BACON AND THE ROSICRUCIANS.*
IT is rather difficult to bring oneself into a fitting state of mind for the proper consideration of the theories that Mrs. Henry Pott has put forward in her book upon Francis Bacon. Every one has heard of the Baconian theory that was advanced some years ago by Mr. Donnelly, and of 'the marvellous cipher that that gentleman discovered, which told to him, and to several other enlightened persons, how it was that Shakespeare had come to be regarded as the author of certain works which were really written by Francis Bacon. Mr. Donnelly and his famous cipher, however, pale into insignificance by the side of the astounding proposition of Mrs. Henry Pott. To use a slang phrase borrowed from the card-table, she "has seen Mr. Donnelly and gone one better." All that Mr. Donnelly believes she also believes, and a great deal more besides. As for his paltry cipher, which was discovered in a single folio, she has discovered a system of water-marks which extends pretty nearly over the whole field of modern literature. In view of what- is expected of them, her readers will do well to agree with Mr. Donnelly at the outset, or at least imagine that they agree with him. It will help them greatly in a right understanding of Mrs. Pott, and will also save them from much trouble and bewilderment in attempting to verify quota- tions which the author takes from Bacon's works, and which the rest of the world generally attribute to Shakespeare. Starting, then, with the assumption that Francis Bacon wrote all the plays and the works that are now known as Shake- speare's, it will not be quite so difficult to entertain Mrs. Pott's further supposition that Francis Bacon wrote all the literature of the Elizabethan and Jacobean period, both English and foreign. This is a very necessary belief, for otherwise the whole chain of argument is based upon nothing. After all, it only requires a little good-will and some effort, for the reader to oblige Mrs. Henry Pott, and start fair upon the considera- tion of her great discovery, and if a reader can swallow the whole of Shakespeare in Bacon's name, he need not strain at the rest of European literature of that period. The fact is, that the works of that time, when "exhaustively compared," as Mrs. Pott has evidently compared them, do show "a decided resemblance in thought, opinion, knowledge, and diction." And "this likeness extends even to foreign works, especially when they are divested of their Latin, French, Ger- man, Italian, or Spanish mantles, and appear as translation,s in very Baconian diction. In many cases the translations appear to be the originals." Of course the translations "in Baconian diction" were the originals, and his Lordship of Yerulain wrote them all. We are quite willing to admit it for the sake of argument, and pass on to Mrs. Pott's explana- tion of how he did it.
As Mrs. Pott very truly says, "it is manifestly impossible that any one man, however gigantic his power, could have performed single-handed all that we now believe to have been done and written by Francis Bacon." But if he received help, it is obvious that it must have been help from some Secret Society; for how else could the secret of authorship have been preserved ? An examination into the history of the Secret Societies of the Middle Ages has convinced Mrs. Pott that the Rosicrncian fraternity was the one that was most likely to supply the aid that Bacon needed, and also that its constitu- tion and mode of procedure seem not unlikely to have been `' the result of his own scheme or method." She does not suggest that Bacon founded the Rosicrncian sect, but merely that he modified it to his own uses. And with the Rosicrucian brethren she connects the Freemasons, for reasons which will soon become apparent. Given this enormous mass of Baconian or Rosicrucian literature, it is necessary to discover some in- ternal evidence in the writings themselves which will connect them with their original authors ; for it is hardly to be sup- posed that Francis Bacon and his friends were at the pains of turning out all this work without leaving some trace by which the initiated might recognise its real authorship. Even at Francis Bacon, in the case of Shakespeare, laid claim to the whole of that author's—or rather, we should say, actor's, for he was no author—works by a secret cipher not to be unravelled save by the ingenuity of an American gentle- man hundreds of years afterwards, so he and his Secret Society have left their sign on all the literature of their • Francis Bacon and his Secret Society. By Mrs. Henry Pott. London : Sampson Low, Marston, and Co. period in the shape of a "water-mark." An investigation into the typography and the cryptography of old books, has led Mrs. Pott to the discovery of a curious resemblance in the water-marks of the paper upon which they were printed. It is true that they vary considerably in form—as many as twenty-four different patterns have been found in a single volume—but that is nothing compared with the main fact, that they all resemble each other in being water-marks and in being unintelligible. Now, as they are unintelligible to the general public, what meaning could they have save as secret marks inserted for the benefit of an initiated few ? Secret Societies probably make use of secret marks : the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons are Secret Societies : therefore these secret marks were inserted by the Baconian-Rosicrucian-Freemason Con- federation. Which, as Euclid says, was to be proved. For taking the proposition either way, the same conclusion is arrived at. Bacon and the Rosicrucians wrote all the literature of their period : all the literature of their period contained these water-marks : therefore Bacon and the Rosicrucians inserted all the water-marks. Or, as it has now been proved, Bacon and the Rosicrucians used water- marks : all the literature of their period contains water- marks : therefore all the literature of their period was written by Bacon and the Rosicrucians. We have tried to do justice to Mrs. Pott's argument, and adapt ourselves to the advanced or feminine form of logic. It must be confessed that the exer- cise is rather a tiring one, so Mrs. Pott must forgive our shortcomings. If the reader is still in need of further proof, there is a yet stronger one to be advanced. We have said that the water-marks were unintelligible : less fortunate than Mr. Donnelly, Mrs. Pott has not been able to decipher the hidden meaning of the cipher that she has discovered. But in her efforts to discover it, she has stumbled across another discovery which confirms her former one, and has led her to the startling belief that the Baconian-Rosicrucian Authorship Society, unlimited, must actually be in exist- ence to-day. She has laid her theory of water-marks before those authorities who should be best qualified to answer her—presumably the paper-makers of to-day, for she does not particularise—and she has failed to elicit either a denial of the correctness of her theory, or an admis- sion of its truth. Moreover, those whom she has consulted have invariably answered that "they could not tell;" never that "they did not know." Mark the significance of this. They could not say that "they did not know," for the simple reason that they did know ; they were Rosicrucians, Free- masons, Baconians themselves, and they dared not tell. The phrase, "I cannot tell," was "judiciously or graciously varied and paraphrased" under many other forms, but "in vain," she says, "have we endeavoured to extract the answer, I do not know.' Such a phrase does not seem to exist amongst the formule of Freemason or Rosicrncian language." Therefore, Mrs. Pott makes in her book a despairing appeal to these initiated but obstinate people to come forward and declare the truth of her theory, and reveal the mystery of the Rosicrucian- Baconian water-mark. We sincerely hope that if they do know, they will make an exception in Mrs. Pott's favour, and reveal the truth to her, if it is only to her. It is really a shame that the secret should be kept from her, when she has taken so much trouble to find it out.
If the reader is still unconvinced by Mrs. Pott's arguments, he should pass on to the consideration of the water-marks, specimens of which are given at the end of the book, filling some twenty-seven plates. We think that he will at least agree that they are sufficiently peculiar and uncouth to mean almost anything. One would like to say something kindly about the industry that has collected all the facts in Mrs. Pott's book, and the ingenuity that has drawn such strange conclusions : one can find nothing better to say than that both are stupendous. The inconvenience of holding such a theory as that of Mrs. Pott, is that it seems to have no end. The use of water-marks is fairly universal, and they are generally more or less unintelligible. We do not wish to commit ourselves to a belief that entails the further one that Bacon and the Rosicrucians wrote all the literature that was ever-first set down on paper. We should still like to believe, for instance, that Lord Tennyson wrote his own poems, which he could hardly have done unless he were a Rosicracian. Since writing the above, the reviewer has held his own paper up to the light, and discovered the rude figure of a
female, resembling Britannia, an evident water-mark. Can it be that he too is a Rosicrucian, and knew it not ? 'Tis passing strange.
Previous page
