A Baconian Objection

After President Bush proposed a major increase in the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts, I wrote a piece titled “From Mapplethorpe to Oxenford”, pointing out that the NEA Web site includes a long, bizarre page boosting the theory that the works of William Shakespeare were written by somebody – anybody – else. Though I prompted a complaint or two, and a promise from the chairman of the Endowment to get rid of such nonsense, it is all still there. I suppose that the Administration is fearful of losing the potentially crucial anti-Stratfordian bloc. (For political trivialists: Paul Streitz, author of Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I, ran as a Buchananite candidate for the Republican Senate nomination in Connecticut this year; he lost.)

While the NEA has ignored my complaints, I did draw an indignant response from one Simon Miles, who objects to one of my statements about his favorite pseudo-Shakespeare, Sir Francis Bacon. The NEA avers:

Bacon served as a producer of masques and entertainments for Gray’s Inn in the 1590s, usually writing them or at least collaborating.

I responded:

There is no evidence that Bacon ever was “a producer of masques and entertainments”; the statement is a Baconian invention.

Mr. Miles chides my ignorance:

Your commentary on Francis Bacon is riddled with errors and mis-statements, but this one above is perhaps the most blatant. There is, actually, ample evidence that Bacon was involved with putting on plays and masques, from the late 1580s at Gray’s Inn and onwards. For a detailed summary, please refer to E.K.Chambers The Elizabethan Stage (1923) Vol 3 pp211-14, but here is a brief sample:

1. He helped to devise dumb shows for Thomas Hughes play The Misfortunes of Arthur performed at Gray’s Inn before the Queen at Greemwich on 28 February 1588.

2. He did some at least of the writing of the Gray’s Inn Christmas Revels of 1594-95. This was the famous occasion on which The Comedy of Errors was performed.

3. He wrote speeches for a Device presented by the Earl of Essex before the Queen on Queen’s Day 17 November 1595.

4. He wrote a speech for the Earl of Essex at a tilt in late 1596, probably on Queen’s Day. It appears to be an apology for the absence of Essex.

5. He was the “chief contriver” of a Masque which Gray’s Inn and the Inner Temple jointly gave at Court on 20 February 1613 for the Princess Elizabeth’s wedding. The actual writing, which is not in Bacon’s style, was probably done by Francis Beaumont, the playwright.

6. He promoted, and bore the whole expense (at least 2,000 pounds, a huge sum in those days) of the Gray’s Inn Masque of Flowers on 6 January 1614 for the Earl of Somerset’s wedding.

In addition to the above entertainments, we know from a letter to Anthony Bacon from his friend Nicholas Faunt, dated 20 November 1592, that “Queen’s Day was more solemnised than ever, and that through my Lord of Essex his device”. (Lambeth MSS 648.176). We have no particulars, but it is a fair guess that Bacon wrote this device too, based on other such works which Spedding does not hesitate to attribute to Bacon.

So, in fact, the idea that Bacon had no association with the drama is a Stratfordian invention.

Mr. Miles’ “brief sample” in fact comprises all of the “associations with the drama” that Chambers finds for Bacon. (Chambers does not include the letter from Anthony Bacon to Nicholas Faunt, which says nothing about any dramatic activity on the part of Francis.) Items 2 and 4 are described as conjectures. Items 5 and 6 show Bacon, an ambitious courtier striving to gain royal favor, spending money for that purpose. That leaves one example of assisting with dumb shows and a few speeches for courtly spectacles as proof that “Bacon served as a producer of masques and entertainments for Gray’s Inn in the 1590s, usually writing them or at least collaborating”. I think that “Baconian invention” is an apt characterization.

Comments

[Simon Miles]

Your original statement, on which I emailed comment, was:

"There is no evidence that Bacon ever was “a producer of masques and entertainments”; the statement is a Baconian invention."

In reply, you concede that Chambers supplies evidence, at the very least, of "one example of assisting with dumb shows and a few speeches for courtly spectacles": therefore your statement above that there is "no such evidence" is plainly wrong, by your own admission!

"Baconian invention" is thus anything but "apt" to describe a situation where evidence exists as you've admitted, as dictinct from not existing, which was your original incorrect statement.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this.