since you have allowed a critic of Mrs. Gallup’s interpretation
of the “Bi-literal Cipher” to cast discredit on the whole of her work
on the strength of having discovered (what he thinks) one flaw in it,
surely you will allow a believer in “the Bacon-Shakespeare craze” to
put forward a few words in reference to the “Shakespeare-Stratford
superstition.”

There are two schools of thinkers in reference to that superstition,
those who have studied the matter and those who have not. The former
are Baconians. Talking recently with a devotee of the superstition, I
said: “Surely, if you say that, you cannot have seriously considered
... such and such points.” His answer was, “I would rather hang myself
than seriously consider anything so atrocious.” That is a common
attitude of mind, and the reason why, as yet, only a minority of
Englishmen possessing an unusual degree of culture are fully aware of
the fact that Francis Bacon wrote the Plays published under the name
of Shakespeare. The argument derived from the contents of the _Promus_
containing 1,700 private memoranda in Bacon’s handwriting, all of
which are used up by him later on in the Plays, the argument derived
from the manner in which the Plays, in the order of their appearance,
reflect the incidents of Bacon’s life, the little circumstance that
11 of the best known Plays were never acted, published, or heard of
till seven years after Shakespeare’s death are a few of the reasons
which influence the belief of those attached to “the craze.” A few
of the reasons why the superstition appears so comically absurd to
them have reference to the fact that there is no shadow of reason
for supposing that the Stratford boy--apprenticed to his father as a
butcher at 14--ever acquired the art, then very unusual among people
in his rank of life--the art of writing. Neither his parents nor his
children ever learned to write. He learned in later life to scrawl
something resembling a signature, not the bad writing of a literary
man, but the hesitating, vague scratching of one who hardly knew how
to hold the pen. After a few years spent as tradesman’s assistant in a
vortex of ignorance, the boy ran away to London and, according to the
superstition, immediately wrote _Loves Labour’s Lost_, _The Taming of
the Shrew_, and _The Two Gentlemen of Verona_, which were brought out
the year he came to London. The ridiculous _souffles_ of imagination
presented to the world by the orthodox biographers of Shakespeare are
all based upon the authors’ theories as to what “probably took place”
or what “must have happened” because Shakespeare wrote the Plays.

It is impossible to deal intelligently with the cipher story till one
has first of all escaped from the trammels of the superstition. Let
people new to the subject be assured, to begin with, that, without
touching a scrap of evidence having to do with ciphers, those who
“seriously consider” the question approach the discussion of ciphers
from the point of view of knowing that the Shakespeare idea is pure,
idiotic nonsense, and that Bacon, of course, wrote the Plays. Then,
as regards Mrs. Gallup’s Cipher, the question is simply this: Has
she built up the whole of this long story out of her own head as a
conscious literary fraud, or, “errors and omissions excepted,” is it
to be accepted as genuine? There is no halting-place between those two
views. Now Mrs. Gallup did not work alone. She was assisted by quite
a group of people of unequivocal position and respectability, she was
eager to invite the observation of witnesses while engagd for six
months at the British Museum deciphering the present story, and the
fraud hypothesis becomes, for those who will take the trouble to make
themselves acquainted even in an elementary way with the facts, utterly
untenable. The way to deal with it is to check Mrs. Gallup’s work. If
the Cipher is verifiable to any appreciable degree--as Mr. Marston even
seems to admit, as Mr. Mallock has definitely stated--its verification
by a responsible committee will displace the whole subject from the
region of controversy and put “the Bacon-Shakespeare craze” on a level
with that which brought Galileo into so much bad odour with orthodoxy
when he maintained that the earth went round the sun.

As for the curious flaw Mr. Marston has detected in the _Iliad_
translation, we can afford to wait for Mrs. Gallup’s explanation. If
the whole problem rested on Mrs. Gallup’s good faith, the flaw might
seem supicious, but it rests on the shape of letters in books at the
British Museum. In itself it is the biggest literary problem ever set
before the world; the _prima facie_ case is overwhelming, as every one
who has studied the question knows full well. How is it possible that
a dreary, senseless old prejudice should be allowed to stand in the
way of the truth? Who among those in a position to do this effectively
will undertake the duty of organizing a really competent committee
(including some persons, at all events, who have studied the subject)
to determine once for all to what authorship the greatest writings in
the English language are to be assigned? As for little difficulties
about dates, they will have to give way if the cipher story is verified.

A. P. SINNETT.

27, Leinster-gardens, W., Dec. 20, 1901.

BACONIAN CYPHER.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES:

Sir:--Prompted by Mr. Marston’s letter, one of your leader writers
makes an insinuation against Mrs. Gallup “which gallantry forbids us to
state.”

The lady, unlike R. L. Stevenson, is alive and able to deal with
innuendos of this sort.

That Pope had access to the MS. of Lord Bacon’s version is not
unlikely, or that he saw an earlier deciphering from the _Anatomy_.
Both Rawley and Ben Jonson were alive in 1628 and wrote the Cipher.

Apart from this, the phrases in the passage in question which are
common to both poets were not new at the date Pope wrote.

“Silver fountain” is in the Shakespeare Play of _Richard II._, Act 5,
Sc. 3; “hoary-headed” in _Midsummer Night’s Dream_, Act 2, Sc. 1; and
“Titan rays” in _Titus Andronicus_, Act 1, Sc. 2.

May I humbly correct your “leader”?

The Cipher not only mentions a marriage ceremony in the Tower, but a
ceremony in September after the death of Dudley’s wife, at a time when,
according to Mother Dowe, of Brentwood (see “Calendar of State Papers
for August, 1560”), marriage was very necessary.

The Cipher does not say it took Francis four decades of interval to get
over his affection for Margaret of Navarre, but that: “Not until four
decades or eight lustres o’ life were outlived did I take any other to
my sore heart. Then I married”--that is to say, did not marry until
after his 40th year.

If Mr. Marston had imitated the caution of Mr. W. H. Mallock, instead
of rushing into print directly he believed himself in a position to
impugn Mrs. Gallup’s _bona fides_, your leader writer would have been
less fluttered.

Yours obediently,

PARKER WOODWARD.

King-street, Nottingham.

FRANCIS BACON AND THE CIPHER.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES:

Sir:--We may hope that, the truth in this matter may be established now
that _The Times_ is seriously facing the problem, even though at first
your sympathies lean heavily against what Baconians conceive to be the
truth.

May I ask your contributor who has been investigating the Cipher
whether, apart from defects and irregularities in Mrs. Gallup’s
interpretation, he has found any fairly considerable number of cipher
words to correspond with her interpretation. No one could weave the
cipher into a mass of print without making a multitude of mistakes.
In ordinary handwriting we most of us slur over scores of the letters
we intend to form legibly, but if our readers can read the majority
and see what we mean they do not reject the whole because of the
defective bits. Of course the double types confuse the perfection of
the Cipher, but Bacon seems to have deliberately aimed at confusion,
fearing premature discovery. Thus some cipher students tell me that
after getting on fairly well for a time, they will suddenly find
that, though the two kinds of type still appear, there is no sense to
be made of them, until they discover that, from the appearance of a
particular mark until its reappearance, the significance of the _a_
and _b_ founts is reversed. With this clue, that which was at first
confusion becomes luminous with sense again. But, though no newcomer
to the work can hope to read the Cipher successfully throughout, if
a newcomer finds, for example, that he can identify four or five out
of every dozen words that Mrs. Gallup can identify, surely that will
dismiss the theory that such identities can be accidental to the region
in which chances are expressed by millions to one against accident.
For the rest, of course, Mrs. Gallup may have arbitrarily interpreted
diphthongs and double types to suit the sense of the passage, as any
one in dealing with writing would interpret a scrawl at the end of a
word as sometimes meaning “ing,” sometimes “ly,” according to sense.
Or when she has found a long word like (say) “interpretation” to come
out--i, n, then a group of five letters you can make nothing of, then
r, p, and the rest of the word right, of course she puts down the whole
word “interpretation.” Or perhaps the latter half of the word will come
out right only by curtailing some previous group of some of its proper
letters; then, of course, the sensible thing to do is to curtail them
accordingly. That is the principle to be adopted if we want to get at
truth; and if we find i, n, right and p, r, e, t, a, t, i, o, n right,
it would surely be silly to cavil at the absence of the t, e, r, or at
any sort of confusion in the beginning. ...

“Apart from the Cipher,” there are floods of reasons for disbelieving
that Shakespeare could have written the Plays. Genius, alowing that
hypothesis, might have given him lofty and beautiful thoughts, but no
genius would have given him detailed familiarity with Chancery law and
foreign languages, nor with the contents of Bacon’s commonplace book,
which must have been in the possession of the author of the Plays. But
it is miserably unjust to the arguments on the Baconian side to hint at
them in such few words as these. The “ignorance” in this connection is
to be found rather amongst those who idly accept the old tradition than
in the camp of those who are endeavouring to clear from foul slanders
the memory of one whom they regard as the greatest Englishman who ever
lived and the rightful sovereign of our literary allegiance. We make
a formidable claim on such men as Mr. Sidney Lee when we ask them
to abandon a tradition around which they have woven a great mass of
ingenious imagination in the effort to account for that which Emerson
found unaccountable--the contrast between the little that is actually
known of Shakespeare and the works assigned to him. “Other admirable
men have led lives in some sort of keeping with their thought, but this
man in wide contrast.” But the glory of leading the homage that has
so long been misdirected to the right shrine will surely be worth the
sacrifice.

A. P. SINNETT.

27, Leinster-gardens, W., Dec. 26, 1901.

FRANCIS BACON’S BI-LITERAL CYPHER.

Surprise has been expressed that I have not more fully replied to
the many severe and unjust criticisms of my work--the discovery and
publication of the _Bi-literal Cypher of Francis Bacon_. On account of
great distance causing lapse of time, the torrent of communications,
which deluged the _Times_ and other papers and magazines in London,
had somewhat subsided before my replies to any could be returned to
England, but the delay, although by no fault of ours and unavoidable,
has not been due to distance alone.

_The Times_ published two short letters with fair promptness. _The
Literary World_ gave space to two others, replying to articles
appearing in its own columns; and the _Daily News_, of April 30,
contained a part of my answer to Sir Henry Irving. An article in reply
to some of the critics, prepared for the _Pall Mall Magazine_, could
not, from prearrangement of space, appear until May--a rather late
date. The delay was the more regretted because the article on the
general subject, published in the March number of the same magazine,
was prepared and sent forward before the criticisms of the latter part
of December and January had reached me, and, though following shortly
after, was in no way a reply.

In the January number of the _Nineteenth Century and After_, there
appeared two articles of attack upon the Cypher, one by Mr. Candler,
and one by Mr. R. B. Marston. Mr. Marston, I understand, is a member of
the firm publishing the magazine. His article was a continuation of the
unfounded and libelous charges appearing in the _Publishers’ Circular_
and in the _Times_ concerning myself and my work. I replied at length
and forwarded the articles to Messrs. Gay & Bird, under date of
February 5th, desiring that the denial of these charges should be given
equal prominence. Electrotype plates were forwarded for illustration
of the technical portions. Plates for fac-simile pages from the two
editions of _De Augmentis_, affording most interesting illustration of
the method of the cipher and of the differences between the editions of
1623 and 1624, were also furnished. I am now advised by Messrs. Gay &
Bird that the _Nineteenth Century_, the _Contemporary Review_, and the
_Times_, have declined to publish any part of these articles.

This must be my apology for now issuing in pamphlet form what was
prepared for the public periodicals and should have appeared months ago
as part of the discussion of the subject that is of interest to a large
number of readers. The reluctance of the press in general, to print
anything Baconian is well illustrated in this refusal of my critics
to give place to my replies. I do not think it should be considered a
waste of space to discuss discoveries that correct history in important
particulars. The cipher is a _fact_, and cannot be ignored. It is
neither imagination nor creation of mine. It is a part of the history
of England, and effort should be directed to further investigations
along the lines it indicates--to search among old MSS., in the museums
and libraries and in the archives of the government, for other facts
which in the light of the cipher revelations will be better understood
than they have been in the past.

Concerning my reply to Mr. Marston’s charges, I am in receipt of the
_Literary World_ of May 2nd, which over his name has the following:

“Dear Sir:--I will not waste your space replying at length to
Mrs. Gallup, except to ask her where she has replied to my
article in _The Nineteenth Century_ for January, and to my
letters in _The Times_?

“In your columns and in the May number of _The Pall Mall
Magazine_ Mrs. Gallup says she has _elsewhere_ replied to my
request for an explanation of the fact that many passages in
what she says is Bacon’s translation of Homer are identical
with Pope’s Homer published more than 200 years afterward!...

“In a letter in _The Times_ Mrs. Gallup did suggest that Bacon
and Pope had used some edition of Homer _unknown to any one
else_.”...

In the above we note the strange inconsistency of Mr. Marston, for
my letter published in the _Times_ _did not_ “suggest” or even refer
to any edition of Homer whatever. His reference is to a paragraph
in my reply (printed herewith) to his baseless aspersions, and shows
conclusively that he had read my refutation, and knew that in the
article submitted to his magazine and rejected I had “elsewhere
replied” to his request.

In the article next preceding Mr. Marston’s letter, “Reviewer” also
states: “Now as to Homer, I have read Mrs. Gallup’s 'answer’ to Mr.
Marston,” etc.

This indicates that both Mr. Marston and “Reviewer” had examined my
article, and they comment upon specific portions of it before it has
been published, while ordinary courtesy should have withheld criticism,
at least until the article had appeared in print.

It may not be inopportune to report at this time the results of
researches made for me at the British Museum and elsewhere, since Mr.
Marston’s malicious charge of “paraphrasing Pope’s translation of
the Iliad” was made. Fourteen translations in Latin, French, German,
Italian and English, published before 1620, were carefully examined
for the reading in the disputed passages. Bacon’s “impatient arrow” is
“eager shaft” in Chapman’s translation, and “long distance shots” is
rendered “his hitting so far off,” the Greek words conveying the same
idea to these two minds. Mr. Marston matched Bacon’s “cold Dodona”
against _Pope’s_ “cold Dodona,” but Hobbes has “Dodona cold,” and a
modern Greek scholar renders it “chilly Dodona.” He also pairs “rocky
Aulis” with the same in Pope, but gives it as the literal translation
also; and he places Bacon’s “he _leapt_ to the ground” opposite Pope’s
“_leaps upon_ the ground,” while it is more like the line of Hobbes,
“he _leapt_ to land.” Another renders this “he _leap’d to_ the land,”
and still another, “he _leaped upon_ the earth.”

The examination also developed the fact that Pope’s original MSS.,
preserved at the Museum, have closer resemblances to Bacon’s _Argument
of the Iliad_ than are found in Pope’s published work. This is very
significant, and in itself refutes the charge, as I have never seen the
MSS., and the first edition of my book containing the _Argument of the
Iliad_ was published the year before I went to England to pursue the
work at the British Museum.

In Bacon’s _Argument_ we find:

“_Peneleus_, Leïtus, Prothoënor, joyned with Arcesilaus and _bold
Clonius_, equall in arms and in command, led Bœotia’s hosts.”

This in his fuller poem appears:

“_Peneleus_, Leïtus, and Prothoënor,
Join’d with Arcesilaus and _bold Clonius_--
Two equal men in arms and in command--
Led forth Bœotia’s hosts.”

Pope’s MS. at the British Museum reads:

“The hardy warriors whom Bœotia bred
_Bold Clonius_ Leïtus and _Peneleus_ led.”

But these were afterward emended to suit his verse, and the printed
lines are:

“The hardy warriors whom Bœotia bred,
_Penelius_, Leïtus, Prothoënor led:
With these Arcesilaus and _Clonius_ stand
Equal in arms and equal in command.”

By these comparisons we see that, in the _printed poem_, _Clonius_ has
lost his _bold_ness and _Peneleus_ has changed the spelling of his name.

Again in the original MS. we find:

“When first I led my troops to _Phaea’s_ wall
And heard fair _Jardan’s silver waters_ fall.”

But in Pope’s _printed_ poem it reads:

“When fierce in war, where _Jardan’s_ waters fall,
I led my troops to _Phea’s trembling_ wall.”

In this place Bacon omits all mention of the Jardan, but in the
catalogue of the ships he says, “Phæstus, by the _silver Jardan_.”
Chapman gives the name of the river, _Jardanus_, another translator
speaks of the _Jardan_, but Mr. Marston, I notice, writes the word
_Iardus_.

In his MS. Pope had “hilly Eteon”; Bacon wrote “hillie Eteon”; but
Pope’s _printed_ work has “Eteon’s hills.”

It is conceded that Pope followed Ogilby very closely. There may be
some interesting developments in the history of the latter. We know
that he was much employed about Gray’s Inn, and that he was afterward
taught Greek and Latin by the Oxford students to enable him to
translate Homer and Virgil. One thing needs no demonstration, that
there was nothing in Bacon’s Homer that made it necessary to keep it
concealed before or after it was put in cipher. Upon that point he
says that cipher writing became so much a habit, and pastime, that he
embodied many things in it not necessarily secret. I quote:

“And yet I have also emploied my cyphers for other then secret matters
in many of my later bookes, because it hath now become so much an act
of habite, I am at a losse at this present having less dificile labour,
now, then in former times in Her Ma.’s service.”--_Bi-literal Cypher_,
p. 66.

In the matter of criticism and expression of individual opinion, we
might quote from Bacon’s Essay of Custom and Education: “Men’s thoughts
are much according to their inclination; their discourse and speeches
according to their learning and infused opinions, but their deeds are
after as they have been accustomed.”

ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

Detroit, Mich., May 15, 1902.

REPLIES TO CRITICISMS.

ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

In presenting the results of my work in deciphering the bi-literal
cypher, I expected criticism, but it has taken on some features that
have been quite surprising to me.

To answer fittingly all the questions raised would be to write a book.
Some are relevant, many not; some are prompted by desire for knowledge,
others by a desire to check what they regard as a heresy; most show
unfamiliarity with the subject, and not a few are mistaken in their
statements of facts.

REPLY TO MR. CANDLER.

Mr. Candler, in the January number of the _Nineteenth Century_,
republishes modified portions of an article that appeared in
_Baconiana_ to which I replied some time since, sending a copy of my
article to him and to that magazine.

Mr. Candler makes his objections under the heads: History, Language,
Arithmetical Puzzles, Geography, Proper Names, and Bacon’s Poetry.

HISTORY.

As to History, I can only say, if the decipherings had been my own
invention, I should have had them in substantial accord with such
records as exist, defective as they now appear. Had I “followed”
accepted history, and prevailing ideas, and found in the cipher
confirmation of what people wish to have true, I should have received
encomiums due to an important discovery, and commendation for great
skill and industry in working it out.

It was my misfortune that the cipher would not read that way, and no
preconceived notions of my own could affect it. As I have elsewhere
said “the facts of history” is an elastic term, and means to the
individual that portion which the individual has learned. The records
are by no means in accord, and discrepancies may well be left to the
investigators, whose revisions from data they may hereafter be able
to collect may greatly change existing ideas. The decipherer is in
no way responsible for the disclosures of the cipher, nor allowed
speculation as to the probabilities in the case. One question only is
admissible--what does the cipher tell?

LANGUAGE.

Under Language, Mr. Candler makes five subdivisions.

1. “It was the English custom to use _his_ in connection with inanimate
objects where we now use _its_. This custom died out about 1670.”

This first objection is answered by himself, but in this connection he
states:

“_Its_ (or earlier, _it’s_) began to creep into literature about the
end of the sixteenth century, though doubtless it was used colloquially
at an earlier date.”

As to his other deductions on this point, I cannot speak from
knowledge, but whoever put out the First Folio was certainly not averse
to the use of _its_. In my former paper in _Baconiana_ I gave from the
Shakespeare folio ten examples of the use of the word. As there is no
punctuation in the cipher, I am unable to determine which form Bacon
used, _it’s_ or _its_, but that he used the word frequently in some
parts of the cipher and not at all in others, any reader may easily
see. _Thereof_, of which Mr. Candler speaks, though more rarely found
was occasionally used.--(See _Bi-literal Cypher_, p. 30, l. 4; p. 61,
l. 24.)

2. “From the date 1000 or earlier, we find many instances of _his_ used
instead of _s_ in the possessive case, and similarly, for the sake of
uniformity, of _her_ and _their_.... But in Bacon, after a diligent
collation of a great many pages, I find the general use of s without an
apostrophe for the possessive case both for singular and plural, and no
use of _his_, _her_, or _their_ in this sense. When a noun ends with an
_s_ sound, Bacon joins the two words without a connecting _s_. Thus:
'Venus minion,’ 'St. Ambrose learning,’ and the curious form 'Achille’s
fortune,’ which may be a printer’s error, as the apostrophe here is in
the wrong place. All these come from 1640 edition of the _Advancement
of Learning_, Books 1, 2.”

In a footnote Mr. Candler speaks of the seven instances sent him of the
disputed form, but I wish to give them here. _Henry Seventh_, (1622),
“King Henry his quarrell,” p. 24; “the Conspiratours their intentions,”
p. 124; “King Edward Sixt his time,” p. 145; “King Henrie the Eight his
resolution of a Divorce,” p. 196; “King James his Death,” p. 208. Also
in _Advancement of Learning_ (1605), Book I, “Socrates his ironicall
doubting,” p. 26; and one may see, “Didymus his Freedman.” in the
_Tacitus_. How many instances does he wish?

Mr. Candler further says: “And now for the 'Bacon’ of Mrs. Gallup.
Turning casually over the leaves of her story I find 'Solomon, his
temple,’ p. 24; 'England, her inheritance,’ p. 27; 'man, his right,’
p. 23 and p. 24; 'my dear lord, his misdeeds,’ p. 43; 'the roial
soveraigne, his eies,’ p. 59; Cornelia, her example;’ 'the sturdy
yeomen, their support;’ 'a mother, her hopes;’ 'woman, her spirit;’
and, curiously enough, where we might have expected an Elizabethan to
have employed _his_ 'Achilles’ mind,’ p. 302.”

Aside from the apostrophe, which could not of course be placed
in cipher in the one case--suggested as a printer’s error in the
other--the forms “Achilles fortune” and “Achilles mind” are the same.
We have the following examples and many others of the first form
also in the _Bi-literal Cypher_, (omitting apostrophes,) “Elizabeths
raigne,” p. 4; “Kings daughter,” ibid.; “loves first blossom,” “lifes
girlod,” p. 5; “stones throw,” “Edwards sire,” p. 6; “lions whelp,”
p. 7, etc., etc., etc., and we see that both forms are used in the
published works and in cipher.

3. Mr. Candler says: “It was the custom to finish the verb with _s_
after plural nouns, as if it were the third person singular,” but
complains that I do not recognize this in the deciphered work.

In two plays fifteen instances were found, seven of which are with
the verb _is_ or the abbreviation _'s_. In the _Bi-literal Cypher_,
p. 177, l. 9, Bacon speaks of “Illes which _is_ laid by for the good
opportunitíe.” There are undoubtedly other examples.

4. “Mrs. Gallup’s 'Bacon’ is repeatedly quoting from his own published
works and from the plays of Shakespeare.”

A reason is given for this, in the _Bi-literal Cypher_, p. 25. There
are many examples also in Bacon’s open works, _e. g._, “Females
of Seditions” is found in _Henry Seventh_, p. 137, while in Essay,
_Seditions and Troubles_, it appears in this form: “Seditious tumults
and seditious fames differ no more but as brother and sister, masculine
and feminine.”

From the Shakespeare plays we have,

----“we see
The waters swell before a boyst’rous storme.”--_Rich. III._

This occurs again as follows: “And as there are certain hollow
blasts of wind and secret swellings of seas before a tempest.”--Ess.
_Seditions and Troubles_. Also this: “Times answerable, like waters
after a tempest, full of working and swelling.”--_Avdt. of L._ (1605),
Book 2, p. 13.

A like recurrence is found in these: “And as in the Tides of
People once up there want not commonly stirring winds to make them
rough.”--_Henry Seventh_, p. 164; “For as the aunciente in politiques
in popular Estates were woont to Compare the people to the sea, and the
Orators to the winds because as the sea would of itselfe be caulm and
quiet, if the windes did not moove and trouble it; so the people would
be peaceable and tractable if the seditious orators did not set them in
working and agitation.”--_Advt. of L._ (1605), Book 2, 2nd p. 77.

Many of the culled expressions in Bacon’s _Promus_ are employed in the
cipher, as I have already found. When the same incidents are related in
the word-cipher that are given in the biliteral, large passages must
appear in both the _Bi-literal Cypher_ and Bacon’s open works.

5. Mr. Candler makes a series of verbal distinctions, as follows:
“There are, I think, words used in the cipher story in quite a wrong
sense. I will give instances: 'Gems rare and _costive_.’ Murray gives
no example of _costive_ meaning _costly_.

“'I am _innocuous_ of any ill to Elizabeth.’ Neither Murray nor Webster
gives any example of 'innocuous of,’ _i. e._, innocent of,’ though
_innocuous_ may mean _innocent_. Shakespeare does not use the word.

“'Surcease’ is a good enough word, but 'surcease of sorrow’ is used by
Poe, an American author; and the use of the phrase by Mrs. Gallup’s
'Bacon’ makes one wonder whether he had ever read _The Raven_.

“'Cognomen,’ p. 29. No instance given in Murray earlier than 1809.
'Desiderata,’ p. 161. No instance of 'desideratum’ earlier than 1652.

“'Hand and glove,’ p. 359. Earliest instance in Murray, 1680.

“'Cognizante’ adj. Earliest example in Murray, 1820. Murray says,
'Apparently of modern introduction; not in dictionaries of the
eighteenth century;’ ... (cognisance is quite early, both as a law term
and in literary use.)”

These are refinements beyond reason. Bacon added thousands of new words
and new uses of words to the language. There is something applicable to
the case in the _Advancement of Learning_ (1605).

“I desire it may bee conceived that I use the word in a differing
sense from that that is receyved,” and “I sometimes alter the uses and
definitions.”--Book 2, pp. 24-25.

Had the word _costive_ occurred but once I should have considered it
intended for _costlye_ as we find it in Bacon. He may have used a _v_
where _y_ was intended.

It is true _innocuous_, from the Latin _innocuus_, in the dictionaries
is used only of things, but Bacon evidently employed it differently,
and wrote “innocuous of ill” as he would have written “not guilty of
crime.” In _Anatomy of Melancholy_ (1621) we find “Northerne men,
_innocuous_, free from riot” (p. 82), and “The patient _innocuous_ man.”

_Surcease_ is used in the Shakespeare plays--Cor., Act 3; Rom. & Jul.,
Act 4; Macb., Act 1. It is in _Lucrece_, and also occurs in Bacon’s
acknoweldged works. He had, perhaps, as good reason as Poe to desire
'surcease of sorrow.’

Certainly, Bacon had a right to use words existing in any language. We
know that he anglicized many from the Latin and the French. _Cognomen_
is of course from the Latin; _desiderata_, Mr. Candler admits, was used
in 1652; _cognizante_--or as it is elsewhere spelled in the cipher,
_cognisant_--might be allowed him on the ground that _cognisances_ was
certainly in use.--_Henry Seventh_, p. 211; 1 Hen. VI., Act 2; Jul.
Cæsar, Act 2; Cym., Act 2.

ARITHMETICAL PUZZLES.

Mr. Candler is also inaccurate in his arithmetic. He has not carefully
read pp. 66 and 67, where it is explained that Latin letters, called by
us Roman, were used in a few dedications, prologues, etc. I did not
find these employed until the publications of 1623--in the folio and
Vitæ et Mortis. I have also shown elsewhere that, at the end of short
sections that did not join with other works, there were occasionally
a few letters more in the exterior passage than were required for the
enfolded portion. These are nulls and not used. Mr. Candler gives the
number of letters in the catalogue of the plays as 850 and says the
portion extracted required 860. Both numbers are wrong. The cipher
enfolded required 855 letters, and that is the exact number of letters
in the catalogue when the Roman type is included and the diphthongs and
digraphs are regarded as separate letters.

GEOGRAPHY.

Just what Mr. Candler would have us understand by referring to
the incorrect geography in the plays is not quite clear. It has
no relevance to the cipher nor does it determine whether Bacon or
Shakespeare would suffer most from the criticism. The same may be said
of the next paragraph under “Proper Names,” for it was, and is, at
least poetic license to change the pronunciation in that manner; and
as to the spelling of Iliad on page 176 of the _Bi-literal_, we have
in Troilus and Cressida a parallel in, “as they passe toward Illium.”
Neither spelling nor pronunciation were well defined arts in Bacon’s
day or in Bacon’s books.

BACON’S POETRY.

The quoted verse of this “concealed poet” speaks for itself, and on
this point I may well be silent, except to say the particular poetry
Mr. Candler condemns is said to have been written on a sick bed at the
age of sixty-two.

It is amusing to see how many plans are made for Bacon by these
critics, how many things are pointed out that he might, or should have
done. Their long experience in surmising what Shakespeare may, can,
must, might, could, would, or should have done in order to reconcile
asserted facts has given them the habit of “guessing.”

Mr. Candler adds some footnotes, in one of which he quotes: “'Mrs.
Gallup, when challenged, failed to point out the cipher, an easy
matter if it really existed; and now avows that without extraordinary
faculties and a kind of “inspiration,” none, save herself, need
expect to perceive it.’” And adds, “It should be understood that the
President and Council of the Baconian Society enter a formal _caveat_
that nothing in Mrs. Gallup’s interpretation can be said to have been
satisfactorily proved.”

I remember very well the evening to which the extract from _Baconiana_
refers, when, upon the invitation of a member of the legal profession,
my sister and myself explained to two prominent Baconians the
method and scope of our work. In theory, they accepted--or seemed
to accept--what is unmistakably true, that for different sizes of
type,--pica, small pica, English, etc. Bacon arranged different
alphabets. It was shown that one size of ornamental capitals belonged
to the '_a_ fount,’ in another size the ornamental letters belonged to
the '_b_ fount.’ This was admitted as very possible, even probable; yet
when this was applied to practical demonstration of what Bacon _did_,
they exclaimed: “Impossible!!” “Bacon never would have done that! etc.,
etc.” This could not be thought a receptive frame of mind, and just how
they knew what Bacon would not have done I cannot tell.

Afterward I showed them which letters belonged to the '_b_ fount,’ in
a number of lines of the Dedicatory Epistle of Spenser’s _Complaints_,
in no single instance varying from the marking of the manuscript from
which my book was printed. This was candidly admitted, yet, when this
interview was reported, it read as above quoted.

When I first put out the cipher, I thought any one who would take the
time could decipher all that I have done, but when I found people
who could not distinguish between this _w_ and ~w~ to say nothing of
obscure _o_'s and _e_'s, I despaired of their becoming decipherers.
There are, of course, many who have a correct eye for form, who will
be able in time to overcome the difficulties this study presents, but
I wish to ask Mr. Candler if he does not think the small _a_'s, _c_'s,
etc., of the Latin illustration in _De Augmentis Scientiarum_, which he
says a child could manage, quite as bewildering as any of the Italic
letters elsewhere?

At the close of Mr. Candler’s article he desires that I “get together
a few men who know something about books, and add to them a printer or
two, familiar with types, new and old; between them if they extract
a consecutive narrative ... there is nothing more to be said.” I have
extended this invitation many times, only to have it politely declined.
The Editor of the _Times_ refused, more than a year ago, to consider
this request. Now, having practically lost the use of my eyes for
such close work as this entails, I shall be obliged to forego, for a
time at least, until a greater degree of strength has returned, the
satisfaction it would be to point out in detail to a committee the
various differences, though it seems to me they should be readily
observable without my aid. In the meantime I rest in confidence that it
will be correctly done by some one, somewhere and sometime.

REPLY TO MR. MARSTON.

It seems rather infantile to call attention to the spelling, but as
Mr. Marston deems it of sufficient importance to draw from it the
following inference, he must think it serious. I quote from the _Times_
of January 3: “The whole thing is so transparently a concoction that a
school boy who was reading this deciphered _Tragedy_ asks: 'Was Bacon a
Yankee? He spells words like “labour” and “honour” without the “u”.’”

I would reply that he was the same person that wrote the Shakespeare
plays. The folio shows both ways of spelling. But all the word-cipher
productions were printed according to modern American usage, as in this
_Tragedy of Anne Boleyn_.

Mr. Marston emphasizes the matter by a second allusion to this
peculiarity as discrediting my work, in the following words: “And Mrs.
Gallup asks the world to believe Bacon wrote this 'new drama’ in order
to vindicate the 'honor’ of his grandmother.”

A few minutes’ examination shows, in the first four plays of
Shakespeare, forty-four instances of the spelling of honor, without the
_u_, against twenty-five occurrences of the word with the _u_. For the
spelling of labor, I will take time and space to quote only a single
line from the first folio:

“There be some Sports are painfull and their labor--” Tem. 3-1-1.

These words occur in the cipher story, as in the plays, spelled both
ways.[9]

This suggests one thing of value to present day readers of the plays
who do not know, or do not stop to consider, that modern editions
differ greatly, and in important particulars, from the original
editions, both spelling and grammar having been modified, while in some
parts, whole paragraphs of the text are omitted to meet the ideas of
what the particular editor _thought_ the author _should_ have said.

Mr. Marston, in the _Nineteenth Century_, continues an argument first
put forth in the _Times_, and further illustrated in the _Publishers’
Circular_, attempting to prove that, because certain fragments of
the Iliad, in the _Bi-literal Cypher_, deciphered from the _Anatomy
of Melancholy_ of 1628, are similar to Pope’s version of the same
passages, the whole long story comprising 385 pages--about 300 of which
relate to matters entirely foreign to the Iliad--must be a conscious
fraud, and that “bold lie” is the key to the whole matter. It was
hardly a courteous expression, and I have every confidence that Mr.
Marston will, after more careful investigation, retract it.

_Any statement that I copied from Pope, or from any source whatever,
the matter put forth as deciphered from Bacon’s works, is false in
every particular._

It will be noted that Mr. Marston makes no attempt to prove the cipher,
but bases his convictions regarding the book upon this one point of
similarity, in an insignificant portion of it, to Pope’s translation of
the Iliad.

As it chanced, I had read Pope to some extent in the rhetorical studies
of my school days, but had never re-read his Homer until Mr. Marston
called attention to it. I now see a similarity in some expressions, and
in the arrangement of names, in that portion devoted to the catalogue
of the ships. Bacon’s directions for writing out the Iliad (by the
word-cipher, p. 170), suggest that at that time he had not made as full
preparation for writing out the catalogue as for the remainder of the
work, and this seems significant.

I do not find any striking resemblances in the other parts, and, as I
stated in a recent communication to the _Times_, in an examination of
six English translations and one Latin, I found that each might with
equal justice be considered a paraphrase of Pope, or that he had copied
his predecessors. Why, among several translations of the same Greek
text, two having both resemblances and differences should be classed
together, and one should necessarily be a copy of the other, is not
clear to me. Knowing that Pope’s was considered the least correct of
several of the English translations, yet, perhaps, the best known for
its poetic grace, it is hardly reasonable to suppose that I should
have copied his, had I been dependent upon any translation for the
deciphered matter.

Bacon says his earliest work upon the Iliad was done under instructors.
There were Latin translations extant in his day, which were equally
accessible to Pope a century later. A similarity might have arisen
from a study by both of the same Latin text. George Chapman, in
1598, complained vigorously that some one had charged him with
translating his Iliad from the Latin, and abusively replied. Theodore
Alois Buckley, in his introduction to Pope’s Iliad, says he was
“not a Grecian” and that he doubtless formed his poem upon Ogilby’s
translation, besides consulting friends who were better classical
scholars than himself.

But all this is of small importance, for it is inconclusive. The
question is, did I find this argument of the Iliad in differing founts
of Italic type in the text of the _Anatomy of Melancholy_?

I have had set up by our printers from my MS. two sections of the
_Anatomy of Melancholy_, from which were taken some passages Mr.
Marston quotes. Modern Italic type has to be used, of course, and
the two founts will be easily distinguishable. They are so marked as
unmistakably to indicate how the differing forms are used. A reference
to an original copy of the _Anatomy of Melancholy_ (1628), which may
be seen in the British Museum, or in the fine library of Sir Edwin
Durning-Lawrence, will quickly show whether or not I have used all the
Italic letters in the text, whether they are of differing forms as
marked in this, whether they have been properly grouped, and, when the
bi-literal cipher is applied, whether they produce the results I have
printed. If the types are of differing forms, are properly grouped, and
produce, by the bi-literal method, the results printed, the question of
identities or similitudes is eliminated from the discussion.

I am aware that in offering this evidence in this way, I am at a
serious disadvantage. The true classification of the types was
determined after days of examination and comparison of hundreds of
the old letters, until every shade, and line, and curve of those I
marked was familiar, and as thoroughly impressed upon my memory as the
features of a friend, while to those making this comparison the letters
themselves will be new, the number examined probably limited to those
in a few sentences, and by eyes entirely unskilled in this kind of
examination.

Mr. Marston refers to my use of an edition of the _Anatomy of
Melancholy_, published after Bacon’s death, as evidence that I may be
wrong. The edition I used was that of 1628, published by Dr. William
Rawley. Concerning this and Rawley’s work, I had found in deciphering
_Sylva Sylvarum_, the following statement from Rawley himself:

“When, however, you find this change ... where I beganne
th’ worke, you shall pause awhile, then use the alphabet
as it is heerein employ’d and as explain’d in my preceding
epistle. It will thus be like a new alphabet and doubtlesse
will bee troublesome, yet can bee conn’d while some had to be
discover’d; but in respect of a probable familiaritie with th’
worke, and the severall diverse methods employed oft by his
lordship, this may by no meanes be requir’d, since th’ wit that
could penetrate such mysteries surely needeth no setti’g forth
and enlarging of mine.

“Ere the whole question be dropt, however, let me bid you go
on to my larger and fully arranged table where th’ storie, or
epistle, is finish’d as it should have beene had his lordship
lived to compleat it, since my part was but that of th’ hand,
and I did write only that portion which was not us’d at th’
time. All this was duely composed and written out by his hand,
and may bee cherish’d.

“From his penne, too, works which now bear th’ name Burton ...
make useful those portions which could by noe means bee adapted
to dramaticall writings. If you do not use them as you decypher
th’ interiour epistles, so conceal’d, your story shall not be
compleat.

“Th’ workes are in three divisio’s, entitled Melancholy, its
Anatomy. Additons to this booke have beene by direction of Lord
Verulam, himselfe, often by his hand, whilst th’ interiour
letter, carried in a number of ingenious cyphers mentioned
above, is from his pen, and is the same in every case that he
would have used in these workes, for his is, in verie truth,
worke cut short by th’ sickel of Death.”

This edition of Burton was the only old book in hand at the time of
its deciphering, and, having found the cipher in it, I continued work
upon it, though its contents were a serious disappointment, and I have
since greatly regretted the time and strength spent upon what was of
so little value, and of no interest historically as relating to the
personality of Bacon or the times in which he lived. Has it been noted
by Mr. Marston, or by others who have been incredulous about this book,
that Burton in the appendix to his will does not include the _Anatomy
of Melancholy_ in “such books as are written with mine own hands”?
While this might not be conclusive, it is, in the light of the cipher
revelations, a very significant omission. I add here that the first
edition was published in the name of T. Bright, under the title of _A
Treatise of Melancholy_, in 1586, when Burton was ten years old and
Bacon twenty-five. As the _Anatomy of Melancholy_, it was issued in
Rawley’s lifetime, in several editions under dates of 1621, 1624, 1628,
1632, 1638, 1651-2, 1660, 1676. The edition of 1676 was a reprint of
an earlier edition and was issued after Rawley’s death. Burton died in
1640.

One of the passages which Mr. Marston quotes in proof of a paraphrase
of Pope’s translation is the expression, “Hillie Eteon, or the waterie
plains of Hyrie.” On referring to my MS. of the deciphering from
_Democritus to the Reader_, p. 73, l. 24, _Anat. of Mel._, I find the
phrase was extracted from the words, which are here set up in two
founts of modern type.

No one should pass judgment upon the _Bi-literal Cypher_ who cannot, at
sight, assign these letters to their respective founts, for it is much
less difficult in these diagrams than in the old books themselves.

FOUNTS USED

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_A_ ~A~ _a_ ~a~ _B_ ~B~ _b_ ~b~ _C_ ~C~ _c_ ~c~

{a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_D_ ~D~ _d_ ~d~ _E_ ~E~ _e_ ~e~ _F_ ~F~ _f_ ~f~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_G_ ~G~ _g_ ~g~ _H_ ~H~ _h_ ~h~ _I_ ~I~ _i_ ~i~ _j_ ~j~_

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_K_ ~K~ _k_ ~k~ _L_ ~L~ _l_ ~l~ _M_ ~M~ _m_ ~m~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_N_ ~N~ _n_ ~n~ _O_ ~O~ _o_ ~o~ _P_ ~P~ _p_ ~p~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_Q_ ~Q~ _q_ ~q~ _R_ ~R~ _r_ ~r~ _S_ ~S~ _s_ ~s~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_T_ ~T~ _t_ ~t~ _V_ ~V~ _v_ ~v~ _u_ ~u~_ _W_ ~W~ _w_ ~w~

{ a b a b a b a b a b a b
{_X_ ~X~ _x_ ~x~ _Y_ ~Y~ _y_ ~y~ _Z_ ~Z~ _z_ ~z~

Passage to be deciphered.

_vi_~t~_ij_~s~ ~Cr~_i_~m~_ine_ _N_~e~_m_~o~ _ca_~r~_e_~t~ _Ne_~m~_o_
_sort_~e~ _sua_ _v_~i~_vi_~t~ _co_~n~_ten_~t~_us_ _N_~em~_o_ ~i~_n_
~am~_ore_ ~sa~_p_~it~, _Nemo_ ~b~_on_~u~_s_, _Ne_~mo s~_ap_~i~_en_~s~,
_N_~e~_mo_, _est_ _ex_ ~o~_mn_~i~ par_~t~_e_ _b_~e~_atus_ _&_~c~.
_Nicho_~l~_as_ _N_~emo~, _No_ ~b~_o_~d~_y_ _quid_ _va_~l~_eat_
_N_~em~_o_, _N_~e~_mo_ _r_~e~_f_~er~_r_~e~ _po_~t~_e_~s~_t_ _v_~ir~
~sa~_p_~it~ _q_~u~_i_ _pauc_~a~ _loqui_~t~_ur_

Grouping in fives as the words stand, we have:

_vi_~t~_ij_ ~sCr~_i_~m~ _ineN_~e~ _m_~o~_ca_~r~ _e_~t~_Ne_~m~
_aa b aa_ _bbb a b_ _aaaa b_ _a b aa b_ _a b aa b_
=E= =B= =K= =K=

__sort_ ~e~_suav_ ~i~_vi_~t~_c_ _o_~n~_ten_ ~t~_usN_~e
_aaaaa_ _b aaaa_ _b aa b a_ _a b aaa_ _b aaa b_
=A= =R= =T= =I= =S=

The first group forms the biliteral letter _e_, but the next has two 'b
fount’ letters at the commencement. There is no letter in the biliteral
alphabet commencing _bb_, but there is a possibility of a printer’s
error, and it is necessary to examine the following groups. Each forms
a bi-literal letter, but they are a jumble and cannot be set off, or
divided into words.

Another attempt is necessary to pick up the cipher thread. Omitting one
letter at the beginning, the grouping is:

_i_~t~_ij_~s~ ~Cr~_i_~m~_i_ _neN_~e~_m_ ~o~_ca_~r~_e_
_a b aa b_ _bb a b a_ _aaa b a_ _b aa b a_
=K= =C= =T=

~t~_Ne_~m~_o_ _sort_~e~ _suav_~i~ _vi_~t~_co_ ~n~_ten_~t~
_b aa b a_ _aaaa b_ _aaaa b_ _aa b aa_ _b aaa b_
=T= =B= =B= =E= =S=

_usN_~em~
_aaa bb_
=D=

Here, again, _bb_ comes at the beginning of a group, but going on with
the remainder of the line the resulting letters are again impossible to
separate into any intelligible words.

Omitting another letter we have:

~t~_ij_~sC~ ~r~_i_~m~_in_ _eN_~e~_m_~o~ _ca_~r~_e_~t~
_b aa bb_ _b a b aa_ _aa b a b_ _aa b a b_
=U= =W= =F= =F=

_Ne_~m~_os_ _ort_~e~_s_ _uav_~i~_v_ _i_~t~_co_~n~
_aa b aa_ _aaa b a_ _aaa b a_ _a b aa b_
=E= =C= =C= =K=

_ten_~t~_u_ _sN_~em~_o_ ~i~_n_~am~_o_ _re_~sa~_p_ ~it~_Nem_
_aaa b a_ _aa bb a_ _b a bb a_ _aa bb a_ _bb aaa_
=C= =G= =Y= =G=

Another trial commences with the fourth letter, and the groups are:

_ij_~sCr~ _i_~m~_ine_ _N_~e~_m_~o~_c_ _a_~r~_e_~t~_N_
_aa bbb_ _a b aaa_ _a b a b a_ _a b a b a_
=H= =I= =L= =L=

_e_~m~_oso_ _rt_~e~_su_ _av_~i~_vi_ ~t~_co_~n~_t_
_a b aaa_ _aa b aa_ _aa b aa_ _b aa b a_
=I= =E= =E= =T=

_en_~t~_us_ _N_~em~_o_~i~ _n_~am~_or_ _e_~sa~_p_~i~
_aa b aa_ _a bb a b_ _a bb aa_ _a bb a b_
=E= =O= =N= =O=

~t~_Nemo_ ~b~_on_~u~_s_ _Ne_~mos~ _ap_~i~_en_
_b aaaa_ _b aa b a_ _aa bbb_ _aa b aa_
=R= =T= =H= =E=

~s~_N_~e~_mo_ _estex_ ~o~_mn_~i~_p_ _ar_~t~_eb_
_b a b aa_ _aaaaa_ _b aa b a_ _aa b aa_
=W= =A= =T= =E=

~e~_atus_ _&_~c~_Nic_ _ho_~l~_as_ _N_~emo~_N_
_b aaaa_ _a b aaa_ _aa b aa_ _a bbb a_
=R= =I= =E= =P=

_o_~b~_o_~d~_y_ _quidv_ _a_~l~_eat_ _N_~em~_oN_
_a b a b a_ _aaaaa_ _a b aaa_ _a bb aa_
=L= =A= =I= =N=

~e~_mor_~e~ _f_~er~_r_~e~ _po_~t~_e_~s~ _tv_~irs~
_b aaa b_ _a bb a b_ _aa b a b_ _aa bbb_
=S= =O= =F= =H=

~a~_p_~it~_q_ ~u~_ipau_ _c_~a~_loq_ _ui_~t~_ur_
_b a bb a_ _b aaaa_ _a b aaa_ _aa b aa_
=Y= =R= =I= =E=

DECIPHERED PASSAGE

None of these groups begins with two _b_'s, and the resulting letters
spell out the line quoted,

h i l l i e e t e o n o r t h e w a t e r i e p l a i n s o f h y r i e

Hillie Eteon or the waterie plains of Hyrie.

The capitalization and punctuation are suggested by the rules of
literary construction. There are four possible wrong groupings, but
this illustration required only the trial of three to find the correct
one. Should there be obscure, or doubtful, letters in the text that
make the resulting letters of a group uncertain, pass the whole group
by until those are marked which are certain. There are always a
sufficient number of _b_'s to indicate what the word really is in the
groups preceding and following. In the resulting phrase above, a number
of the letters might be passed over as abbreviations and yet the sense
could hardly be mistaken even in this short and disconnected line,
while with the context it would be made perfectly clear.

Mr. Marston quotes another passage as evidence that I have “copied
Pope”:

“Hee was th’ first of th’ Greekes who boldlie sprang to th’ shore when
Troy was reach’d, and fell beneath a Phrygian lance.”

Referring to my MS., I find this comes from page 38, _Anat. of Mel._,
commencing in line 11. I have had this printed, also, and grouped for
the resulting bi-literal letters that form the deciphered passage, and
I think it well to use this because it illustrates one of the points
that should be clearly understood.

Anatomy of Melancholy, p. 38, l. 11 (Edition 1628).

_Clau_~din~_us_ ~H~_ippo_~c~_ra_~t~_e_~s~ _Paracel~s~_us
N_~on~ _es_~t~ _rel_~uct~_an_~d~_u_~m~ _c_~u~_m_ _De_~o~
_Herc_~u~_les_ ~Ol~_ym_~p~_ic_~ks~ _I_~u~_pi_~t~_e_~r~
~I~_up_~i~_ter_ ~Her~_cu_~le~_s_ ~N~_il_ _iuva_~t~
_imme_~n~_sos_ ~C~_ra_~t~_er_~o~ _pr_~o~_mit_~te~_r_~e~
_mont_~es~ ~w~_e_ ~mu~_s_~t~ _subm_~i~_t_
~ou~_r_~s~_e_~l~_u_~e~_s_ _vnd_~er~ _t_~h~_e_ _mig_~h~_ty_
_han_~d~ _of_ ~G~_od v_~n~_a_ ~ead~_e_~m~_q_ _manus_
_vun_~us~ _opem_~q~ ~f~_e_~r~_et_ ~A~_ch_~il~_l_~es~
_A_ _D_~i~_gre_~ssio~_n_ _of_ ~t~_he_ ~nat~_u_~re~
_o_~f~ ~S~_pirits_ ~b~_ad_ ~A~_n_~g~_els_ _o_~r~
~Di~_ve_~l~_s_ _an_~d~ ~h~_ow_ ~t~_he_~y~ _c_~a~_use_
_Me_~la~_n_~ch~_o_~ly~ _P_~o~_s_~t~_ellus_ _fu_~l~_l_ _of_
~co~_ntrove_~r~_sie_ _and_ _ambi_~g~_uit_~y fa~_teo_~r~
~e~_xceder_~e~ ~v~_ires_ _i_~nt~_en_~t~_i_~o~_ni_~s~ _mea_~e~
_A_~u~_st_~i~_n_ ~f~_initu_~m~ _de_ ~i~_nfi_~ni~_to_ _no_~n~
_potest_ _s_~t~_at_~u~_ere_ ~Act~_s_ _Saddu_~cee~_s_
_Ga_~len~ ~P~_erip_~a~_t_~et~_ic_~ks~ _Ari_~s~_totle_
_Pomp_~on~_ati_~u~_s_ ~S~_caliger_ ~Da~_ndinu_~s~ _com_ ~i~_n_
_lib de_

_au_~din~ _us_~H~_ip_ _po_~c~_ra_ ~t~_e_~s~_Pa_
_aa bbb_ _aa b aa_ _aa b aa_ _b a b aa_

_racel_ ~s~_usN_~o~ ~n~_es_~t~_r_ _el_~uct~
_aaaaa_ _b aaa b_ _b aa b a_ _aa bbb_

_an_~d~_u_~m~ _c_~u~_mDe_ ~o~_Herc_ ~u~_les_~O~
_aa b a b_ _a b aaa_ _b aaaa_ _b aaa b_

~l~_ym_~p~_i_ _c_~ks~_I_~u~ _pi_~t~_e_~r~ ~I~_up_~i~_t_
_b aa b a_ _a bb a b_ _aa b a b_ _b aa b a_

_er_~Her~ _cu_~le~_s_ ~N~_iliu_ _va_~t~_im_
_aa bbb_ _aa bb a_ _b aaaa_ _aa b aa_

_me_~n~_so_ _s_~C~_ra_~t~ _er_~o~_pr_ ~o~_mit_~t~
_aa b aa_ _a b aa b_ _aa b aa_ _b aaa b_

~e~_r_~e~_mo_ _nt_~esw~ _e_~mu~_s_~t~ _subm_~i~
_b a b aa_ _aa bbb_ _a bb a b_ _aaaa b_

_t_~ou~_r_~s~ _e_~l~_u_~e~_s_ _vnd_~er~ _t_~h~_emi_
_a bb a b_ _a b a b a_ _aaa bb_ _a b aaa_

_g_~h~_tyh_ _an_~d~_of_ ~G~_odv_~n~ _a_~ead~_e_
_a b aaa_ _aa b aa_ _b aaa b_ _a bbb a_

~m~_qman_ _usvul_ _n_~us~_op_ _em_~qf~_e_
_b aaaa_ _aaaaa_ _ abb aa_ _aa bb a_

~r~_et_~A~_c_ _h_~il~_l_~e~ ~s~_AD_~i~_g_ _re_~ssi~
_b aa b a_ _a bb a b_ _b aa b a_ _aa bbb_

~o~_nof_~t~ _he_~nat~ _u_~re~_o_~f~ ~S~_piri_
_b aaa b_ _aa bbb_ _a bb a b_ _b aaaa_

_ts_~b~_ad_ ~A~_n_~g~_el_ _so_~rDi~ _ve_~l~_sa_
_aa b aa_ _b a b aa_ _aa bbb_ _aa b aa_

_n_~dh~_ow_ ~t~_he_~y~_c_ ~a~_useM_ _e_~la~_n_~c~
_a bb aa_ _b aa b a_ _b aaaa_ _a bb a b_

~h~_o_~ly~_P_ ~o~_s_~t~_el_ _lusfu_ ~l~_lof_~c~
_b a bb a_ _b a b aa_ _aaaaa_ _b aaa b_

~o~_ntro_ _ve_~r~_si_ _eanda_ _mbi_~g~_u_
_b aaaa_ _aa b aa_ _aaaaa_ _aaa b a_

_it_~yfa~ _teo_~re~ _xcede_ _r_~ev~_ir_
_aa bbb_ _aaa bb_ _aaaaa_ _a bb aa_

_esi_~nt~ _en_~t~_i_~o~ _ni_~s~_me_ _a_~e~_A_~u~_s_
_aaa bb_ _aa b a b_ _aa b aa_ _a b a b a_

_t_~i~_n_~f~_i_ _nitu_~m~ _de_~i~_nf_ _i_~ni~_to_
_ababa_ _aaaab_ _aabaa_ _abbaa_

_no_~n~_po_ _tests_ ~t~_at_~u~_e_ _re_~Act~
_aabaa_ _aaaaa_ _baaba_ _aabbb_

_sSadd_ _u_~cee~_s_ _Ga_~len~ ~P~_erip_
_aaaaa_ _abbba_ _aabbb_ _baaaa_

~a~_t_~et~_i_ _c_~ks~_Ar_ _i_~s~_tot_ _lePom_
_babba_ _abbaa_ _abaaa_ _aaaaa_

_p_~on~_at_ _i_~u~_s_~S~_c_ _alige_ _r_~Da~_nd_
_abbaa_ _ababa_ _aaaaa_ _abbaa_

_inu_~s~_c_ _om_~i~_nl_
_aaaba_ _aabaa_

DECIPHERED PASSAGE

Hee was th’ first of th’ Greekes who boldlie sprang to th’ shore when
Troy was reach’d, and fell beneath a Phrygian lance.

In the word _Phrygian_, the fifth group which should make the letter
_g_, aabba, really is _n_, abbaa, probably Rawley’s mistake, for
the printer should not answer to every charge. The two _b_'s stand
together, as they should, but are one point removed to the left.

Every page of the book was worked out in the manner illustrated,
every Italic letter classified and the result set down, nor could any
“imagination or predetermination” change the result.

In this connection as few of your readers have opportunity to examine
the old books I will reproduce the Cicero Epistle containing the
Spartan dispatch from each of the 1623 and 1624 editions of _De
Augmentis_, showing the differences and the errors in the second which
like those occurring in the text of the old books have to be corrected
if the work goes on.

[Illustration: _De Augmentis Scientiarum. London Edition, 1623._

Plate i.]

[Illustration: Plate ii.]

[Illustration: Plate iii.]

[Illustration: Plate iv.]

[Illustration: _De Augmentis Scientiarum. Paris Edition, 1624._]

[Illustration]

In the 1624 edition the second _i_ in _officio_ is changed by the law
of tied letters; the second _u_ in _nunquam_ has position or angle of
inclination, to make it an 'a fount’ letter; _q_ in _conquiesti_ is
from the wrong fount, and the _u_ has features of both founts but is
clear in one distinctive difference--the width at the top; the _q_
in _quia_ is reversed by a mark; the _a_'s in the first _causa_ are
formed like '_b_ fount’ letters but are taller; the _q_ of _quos_ is
from the wrong fount; the second _a_ in _aderas_ is reversed being a
tied letter; _l_ in _velint_ is from the wrong fount, also the _p_ of
_parati_, the _l_ of _calumniam_ and the _l_ of _religione_.

In line twelve '_pauci sunt_’ in 1623 ed. is '_parati sunt_’ in the
1624 ed. The correct grouping is _ntqui velin tquip ratis untom nesad_,
the first _a_ in '_parati_’ must be omitted to read _diutius_ according
to the Spartan dispatch. Otherwise the groups would be _arati sunto
mnesa_. The _m_ and _n_ are both '_b_ fount,’ thus bringing two _b_'s
at the beginning of this last group, indicating at once a mistake for
no letter in the bi-literal alphabet begins with two _b_'s and wherever
encountered may be known to indicate either a wrong fount letter or a
wrong grouping. It is one of the guards against error. To continue the
groups after the one last given several would be found to commence with
_bb_, and the resulting letters would not “read.”

Here, too, is an example of diphthongs, digraphs, and double letters,
which are troublesome to “A Correspondent.” The diphthong æ of
“cæteris,” the digraph _ct_ in _perfectare_, and the double _ff_'s and
_pp_'s are shown as separate letters and must be treated as such in
deciphering Italics.

* * * * *

A very important feature, that most seem to forget, is that ciphers
are made to hide things, not to make them plain or easy to decipher.
They are constructed to be misleading, mysterious, and purposely made
difficult except to those possessing the key. Seekers after knowledge
through them must not abandon the hunt, upon encountering the first
difficulty, improbability, inaccuracy, or stumbling block set for their
confusion.

Were the confirmation of this cipher of importance to the government--a
matter of life or death to an official, or likely to concern the
strategic movement of an army--the energies of many minds would be
centered upon deciphering it. But it would appear from the writings we
have recently seen, the greatest effort is to prevent its development
or acceptance--that the ideas of a lifetime be not overturned, and
the satisfaction remain that the individual has already compassed the
limits of information. It is so much pleasanter to be satisfied with
what we have than to delve for things we do not want to know.

Personally, it is a matter of no vital importance to me whether
the cipher is accepted or not. I have put my best efforts into its
discovery and elucidation. I know that I have accomplished what others
have failed to do, and I can look on with equanimity as the world
wrestles with the evidences, and finally comes, as it will, to the
conclusion I have reached.

The impetus given the movement by this discussion will result in
important research, and other discoveries concerning Bacon that I am
unable to make, will, with the light that has now been thrown upon the
subject, confirm what has been set forth and much more besides. As I
write, an article in _Baconiana_ makes a suggestion which should be
acted upon at once:

“Our attention has also been called to _a sealed bag of papers at
the Record office_. It was, it is said, sealed at the death of Queen
Elizabeth, and to be opened only by joint consent of the reigning
Sovereign, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Lord Chancellor. Is
not the time come when we may fitly memorialize His Majesty, King
Edward, to command or sanction the opening and revelation?”

REPLY TO SIR HENRY IRVING.

THE PRINCETON ADDRESS.

In an address at Princeton on the Shakespeare-Bacon controversy,
Sir Henry Irving did me the honor of mention, although in rather
a disparaging way, as “constructing a wonderful cipher out of the
higgledy-piggledy lettering” of the First Folio and other Elizabethan
books in which irregular lettering is found.

As comparatively few will recognize from the terms Sir Henry used, the
actual meaning of this characterization of the peculiar printing, I beg
leave to say that he refers to the two or more forms of Italic letters
the printers of that day employed in the same text of many books, and
that I have discovered that their use in a large number was for the
purpose of embodying the biliteral cipher invented by Bacon. Much of
this work has been deciphered and published as the _Bi-literal Cypher
of Francis Bacon_, and no doubt the recent discussion of this book in
England,--and the echoes, on this side, of the controversy,--was the
suggestion, at least, of the theme of the Princeton address.

Sir Henry points out that by “this wondrous cipher Bacon is alleged to
have written in addition to Shakespeare and Greene, the works of Ben
Jonson and Marlowe, Spenser’s _Faerie Queene_ and Burton’s _Anatomy of
Melancholy_,” but says “its chief business is to stagger us with the
revelation that Bacon was the 'legitimate son of Queen Elizabeth.’”

It is not my purpose at this time to discourse upon the discoveries
I have made, which, among a great deal else equally important, most
certainly reveal all that Sir Henry mentions--except that Bacon lays
no claim to the greater part of Ben Jonson’s works--but I wish to
throw additional light upon certain passages in the address that are
presented as facts irreconcilable with the cipher disclosures. These
“facts” are supposed to show that it is not in the realm of possibility
that Bacon could have written the plays.

In the opening sentences, Sir Henry refers to some words of his own
used as a fitting conclusion to a treatise on the _Bacon-Shakespeare
Question_ by Judge Allen of Boston. I quote: “When the Baconians can
show that Ben Jonson was either a fool or a knave, or that the whole
world of players and playwrights at that time was in a conspiracy to
palm off on the ages the most astounding cheat in history, they will be
worthy of serious attention.”

If Sir Henry Irving to-day appeared in a new play, and at the same
time claimed that it was the work of his hand, it would not, probably,
require “a conspiracy of the whole world of players and playwrights to
palm it off” on the present age to say nothing of the future.

The writers who refer so confidently to Ben Jonson’s praise of
Shakespeare, do not observe that he says:

----“he _seemes_ to shake a Lance,
As brandisht at the eyes of Ignorance.”

They are blind, also, to the significance of the lines:

“From thence to Honour thee, I would not seeke
For names; but call forth thund’ring Æschilus,
Euripides, and Sophocles to us,
Paccuvius, Accius, him of Cordova dead,
To life againe, to heare thy _Buskin_ tread,
And shake a Stage: Or, when thy _Sockes_ were on,
Leave thee alone for the comparison
Of all, that insolent Greece, or haughtie Rome
Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come.”

The 'buskin’ signified tragedy, 'socks’ comedy, and it was as an actor,
not as an author, that Jonson would compare Shakespeare with both
ancient and modern Greece and Rome. His name was in the list of actors
of some of Jonson’s plays, as well as of “Shakespeare’s.” Beeston
says, “he did act exceedingly well,” and we are indebted to Mr. Sidney
Lee’s _Shakespeare in Oral Tradition_ for a revival of “the exciting
discovery some actors made” of Shakespeare’s brother Gilbert whose
memory “only enabled him to recall his brother’s performance of Adam in
his(?) comedy of _As you like it_.”

It is true that Shakespeare was lauded for the literary work supposed
to be his, yet in the article just cited we observe also that
“Shakespeare’s extraordinary rapidity of composition was an especially
frequent topic of contemporary debate.” There were men even then who
realized that these things were not possible to their Shakespeare.

In the _Advancement of Learning_ we read; “He is the greater and deeper
pollitique, that can make other men the Instruments of his will and
endes, and yet never acquaint them with his purpose: So that they shall
doe it, and yet not know what they doe, then hee that imparteth his
meaning to those he employeth.” B. 2., 1st p. 33.

This would suggest that Bacon did not impart his purposes to his
“masques.” Ignorant of the fact that Shakespeare’s name was being
employed as was his own, Greene exclaimed, “An upstart crow beautified
with _our_ feathers!” The similarity of expression was apparent to him,
as to students of the present day, and the charge of plagiarism was
very natural.

Sir Henry points out that although Bacon “was the legitimate son of
Queen Elizabeth, his unnatural mother showed not the smallest desire to
advance his interests.” But what shall be said of Sir Nicholas Bacon’s
failure to make provision for Francis? The cipher history makes that
point quite clear. He made provision for his own sons, and in a certain
sense Elizabeth provided for hers, although she did not give them
public recognition nor show the elder any marked favor.

Sir Henry asks: “What did Bacon know about the stage?” What did he not
know about the stage? A few random quotations will best answer these
questions:

“_In the plays_ of this philosophical _theatre_ you may observe the
same thing which is found _in the theatre_ of the poets, that stories
invented _for the stage_, are more compact and elegant, and more as one
would wish them to be, than true stories out of history.” _Nov. Or._,
p. 90.

“_Representative_ [_poetry_] is as a _visible_ history, and is _an
image of actions_ as if they were present, as history is of actions in
nature as they are (that is) past.” _Adv. of L._, p. 204.

“In whose time also began that great alteration in the state
ecclesiastical, _an action_ which seldom _cometh upon the stage_.”
_Adv. of L._, p. 193.

“As if he were conscient to himself that he had _played his part well
upon the stage_.” _Adv. of L._, p. 362.

“But it is not good to stay too long _in the theatre_.” _Adv. of L._,
p. 206.

“But men must know, that _in this theatre_ of man’s life it is reserved
only for God and the angels to be lookers on.” _De Aug._, p. 198.

“As it is used in some _Comedies of Errors_, wherein the mistress and
the maid change habits. _Adv. of L._, p. 315, _De Aug._, p. 199.

“What more unseemly than to be always _playing a part_?” _Adv. of L._,
p. 349.

“And then what is more uncomely than to bring the manners _of the
stage_ into the business of life?” _De Aug._, p. 235.

“Besides it is unseemly for judicial proceedings to borrow anything
_from the stage_.” _De Aug._, p. 340.

“But the best provision and material for this treatise is to be gained
from the wiser sort of historians, not only from the commemorations
which they commonly add on recording the deaths of illustrious persons,
but much more from the entire body of history as often as such a person
_enters upon the stage_; for a character so worked into the narrative
gives a better idea of the man, than any formal criticism and review
can.” _De Aug._, p. 217.

“This was one of the longest _plays_ of that kind that hath been in
memory.” _History of Henry the Seventh_, p. 304.

“Therefore now like the _end of a play_, a great number came _upon the
stage_ at once.” _History of Henry the Seventh_, p. 287.

“But from his first appearance _upon the stage_.” _H. VII._, p. 291.

“He had contrived with himself a vast and _tragical plot_.” _H. VII._,
p. 302.

“As to the stage, love is ever matter of _comedies_ and now and then of
_tragedies_.” _Essays_, p. 95.

The stage and stage plays were constantly in Bacon’s mind. The point is
not well taken that Bacon could not have written the plays from lack of
familiarity with the stage, from lack of the old plays that were the
basis of some, from the impossibility of altering the plays extant, or
of collaborating with other writers in the historical dramas. Bacon
had access to all sorts and conditions of men, to all varieties of
literature, but the proofs of collaboration are entirely wanting.

Again, Sir Henry states: “His [Shakespeare’s] knowledge of law was
supposed to be wonderful by Lord Campbell but does not commend itself
to Judge Allen.”

This is the opinion of one man opposed to that of another. Warner, in
speaking of the chorus in Act i., Sc. ii., _H. V._, says: “It reads
like the result of a lawyer’s struggle to embalm his brief in blank
verse.”

A little further on in Sir Henry’s speech we find an allusion to
'Shakespeare’s careless notions about law, geography, and historical
accuracy.’

When the great German Schlegel wrote, “I undertake to prove that
Shakespeare’s anachronisms are for the most part committed purposely
and after great consideration,” the truism was more far-reaching than
he knew. The double purpose that many lines and often whole passages
serve, was the real cause of the anachronisms, and want of historical
accuracy. In _Richard the Second_ the pathetic scene of the queen’s
interview with the dethroned Richard as he is being led to the Tower,
is “both historically inaccurate and psychologically impossible. The
king and queen did not meet again at all after their parting when
Richard set out for Ireland, and Queen Isabel was a child.”--_Warner’s
Hist._ Nearly the entire scene is a part of the hidden cipher drama,
_The White Rose of Britain_, and is the parting of the pretended
Richard, Duke of York,--Warbeck, named by the Duchess of Burgundy the
White Rose,--from his faithful wife, Katharine, to whom the title was
afterward given.

“_Qu._ This way the King will come: this is the way
To Julius Cæsar’s ill-erected Tower:
To whose flint bosome, my condemned Lord
Is doom’d a Prisoner, by prowd----
Here let us rest, if this rebellious earth
Have any resting for her true King’s Queene.
ENTER RICHARD AND GUARD.
But soft, but see, or rather do not see
My fair Rose wither: yet look up; behold,
That you in pittie may dissolve to dew,
And wash him fresh again in true-love Teares.
Ah thou, the Modell where old Troy did stand,
Thou Mappe of Honor, thou King Richard’s Tombe,
And not King Richard: thou most beauteous Inne,
Why should hard-favor’d Griefe be lodged in thee,
When Triumph is become an ale-house guest?
_Rich._ Joyne not with griefe faire Woman, do not so,
To make my end too sudden: learne good Soule,
To thinke our former State a happie Dreame,
From which awak’d, the truth of what we are,
Shewes us but this. I am sworne Brother (Sweet)
To grim Necessitie; and hee and I
Will keepe a League till Death,” etc.--_R. II._, Act. v., Sc. i.

Again in _Henry the Sixth_, see all the conversation regarding the
marriage of Edward the Fourth: A note on the play says “nothing
is historically certain concerning the episode except that Edward
_married_ the Lady Elizabeth Grey.” It is a part of another cipher
drama, the _Tragedy of Anne Boleyn_, where some were bold enough to
challenge the right of the marriage of Henry the Eighth with the
beautiful Anne Boleyn:

“_Lady._ My lords, before it pleas’d his Majestie
To rayse my State to Title of a Queene,
Doe me but right, and you must all confesse,
That I was not ignoble of Descent,
And meaner than myselfe have had like fortune.
But as this Title honors me and mine,
So your dislikes, to whom I would be pleasing,
Doth cloud my joyes with danger, and with sorrow.
_King._ My Love, forbeare to fawne upon their frownes:
What danger, or what sorrow can befall thee,
So long as ---- is thy constant friend,
And their true Soveraigne, whom they must obey?
Nay, whom they shall obey, and love thee too,
Unlesse they seeke for hatred at my hands:
Which if they doe, yet will I keep thee safe,
And they shall feele the vengeance of my wrath.”

_H. VI._, Act iv., Sc. i.

Critics trace the marked anti-papal spirit of _King John_ to 'Henry
the Eighth’s revolt from the Roman obedience,’ and these passages are
indeed a part of Henry’s speech, in the _Tragedy of Anne Boleyn_:

----“What earthie name to Interrogatories
Can tast the free breath of a sacred King?
But as we, under heaven are supreame head,
So under him that great supremacy
Where we doe reigne, we will alone uphold
Without th’ assistance of a mortall hand:
For he that holds his Kingdome, holds the law.”

And again:

“Yet I alone, alone doe me oppose
Against the Pope, and count his friends my foes.”

_K. J._, Act iii., Sc. i.

The following lines are a part of the cipher poem, the _Spanish Armada_:

----“So by a roaring Tempest on the flood,
A whole Armado of convicted saile
Is scattered and dis-joyn’d from fellowship.”

_K. J._, Act iii., Sc. iii.

A part of Cranmer’s prophetic speech at Elizabeth’s christening has
reference to Francis himself:

“So shall she leave her Blessednesse to One
(When Heaven shall call her from this clowd of darknes)
Who, from the sacred Ashes of her Honour
Shall Star-like rise, as great in fame as she was,
And so stand fix’d.”--_H. VIII._, Act v., Sc. iv.

The mention of quoting Marlowe sometimes with acknowledgment--sometimes
omitting the acknowledgment--shows that Sir Henry does not concede
that the plays of Marlowe were from the same pen as the plays of
Shakespeare, but he admits that 'Marlowe was Shakespeare’s model in
several ways,’ and in making this admission he reveals a recognition of
similarity that he can in no way account for until he accepts the very
natural 'cause of this effect’ made known in the cipher.

Next we find: “Shakespeare had an immeasurable receptivity of all that
concerned human character.”

This is, of course, an inference drawn from the plays. It is well known
to all close students of that marvelous literature that its author
discerned every type of human character, understood the influence of
environment upon men and women, and had a wide and deep knowledge of
the spirit of the times, in different ages and in many countries. We do
not differ in opinion there, but Sir Henry speaks of the author by his
pseudonym, I by the name his foster father gave him.

Tennyson is quoted to show Bacon’s opinion of love: “The philosopher
who in his essay on 'Love’ described it as a 'weak passion’ fit only
for stage comedies, and deplored and despised its influence over the
world’s noted men, could never have written 'Romeo and Juliet’.”

In the _Advancement of Learning_, Bacon says: “Love teacheth a man
to carry himself ... to prize and govern himself ... onely Love doth
exalt the mind and neverthelesse at the same instant doth settle and
compose it.” The play of _Romeo and Juliet_ was the story of the love
of Bacon’s youth and early manhood, and the score of years between the
time of writing the play and publishing the essay had filled his life
with other things, yet those who have read the cipher story know that
an inner chamber of his heart enshrined a memory of Marguerite.

I quote again from the address: “Still more noteworthy is the absence
of any plausible excuse for Bacon’s fond preservation of his worthless
rhymes and his neglect of the masterpieces that went by Shakespeare’s
name. He gave the most minute directions for the publication of his
literary remains. His secretary, Dr. Rawley, was entrusted with this
responsibility and faithfully discharged it.”

Bacon’s MSS. were given to two literary executors, not to Rawley alone,
and a part was taken to Holland. Rawley continued the publication of
Bacon’s works after 1626, publishing all those that were left in his
care. Without these, a large number of the interior works would have
been incomplete and the work in the word-cipher interrupted.

Sir Henry’s assertion, “nothing could be easier than to make an equally
impressive cipher which would show that Darwin wrote Tennyson,” etc.,
needs no refutation. Bacon does not say that it was exceedingly
difficult to “make” the biliteral cipher.

Again we find: “It would be more to the purpose if the Baconians would
tell us why on earth Bacon could not let the world know in his lifetime
that he had written Shakespeare.”

The principal reason was because the history of his life was largely
given in those plays, not alone in the biliteral, but in the
word-cipher, and the revelation of that in the lifetime of Queen
Elizabeth would have cost his own life. He hoped against hope to the
very day of the queen’s death, that she would relent and proclaim him
heir to the throne. But he states that the witnesses were then dead,
and the papers that would authenticate his claims destroyed. What could
he do? Simply what he did.

In the peroration we find: “I fear that the desire to drag down
Shakespeare from his pedestal, and to treat the testimony of his
personal friends as that of lying rogues is due to that antipathy to
the actor’s calling which has its eccentric manifestations even to this
day.”

This cannot in any way refer to my book, for the very nature of this
work eliminates personal thoughts and wishes or preconceived ideas. It
is as mechanical as the reading of hieroglyphics, as naming perfectly
well-known objects, as discriminating the clicks of the telegraph. And
as far as Bacon was concerned he desired only his right.

It is by its great men in every age of the world that the actor’s
calling is dignified, but the genius of the man of the stage is not
necessarily the genius of the man who wrote the greatest plays that
time through all the centuries has produced.

ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

THE BI-LITERAL CIPHER IN HENRY VII.

BACONIANA, LONDON, JULY 1905.

It has been suggested to me that I should give some of the results of
my examination of Mrs. Wells Gallup’s work on Bacon’s _Henry VII._ I
was not in England when Mrs. Gallup’s MSS. arrived from America, in
the early part of 1904. On my return to London in June of that year, I
heard that two or three members of our Society had been trying to work
the cipher, but on comparing notes found that the various copies of the
1622 edition did not agree in some of the forms of the Italic letters.
Only one member seemed inclined to devote the time and patience to
investigate the matter at all thoroughly. That member, I understand,
with much patience devoted _one whole week_ to the study of the italic
letters. His very able report against the cipher made me wish to
look into the matter still more thoroughly myself. This may appear
presumptuous as I was not one of the committee appointed to enquire
into the subject. But I had had the advantage of many conversations
with Mrs. Gallup, when she first presented her work to the public five
years ago, and saw her and her sister, Miss Wells, at work on a book
they found in my house not before deciphered by them. I was busy with
other literary work during the summer of 1904, but in the autumn made
up my mind to send my own copy of the 1622 edition of _Henry VII._
to the Howard Publishing Company, in America, for examination. I was
anxious to know if it was a safe copy on which I might commence my
work. It was returned to me by Mr. Moore in January, 1905, with one or
two pencilled corrections written by Mrs. Gallup in the margin. Mrs.
Gallup, in her letter to me, said, “Your copy and ours are the same,
except in a very few places.” In that letter, and in others since, she
answered several of my questions, and they have materially helped me. I
worked diligently for three months, often eight and ten hours a day.

My studies have been confined to the first fifty pages only of the
medium Italic type. I find in these fifty pages 10,058 Italic letters.
Of these, 1,319 are capitals. For the present I shall confine my
remarks to the capitals only. In these fifty pages only twenty-two
letters of the alphabet are used. I have completed my studies on
thirteen of these letters. They represent 704 letters used for the two
founts; and with very few exceptions I find them correctly so used in
Mrs. Gallup’s MSS. sent to us for examination. I have not yet completed
my studies on the remaining nine letters of the alphabet, representing
615 letters. I am, however, finding the majority of these correctly
used also. I am a slow worker, but each day’s work is bringing out
better results on these nine more difficult letters. I give below a
table of all the letters in the order in which I found them easiest to
read, with the columns of figures divided into “a’s” and “b’s.”

Totals. “a” “b”

A. 61 25 36
E. 78 58 20
I. J. 51 49 2
M. 49 41 8
N 42 32 10
U. V. 11 9 2
Q. 13 2 11
P. 163 119 44
R. 41 8 33
S. 93 62 31
W. 19 11 8
T. 70 39 31
Y. 13 7 6
K. 71 37 34
L. 68 46 22
F. 78 47 31
B. 99 65 34
D. 74 47 27
H. 24 12 12
O. 24 17 7
G. 25 18 7
C. 152 100 52
---- ---- ----

1,319 851 468

It was suggested to me, by a member who disliked the facts revealed in
the cipher story, that even if I found the 1,319 capitals correctly
used, that would not be sufficient to prove the existence of the
cipher, unless I could also find that the small letters were correctly
used by Mrs. Gallup. This made me leave the capitals for a time. I have
since studied all the small letters of the medium italic type in those
first fifty pages. But as they represent 8,739 letters, for the present
I can only say I have finished my studies on three of the letters,
namely, “k,” “p,” “w,” and with only one or two exceptions I find them
correctly used.

If my figures are correct, and I am prepared for the severest
examination on these facts, can it be chance that those letters are
correctly used in Mrs. Gallup’s MSS.?

I would like to say here, that were it actually the case that only
two forms of letters are used, the deciphering of over 10,000 letters
would have been a comparatively easy work. But in some of the letters
there are many variations, and these again must be paired. And yet in
all these pairings there is system and order, and a method in all the
seeming madness.

My work would have progressed much more rapidly had two or three others
worked with me. For those who have the leisure and much patience I can
recommend this interesting study. I am willing and in a position to
give them many short cuts, and they, in their turn, could, I have no
doubt, help to finish the work I have commenced, that is, simply to
verify the working of Mrs. Gallup’s MSS. on this _Henry VII._ Those
Baconians who have never very seriously tried to work at the cipher,
and are more concerned in refusing to accept the rather unpleasant
historical facts revealed, I would ask to suspend their judgment, and
to allow others, who may be honestly and seriously trying to arrive
at the truth, still to be allowed to examine the work submitted by
Mrs. Gallup at the request of some of the members of our Society. The
more I, as an amateur, study this technical part of our work, the more
convinced I feel that Bacon did use his famous bi-literal cipher in
his own prose history of _Henry VII._ A new discovery has been placed
before us, and by experts; why should we discredit their labours, and
refuse to give an equal amount of time and patience in examining their
work?

I would like here to bring forward some curious facts connected with
the printing of the 1622 edition of _Henry VII._ I have before me six
copies--one belonging to Mrs. Pott, another to Mrs. Payne, and four of
my own. Mrs. Payne’s copy is similar to the copy collated for me by
Mrs. Gallup. Mrs. Pott’s copy has many differences in it--not in the
words and matter, but in the use of the two founts of the Italic type.
Two of my own copies are similar to Mrs. Pott’s copy. My fourth copy,
again, is quite different to all the others. Why should there be these
differences in the various copies of the same edition? Why should type
once set up have been altered? And, when altered, why should these
changes be carried through with system and order in other copies?
Before closing this paper, I would like to remind Baconians that Bacon,
in writing to Tobie Mathew in 1609, uses these words: “I have sent you
some copies of my book of the _Advancement_ which you desired; and a
little work of my recreation which you desired not. My _Instauration_
I reserve for our conference; it sleeps not. Those works of the
_alphabet_ are in my opinion of less use to you now than at Paris....
But in regard that some friends of yours have still insisted here, I
send them to you, and for my part I value your own reading more than
your publishing them to others” (Spedding, vol. iv., p. 134). Spedding,
in criticising this letter, says, “What these 'Works of the Alphabet’
may have been I cannot guess, unless they related to Bacon’s cipher.”
Spedding then proceeds again to explain this cipher.

Archbishop Tenison in 1679 was evidently aware that Bacon had used
his Bi-literal Cipher in the 1623 folio of the “_De Augmentis_” for
he especially recommends that “accurate” edition to those who wish to
understand the Lord Bacon’s Cipher (BACONIANA, 1679, p. 28). I myself
have very little doubt but that Tenison used the same cipher all
through his BACONIANA. I only wish I were an expert, and could decipher
what he says.

D. J. KINDERSLEY.

HENRY VII.

A REPLY TO THE REPORT OF MR. BOMPAS.

BACONIANA, LONDON, OCT. 1905.

I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to the article of the late
Mr. Bompas in the July number of BACONIANA.

I am also grateful to Mr. Cunningham for his prefatory remarks and
footnotes, and I wish to say that his regret is my own as well, that
Mr. Bompas did not discuss the paper with members of the Society better
advised than was he, and that the MS. of the article had not been
submitted to me while Mr. Bompas was still with us, or at least before
publication, for some, if not all, the erroneous conclusions drawn
could have been dissipated before they took form. The explanations
would have given that gentleman and his readers a more comprehensive
view, a different view point, and greater light upon the subject.

It is rare that an article appearing in public print carries upon
analysis its own evidences of error, and in the next preceding pages
finds so complete a refutation as does this in the article of Mrs.
Kindersley.

In his opening statement Mr. Bompas says: “The copies of _Henry VII._
which have been examined do not exactly correspond.... The form of
many of the capitals also differs in the different copies.... Mr.
Cuningham’s copy differs widely from the others.... Either each copy
contains a different cipher story, which is absurd, or the decipherer
happened by chance to light on the only correct copy, which is equally
absurd.” Then Mr. Bompas proceeds to build an argument upon the fact
that the copy of my MS., furnished to the Society, did not correspond
with some copy of _Henry VII._ with which he compared it, concluding,
therefore, that the cipher system must be a myth, and Mrs. Gallup a
visionary or a fraud.

Any comparison to establish the correctness of my work must be made
either with the copy I used or one identical with it. That Mr.
Bompas used some copy _not_ identical, but one printed differently,
is substantiated by Mrs. Kindersley, whose three months’ work on an
identical copy--as against one week Mr. Bompas spent on a different
printing--resulted in her verification of nearly all the letters
studied. It is still more forcibly proved by the table of headings Mr.
Bompas prints, the Italics in which do not at all correspond in the
different forms with the book I used. It therefore follows that the
entire argument, from pages 169 to and including part of 176, so far as
relates to _Henry VII._, is founded upon a false premise and falls to
the ground.

Mr. Bompas says, “Either each copy contains a different cipher, which
is absurd,” &c.

On the contrary, that is just what occurs in unlike copies. Those
widely differing belong to different editions, although published in
the same year, as I have found to be true, and stated in my article in
BACONIANA published in 1901. Two issues of the _Treatise of Melancholy_
appeared in 1586 with differing Italic printing. I have deciphered
both. One ends with an incomplete cipher word, which is completed in
the other where the narrative is continued, and the book ends with the
signature of Bacon on the last page. I have also found that in two
editions of Bacon’s acknowledged works one had the cipher and one had
not. The peculiar Italicizing and the same forms of letters were in
both. In one the arrangement of the letters followed the cipher system,
in the other no amount of study could make them “read.” Bacon refers in
the cipher to some false and surreptitious copies issued without his
authority.

The differences in print of _Henry VII._ first came to light,
apparently, through the comparisons made with my MS. in London, and
the report of it was a great surprise to me. Mrs. Kindersley was kind
enough to send me one of her copies, and, as before stated, this was
found to be identical with the one I used except that three or four
typographical errors in her copy were corrected in mine, and one in
mine did not occur in hers, but in no case was a verbal change made and
only one orthographical.

About the same time it chanced that a copy of the work--a recent
importation from London--was sent me from Chicago for examination.
This I found quite different in the use of Italics. I did not decipher
the work, but became convinced that it either contained another cipher
story, or was one of the “false and surreptitious copies” before
referred to.

In addition to the criticism of _Henry VII._, Mr. Bompas refers to some
typographical errors making slight differences in our own editions of
the _Bi-literal Cipher_, and to the examples in the editions of _De
Augmentis_ of 1623 and 1624.

I have to admit there are some printers’ errors in my book that escaped
the closest proof reading, much to my regret. The proof reading was
extremely difficult because of the care required to keep the unusual
spelling and occasional abbreviations. Some errors were corrected in
the third edition. Mr. Bompas found two or three--probably not all. I
have had no opportunity to note the errata in a later publication. I
can, however, make the broad assertion that in no single instance has
any of these slight technical errors changed the meaning of a phrase,
or made it obscure, or been of sufficient importance to affect in the
least the overwhelming evidences of the existence of the system of the
cipher and the correctness of its deciphering.

Manifest errors occurred in the text of the old books, which were
corrected in the deciphering, but they were so few and so evident as
to prove rather than to disprove the system. They occur mostly in long
groups, as in the example of the cipher in _De Augmentis_, occasionally
a short group of four letters, once in a while a wrong font letter,
but the meaning of the context was always sufficiently clear in itself
to correct the error. I cannot better illustrate this than by quoting
from my “Replies to Criticisms,” issued in pamphlet form, but which
has not appeared in public print. The explanation covers explicitly a
number of points raised by Mr. Bompas, and being an analysis of Bacon’s
own illustration of the cipher in the 1624 _De Augmentis_, has the
weight of the author’s own methods of correction, and the suggestion,
at least, that the errors were purposely made to educate the decipherer
as to what would be encountered in the books; also the manner of
overcoming the difficulties as they should arise.

“In the 1624 edition the second _i_ in _officio_ is changed by the law
of tied letters; the second _u_ in _nunquam_ has position or angle of
inclination, to make it an '_a_ fount’ letter; _q_ in _conquiesti_ is
from the wrong fount, and the _u_ has features of both founts but is
clear in one distinctive difference--the width at the top; the _q_
in _quia_ is reversed by a mark; the _a_'s in the first _causa_ are
formed like '_b_ fount’ letters but are taller; the _q_ of _quos_ is
from the wrong fount; the second _a_ in _aderas_ is reversed, being a
tied letter; _l_ in _velint_ is from the wrong fount, also the _p_ of
_parati_, the _l_ of _calumniam_ and the _l_ of _religione_.

“In line twelve '_pauci sunt_’ in 1623 ed. is '_parati sunt_’ in the
1624 ed. The correct grouping is _ntqui velin tquip ratis untom nesad_,
the first _a_ in '_parati_’ must be omitted to read _diutius_ according
to the Spartan dispatch. Otherwise the groups would be _arati sunto
mnesa_. The _m_ and _n_ are both '_b_ fount,’ thus bringing two _b_'s
at the beginning of this last group, indicating at once a mistake, for
no letter in the bi-literal alphabet begins with two _b_'s and wherever
encountered may be known to indicate either a wrong fount letter or a
wrong grouping. It is one of the guards against error. To continue the
groups after the one last given several would be found to commence with
_bb_, and the resulting letters would not 'read.’

“Here, too, is an example of diphthongs, digraphs, and double letters,
which are troublesome to 'A Correspondent.’ The diphthong æ of
'cæteris,’ the digraph _ct_ in _perfectare_, and the double _ff_'s and
_pp_'s are shown as separate letters and must be treated as such in
deciphering Italics.

“A very important feature, that most seem to forget, is that ciphers
are made to hide things, not to make them plain or easy to decipher.
They are constructed to be misleading, mysterious, and purposely made
difficult except to those possessing the key. Seekers after knowledge
through them must not abandon the hunt upon encountering the first
difficulty, improbability, inaccuracy, or stumbling block set for their
confusion.”

The article says: “The plain inference is that the Cipher and Cipher
story are imaginary.”

Well, this is at least complimentary, but I doubt whether Mr. Bompas
stopped to think what that statement would mean with all that it
implies. I do not think he would, on reflection, give me credit for a
genius so broad, for it would be equal to the production of the plays
themselves.

Were I the possessor of an imagination so boundless, I would certainly
not have spent it upon a production foredoomed to be unpopular, or have
subjected myself to the strain upon nerves and eyesight of six years’
hard study of old books and their typographical peculiarities for a
Baconian cloak to hide the brilliancy of that imagination. Yet if the
material for the three hundred and ninety pages of my book were not
found in Cipher in the old originals, then it must be the conception
of my own brain. First, the plot of each story worked out; the account
of Bacon’s discovery of his parentage; the variations from historic
records; the death of Amy Robsart; the tragedy of Essex, and that of
Mary, Queen of Scots, and other scraps of added history; the love of
Bacon for Margaret, and all the rest. All this thought out, in diction,
much of it, of the highest order, in the old English spelling and
phraseology of the 16th century and fitted with such nice exactness
to the Italic letters of the old books, “separated into groups of
five”--letters that even the sceptics admit the capitals at least agree
with the alleged system--the study of months in the British Museum;
the explanations and demonstrations to numberless people--all to hide
a genius so magnificent! In the language of Mr. Bompas, “Absurd!” And
yet, I repeat, if not Cipher it must be my own production.

It is useless to discuss the probability of Bacon’s committing State
secrets to such a Cipher. It is not a time to ask the question, “Is
it likely?” _The Cipher is there_, and it only remains to master its
intricacies and search out what it has to reveal.

ELIZABETH WELLS GALLUP.

A WORD OR TWO ON CANONBURY TOWER.

_Baconiana, London._

There are several suggestive points of connection to be noted between
the old conventual buildings of Canonbury and our Francis St. Alban.
There are also obscure particulars well worthy of inquiry.

Originally the property of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem,
Canonbury House is generally supposed to have been built in 1362, ten
years after Edward III. had exempted the Priory of St. Bartholomew
from the payment of subsidies, in consequence of their great outlay
in charity. Stow says that William Bolton (Prior from 1509 to 1532)
rebuilt the house, and probably erected the fine square tower of brick.
Nichol, in his “History of Canonbury,” mentions that Bolton’s rebus of
_a bolt in a tun_ was still to be seen, cut in stone, in two places on
the outside facing Wells’ Row. The original house covered the whole
space now called Canonbury Place, and had a small park, with garden and
offices. Prior Bolton either built or repaired the Priory and beautiful
Church of St. Bartholomew, but at his death the connection between
Canonbury and monasticism ceased.[10]

The Tower House was now given by Henry VIII. to John Dudley, Earl of
Northumberland, afterwards Viscount Lisle, father of Robert Dudley,
Earl of Leicester, whose history has lately risen into fresh and
startling importance in consequence of certain deciphered history to
be submitted to the world’s judgment. John Dudley was executed as a
traitor when Mary was proclaimed Queen in 1553. The Tower then again
became Crown property, and Queen Mary gave it to “Rich Spencer,” the
magnificent alderman of whom history speaks so fully, giving us even
that which it denied us with regard to Francis St. Alban--details of
his funeral obsequies. It is from this Sir John Spencer (father-in-law
of Lord Compton) that Sir Francis “Bacon,” when Attorney-General
(1616), leased Canonbury Manor.[11]

The internal arrangements and decorations of Canonbury House are
commented on in detail by Lewis, who describes the elaborate ornamental
carving, emblematic figures and devices, ships, flowers, foliage,
and other objects which Baconians have learnt to associate with the
symbolic method of teaching of the Renaissance, and pre-eminently of
the “Great Master” himself, but which in the regulation literature of
our day are described as “specimens of taste for ornamental carving and
stucco work that prevailed about the time of Elizabeth.” There are also
medallions of three great men who seem to have been in a way models
to our Francis--types of the nobler Pioneer, the mighty Conqueror,
the Master Builder, Alexander the Great, namely Julius Cæsar, Titus
Vespasian. Then with the arms of the Dudleys may be seen the arms of
Queen Elizabeth in several places, and her initials, “E. R.” with the
date--1599, at which time the premises were fitted up by Sir John
Spencer.

“On the white wall of the staircase, near the top of the Tower, are
some Latin hexameter verses comprising the abbreviated names of the
Kings of England from William the Conquerer to Charles I., painted in
Roman character an inch in length, but almost obliterated. _The lines
were most probably the effusion of some poetical inhabitant of an upper
apartment in the building during the time of the monarch last named,
such persons having frequently been residents of the place._”

Thomas Tomlins, in his “History of Islington,” writes thus:

“The Earl and Countess, by description Lord and Lady Compton, by
indenture 15th February, Jac. 1616, let to the Right Hon. Francis
Lord Verulam, Visct. St. Albans, by the name of Sir Francis Bacon
Knight,[12] His Majs. Attorney General, all that mansion and garden
belonging to what is called Canonbury House, in the Parish of Islington
* * * for 40 years from Lady-day, 1617.”

With regard to the Tower, the same writer states:

“The great Sir Francis Bacon resided here from February, 1616; as also
at the time of his receiving the Great Seal, on 7th Jan., 1618, and for
some time afterwards.[13]

“After the decease of Henry Prince of Wales (in 1612) the Manor of
Newington Barrowe was, with other portion of land, on 10th January, 14
Jac., granted upon lease for 99 years to Sir Francis Bacon, Knt., at
that time the King’s Attorney General, and also Chancellor to Charles
Prince of Wales, afterwards Charles I., and others, his law officers
and ministers in trust for him, which lease, upon his accession, became
merged in the Crown.”--Dated at Canonbury, 15th Sept., 1629.

In connection with recent statements concerning the parentage of
Francis St. Alban, it will be observed that in Nelson’s “History of
Islington” the writer states that Queen Elizabeth was at Canonbury
Tower in the year 1561, and that she had a “lodge” or summer-house
looking into Canonbury Fields. It bore her arms and initials, with the
date 1595. “The Tower was encompassed by pleasant fields and gardens,
and a salubrious air.”

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Pub.: Gay and Bird, London. The Howard Publishing Company, Detroit.

[2] “Introduction,” p. 11.

[3] He speaks in the third person--as a royal personage.

[4] Introduction, p. 8. It seems probable that this was written soon
after the events in 1601.

[5] Introduction, p. 13.

[6] The Biliteral Cipher of Sir Francis Bacon, by Mrs. Gallup.

[7] The passage quoted is from the translation by Gilbert Wats, 1640,
as reproduced in _The Bi-literal Cypher of Francis Bacon_, at the end
of Part I.

[8] Published, since this article was written, in the Third Edition of
_Bacon’s Bi-literal Cypher_.

[9] Even present day London writers are not in accord in the use of
“u,” for I find in the _Times_, “_font_ of type.” Mr. Marston and
others write “_fount_.”... Are the writings of “A Correspondent” in the
_Times_ to be discredited for following the American method?

[10] See “Old and New London,” Vol. II., p. 269.

[11] Sir John Spencer’s daughter and heiress Elizabeth, married Lord
William Compton (created Earl of Northampton), eloping with him from
Canonbury Manor in a _baker’s basket_. (As I am a man, there was one
conveyed out of my house yesterday in this basket.--_Merry Wives of W._
Act IV., sc. ii.)

[12] Created Baron Verulam of Verulam 12th of July, 1618, and Visct.
St. Alban Feb. 3rd, 1619.

[13] The acreage of various “closes” is here given.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Concerning the bi-literal cypher of Francis Bacon discovered in his works" ***

Home