Preface

Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on Hbrary shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we liave taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at |http : //books . google . com/|
I24C'^.:17
t
HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY
FROM THB BBQUBSr OP
JOHN AMORY LOWELL
OASS OF i8i J
\\
BACON, SHAKESPEARE,
AND THB
ROSICRUCIANS.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
A NEW STUDY OF SHAKESPEARE.
i^^A REMARKABLE BOOKr\
** Thla * New Stody of Slukespeare * ia certainly tbe most noteworthy and Talnable
of all the works elucidating the inner meaning of the greatest poet of modem times
which hare appeared. We tmat that a new edition will be called for, and also that the
Author will receire sufficient encouragement to giro to the public another volume on
the same subject."— (TV Platonitt, June 1888.)
LONDON : TR0BNEB & CO., Ludoatb Hill.
1884.
^^
ti
\
BACON SHAKESPEARE
AND THE
ROSICRUCIANS
BY
W. F. C. WIGSTON
AUTHOR OF "a NEW 8TUDT OF SHAKESPEARE "
** Oar «ge doth prodaoe many sach, one of the greatest (Imposton) being a Staqb PiAnat, a man with snJBclent Ingennity for Impoaitlon."
RoexoBUciAv CoxFBasiov, 161A.
,/
WITH TWO PLATES
LONDON GEOBGE BEDWAY TOBE STBEET GOVENT OABDEN
iiDcccuzrvm
/g^/^. > 7
\
jUN 17 188:)
/sRAr^^'j.
c
t
(To
THE STUDENTS
OF
HERMETIC SCIENCE
IN AMERICA
XTbls TISlorft is Bebtcated,
IN GRATEFUL RECOGNITION
OF APPRECIATION,
BY TH£
AUTHOR.
PREFACE.
As this work follows rather closely upon the pablication of Mr Donnelly's " Great Cryptogram/' it may be as well, in order to avoid misconception, and any unjust charge of plagiarism (or unlaw- ful desire to make capital out of the interest excited by the cipher problem) — to point out that as long ago as 1884, we published (under the auspices of Messrs Triibner & Co.), a work entitled '' A New Study of Shakespeare." In it almost all the problems suggested in the present work are implied, and discussed at greater or less length. To belief in the Bacon authorship of the plays we have long been a convert, and a chapter on that subject may be refound in our first work. The theory that the plays and poems contain a planned spiritual Bebirth or promise of Bevelation for posterity is the key-centre of " A New Study of Shakespeare." In it we attempted to suggest how that has been done, and representatively reflected in some of the plays. We therefore think we owe it to ourselves to lay claim to what- ever originality there may be in that work, seeing that the time is rapidly approaching when the world must take a greater and more absorbing interest in these problems. We have no cipher (alas !) to present the reader, but pending the solution, or further
viii PREFACE,
elaboration of Mr Donnelly's Cryptogram, there are many ways still left open to the student desirous of a closer and deeper acquaintanceship with the art called Shakespeare's. Any letters or communications upon this subject may be addressed to the Author, through his publishers.
INTRODUCTION.
" But the Idol8 of the Market'pUtce are the most troableeome of all : idoU which have crept into the undentanding through the alliaDces of words and names." — Bacon.
Evidence differs as to weight, very much less in accordance with the evidence itself than with the capacities of the people receiving it An apple falling is to Newton anticipation, supplying sufficient faith to discover and toil at the laws of gravitation. We may depend upon it, Newton not only saw, but believed because he saw. And how can this sort of evidence, with which the history of every discovery is replete, be made the vulgar sort of evidence which the average intellect requires before it is convinced 9 Take Mr Donnelly's recent work upon the authorship of the plays. Examine the first volume carefully, where the evidence is simply overwhelming. Do we think fifty such volumes would convince some people 1 A thousand times no ! There is a large predomi- nant class of people, who, to begin with, cannot grasp or seize the issues of comparative evidence at all. There is another large class whose minds are so infected with the idols of the Tribe, Theatre, and Den, as to be totally prepossessed and prejudiced against any rational weighing of the evidence when given. The human mind cannot hold two beliefs at the same time, or fairly examine evidence destructive of established faith, until the work is already partially accomplished by preparatory criticism. We see in the history of all great changes in matters of Religion or Philosophy, that the ground must be first cleared, the mind dis- abused or shaken in its idols, by a process of criticism, which is, as it were, a purge to drive out prepossessions. What is the sort of evidence that inspires men like Columbus, Galileo, or Newton
X INTRODUCTION,
with faith by its anticipation and prevision, to toil and labour in darkness, to risk danger and bear solitude unrecognised by their fellow-men % It cannot be the sort of evidence the noisy world requires, because it would be no evidence at all. Imagine Newton assuring the world that the laws of gravitation were prefigured by the fall of an apple I Or Columbus persuading us now-ardays of hemispheres unseen, from the simple analogy that fired his mind, that as the Mediterranean had a southern land limit in Africa, so ought the Atlantic to have some western boundary or terra firmoL I Yet these men were right, and their prevision and faith from what to them was conclusive evidence, worth all the knowing scepticism of the world put together. This, in short, is the history of discovery and invention, that certain minds like certain eyes on board a ship at sea, see land before others.
A great fallacy is that general consensus of opinion and length of time constitute a prerogative or standard of evidence. As if any millions or billions of uneducated, unreflecting persons, who take their opinions from hearsay, and just this fallacy of tradi- tion, can weigh against one genuine expert, or one person who reflects, studies, and thinks beyond the general mind. Every day we hear something to the eflect that three centuries have passed, and no one has (with a few rare exceptions) questioned the authorship of the plays.^ Very true, but nobody even exa- mined, or thought of examining, the evidence for or against this question, seriously, until lately. Ages have evolved, myriads of the human race gone below, who never questioned the Mosaic cosmogony, or the origin of man, as therein set down, until Darwin came with his theory. There have been thousands of surface critics of the plays, but no one has plumbed the question of why this mystery about Shakespeare's life — ^wherefore this silence — whence came his education — and thousands of other
^ How many more centuries passed between Virgirs age and Warbnrton's *' Divine Legation" in which, for the first time, the real meaning of the Vlth book of the i£neid was expounded !
INTRODUCTION, xi
such questions % Because it is of comparatively recent date, that the profound classical learning, the enormous scholarship,- the varied attainments, and the vast experience of Law, State, and Court life have been fully recognised or universally appreciated in the plays. The world is just commencing to realize that, joined to this enigma of mystery (which is too deliberate and too carefully planned to be the result of chance), there is, as it were, another side to the plays and poems — ^a profound, unrevealed side, that suggests a possible solution of the riddle. For there is a striking analogy between these plays and Nature, inasmuch as both hold the same reserve, the same secrecy, and the same silence, as if to say that no other revelation, save what they afford of themselves, shall be given.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, in one of his works, illustrates the disturbance produced by more light and new theories, by the picture of an old stone long imbedded in the grass, which in a moment of mischief we reverse with foot or stick. What a surprise for all the crawling and vermiculate things who have long dwelt in the land of darkness, so tranquilly and so comfort- ably ! How they scurry and hurry away, anything but grateful for this influx of sunshine ! Yet in a few months the spot is as green as the rest. And so it is with truth — somebody draws back the curtains of some old-established fallacy, some association of names with ideas, and nothing more, and lo, what an outcry is there at this pulling up the blinds from those who would like to sleep on for another century or so !
This applies particularly to the problem of the authorship of the Shakespeare plays, as well as to the art itself. A large class of people, particularly Englishmen, have taken the poet's works to themselves, and out of the mere association of the name of Shakespeare with the plays, not only imagine they are familiar with the author, but have built up an imaginary idol — a fictitious Shakespeare of their own who never existed — whom they fall down, worship, and defend as a person commensurate with the plays he is supposed to have written. The truth is, that whilst
xii INTRODUCTION.
efndmvcuring to realize the personality of Shakespeare, we are always thifMng of the uorkSf and thus, out of the association of name and plajs arises a Godlike being, who certainly does not answer to the little we know of him. Nothing is more powerful than the association of ideas. They usurp the place of reason, and become the ''monster custom that all sense doth eat," for, let us ask the question, what proof have we (beyond the association of Shakespeare's name with the plays) that he wrote them 1 Suppose there was a reason for hiding — an object in mystifying posterity with regard to the real author. Why not? And granting this, where are your proofs that Shakespeare wrote these plays and poems 1 If it was not for the association of his name by tradition with the plays, and we were obliged to use our judgment or reason to select the real author, he is about the last person in the world we should light upon, and Bacon the first, who would stand out as the protagonist of his age, the rightful heir. The great difficulty is to persuade people that they know nothing of the personal Shakespeare at all, though they know certain works that have borne his name.
If it seems extraordinary that Bacon should lay no claim to his own works, it is far more extraordinary that Shakespeare should have been perfectly indifferent to the fate of his plays, or their publication in a collected form before his death ! The fact that he leaves no personal record of himself, no scrip or scrap of writing, no manuscripts of the plays, no library, no cor- respondence, is so out of all power of expression wonderful, that to the profound thinker it constitutes a species of evidence in itself that it cannot be the result of indifference or accident, but is the out- come of deliberately planned intention to leave no trace outside the works themselves. The entire mystery surrounding the authorship of the plays and poems bears evidence of the most careful forethought and calculation. Common-sense will convince anybody that such complete removal of every trace of literary record and penmanship concerning an author, who is quite aware of his transcendent genius and coming fame in the eyes of pos-
INTRODUCTION, xiii
terity, cannot have been accidental ! Bnt suppose Shakespeare did not write the plays \ Ah, then indeed, the less trace he left of himself the better ! And perhaps this is just the reason we know so little abont Shakespeare, inasmuch as there was very little about him worth knowing, except that, like the Ass in the comic poet's frogs, " he carries the mysteries" : —
^' Asinus portat mysteria.''
Our theory — a theory we first put forth to the public, in the "New Study of Shakespeare" — ^is, that the plays and poems hitherto attributed to Shakespeare, contain decided proofs of a planned spiritual Rebirth or Revelation through time. An author planning a Revelation (and by this word we mean, the philo- sophy underljing the plays, together with the question of author- ship) in a work of art, would first bethink himself of how to make this openly secret to another generation. There are certain symbolical signs which stand for types of Rebirth. Such is the fabulous bird the Phcenix. Another is the myth of Geres and Proserpine— that is, the death of the earth life in Winter, and rebirth in Spring and Summer. In short, the only effective way, if possible, would be to give depth of meaning, which iwuld be sdf-refleding of the rebirth aimed at, so as to be as deep as Nature itself — that is, openly secret This is the reason, we maintain, we find in plays like The Wintefs Tale, the incorporated myth of Demdter and Persephone, very slightly disguised, though care- fully veiled under the forms of Hermione and Perdita, applied to the art of the plays as art and rebirth of that art. We cannot enter here into the subject of the poet's works, as now under- stood. But it has been plain to all profound thinkers, that we know nothing of this art, but the mere outside — that, as Emerson put it, we are "still out of doors," and this is abundantly proved by the endless works which appear upon the plays and poems, of which not one, as yet, has advanced us one inch, upon any satisfactory path of discovery. Upon what spiritual and creative principles were they constructed 9 That they are mere plays.
xiv INTRODUCTION.
after the fashion of the plays of the Elizabethan age, cannot be for a moment accepted. There are no works upon Ben Jonson's art, or Beaumont and Fletcher's, after the fashion that we find upon the so-called Shakespeare plays. Their depth is so extraordinary, that we must not be surprised to find they embrace creative principles, which are hugely philosophic, as profound as Nature itself. The time will come, when all the world will marvel at the '^ composed wonder" of their frame — when libraries will be filled with lexicons to illustrate lines even in these plays — when the great interpreter of Nature's secrets, her great commentator, will be the " philosophic play systems " of Lord Bacon ; and when the New World will look back upon the hitherto critics and commentators, with the pitying good-natured smile, that we bestow upon Bottom in the Dream, when he holds up his tiny lantern to illustrate Moonshine, or his bush of thoros to present the woods or sylva of Nature. To present the world with the sort of proof that a sceptical generation requires is im- possible. The only conclusive proof upon a subject of this sort, is a cipher, beyond dispute^ with a revelation following it of papers and evidence admitting neither question nor hesitation, and at once flooding the entire cycle of the plays and authorship with the splendour of Midsummer light. That this has been done and will follow at some time, we have no shadow of doubt. Whether Mr Donnelly will arrive at it, we cannot say, we only sincerely hope so, having the pleasure of his acquaintance, and knowing him to be a man as simple as he is true, as earnest and as laborious as he is conscientious, and above all suspicion of any sort of trifling or imposture in this matter.
Seeing that there is a poem entitled the Flwenix aivd the Turtle^ (placed at the end of the works), plainly presenting an enigma and promise of rebirth, both in title and subject matter ; seeing, again, that the Sonnets are so evidently creative principles or new life (Nuova Fiia), and iterate a revelation through time so plainly ; seeing that we have in Prospero a god in art, and in the Duke iu Measure for Measure^ an ubiquitous Providence presiding and
INTRODUCTION. xv
directing, unseen aiid irmsilde, the ends of this art ; seeing that we have constantly presented to us separations and reconciliations with losi children like Marina and Perdita, (who bring about the reconciliations) — ^how is it, we ask, no one can see what has been done) The mystery and obscurity that accompany the plays and their authorship were planned. It is too remarkable to be the result of chance. And the real author reveals himself in his favourite quotation, which he repeats at intervals throughout his works : —
" ' The glory of God is to conceal a thing, but the glory of the king is to find it out ; ' as if, according to the innocent play of children, the Divine Majesty took delight to hide His works, to the end to have them found out; and as if kings could not obtain a greater honour than to be God's playfellows in that game, considering the great commandment of wits and means whereby nothing needeth to be hidden from them."
This is the key-note of Lord Bacon's mind. This is the secret of the mystery and depth of plays which the God Bacon wrote, but concealed himself behind, under another name, in order to be found out through time and through depth of art — A Second Nature ! See how in these lines Bacon delights in concealment ! It is this reserve of God and Nature which extracts his un- bounded admiration. To be openly secret, to reserve nothing, yet to hide everything (like Nature), that indeed is Divine art / Examine the history of Shakespearian criticism 1 Does it not reveal just this mystery of concealment, this reserve, yet with the sense, (which everybody feels), that it is our incapacity alone, that (like Antony Dull) '' understands nothing " 1 We feel that this art is as profound as nature, and as philosophical. If it has a god in Prospero, and in the Duke in Measure for Measure, depend upon it it is also Godlike in creative principles and aims subserving its creation. All in it, we are told, is ** hugely politic" framed on " great bases for eternity," and inspired by a transcendent self-sacrifice only equalled by Christ's. For the sake of this end, for the sake of the mystery. Bacon has died in name.
xvi INTRODUCTION,
his glory being, (as he says, in the Sonnets) mostly that he is silent or dumb. We see this sacrifice hinted at in that strange work, Chester's "Love's Martyr," in the title, and in the after title, where the work is metaphorically applied to l^^ature, as imitation of nature, as " a rare piece of art " challenging Homer's. It is in this work we find the poem of the Ffuenix and Turtle, It is not difficult to see that this work is the product of a secret society of men, contributing and assisting to one common end — the plays of Lord Bacon. This is our sincere belie£ Everything in that work hints at secrecy, for fear of envy. We find in it the following pregnant words : —
" Guide, thou great guider of the Sun aud Mood, Thou elemental savourer of the night, My undeserved wit, wit sprung too soon} To give thy greatness every gracious light."
" Wit sprung too soon " — to be published or made manifest, evidently genius in advance of his age — which takes the only alternative left of imbcddiug and perpetuating itself by means of art We find in the Sonnets evidence that there were associates or compeers, giving him aid by night in some task. Is it too much to suggest that we refind them in Chester's "Love's Martyr" 1 —
«
" No, neither he, nor his compeers by night Oimng him aid, my verse astonished. He, nor that of able familiar ghost "Which nightly g^Uls him with intelligence."
We know Shakespeare played the part of the Ghost in Hamlet, and that, as Ben Jonson states, he was of an " affable, open, and free disposition." Here, then, are two terms to identify him as the Ghost in Hamlet and as the Ghost behind the plays, who gulled himself with intelligence that belonged to another.
* Compare —
** As a decrepit father takes delight To see bis active child do deeds of yonth, So I, made lame by fortune's dearest spite."
— Sonnets.
INTRODUCTION. xvii
We have in this work approached the Bacon - Shakespeare problem from a totally new point of view. We maintain that the question of the authorship of the plays is closely allied with the character and genius of Lord Bacon's life and writings. And we suggest that in the fact that he belonged to a secret society prefigured in his ^'l^ew Atlantis," we have a key to the reserve and profound nature of his mind. Instead of vaguely speculating as to his motives for concealment, let us ask ourselves whai was the nature of the secret society he belonged to? This may provide an answer to the entire problem. For the Rosicrucians called themselves Invisibles, their teaching was an abnegation or putting aside of all egotism, vanity, or self-seeking. They covered them- selves with a cloud, and they professed doctrines which were dangerous to publish in an open form. Therefore it behoves us to seriously consider whether Bacon was one of them, or if not, to ask ourselves what was the society he really did belong tof We ought also to seriously consider the spiritual side of the plays and sonnets, and as we are dealing with an extraordinary Art, and an extraordinary genius, to ask ourselves what is the extraordinary rebirth, promised and set forth in no ambiguous terms in the Phoenix and Turtle, Chester's " Love's Martyr" and tfu: Sonnets — everywhere 1 The greatest difficulty perhaps associated with this problem, is to persuade others that the plays have another, as yet, unrevealed side, — and that this side was written for posterity to discover. The silence, secrecy, mystery, and re- serve are proofs of a planned system, which, as a whole, was that of a God in Art, sacrificing himself in order to conceal himself behind and in his works, whereby after-ages might have their curiosity and minds whetted to find him out, and give him the rebirth and glory for which he toiled 9
Our theory, incredulous as it may seem, is that the works called Shakespeare's, are the product of a learned college of men, incorporated by one Divine Genius into a system of dramatised philosophy — an effort to realize Nature in dramatic art, and to carry down to another age the hermetic science of their society
xviii INTRODUCTION.
and of antiquity in a deliberately planned revelation. The actual sacrifice of authorship is part of this second story of Christ in art, for it is just the mystery and silence or reserve which has stimulated our curiosities, and which is so Godlike. It is written in the Sonnets over and over again — the sacrifice .which is to be repaid in other ages ; the glory which is to spring mostly from the silence. When will the World begin to see it as we do 1 That is our thought, for that the world will all at once see it, and wonder they never saw it before, is only a question of time. But how long f
The following propositions are more or less implied in this work, and may be earnestly commended to the thoughtful student of this problem.
1. That Bacon was the founder or head of some secret society is prefigured by his " New Atlantis," and by a further array of minor evidence, contained in his works, life, and contemporary literature.
2. That John Heydon, a genuine Eosicrucian Apologist, identifies Bacon's " New Atlantis " with the '' land of the Eosi- crucians."
3. That the Sosicrucian manifestoes, fame, and rise correspond with Bacon's life and death. That four years after his death, 1630, the Rosicrucian literature is already upon the decline.
4. That the learned Nicolai, a great authority, and inquirer upon the origins of modem Freemasonry, claims Bacon to be its founder. That at the first authentic Lodge meeting at Warrington in 1646, Lord Bacon's Atlantis is discussed, his two columns or pillars (shown upon the Engravings of his Works, folio, Sylva Sylvarum) are adopted. Nicolai states the members of this meet- ing were all Rosicrucians, Elias Ashmole being one.
5. That the scheme put forward in some of the Rosicrucian manifestoes, bears the imprint of Bacon's mind and philosophy, or object of extending man's knowledge in nature by experi- ment. The overthrow of Aristotle being one feature.
6. That Modem Masonry is modified Rosicrucianism was the opinion of the learned De Quincey.
INTRODUCTION, xix
7. That Sosicracianism, though apparently emanating from abroad, never took root there (t^« De Qaincej), but did iu England, — a proof of its origin.
8. That it is clearly shown that the antedating of the incep- tion of the fraternity with Christian Eosenkreutz was a splendid fiction, and that the real date of the society was coeval with the end of the sixteenth and commencement of the seventeenth centuries.
9. That the real authors of the " Universal Reformation " are stUl unknovm, inasmuch as the supposed author, Johann Valen- tine Andreas, denied having anything to do with the brother- hood.
10. That Germany was no more the real centre of the Bosi- crucians than Italy, seeing that we find a part of the " Universal Beformation " borrowed from Boccalini
11. That Bacon's writings give hints of profound intimacy with the Hermetic science, and mysteries of antiquity. That Bacon studied Egyptian, Persian, and Chaldean lore, which does net appear in his prose writings.
12. That he speaks of two methods of publishings, or of writing : one reserved, the other open ; one to select his reader, the other, oral, which falls in with the oral method of Free- masonry.
13. That he professes he is going the same road as the ancients, and compares himself to them in point of wU, which cannot apply to his prose works.
14. That Bacon's works contain many implied enigmas and mysteries. That part of his works are wanting,
15. That the plays known as Shakespeare's, contain evidence of Hermetic and Ancient Mystery sources — Bosicrucian or Masonic origins.
16. That the Sonnets are full of the promise of rebirth and revelation in almost extravagant terms.
CONTENTS.
>:o:-
PAOB