Secrecy

Why the secrecy? Why use not only a pseudonym but also a living person to mask the authorship of the Shakespeare works?

There are, in fact, plenty of precedents and many good reasons for the use of masks or noms-de-plume in literature by the great poets and writers. Some reasons are practical and others are philosophical. For instance, it is clearly stated in The Arte of English Poesie, the first important critical work on the subject in English that was published anonymously in 1589, that noblemen and gentlemen in the Court wrote various commendable works of poetry but published their work without their own names to it, for two main reasons. The first was because of the barbarous ignorance of the time and pride of many gentlemen. The second reason was because of the lack of support and patronage from the ‘Princes’—and in this the author of The Arte of English Poesie is, of course, referring primarily to Queen Elizabeth, as he is talking about the English Court.

The chapter in which this information is given is entitled: ‘In what reputation Poesie and Poets were in old time with Princes and otherwise generally, and how they be now become contemptible and for what causes’. The text of the chapter implies that works of poesie, which include drama as well as poetry (epic and otherwise), were not just published anonymously by certain notable gentlemen in the Court, but also that other persons’ names were used to mask the true authorship.

The university wit, Robert Greene, in his Farewell to Folly, also mentions the practice among writers of publishing under someone else’s name in order to remain incognito. Pointedly, he refers to the ‘ass’ who, because he masks an author of higher social standing and professional calling, is ‘made proud’ by the ‘underhand brokery’ (i.e. secret dealing in deception in return for a fee), this pride making him by necessity pretend he is the ‘father of interludes’ (i.e. author of stage-plays), even though he needs the help of clerks of parish churches to write true English. To whom, one wonders, was Greene particularly referring?

There was one particularly good reason in Elizabethan England for a playwright, especially a courtier or a nobleman, to remain anonymous; or, if this was impossible, to either use a pseudonym or employ another living person to act as a mask. This reason was the attitude of both the government and local authorities to the theatres. The power of the theatre was feared. It was thought to be not only a hotbed of immorality but also a seedbed for political or religious subversion and the spreading of radical ideas, which of course it often was. Moreover, although enjoyed, the public theatre was still considered to be a low occupation, and the playwright, if known, tended to share the same opprobrium as the actors. For a courtier or nobleman, or for anyone desiring to hold office in the sovereign’s government, to be thus stigmatised could sound his social and political death-knell. This is clearly stated in the play Sir Thomas More (c.1600), wherein the Earl of Surrey says: ‘Poets were ever thought unfit for state’.[1]

This, indeed, must have been a primary reason for Bacon concealing his authorship of the Shakespeare works, as he served Queen Elizabeth as one of her Counsel Extraordinary and Counsel Learned in the Law, and constantly (but fruitlessly) sought to be given a position of office in her government. Under King James, however, Bacon became successively Solicitor-General (1607), Attorney-General (1613), Privy Counsellor (1616) and, finally, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal (1617) and Lord High Chancellor (1618).

However, there was almost certainly further reasons for secrecy – or rather, the neccessity to be secret led Bacon to use it for further purposes. Bacon, who was known for his habit of secrecy, was a Cabalist, as may be seen by his works. One of the key axioms of the Cabalist when teaching is to reveal some things but conceal others: in other words, to set up a treasure trail or game of hide-and-seek. This became of primary importance to Francis Bacon, who refers several times in his philosophical writings to Proverbs 25: 2, wherein Solomon states that ‘It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the glory of the king is to find it out’. Commenting on this, Bacon pointedly suggested that it is ‘as if the Divine Nature, according to the innocent and sweet play of children, which hide themselves to the end that they may be found, took delight to hide his works, to the end they might be found out; and of his indulgence and goodness to mankind had chosen the soul of man to be his play-fellow in this game’.[2]

Bacon believed in trying to imitate the way God works and he set out to do just this, using the necessity to be secret to create his working example that would train people in his new method – his Art of Discovery – by means of which all things might be discovered. At one point he even contemplated concealing his philosophical works behind a pseudonym or pseudonyms (‘Valerius Terminus’ and ‘Hermes Stella’). Fortunately for us he decided against doing this, else we might never have recognised anything he wrote.

Peter Dawkins, 2006

(See the author's book, The Shakespeare Enigma)

Refs:

1. Sir Thomas More, iii, ii, 219.

2. Francis Bacon, The Advancement and Proficience of Learning (1640), The Preface.

The Francis Bacon Research Trust