cover, which he takes to have been a table of contents, Mr. Spedding
writes: “The principal difficulties which I find in it are, first, the
absence from the list of all allusion to the _Advertisement touching the
controversies of the Church of England_, which can never have been
separated from the volume, and has all the appearance of having been
transcribed about the same time, and is too large a piece to have been
overlooked; secondly, the absence from the volume itself of all trace of
the _Earl of Arundell’s letter to the Queen_, which appears in the list,
and thirdly, the misplacing of the entry of Sir Philip _Sydney’s Letter
against Monsieur_, which stands higher in the list than it should. All
this however may be explained by a few suppositions, not in themselves
improbable, namely that the transcriber of the first five pieces left
his list of contents incomplete; that the transcriber who followed him
set down the contents only of his own portion; that the first sheet or
two of his transcript has been lost, and that Sydney’s letter had been
at first overlooked. I have already observed that the sheet on which the
fifth piece ends and what is now the sixth begins, is the middle sheet
of the volume; and therefore if _anything came between these two, it may
have been taken out without leaving any traces of itself_. I have
noticed also that Sir Philip’s letter has no heading, and may therefore
have been easily overlooked. Now if we may suppose that the Earl of
Arundell’s letter, having been transcribed on a central sheet, has
dropped out, and that Sir Philip’s having been overlooked, the title was
entered afterwards in the place where there was most room, we shall find
that the first four titles represent correctly the rest of the contents
of the volume.... The titles which follow have nothing corresponding to
them in this manuscript, _but probably indicate the contents of another
of the same kind, once attached to this and now lost_.”
Thus Mr. Spedding, who had the great advantage of seeing the manuscripts
as they were found in 1867. But Mr. Le Marchant Dowse will have nothing
of all this. He speaks loftily of the “folly” of supposing that the list
on the outside page was a table of contents. Apparently he cannot
tolerate the idea that two plays of Shakespeare, before they found their
way into print, should have been transcribed by the same man, and
included in the same volume, with certain works of Francis Bacon! _Id
sane intolerandum._ But if not a table of contents what is the meaning
of this outside list? How did it come to be written “at all, at all”?
Well, Mr. Dowse’s theory is as follows: The supposed “quire” originally
contained only the “Praises.” It came into the possession of the Earl of
Northumberland. “It then came under the control of somebody (I shall
name him hereafter) who jotted down at intervals the titles of other
papers which he judged worth copying, or which were of interest as
having reference to, or connexion with, or as having been written by,
people whom he knew; but, on the one hand, he probably found it
difficult to procure the papers he wanted; and meanwhile, on the other
hand, papers that he had not previously thought of were unexpectedly
placed at the Earl’s disposal; and these were copied as they came to
hand.” According to this theory, therefore, a scribe in the employ of
the Earl of Northumberland, entrusted with a paper volume in which four
speeches, composed by Bacon for Lord Essex, had been transcribed, and
very carefully and beautifully transcribed,[94] and finding these noted
on the outside cover, which up to that point certainly had done duty as
a “table of contents,” amuses himself by jotting down beneath, and on
the same page, the titles of a number of works which he had not in his
possession but which he “judged worth copying,” or thought of interest,
such as the orations at Gray’s Inn, and Bacon’s _Essays_, and
Shakespeare’s plays of _Richard II_ and _Richard III_. These, on this
hypothesis, he was never able to procure, and therefore their titles on
the cover stood for nothing, except as reflections of his inner
consciousness. But, meanwhile, other papers, “that he had not previously
thought of, were unexpectedly placed at the Earl’s disposal; and these
were copied as they came to hand.” This theory we are asked, nay
ordered, to accept on pain of being dismissed as creatures beyond the
pale of reason. Quite unappalled by that terrible threat I venture to
think that Mr. Dowse’s theory is itself unreasonable. I do not think a
scribe entrusted with a nobleman’s manuscript volume, in which his duty
was to enter further transcripts, would be at all likely to act in such
a manner. I think it far more reasonable to suppose that these works had
been copied or entered, that they were originally included in the
volume, the original dimensions of which it is now impossible to
estimate, and that they were subsequently abstracted, probably for some
very good reason. In fact I think the evidence of Mr. Spedding, the
eyewitness, is a great deal better than the hypothesis and conjectures
of Mr. Dowse.
But the fact is that Mr. Dowse entered upon his investigation with two
preconceived ideas. In the first place his purpose was to have a tilt at
the Baconians who had founded some arguments on the close juxtaposition
of the names, and certain of the works, of Bacon and Shakespeare in this
manuscript. And, secondly, his purpose was to find evidence for his
preconceived belief that John Davies of Hereford was the “scribbler” who
had written so freely on the outside page of the volume. So much Mr.
Dowse, unless I much misunderstand him, himself confesses. “The
following investigation,” he says in his Preface, “was suggested to me
by sundry mistaken notions respecting the MSS. hereinafter examined,
which had found their way into print, and so had caught my eye from time
to time.” Mr. Dowse, as will be seen, is violently anti-Baconian, by
which I mean that he is not only altogether contemptuous of “the
Baconian theory,” but also that he entertains a very low conception
indeed of the personal character of Francis Bacon. I think, therefore, I
have correctly interpreted the meaning of the above extract. Then as to
“the writer of the scribble,” he says, “in point of fact upon my first
scrutiny, several years ago, of Spedding’s facsimile, I provisionally
formed an opinion as to who the scribbler was.” It will be seen,
therefore, that Mr. Dowse set out to prove that the scribbler was John
Davies, though, of a certainty, the bare inspection of Spedding’s
facsimile of the outer page of the manuscript could not justify any
belief in the matter, and could, at most, only give occasion for the
merest guess.
But before we come to the “scribbler” let us examine the scribble, and
see what date we can assign to the writings. What Mr. Spedding calls
“the title page,” forming half of the outside sheet, “which appears to
be the only cover the volume ever had,” is covered all over with the
so-called scribblings. “It contains,” says Mr. Dowse, “some two hundred
entries, independently of the ‘Praises,’ and the list of titles.” Mr.
Spedding, Mr. Dowse, and Mr. Burgoyne have reproduced this leaf in
facsimile, and the latter has provided us with a modern script rendering
of it. It may be said to be divided into two columns. At the top of the
right-hand column stands the name “Mr. ffrancis Bacon,” followed by the
list of “Praises,” which again is succeeded by what Mr. Spedding has
called the table of contents. At the top of the left-hand column stands
the name of Nevill, twice written, and not far below it is the punning
motto of the Nevill family, _Ne vile velis_. “Perhaps,” says Mr.
Burgoyne, “this gives a clue to the original ownership of the volume as
it seems to indicate that the collection was written for or was the
property of some member of the Nevill family.” It is suggested that this
was Sir Henry Nevil (1564-1615), Bacon’s nephew, and a friend of Essex.
Then high up, in the middle of the page, occur the words “Anthony
Comfort and consorte,” which is, without doubt, as I think, an allusion
to Anthony Bacon. Lower down in the left-hand column are the words:
Multis annis iam transactis
Nulla fides est in pactis
Mell in ore Verba lactis
ffell in Corde ffraus in factis;
as to which Mr. Burgoyne points out that among the Tenison MSS. at
Lambeth Palace is a letter from Rodolphe Bradley to Anthony Bacon in
which he writes: “Your gracious speeches ... be the words of a faithfull
friende, and not of a courtiour, who hath _Mel in ore et verba lactis,
sed fel in corde et fraus in factis_.”[95]
But the most interesting of these writings are those which refer to
Shakespeare. In the right-hand column, somewhat below the centre, occurs
the reference to a letter to the Queen’s Majesty “By Mr. ffrauncis
Bacon.” Below this we read “Essaies by the same author.” Then the name
“William Shakespeare,” with the word “Shakespear” just below, at the
right-hand edge of the page. Then follows “Rychard the second,” with
“ffrauncis” close under the word “second.” Then “Rychard the third.”
Then, towards the bottom of the right-hand column, occurs the name
“William Shakespeare” thrice repeated,[96] and besides this we find
“Shakespeare,” “Shakespear,” “Shakespe,” “Shak” (several times), “Sh”
(several times), “William,” “Will,” and so on; just as we find in other
places “Mr. ffrauncis Bacon,” “Mr. Ffrauncis,” “ffrauncis,” “Bacon,”
etc., several times repeated.
Upon this Mr. Spedding writes: “That Richard the second, and Richard the
third, are meant for the titles of _Shakespeare’s_ plays so named, I
infer from the fact--of which the evidence may be seen in the
_facsimile_--that the list of contents being now complete, the writer
(or more probably another into whose possession the volume passed) has
amused himself with writing down promiscuously the names and phrases
that most ran in his head; and that among these the name of _William
Shakespeare_ was the most prominent, being written eight or nine times
over for no other reason that can be discerned. That the name of _Mr.
Frauncis Bacon_, which is also repeated several times, should have been
used for the same kind of recreation requires no explanation; its
position at the top of the page would naturally suggest it.”
But these are not the only Shakespearean references which we
find on this remarkable page. About the centre occurs the
word “_honorificabiletudine_,” a reminiscence of the
“_honorificicabilitudinitatibus_” of _Love’s Labour’s Lost_. And lower
down in the left-hand column we have,
revealing
day through
every Crany
peepes and ...
see
Shak
which seems to be an imperfect reminiscence of the line in _Lucrece_,
“revealing day through every cranny spies,”[97] and is a very
interesting contemporary notice of the poem which was first published in
1594 with the name “William Shakespeare” subscribed to the dedication
addressed to the Earl of Southampton.
Here, then we have the names and the works of Shakespeare and Bacon
brought into curiously close juxtaposition in (as it will presently be
seen) a contemporary document. Here are speeches and Essays written by
Bacon, and Plays by “William Shakespeare,” put together in the same
volume (_pace_ Mr. Dowse), and we find some penman with these two names
so much in his mind that he writes them both, either fully or in
abbreviated form, many times over on the outside sheet of the paper
book.
Now as to the date of these writings, Mr. Spedding states that he could
find nothing, either in the “scribblings” or in what remains of the book
itself, to indicate a date later than the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Mr.
Burgoyne gives reasons for concluding that the manuscript was written
not later than January, 1597, and he says “it seems more probable that
no part of the manuscript was written after 1596.” There are several
reasons for assigning this date to the work. One is that the outside
list shows that the volume originally contained a copy of Bacon’s
Essays. These--the ten short essays which appeared in the first
edition--were published in January, 1597,[98] after having been
extensively circulated in manuscript. After they were printed it is not
likely that the expensive and imperfect method of copying in manuscript
would have been resorted to.[99] Again the plays of _Richard II_ and
_Richard III_ were first printed in 1597, “and issued,” says Mr.
Burgoyne, “at a published price of sixpence each.” After that date,
therefore, it seems reasonable to suppose that they would not have been
transcribed, or noted for transcription. It is not unimportant to
remember that when they were first issued the name of Shakespeare was
not on them. In the editions of 1598, however, the hyphenated name,
“William Shake-speare,” appears on each, and this is the first
appearance of that name on any play. Nash’s “Isle of Dogs” referred to
in the outside list was produced at Henslowe’s theatre in 1597, but
never printed. Of course all the contents of the volume may not have
been written in one year, and it is impossible to fix the exact date of
the scribblings. But if, as it appears only reasonable to believe, the
Shakespearean plays were transcribed (or even only noted for
transcription) before 1597, we have here references to “Shakespeare” as
the author of these plays before his name had come before the public as
a dramatic author at all, and more than a year before his name appeared
on any title page; and, what is certainly remarkable, we find this, at
that time little known name closely associated with the name of Francis
Bacon.
Who was the writer of the scribble? Mr. Dowse would identify him with
John Davies of Hereford, who was born a year after Shakspere of
Stratford and died two years after him. This John Davies was of Magdalen
College, Oxford, a poet, and, says Mr. Dowse, “a competent scholar.” He
took up penmanship as a calling, and “became the most famous teacher of
his age; and he taught, not only in many noble and gentle families, but
in the royal family itself, for in those days not even nobles and
princes were ashamed to write well.” How we could wish that William
Shakspere of Stratford had been among his pupils! But what is the
evidence that Davies was “the Scribbler”? Let Mr. Dowse state it in his
own words: “His numerous sonnets and other poems, as well as his many
dedications, addressed to people of note, while friendly, are also
respectful and manly (though he could neatly flatter): and their number
shows the extent of the circle in which he moved. Within this circle, or
rather a section of it, I felt myself to be, while dealing with the page
of scribble; and that feeling has been amply justified out of the mouth,
or rather by the pen of John Davies himself, for his Works show that he
was directly and closely acquainted with nearly all the persons his
contemporaries there mentioned; with some indeed he was friendly and
familiar. The overwhelming evidence of this fact _is of itself
sufficient to identify Davies as the scribbler_” (p. 8).
This strikes one as rather curious logic. Davies was closely acquainted
with nearly all the persons mentioned in “the page of scribble.” _Ergo_,
Davies wrote the scribble!
I hardly think a judge would direct a jury to pay much attention to
“evidence” of this description. I have no prepossessions whatever
against John Davies of Hereford. I am perfectly willing to believe that
he was “the scribbler”; but unless some better proof than this can be
adduced, I fear we must regard Mr. Dowse’s theory as mere hypothesis.
However, Mr. Dowse tells us that he has other evidence. He refers to
Davies’s “Dedicatory and Consolatory Epistle,” addressed to the ninth
Earl of Northumberland, which is to be found in the Grenville Library at
the British Museum. This, he says, is “with some verbal exceptions
written in Davies’s beautiful court-hand.” And he further tells us that
“no one who has studied the scribble and then turns to that ‘Consolatory
Epistle’ can fail to recognise the same hand at a glance.” Here I am not
competent to express an opinion, for I have not examined the Epistle in
question, nor have I seen the original of the Northumberland MS., and
even if I had inspected both I fear I should be in no better case, for
nothing is more dangerous than this identification by comparison of
handwriting. Anyone who has served an apprenticeship at the Bar knows
how perilous it is to trust to the evidence of “expert witnesses” in
this matter. I well remember a case in which the two most famous
handwriting experts of their day, in this country at any rate, Messrs.
Inglis and Netherclift, swore point blank one against the other, with
equal confidence as to certain disputed handwriting, so that the judge
felt constrained to tell the jury that they must leave the “expert
evidence” out of the question altogether. In the Dreyfus case too, the
experts, the renowned M. Bertillon included, seem to have come utterly
to grief. One is reminded of the Judge’s famous categories of “liars,”
viz., “liars, damned liars, and expert witnesses!” Therefore I think it
well to cultivate a little healthy scepticism when Mr. Dowse identifies
“at a glance” John Davies’s “beautiful court-hand” with the scribble of
the Northumberland MS. Mr. Dowse quotes Thomas Fuller to the effect that
“John Davies was the greatest master of the pen that England in his age,
beheld”; and goes on to say: “His merits are summarized under the heads
of rapidity, beauty, compactness, and _variety of styles_; which last he
so mixed that he made them appear a hundred!” I think one ought to be
more than ordinarily cautious in judging of the handwriting of a man who
had a hundred different styles. Yet Mr. Dowse undertakes to tell us
which of the entries on the outer leaf of the volume are by John Davies,
and which by somebody else! I repeat I am quite willing to accept John
Davies as the scribbler, but I fear that at present I must regard the
hypothesis as “not proven.” I fear Mr. Dowse may have been a little too
anxious to find the verification of his preconceived opinion, on his
“first scrutiny of Spedding’s facsimile,” that Davies was the man who
wrote the scribble. However the fact that Davies seems to have been for
some years in the service of Henry Percy, ninth Earl of Northumberland,
as teacher of his family (that is, I presume mainly as writing
master[100]), and possibly as copyist lends some probability to Mr.
Dowse’s surmise.
Mr. Dowse speaks in very bitter terms of Francis Bacon, perhaps
unconsciously allowing his bitterness to be accentuated (as we so often
find to be the case) by his abhorrence of the Baconian theory of
authorship. It is, at any rate, so strong as to lead him into criticism
so obviously, and indeed absurdly, unfair as to carry its own refutation
with it, and to impair very seriously the value of the critic’s
judgment. He assumes that Davies wrote the words “Anthony Comfort, and
Consorte,” though why the writing master, who was, according to the
hypothesis, in the service of the Earl of Northumberland at the time,
should have made this entry it is rather difficult to conjecture.
However, says Mr. Dowse, it “shows that he was aware of the relations
subsisting between the two brothers--that Anthony was the companion and
support of Francis the spendthrift, whom to keep out of prison he
impoverished himself, and then did not succeed. It also suggests a
rebuke of the toadyism of Francis in selecting and, _more suo_, grossly
flattering the terrible old termagant on the throne as the ‘worthiest
person’ in preference to such a brother.” When we remember that “the
praise of his soveraigne” was, with the other speeches, written in 1592,
to be spoken at a _Device_ presented by Essex before Elizabeth (the idea
being, of course, to conciliate the Queen in favour of Essex, and the
very fact of Bacon’s authorship being concealed), the suggestion that
Davies had in his mind to rebuke Bacon for his “toadyism” because of
this purely dramatic performance is, I submit, sufficiently absurd. But
that is far from being the worst. I make no complaint whatever that Mr.
Dowse will have nothing at all to do with Spedding’s attempted
vindication of Bacon in the matter of Essex, or that he will make no
allowance whatever for the exigencies of Bacon’s position as counsel in
the service of the Crown. Everyone has the right to form his own opinion
upon that, as upon other matters of historical controversy. But, says
Mr. Dowse, in view of the sentiments which Davies entertained with
regard to the families of Northumberland and Essex, “we can imagine how
he would feel towards those who were instrumental in bringing Essex to
the block.... The man that did more than anyone else towards securing
the death of Essex was Francis Bacon, but the MS. was planned, and
probably in great part executed, before that repulsive procedure, or the
contents might have been very different.” In plain English, Davies, the
assumed writer of the scribble, must, after the Essex affair, have felt
nothing but hatred and scorn for Francis Bacon, and had Essex’s death
taken place before this manuscript was planned, and (probably) in great
part executed, “the contents might have been very different”; the
meaning of which is, I suppose, either that Bacon’s works would have
been omitted altogether, or that the writer would have put on record “a
bit of his mind” with regard to the author. But it so happens that some
years after this, viz., about 1610, Davies published, in his _Scourge of
Folly_, a sonnet addressed to Bacon in which he speaks of him in highly
eulogistic terms. How does Mr. Dowse explain this? I will place his
remarks before the reader, and afterwards quote the sonnet in full, and
then ask judgment on this very remarkable style of anti-Baconian
criticism. “It seems,” writes Mr. Dowse, “that Bacon had recently made
him (Davies) a present of money, or more probably had paid him lavishly
for some assistance. But the poet’s gratitude takes a singular form:
Thy _bounty_, and the beauty of thy Witt
_Compells_ my pen to let fall shining ink!
Further on he speaks of Bacon ‘keeping the Muse’s company _for sport_
twixt grave affairs’--an apology for Bacon’s amateur verses.”
Now, first of all be it observed that the italics and the note of
admiration in the above quotations are Mr. Dowse’s own
contribution.[101] And what is the suggestion, again to put it into
plain English? It is that Davies, though in his heart regarding Bacon
with contempt and abhorrence, had accepted a large sum of money from
him, and therefore felt _compelled_, however reluctantly, to write a
poem in his honour! Observe that Mr. Dowse in other places speaks of
Davies in the highest terms, and cites him as a witness of unimpeachable
honesty and honour in favour of Shakspere, player and author. Yet he
allows his bitter feelings against Bacon to carry him so far that rather
than recognise what must be plain to every impartial reader, viz., that
Davies was writing _ex animo_ as a friend and admirer of Bacon, he would
have us believe, in vilification of his own witness, that the poet was
induced by filthy lucre to write entirely insincere, and, therefore,
particularly nauseous flattery of a man whom he hated and despised!
And now I will set before the reader the sonnet _in extenso_ (preserving
the italics as in the original), and ask him whether there is any
possible reason to suppose that it is not an honest expression of the
writer’s genuine admiration for Bacon:
* * * * *
To the royall, ingenious, and all learned Knight, Sir Francis Bacon.
Thy _bounty_ and the _Beauty_ of thy Witt
Comprisd in Lists of _Law_ and learned _Arts_,
Each making thee for great _Imployment_ fitt
Which now thou hast (though short of thy deserts)
Compells my pen to let fall shining _Inke_
And to bedew the _Baies_ that _deck_ thy _Front_;
And to thy health in _Helicon_ to drinke
As to her _Bellamour_ the _Muse_ is wont:
For, thou dost her embozom; and dost use
Her company for sport twixt grave affaires:
So utterst Law the livelyer through thy _Muse_.
And for that all thy _Notes_ are sweetest _Aires_;
_My Muse thus notes thy worth in ev’ry Line,
With yncke which thus she sugers; so to shine._