Baconian Essays — Text and Context

Bacon as a 'Concealed Poet'

The essays argue that Bacon deliberately hid his poetic output. Smithson points to a 1594–95 letter to the Earl of Essex where Bacon calls 'the waters of Parnassus' his best consolation, and another to Lord H. Howard referring to 'the best waters to knit minds together.' These allusions, the author claims, are coded references to poetry. A 1604 letter to the Earl of Devonshire is cited where Bacon admits writing a sonnet to Queen Elizabeth, noting that this involved 'a publishing and declaring of himself'—interpreted as dropping his poetic mask. John Aubrey is quoted as saying Bacon 'was a good poet, but concealed as appears by his letters.' The essays treat these documents as evidence that Bacon was the true author of Shakespeare's works, though they do not provide direct proof linking Bacon to the plays.

The Value of 'Poesy' in Bacon's System

Smithson examines Bacon's Advancement of Learning (1605) and its revised edition (1623) to show a shift in Bacon's estimation of poetry. In the earlier work, Bacon divides knowledge into three 'goodly fields': History, Poesy, and Philosophy, with Poesy holding a high place. The author notes that Bacon claimed 'for the expressing of affections, passions, corruptions, and customs, we are beholding to poets more than to philosophers.' But in the 1623 revision, this claim is dropped, and poetry is 'materially lowered' on the grounds that poets 'exceed the truth.' Smithson argues that this change suggests Bacon was dissatisfied with his earlier praise of poetry, possibly because it revealed too much about his own poetic activities. The analysis is based on a comparison of the two editions, though the excerpts do not include the full texts.

The Northumberland Manuscript and External Evidence

Sir George Greenwood contributes two essays, one on 'The Northumberland Manuscript,' which is a document associated with Bacon that contains references to Shakespeare plays. The excerpts do not detail the manuscript's contents, but the table of contents lists it as a key piece of evidence. Greenwood also discusses 'The Common Knowledge of Shakespeare and Bacon,' likely comparing what was publicly known about each figure. The final note by Greenwood suggests that the book aims to present a case based on historical documents rather than literary analysis. The essays rely heavily on letters, dedications, and contemporary accounts, but the excerpts are too brief to evaluate the strength of the arguments. Readers interested in the Baconian theory will find a focused, evidence-driven approach, though the book does not engage with counterarguments from mainstream Shakespeare scholarship.

These essays are best approached as a collection of arguments from the early 20th-century Baconian movement, not as a comprehensive survey of the authorship question. The authors assume the reader knows the Shakespeare canon and focuses on Bacon's writings and letters. For those new to the topic, the book may require supplementary background on the historical figures involved. The evidence presented is suggestive rather than conclusive, and the excerpts leave many claims unsubstantiated.

That rainy afternoon, Baconian Essays kept me turning pages, sensing Francis Bacon’s presence in every line, yet feeling him slip away—a scholar hiding behind his own words. Afterwards, I picked up Selected Essays of Plutarch, Vol. I. — Context and Discussion almost without thinking. Plutarch’s measured portraits offered a quieter kind of unveiling, less conspiratorial, more humane.