P R E F A C E
Many biographers have written about Francis Bacon. He has been weighed, explained, criticized by many types of minds; his character has been mercilessly dissected and his personality – or, rather, portions of it – exposed to the passers-by on the world’s butchers’ stalls; his political, scientific and philosophical labours probed and analyzed. He has been discussed by men of different tempers – literary savants, theologians, rationalists, lawyers, scientists, philosophers, journalists, theosophists and cipher-experts – in full biographies, essays, sketches and newspaper articles, by men who make their approaches from totally different standpoints and arrive at totally different conclusions. And in the year of our Lord 1946, upwards of four hundred years since he was born, it is safe to affirm that no one hitherto has penetrated the mystery of his life and comprehended to the full the gigantic magnitude of his labours for the English-speaking race in particular or for the world in general….or understood the ideals that dominated his thought and action almost from the cradle to the grave.
Lord Verulam
(1561-1626)
The early writers, such as Pierre Amboise (1631), Dr. Rawley (1657), Bishop Thomas Tenison (1679), David Mallet (1740), deliberately withheld much information concerning him, judging certain matters “to tread too near to the Heels of Truth and to the times of the Persons concerned.” (Tenison, Bacon’s Remains, p. 81).
They purposely stress the outer aspects of Francis Bacon’s life, though pointedly hinting that he was other than he seemed to be and that there were revelations to be made concerning him in later ages. This skirting of the outer aspects of his life has been carried to extreme lengths by modernists like Dean Church, Professor John Nichol, Professor A.R. Skemp, Mary Sturt and others.
That Francis Bacon lived, in some way or other, a concealed life (pointedly declared by Tenison) and wrought at some form of concealed labours (told over and over again Francis Bacon’s own works) are facts which are ignored by these writers. There is never any attempt even by Spedding to probe the mystery and to get to the bottom of the numerous hints left by Francis Bacon and other early writers. The portraits they draw are therefore necessarily inaccurate; and some of them are so poorly executed that they convey a wrong impression of his personality.
Since Lord Macaulay in 1837 wrote his Essay on Francis Bacon, the tendencey has been to judge Francis Bacon's character with extreme harshness. Indeed, Francis Bacon's moral reputation has been more or less destroyed by a long line of writers who begin the study of his personality and his actions - political, judicial, literary - apparently prejudiced in advance by the fact that somewhat late in life he was accused of receiving bribes to pervert justice in the Chancery Court, that he "refused to stand his trial" and entered a pleas of "Guilty" to many charges of corruption. His open "Confession of Guilt" appears to have influenced their treatment and judgment respecting other aspects of his life - all to his disadvantage. For a judge to admit acts of corruption at the age of sixty indicate a defect of character, it is argued, which must have been in evidence in his earlier actions. They look for such evidence and find it in his conduct towards the Earl of Essex, Peacham, and in other matters.
Essex Robert Devereux. 2nd Earl
(1566–1601)
The first duty of a biographer is to get his facts right, not merely the facts he wishes to be known, but all the facts, to suppress none and to slur over nothing; and not to be afraid lest an untoward discovery might falsify his prepossessions.
A biographer's duty is to search, to dig, and to spare neither time, trouble nor expense in the quest; to maintain "an open mind," and to allow the Vestal Virgin of Truth to lead him by the hand even through dark and intricate windings, trusting her implicitly to be guided aright.
When a biographer has an axe of his own to grind, the result is a garbled mischief and a curse to posterity. The Borgias poisoned only single victims; but there are some writers who have poisoned men's minds en masse, and unfortunately their deadly night-work still continues. We must beware of authors who revel in misstatements, suppressions, and the loose handling of facts. To arrive at truth we must even con carefully the writers whose conclusions through later research are really outdated by the discovery of new facts.
All students of the Elizabethan Era are indebted to James Spedding for his Life of Francis Bacon (1861). His defence of Francis Bacon's character and actions up to the time of his "Fall" is irrefragable. He is regarded today as Francis Bacon's finest biographer, as the authority on everything pertaining to him. Yet we shall be making a very grave error if we regard Spedding's Life of seven volumes as the very last word in Baconian research and consider that there is nothing more to be said. [Spedding's Works took to 15 volumes, a crown edition, in 1861; his Life in 2 volumes was published in 1878.] We must not regard a biography written over eighty years ago as sacrosanct, Spedding's opinions as infallible, and assume that he was in full possession of all the facts. Some of his opinions may be based on insufficient data. [Spedding was not under the intent to bring forth the Authorship Controversy; his work was based purely on Bacon's works leaving aside any inference to Bacon's secret life.]
In dealing with the tragedy of the “Fall,” Spedding appears to be so influenced by Francis Bacon’s “Confession of Guilt,” that he makes admissions respecting his “Desertion of the Defence” that are , in my opinion, quite unwarranted. [“If a tree has to my knowledge borne apples for twenty years, I suppose I may suspect some mistake when I am told that it has borne crabs on the twenty-first.” (Spedding).]
Yet Spedding revered Francis Bacon and honestly tried to arrive at the truth; but, like many others, he knew only the outer man and his open labours. His biography is the nearest approach to a civil servant's report of any I have read, and quite as laborious to read.
The facts are so compiled that one constantly loses the threads of affairs, so interwoven are they. We get no clear pictures as in Boswell's Johnson; and in the final volume, which deals with the "Fall of Francis Bacon," one is left in a state of bewilderment as to whether Francis Bacon was a sinner or not.
The truth or untruth of Francis Bacon’s alleged guilt of bribery ought not to be left any longer in the nebulous state in which it was left by James Spedding, which is equivalent to a verdict of “Not Proven,” and really does not determine the issue of his guilt or innocence.
What we want to know primarily about Francis Bacon is this: was he guilty in the slightest degree of corrupting justice for “pieces of eight” and silver plate? That is the clear issue; and it should be determined definitely once and for all before full, impartial justice can be done to Francis Bacon as a man and to his labours as a genius: for in the schoolroom and the university alike, the student and the scholar of the Elizabethan era obtain no certain reliable knowledge respecting him personally or his multifarious pursuits. [It should be questioned if Bacon was at the time a judge? In the correspondence of Bacon, and to his notes touching his proposed interview with the King when he was condemend, it will be found that he used the word “judge” as applicable to himself in the role of a defendant. “The High Court of Chancery,” says Blackstone, treating of the judicial system of England, which was the same in Bacon’s day, “is, in matters of civil property, by much the most important of any of the King’s superior and original courts of justice.” Bl. Com. Bk. III., p. 47]
His character has been branded with the searing mark of “Corruption,” and his works are approached with disfavour if not with positive pain. The dominant idea of the majority of Englishmen respecting the “deep-browed Verulam” is that of a cold, loveless genius, a prosy philosopher of no particular account, who was a corrupt Jude. [Again, Bacon did not hold such a position then, but held the position of Lord Chancellor.]
Can we wonder, then, that writers in the poplar Press and even school-boys are saturated with these thoughts concerning our greatest Englishman? Yet these common views may be as wrong as were the popular opinions concerning Cromwell and Dreyfus until Carlyle and Zola triumphantly proved that Cromwell’s character was unimpeachable and Dreyfus the innocent victim of a wicked plot.
Is it not also possible that Francis Bacon is in the same category of men whom we have misjudged, and one who is still waiting patiently for his vindicator to appear?
Macaulay Babington Thomas
(1800–1859)
Since Spedding’s day, a large number of men – professionals of many types – have hunted long and arduously for evidence that would shed light on the mysteries of Francis Bacon’s life and especially his labours – open and concealed.
Many new facts have been unearthed respecting this veritable Colossus of Thought that bestrides the world. Today we know a good deal more about Francis Bacon than did Spedding. It is therefore imperative that the truth about this supreme master should be reexamined and redelivered to the world, that posterity may know his real identity, his ideals, his aims, his accomplishments.
These new facts (since Spedding wrote in 1861) must be taken into full consideration. If important factors be omitted, how can the sum of his life be properly cast? Any missing factor ignored in the personal equation or a false factor introduced simply prevents one from obtaining the correct answer.
It is for this reason that the personal equation of Francis Bacon’s life is answered so differently by different writers…vital factors are dropped, ignored, and in some cases suppressed. Even one unknown factor is sufficient to falsify the issue.
What is true in mathematics is doubly true in dealing with the living complexities of genius: for what is praised by one critic is condemned by others, until quittances and structures almost cancel each other out.
Midst all this confusion the real personality of this great master is shrouded, almost done to death, unseen and unknown, even as the giant oak is often strangled by parasites of many kinds flourishing in honour while living on its life’s-blood; and the outline of the real growth is hidden by parasitic ivies of many kinds that obscure the noble form.
In precisely the same way Francis Bacon’s true personality is largely obscured by the many commentators that surround him. This consideration alone shows the necessity for the publication of a new life…taking into account the new evidence discovered since Spedding’s monumental work.
In Ecce Homo (pp.40-41) that profound thinker Friedrich Nietzche (1880) wrote: "We do not know half enough about Lord Bacon...What do I care about the miserable gabble of Muddlers and Blockheads...Let the Critics go to hell!"
It is but a few years ago that I discovered the Nietzche was right and that I did not know “half enough” about Francis Bacon. For years I had been a devout worshipper at the shrines of Lord Macaulay, Lord Campbell, Dr. Abbott, Dean Church, Professor J. Nichol, and other eminent scholars, when something occurred that urged me not to accept their conclusions as final, but to ascertain the correctness of their judgments for myself.
Alfred Dodd
So I began a pilgrimage of hard reading and personal research. I began my literary journey with an intense dislike of this “corrupt genius.” I ended with the conviction that these well-known critics were totally wrong in their views respecting his character and disposition, and that their structures were harsh and unjust.
Indeed, I found that my detestation had slowly changed to admiration, of that at the end of the trail I was compelled to say, in all honesty to myself, slightly misquoting Ben Jonson, “I love the man and do honour his memory above all others.” I therefore determined to rewrite his life so that students of the Elizabethan Era might enter in at the strait gate and the narrow way which leadeth to truth.
This biography, then, will show in detail the reason why I gradually changed my opinions respecting Francis Bacon’s moral character, his temperament, the complexity of his mental powers and actions, and why I have become “a Francis Bacon’s man” and an enthusiast.
Before the true personal story of Francis Bacon can be written, however, there must necessarily be a searching examination into the serious allegations that have hitherto hidden the view from the eyes of his countrymen.
It is worse than useless to absent oneself from felicity awhile to tell the story of a wounded name, as enjoined by the dying Hamlet, unless every charge made against him be first considered. If the critics, whom Nietzche consigned to perdition because of their strictures and lack of vision, be ignored, their utterances remain on the record to be iterated and reiterated as though they were true.
The most elaborate biography would fail to carry weight if the adverse opinions of commentators were not proved to be factually fallacious and unwarranted.