A Finding List: Part 3.

Elizabethan Facts and Historical References

In this part it seemed interestingly in want in modern English literature the important historical facts with references that either had imminent effect on Bacon or had directly influenced historical events of the time.

This portion of work also involves the Authorship Controversy that originated during the 1800’s. The entrance of this controversy into this volume was inevitable; and if we approach it as Cicero says, that “if a poem is a speaking picture, a picture should be a silent poem”, then we probably shall conclude Shakespeare is Bacon or Bacon is Shakespeare. Much evidence has been included in surmising this statement, and the conclusion to the fact shall be left to the Reader.

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

A

A Supposed Specimen of Shaksper’s Handwriting from Spedding’s Reviews And Discussions Literary, Political, And Historical, Not Relating To Bacon (1879). [See Appendices under the same title.]

Academy of Sciences 1666 a year signalized by the establishment of the Academy of Sciences. Bacon is also represented as the father of the inductive or experimental method, by John Baptiste du Hamel, who first held the office of Secretary to that Academy. His treatise De Mente Humana, 1 published in 1672, contains several chapters of commentary upon Bacon’s philosophy. “It may truly be objected to me that my philosophy will require an age, a whole age, to commend it, and very many ages thoroughly to establish it”; (Bacon, De Aug) and it is safe to comment “All Philosophers should follow the Judgment and laudable Moderation of the Lord Bacon in Philosophy. 2 “Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, is justly held the founder of Experimental Philosophy. He proposed his plan in his Instauratio Magna, with so much strength of argument, and so just a zeal, as renders that admirable work the delight of all who have a taste for solid learning.” (Maclaurin).
Bacon was the first who taught the proper method of studying the sciences: that is, he pointed out the way in which we should begin and carry on our pursuit of knowledge, in order to arrive at truth. He gave a set of rules by which mankind might deliver themselves from slavery to names, and from wandering among fanciful systems, and return once more, as little children, to the school of nature. The task he chose was far more useful to the world, and honourable to himself, than that of being, like Plato or Aristotle, the author of a new sect: he undertook to expose the errors of those who had gone before him, and to show the best way of avoiding them for the future: he had the principal share in pulling down the old building of a false philosophy, and, with the skill of a superior architect, he laid the foundation, and sketched the plan of another fabric; and gave masterly directions to those who should come after him how, upon the ruins of the first, the temple of science must be erected anew. As, in a great army, there are some whose office it is to construct bridges, to cut paths along mountains, and to remove various impediments, so Bacon may be said to have cleared the way to knowledge; to have marked out the road to truth; and to have left future travelers little else to do than follow his instructions: he was the miner and sapper of philosophy, the pioneer of nature; and he eminently promoted the dominion of man over the material world. He was the priest of nature’s mysteries; and he taught men in what manner they might discover her profoundest secrets, and interpret those laws which nature has received from the great Author of all. 3

Acting companies in Elizabethan time Before the death of Queen Elizabeth I., were eight acting companies in London including a supplementary:

• The Queen’s Servants: Formed in 1583. After the Queen’s death, in 1603, they ceased being called the Queen’s players, and the actors who formed the company at this time sought other patronage, or were transferred wholly to some distinguished nobleman. There are no grounds for believing that some of the Queen’s players found a new patron in Ludwic Stuart, Earl of Lennox, who was already patron of a company of players. Secretary of State, Sir Francis Walsingham, now has three intelligencers reporting simultaneously from Paris, nine from Antwerp, two from Middleburg and Strasburg. He orders Edmund Tilney, Master of the Revels, to select the best actors from existing troupes to form a new playing company, the Queens’ Servants.
• The Earl of Leicester’s Servants: The Earl of Leicester is the earliest known nobleman under whose patronage the players first placed themselves. His name is found in a document as early as 1559, and until his death, in 1588 he remained a friend of the actors.
• The Earl of Pembroke’s Servants: A company of actors, under the patronage of the Earl of Pembroke, was well known in London and the provinces during the last decade of Elizabeth’s reign. Once more we have recourse to Henslowe’s Diary in determining the place where they played, but the document is silent concerning their repertoire but the following interesting notice is given of these players: “A Just account of all such money as I have received of my Lord Admiral’s and my Lord of Pembroke’s men as followeth, beginning October 21, 1597.”
• The Earl of Worcester’s Servants: William Somerset, Earl of Worcester, was patron of an important company of actors styling themselves the Earl of Worcester’s Servants. This company was formed at a very early date, namely in 1555. During this period they travelled mostly in the provinces, visiting all the chief towns in England. At one time, Edward Alleyn, the famous actor, was a member of this troupe; his name is included in a list of actors in 1583, being then in his sixteenth year, and remained with this company until 1589, when he transferred his services to the Lord Admiral’s men.
• The Lord Strange’s Servants: Was one of the most successful companies in Shaksper’s time and known during the latter years as the Lord Chamberlain’s Servants. The early history of this company is traced back to a troupe of actors under the patronage of Lord Strange. The first years of its career are practically unknown, beyond a few records of performances in provincial towns; prior to 1589 no reference of any description is known of the company’s appearance on the London stage, nor of a command performance at Court before 1591.
• The Lord Hunsdon’s Servants.
• The Earl of Sussex’s Servants: This Company had for their patrons successive Earls of Sussex. The first Earl was Thomas Radclyffe, who held the appointment of Lord Chamberlain. Consequently we find his players frequently acting at Court. Thomas Radclyffe was succeeded by his son Henry, and on his death in 1593, Robert Radclyffe became Earl of Sussex.
• The Lord Admiral’s Servants Company: Played an important part in the theatrical annals of the country, disputing inch by inch the formidable rivalry of the Lord Chamberlain’s men. The celebrated Edward Alleyn, by far the most brilliant actor of the early days of theatrical enterprise in Elizabethan times, was the head of the company. His father-in-law, Philip Henslowe, financed the Admiral’s men, and gradually installed himself as the managing director. Until 1597 the Admiral’s men held patronage to Baron Howard who until 1603 was patron to the Nottingham’s men, more often Admiral’s men. From 1603–1612 the Prince’s men who had their patron from Prince Henry, eldest son of James I.
• Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford: There was a company of actors under the patronage of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, as early as 1562 but no evidence of where they acted is in existence. Again, in 1580 the same Earl was patron of a company of boy actors, who performed chiefly in the provinces or at Court. They are described as the Earl of Oxenford, his boys. Antony Munday, the celebrated dramatist, was at one time a boy actor in this company. The Oxford men are mentioned as those who generally set up their play-bills in the City every day in the week; this notice refers to the year 1585. Meres, in his important review of the poets and dramatists of Elizabethan times, mentions the Earl of Oxford as good in comedy.

Alchemist In the Middle Ages no new discovery was freely published. All the secrets, real or pretended of the alchemists were concealed in obscure and enigmatic language; and to mention a well-known instance, the anagram in which Roger Bacon is supposed to have recorded his knowledge of the art of making gunpowder is so obscure, that its meaning is even now more or less doubtful. In Bacon’s own time one of the most remarkable discoveries of Galileo that of the phases of Venus was similarly hidden in an anagram though the veil in this case was more easily seen through. This disposition to conceal scientific discoveries and methods is connected with the views, which in the Middle Ages were formed of the nature of science. To know that which had previously been unknown was then regarded as the result not so much of greater industry or acuteness as of some fortunate accident, or of access to some hidden source of information: it was like finding a concealed treasure, of which the value would be decreased if others were allowed to share in it.

Alciati and Whitney There is one identical emblem that is found in Alciati’s Emblematum Liber number 45, and in Whitney’s Choice of Emblems number 5, which relates directly to Francis Bacon. A short history of emblematic works regarding the above motto emblem follows. [See Appendices Alciati’s Emblem 45; Whitney’s Emblem 5 for further analysis]:

• Emblematum liber, Augsburg, Heinrich Steyner, February 28, 1531 (1st edition). The emblem does not appear here.
• Emblematum liber, Augsburg, Heinrich Steyner, April 6, 1534 (2nd edition). The emblem does not appear here.
• Emblematum liber, Paris, Chrestien Wechel, 1534 (1st edition). The emblem does not appear here.
• Livret des Emblemes, Paris, Chrestien Wechel, 1536. The emblem does not appear here.
• Emblemes, Paris, Chrestien Wechel, 1539. The emblem does not appear here.
• Les Emblemes, (with German), Paris, Chrestien Wechel, 1542. The emblem does not appear here.
• Emblematum libellus, Paris, Chrestien Wechel, 1542. The emblem does not appear here.
• Emblematum libellus, Venice, Aldus, 1546. The emblem appears for the first time in this edition with a graphic of a boar’s head on a plater.
• Emblemes, Lyon, Mace Bonhomme for Guillaume Rouille, 1549. The emblem does not appear here.
• Los Emblemas, Lyon, Mace Bonhomme for Guillaume Rouille, 1549. The emblem does not appear here.
• Emblemata, Lyon, Mace Bonhomme for Guillaume Rouille, 1550. The emblem appears here without the Masonic Pillars.
• Emblemata, Lyon, Mace Bonhomme for Guillaume Rouille, 1551. The emblem appears here without the Masonic Pillars.
• Diverse Imprese, Lyon, Mace Bonhomme for Guillaume Rouille, 1551. The emblem does not appear here.
• Emblematum libri (with Stockhamer commentary), Jean de Tournes, Lyon, 1556. The emblem reappears in this edition but without a graphic; only text.
• Toutes les emblemes, Lyon, Mace Bonhomme for Guillaume Rouille, 1558. The emblem appears with the same graphic as in the editions published 1550 and 1551.
• Liber emblematum Kunstbuch, Frankfurt am Main, 1566–67. The emblem reappears in this edition but without a graphic; only text.
• Emblemata, Paris, Jean Richer, 1584. The emblem appears for the first time with the Masonic Pillars. Two years later, in 1586, it also appears in Whitney’s Choice of Emblems.
• Emblemata, Leyden, Officina Plantiniana, 1591. The emblem appears with the Masonic Pillars.
• Declaración magistral sobre las Emblemas, Najera, Juan de Mongaston, 1615. The emblem appears with the Masonic Pillars.
• Les Emblemes, Geneva/Cologny, Jean II de Tournes, 1615. The emblem disappears in this edition.
• Emblemata, Padua, Petro Paulo Tozzi, 1621. The emblem reappears with the Masonic Pillars.

An Idiosyncrasy Bacon had a habit, which he derived from his mother, of writing on special occasions in one language with the alphabet of another. This he did whenever he wished to conceal something he had in mind from people generally or from those not in the secret. The languages selected for this purpose were Greek and English. Bacon could have derived this habit from John Dee whose diary is stacked with such idiosyncrasies. A notable instance is found among Bacon’s private papers preserved in the library of the Lambeth palace in London, in which he seems to hint that there was a reason, although under the circumstances he could not make it known, why he offered no defense against the charges of bribery brought against him before the House of Lords. We have the explanation, however, from his servant Bushel, who says that his master made no defense because the King, fearing its effect upon himself and his favourite, the Duke of Buckingham, privately forbade it. What Bacon wrote was as follows: 4 “Of my offence, far be it from me to say, dat veniam corvis; vexat censura Columbas: but I will say that I have good warrant for they were not the greatest offenders in Israel upon whom the wall fell.”

Animosity toward the French On Tuesday January 2, 1620 the Duke of Lennox nobly entertained the Ambassador of France at Hampton Court with hawking and hunting. The French Noblemen of the best quality were conducted by the Duke of Lenox, and the rest by myself, 5 to the Court of Requests, where the greater number of them taking their places promiscuously at the table, and the Duke leaving them (perhaps somewhat abruptly) before he had seen five or six of the principal set down at the upper end, these begun whisperingly to murmur amongst themselves, as those that might seem neglected to be left so alone, without some persons of like quality to accompany them, and to invite them to their sitting; which I perceiving, began to persuade them to what they came for, and had prevailed with the Marquis de Money, and one or two more of them, till my Lord Chancellor Bacon, the Lord Treasurer Montagu, and the Lord Privy Seal, Earle of Worcester, entering the room, and passing by them to sit down (as they did) altogether at the right-hand of the table, without giving other countenance of respect then putting off their hats, or once inviting the French to sit down with them, they took their cloaks, and, with shews of much discontent, departed the room to their coaches; whither I and two other Scottish Gentlemen followed them fast with our best persuasions for return; but not being able to prevail, we left them.

Argenis Was first published in Paris in 1621 under the name of John Barclay, an author of some repute, who appears as one of the Councillors in the work Great Assizes at the head of which was shown to be Francis Bacon. In 1629 Argenis was published in an English translation by Sir Robert Le Grys, Knight. This work has been ably treated by Mr. Cunningham to whose work we direct attention. 6 We shall here consider an earlier version which purports to have been translated from a Latin version of 1622 by Kingsmill-Long. Ben Jonson, two years before, it is said, by request of King James, had entered for publication a translation of the Argenis. We have evidence that Jonson had a good deal to do with the First Folio, and was helping Bacon with other work which may have delayed the publishing of his translation of the Argenis. What finally became of it we are not informed; hence, writers upon the subject have supposed that it was destroyed. It may be argued that the edition of 1625 under the name of Kingsmill Long, was this translation. It may have been more than unwise for an unknown author, when a work was ready for the press by a man whose reputation as a Latin scholar was so well known as Jonson’s, to translate and publish the same work in competition with him. Then there are reasons why the translation of Jonson “stayed at the press.” James, who was an over-timid man, after acquainting himself more fully with its character, may have reconsidered his approval of a work containing not only a dangerous state secret, but sentiments at variance with his own. Jonson himself, too, who was then at the height of his fame, may well have hesitated to publish it, loyal as he was to Bacon who undoubtedly had a hand in the matter, for not only was he personally interested in it as a leading actor, but must have known Barclay, who had lived in London for ten years, being one of that little coterie of writers in which Bacon was so prominent. Did Jonson’s work have a key to its contents, one may ask? It would seem probable; as such a key would have greatly helped the sale of the book, and at this time we may well suppose would have been agreeable to Bacon, and quite disagreeable to James and Steenie. There was a call, however, for the Argenis, and in 1625 it was published in folio under the name of Kingsmill Long, without a key, which rendered it innocuous.

Aristotelian philosophy It seemed that toward the end of the sixteenth century men neither knew nor aspired to know more than was to be learned from Aristotle, a strange thing at any time, more strange than ever just then, when the heavens themselves seemed to be taking up the argument on their own behalf, and by suddenly lighting up within the very region of the unchangeable and incorruptible, and presently extinguishing, a new fixed star as bright as Jupiter, the new star in Cassiopeia shone with full lustre on Bacon’s freshmanship, to be protesting by signs and wonders against the cardinal doctrine of the Aristotelian philosophy. [Also see Part II: Ramus Petrus.]
“If our study of nature be thus barren, our method of study must be wrong: might not a better method be found?” This thought first occurred to Bacon during his residence at Cambridge, therefore before he had completed his fifteenth year and given down to us by his own statement to Dr. Rawley in the Resuscitatio. “But I, that should know best, do freely acknowledge that I had my light from him, [Aristotle,] for where he gave me not matter to perfect, at the least he gave me occasion to invent.” (Bacon, Col. Good & Evil). Thus Dr. Rawley 7 tells us: “Whilst he was commorant at the University (as his Lordship hath been pleased to impart unto myself) he first fell into the dislike of the philosophy of Aristotle, not for the worthlessness of the author, to whom he would ever ascribe all high attributes, but of the unfruitfulness of the way, being a philosophy, as his Lordship used to say, only strong for disputations and contentions, but barren of works for the benefit of the life of man, in which mind he continued till his dying day.”[Also see Chapter entitled The Life of the Right Honourable Francis Bacon.] When one of Bacon’s friends asked him, whether he thought the churchmen likely to oppose his intended reformation of philosophy, his answer was; “I have no occasion to meet them in my way, except it be as they will needs confederate with Aristotle, who, you know, is intemperately magnified by the school-divines.” 8 Bernardinus Telesius wrote his De Rerum Natura (1565) and a volume of philosophical tracts; when he died in 1588, his works were placed on the Index Of Forbidden Books because he opposed the doctrines of Aristotle. Such at least is the story.

Arte of Rhetoricke From time to time, there have been critics who suggested that traces of the reading of the Arte of Rhetoricke might be found in Shakespeare’s works. Certain evidence of Shakespeare’s reading of Wilson is to be found and it lies, as might be expected, in Love’s Labour’s Lost. There can be no doubt from this play that Shakespeare had read some Rhetoric and that he found it tedious and dull and fit matter only for ridicule and laughter. It is quite possible that other evidence of Shakespeare’s works were with acquaintance with Wilson’s work that might yet be found; certain knowledge of it can be proved beyond doubt. [See Appendices The Arte of Rhetoricke; Part II: Ascham Roger; Part III: The Schoolmaster.]

Attorney General Bacon was appointed Attorney General, October 17, 1613.

Authorship controversy Mr. Gardiner 9 is probably nearer the truth in saying, “If James had been other than he was, the name of Bacon would have come down to us as great in politics as it is in science.” James being what he was, nothing could be done. The controversy as to the identity of the author of the Shakespeare plays and poems has involved three kinds of evidence to date: historical, stylistic, and cryptographic. In the already extensive literature to which the controversy has given rise this evidence must be carefully sifted from a mass of conjecture which is sometimes plausible and sometimes not. 10 [See Appendices Authorship controversy for further reference.]

Authorship of the Shakespearian plays In the case of the authorship of the Shakespearian plays in general view, there are circumstances of difficulty which are common to both the candidates [Shakespeare and Bacon] for this supreme distinction the contemporaries of the great dramatist were loud in their admiration of his work, but they say nothing of the man. They talk of the honey-tongued Shakespeare, but they do not tell us who the honey-tongued Shakespeare was. Whoever was entitled to that glorious name he never claimed it. As to the player, the great nobles who are said to have been his patrons are wholly silent. As Essex makes no mention of his name; Bacon makes no mention of his name; Southampton never alludes to him; Pembroke was not acquainted with him. 11 “The time will come, when the unreasoning conservatism in the public mind on the subject of the authorship of Shakespeare will be universally regretted as a reflection upon the scholarship of our age. From the banks of the Missouri; from the wheat fields of Minnesota; from far-off Melbourne; out of the heart of humanity somewhere; a response in due time is sure to come.” (Reed). 12
Of one particular play, Titus Andronicus, holds some interesting research to delve into. The play was entered by one signing himself “S.R.” on February 6, 1594 and it was printed the same year as acted by Derby’s (i.e. late Strange’s), Pembroke’s and Sussex’s men. This edition contains the same text as the previously known edition of 1600; on the title page of which the name of the Chamberlain’s men is added to the other three. The history of the other plays in the Admiral’s Chamberlain’s list suggests that Pembroke’s men were the original owners. Two main problems are connected with this piece: its relation to the Dutch and German versions, and its alleged Shakespearian authorship. Greg relates: “I need only say here that I fail to discover any clear internal evidence of Shakespeare having touched the play at all, though there are a few lines whose Shakespearian authorship I do not think impossible. I am glad to find myself on this point in agreement with no less experienced a critic than W. Aldis Wright, though forced to differ from J. W. Craig, who told me, shortly before his death, that he thought that certain passages had actually come from Shakespeare’s pen.” He then offers a short outline as follows: “In the autumn of 1593 when the plague was raging in London, we know that Pembroke’s men were in low water. Henslowe wrote to Alleyn on September 28 to the effect that, being unable to meet the expenses of travel, they had returned to town and had been driven to pawn their wardrobe. 13 They also parted with several of their plays which were printed the following year.” Alleyn’s answer is not preserved, but he most likely commissioned Henslowe to buy up such pieces as should seem worth while on behalf of Strange’s men with whom he was then travelling.
Some old Pembroke’s plays, including Titus, are certainly found later in the hands of the Chamberlain’s men. We might suppose that, pending Alleyn’s return, Henslowe lent the piece to Sussex’ men, but one reasons to suspect this is not true, is that Henslowe did not, as a rule, mark as new, plays which he lent to companies; another reason would be that the mention of Derby’s men proves that the piece must have been performed by the company with which Alleyn was travelling between September 1593 and April 1594, and therefore almost certainly in the provinces. It is probable, then, that Henslowe sent down the plays at once to their purchaser. We must, therefore, suppose two copies, one in the possession first of Pembroke’s and later of the Chamberlain’s men, that performed by the latter company in June, and another which came into the possession of Sussex’ men and was acted by them for the first time in January; and we may further suppose that the two versions differed even to the inclusion of wholly different scenes. We know that Sussex’ men performed the play for the last time on February 6, and the same day the play, presumably handed over by them to the press, was entered in the Stationer’s Register. The company soon afterwards broke, and some of the members may not improbably have found their way on to the continent. Here we may suppose (again) that they vamped up the stage version underlying the German and Dutch texts. Meanwhile the Chamberlain’s men, following their practice in the case of the other Pembroke plays, Hamlet and the Taming of a Shrew, caused Titus to be worked over by a young member of their company named Will Shaksper. Thus revised the piece achieved sufficient success to call for notice by Francis Meres in 1598, and thenceforth passed as one of the works of the favourite playwright actor. This MS., perished in the fire at the Globe theatre in 1613.
“If it be true,” says Hazlitt, 14 “as I suspect, that this was one of the MSS., left behind him by Marlowe in the hands of the Walsinghams in 1593, it may have required sufficient emendation to induce the superintendents of the 1623 First Folio to regard it as mainly or wholly Shakespeare’s; and it is not much worse than the first sketches of Henry IV., Henry V., Henry VI. It would be highly satisfactory to ascertain, if the 4o of 1600 was really preceded by one of 1594, and whether the two corresponded. If so, this drama would stand in the same category as the first sketches. Meres mentions the piece in 1598 as Shakespeare’s, but his testimony is not conclusive; he was a University man, although he occasionally resided in London, and was there indeed in 1597. He was a student of divinity, but does not refer to any clerical employment.” Upon Hazlitt’s criticism with Meres’ account of records, we could also appoint the same doctrine to Meres’ scetch on one Shakespeare he alludes to.