In Love’s Labours Lost (5-2) Illion; in Troilus and Cressida (1-2) Illium; in All’s Well (3-5) Citty; in Advancement of Learning (B. 2, p. 32) Brittaine; Book 2, (p. 18) maner, comonly; (p. 36) canot; (p. 74) amogst, comand; (p. 74) comoly; (p. 87) wisedom; and on page 92 circurence (circumference).
In printing the deciphered work, similar elisions when they occurred were marked with an apostrophe, the modern abbreviation, rather than mar the page with such seeming errors.
I have already given six examples from the History of Henry the Seventh of the detached possessive his, and many others could be cited. “A thing familiar in my Mistris her times” occurs in a letter to Northumberland; “I. S. his day is past and well past”—Letter to the King (29th of April, 1615).
“It needeth no proof of the fact that” is characterized as modern padding, but in Advancement of Learning we read, “where there is assurance and cleere evidence of the fact.”
Most, if not all the so-called modern expressions that have been criticized—including some noted by another critic—are found (mildly, exciting, headings), and in 2 H. IV. (1-1) is the line, “You cast the event of war.”
A prominent assertion is that concerning repetitions. Most overlook the fact that the cipher narrative was placed in a large number of books and at different dates. The contents of the Bi-literal Cypher of Francis Bacon were deciphered from fifty-five works, some of them subdivided into many separate parts, as in the Shakespeare First Folio and Ben Jonson’s Folio. Bacon declares his reason for reiteration was that he could not know in which book the cipher would be discovered, nor could he suppose that it would be followed through all the works.
The article concludes with a promise of more to follow—then I trust I may be granted space for further reply.
Yours very sincerely,
Elizabeth Wells Gallup.
REPLY II.
To the Editor of the Literary World: