Chapter XIII: Act 4: ; Macb., Act 1. It is in Lucrece, and also occurs in Bacon’s (2)

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._