EDITORIAL - Taboo and Scholarship

Francis Bacon's philosophy is rightly associated with the concept of progress. From the Age of Enlightenment until the mid 20th Century, it was often taken for granted that the pre-modern past was the age of superstition, and the future would witness the triumph of reason. But following two World Wars, and the increasing globalisation of our culture, many have come to feel that progress is a myth, a modernist European blind spot produced by that culture's belief in its own supremacy. Bacon certainly believed that progress was possible: his Novum Organum (New Method) presents a way to steady progress in knowledge, and his New Atlantis sketched the ideal of a progressive society. But that does not mean history or the individual sciences necessarily follow a steady, unbroken improvement in the real world. The reverse is often true: progress has to be worked for, and this usually involves challenging deep rooted prejudices.

Likewise, the Bacon Society has made remarkable discoveries and also followed blind alleys, following fashions that were setbacks rather than breakthroughs. Paradoxically, progress often entails returning to neglected ideas, revisiting past achievements, challenging commonplaces. The Society has always endeavoured to investigate the nature of Bacon's connection with the Shakespeare Plays, in an openminded way, and present its findings to the wider public. One relevant trail was the search for ciphers and cryptic communications in Shakespeare, Bacon and other Elizabethan books. Between 1880 and 1940 many Baconians became convinced they had 'cracked the code', publishing vast tomes with extraordinary revelations about Bacon's life and works. Very few of these attempts created conviction among disinterested parties, and in truth, most of them were concocted from not-quite-understood use of gematria and renaissance cryptography, endless persistance and wishful thinking. But there may have been gold buried amidst the dross. The first of Michael Buhagiar's two contributions to this issue is a rehabilitation of one of the most rigorous and interesting attempted decryptions, William Moore's "Shakespeare". This is a challenging piece: the reader will want to obtain an edition of Love's Labour's Lost (preferably a facsimile of the First Folio) and consider the text and Moore's argument carefully. Whatever conclusion the reader forms, Moore's work and Buhagiar's presentation set the standard for those who feel called to revisit this controversial subject.

It is with great sadness that the Society has to announce the death of one of its most distinguished members, Nigel Cockbun Q.C., author of "The Bacon Shakespeare Question". A full obituary and tribute to Mr Cockburn will be appearing in the next issue of Baconiana, but his lasting legacy to scholarship is certainly his book, by far the best ever written on the Baconian case in the Authorship Question. Every Stratfordian and non-Stratfordian will want to read this great legal presentation of the arguments for and against Bacon, Shakespeare and other candidates as authors of the plays. Cockburn passionately and totally rejected all cipher hunts, for very good reasons. He felt that cryptograms were a disastrous error in Baconian history, saying

"If Baconians had shown restraint and confined themselves to their valid arguments, of which there are many, their case would have had far wider appeal. As it is, the Baconian theory has come to be regarded, not just as an illustration of human folly, but as a symbol of it. This has led to an unparalleled and discreditable taboo which resents any questioning of Shakespere's authorship. One may tilt at the basic tenets of anything else, even of deeply felt religious belief. But the authorship of the Stratford actor is sacrosanct."

Cockburn's use of the word taboo is perfectly judged. In theory, science is totally objective, devoted only to the truth. But in practice, academic culture is filled with taboos, or Idols as Bacon called them. These are only slowly eliminated from academic consensus, through the work of pioneers. One such taboo area has been astrology. Many Elizabethan intellectuals, including Shakespeare, were steeped in astrology, along with the other hermetic sciences of alchemy, magic and Kabbalah. These were regarded as 'science' or valid philosophy at the time, and since the work of Frances Yates and others, the history of ideas has grown to acknowledge this. Few academics feel the old religious fear of the 'occult sciences' as witchcraft, nor is interest in such subjects illegal. But many are still uncomfortable at the idea that universally admired cultural figures like Shakespeare may have been steeped in these philosophies.

Michael Buhagiar's second contribution to this issue contains a sentence that aptly defines the best work done by Baconians: "The true history of Elizabethan literature is being written, then, not in the groves of academe, but in the homes and offices of private scholars". This article is a warm and detailed review of Francis Carr's book "Who Wrote Don Quixote?" Carr is one of the Society's most ardent and longstanding proponents of Bacon as the author of Shakespeare, and his clear and concise presentation argument will be enjoyed even by those who find his conclusions deeply shocking. Buhagiar has recently finished a book on this subject, Don Quixote and the Brilliant Name of Fire: Qabalah, Tarot and Shakespeare in the Greatest Novel, which will be reviewed in full in the next issue. Carr's book argues, in potentially incendiary fashion, that Bacon actually wrote the original of Don Quixote in English - his work being known to history as Thomas Shelton's translation - and that Cervantes' famous novel is in fact a translation into Spanish of the English original. Needless to some, some will treat the very suggestion as laughable, or typical of the glorious imprudence of radical Baconianism. It is dangerous enough for English speaking authors to tilt at their own idols like William Shakespeare; is it not sheer folly to attempt to rob other nations literary heroes of their crowns? But Carr gives arguments for seeing the influence of English on Don Quixote, and Buhagiar goes further to see Sufism and Kabbalah in this work, as in Shakespeare. If these books do no more than to awaken readers to the depths of supposedly well-known texts like Don Quixote and the Shakespeare Plays, they will have done much.

The Society is fortunate to contain several well-known actors, proving that a love of Shakespearean drama and professional involvement in theatre is no barrier to passionate interest in the Authorship Question. Deslie McClellan, one of our newest members, has a lifetime's experience of acting and teaching. Her beautifully written article is timely: it is not always appreciated that Francis Bacon had a great interest in (and deep knowledge of) theatre and the art of acting. As well as actors, various members take a keen interest in literature. Another new member, Rod Treseder, has submitted some poems which we will be publishing over the coming issues. His poem Sprite of the Avon is included.

The editor received an invitation to address the Baconian Club of St. Albans in March about the Authorship Question. This society, founded by a member of the Royal Society early in the 20th century, takes a special interest in Bacon as a philosopher, so it was a pleasure to address its intelligent and quick-witted membership on the less orthodox view of their 'patron'! Any members living in St. Albans should certainly apply for membership of this fascinating and hospitable organisation.

Baconiana has a long tradition of reviving old articles and matters of historic interest to Baconians, even including articles that travel quite far from the confines of Bacon, Shakespeare and Elizabethan literature. Duchaussoy's article is an essay in esoteric speculation that will be of interest to those readers who believe in Bacon's possible affiliation with the esoteric philosophies of Rosicrucianism.

The next issue will appear in Autumn 2008 and will be devoted to full appreciations and obituries of two great Baconians: Nigel Cockburn and the former President of the Francis Bacon Society, Thomas Bokenham - respectively the greatest opponent and advocate of cipher studies in Baconian theory. Therefore we will welcome contributions on this subject.

The Editor, April 2008