cluding years of Elizabeth's reign, and became one of the most prominent members of Parliament during the first quarter of the seventeenth century. Historians who have written of this period testify to Bacon's ability as a political speaker. Naturally, these writers1 are concerned primarily with the historical significance of the orations, which are used as illustrative data in the story of the struggle for parliamentary reform, and of other vital movements of that time. But though the historian recognizes that Bacon's speeches were notable factors in molding the political events of his day, he is interested only in their causes and effects; he says little of their rhetorical qualities; he barely mentions their author as orator and debater per se.

Those of his own works in science and philosophy for which Bacon had the highest regard he either wrote in Latin, or had translated into "the universal language." For his compositions in his native tongue he expressed little less than contempt.2 All that Bacon thought best in his scientific researches is now almost unanimously rejected as worthless for our present-day uses. It is not too bold to say that the Latin works upon which he rested his fame with future ages, will very shortly be little more than waste paper. One voices the opinion of even the most sympathetic of Bacon's critics and biographers when he asserts that it will be the Advancement of Learning, the English Essays, and the professional writings, legal and political, that will sustain his reputation as a master of wisdom and of style as long as the English language shall last.

Whatever Bacon may have thought of the literary or rhetorical value of his own speeches, we know that he took care to preserve them for the reading public. Copies of the speeches, written and corrected in Bacon's own hand, have come down to us. Most of the speeches accredited to him are pronounced genuine by Spedding.3 It is an interesting fact that Bacon not only preserved his own

1F. L. von Ranke, A History of England, Oxford, 1875, I, 441, 455-9, 501; S. R. Gardiner, A History of England from the Accession of James I to the Disgrace of Chief-Justice Coke, 1603-1616, London, 1863 (innumerable references to Bacon's speeches); A. F. Pollard, The History of England from the Accession of Edward VI to the Death of Elizabeth, 1547-1603, London, 1910; F. C. Montague, The History of England from the Accession of James I to the Restoration, 1603-1660, London, 1907; G. M. Trevelyan, England under the Stuarts, London, 1922. See also J. R. Green, History of the English People, London and New York, 1900-3; A. D. Innes, England under the Tudors, London, 1905.

Innes, England under the Tudors, p. 404. 'Spedding, Letters, III, v-vi.

speeches, but was sufficiently interested in other orators of the House of Commons to keep a record of their utterances.1

No one has supplied anything like a complete discussion of Bacon as a political speaker. Again and again, modern critics assure us that he possessed the power to sway audiences. In classifying Bacon's works, Steeves expresses what has been the general attitude towards the speeches:

Many speeches and legal papers come under this heading [Professional Works], but the consideration of these must be left until the more important literary works have our attention."

Steeves's consideration of the speeches is brief and superficial. Other writers dismiss the subject of Bacon as speaker by telling us that he was "an orator of approved eloquence," or that "to his literary studies and attainments, he added a reputation as a statesman and orator," or that he was foremost among all the orators of his day.3 In very few instances do the recent commentators have anything more definite or informing on Bacon's speeches, or on his method of preparing and delivering them. They admit that he was an eloquent orator, and when this statement is expanded, the testimony employed takes the form of the celebrated commendation from his friend Ben Jonson:

There happened in my time one noble speaker who was full of gravity in his speaking; his language, where he could spare or pass by a jest, was nobly censorious. No man ever spake more neatly, more presly, more weightily, or suffered less emptiness, less idleness, in what he uttered. No member of his speech but consisted of his own graces. . . . He commanded where he spoke, and had his judges angry or pleased at his devotion. No man had their affections more in his power. The fear of every man who heard him was lest he should make an end.

With this quotation, most of the commentators make an end. The same is true of the lesser biographers. Even Spedding, in his

1An interesting report of one of Salisbury's speeches was made by Bacon: Spedding, Letters, IV, 228 ff. For Bacon's reports of speeches, found in the Commons' Journals, see Spedding, Letters, III, 345.

2 G. Walter Steeves, Francis Bacon, London, 1910, p. 54.

'F. E. Schelling, English Literature During the Lifetime of Shakespeare, New York, 1910, p. 337; Edward Everett, North American Review, XVI (1823), 301; J. J. Jusserand, Literary History of the English People, London, 1909, II, 514.

Ben Jonson, Timber or Discoveries, ed. Schelling, Boston, 1892, p. 30. John, Lord Campbell, Life of Lord Bacon, London, 1853; Charles de Remusat, Bacon, sa Vie, son Temps, et son Influence jusqu'à nos Jours, Paris, 1857; W. Hepworth Dixon, Personal History of Lord Bacon, Boston,

exhaustive biography, gives no connected account of Bacon's eloquence, though he has a number of scattered comments on the speeches and the speaking. Thus, when Bacon's name is mentioned, one usually thinks of the author of the Advancement of Learning and the Essays, not of the learned counsel, the astute politician, the discerning maker of speeches in Parliament. The student is left in the realm of speculation as to why Ben Jonson wrote so enthusiastically of Bacon's oratory. Why did Bacon have this fascination for his hearers? Were his speeches unique in their themes, structure, or content? In short, why was Bacon a great political orator? This is the question of the present essay.

Every orator must be studied in relation not only to the events but to the civilization of his time. In order to interpret more readily the rhetorical character of Bacon's speeches in Parliament, it may be well to mention, if only in a cursory manner, something of their general historical background. The spirit of the age in which Bacon was born has been described as one of aspiration:

It was an "experiencing" age. It loved sensation with the greediness of childhood; it intoxicated itself with Rabelais and Titian, with the gold of Peru and with the spices of the Orient. It was a daring age. Men stood bravely with Luther for spiritual liberty, or they gave their lives with Magellan to compass the earth or with Bruno to span the heavens. It was an age of aspiration. It dreamed with Erasmus of the time when men should be Christ-like, or with More of the place where they should be just; or with Michelangelo it pondered the meaning of sorrow, or with Montaigne it stored up daily wisdom. And of this time, bone of its bone and flesh of its flesh, was born the world's supreme poet with an eye to see the deepest and a tongue to tell the most of the human heart. Truly such a generation was not a poor, nor a backward one. Rather it was great in what it achieved, sublime in what it dreamed; abounding in ripe wisdom and in heroic deeds; full of light and of beauty and of life!1

Such a picture stirs the imagination, conveys something of the fire and pulsating life of the sixteenth century.

What was the tenor of English political life during Bacon's youth, and his early years as a parliamentarian? Historians emphasize the absolutism of the Tudor sovereigns, their independence of Parliament, their direct control of the nation; and they point out that

1861; J. F. Foard, The Life and Correspondence of Francis Bacon, London, 1861; R. W. Church, Life of Bacon, New York, 1884; E. A. Abbott, Francis Bacon, London, 1885; John Nichol, Francis Bacon, His Life and Philosophy, Philadelphia, 1888.

1

Preserved Smith, The Age of the Reformation, New York, 1920, p. 698.

the practice of absolutism, though not the theory of divine-right monarchy, had been gaining ground ever since the accession of Henry VII in 1485. Elizabeth had been the reigning sovereign for over a quarter of a century when Francis Bacon first became a member of the House of Commons. The Queen, even as the other Tudor monarchs, was popular with the rapidly increasing and powerful middle class. Occasionally, she humored the notions and fancies of her people; England was enjoying a period of unusual prosperity and national greatness; during her reign the English seamen drove back the Spanish Armada. A generous degree of calm and harmony prevailed in the world of politics, for Elizabeth was sufficiently strong to overcome sedition and other offences against the state. In 1576 just eight years before Bacon threw himself actively into the combat of the political field-Elizabeth's anger had been aroused by the utterances of one of her subjects. Peter Wentworth, a member of the Lower House, had delivered one of the earliest speeches recorded in behalf of the liberties of Parliament and had been sent to the Tower. But such sentiments were rarely expressed in an environment where they might reach the ears of her Majesty.

Notwithstanding the tradition of absolutism which had flourished for more than a hundred years, England became in the seventeenth century the scene of a long and bitter contest. On one side were arrayed the forces of the king, the champions of the royal prerogative; while opposing them were the rapidly growing parliamentary factions. This is well explained by Professor Hayes:

The conflict between Parliament and the king, which had been avoided by the tactful Tudors, soon began in earnest when James I ascended the throne in 1603, with his exaggerated notion of his own authority. James I was an extravagant monarch, and needed parliamentary subsidies, yet his own pedantic principles prevented him from humoring Parliament in any dream of power. The inevitable result was a conflict for political supremacy between Parliament and king. When Parliament refused him money, James resorted to imposition of customs duties, grants of monopolies, sale of peerages, and the solicitation of "benevolences" (forced loans). Parliament promptly protested against such practices, as well as against his foreign and religious policies and against his absolute control of the appointment and operation of the judiciary. Parliament's protests only increased the wrath of the king.1

1C. J. H. Hayes, A Political and Social History of Modern Europe, New York, 1921, I, 267.

An age of aspiration; a period of monarchical absolutism; a populace including a powerful and wealthy middle class; and, finally, a vigorous and protracted conflict between the sovereign and his parliament here is presented a glimpse of the historical background of the England into which Bacon was born, lived, and performed his duties as a statesman, and exerted his influence as an eminent political orator.

One of the sources of Elizabeth's strength as a monarch lay in her ability to use not only nobles but commons as well in her government.1 Elizabeth's closing years, and the first half-century of the Stuart régime, are remarkable for the birth of parliamentary personalities.

Indomitable audacity and an eminently practical shrewdness were characteristic of the men who were the hand and heart of England. Other qualities were needed for the brains which had to direct her policy; the patient common sense of Burghley, the keen penetration of Walsingham, the solid shrewdness of Nicholas Bacon, vir pietate gravis. The craftiness of the younger Cecil... marks a lower type of politician; not rare perhaps in Elizabeth's time, but not generally characteristic among her servants.'

These were the political figures who dominated the public life of England during Bacon's youth. In 1548 Burghley entered the arena as secretary to Somerset, and his service to the nation lasted for half a century. Especially distinguished was that part of his career from 1572 until his death in 1598, when he acted as the Queen's Lord High Treasurer. To exterminate Roman Catholicism was one of the central aims of Burghley's service to Elizabeth. When the Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588, he collaborated with the Queen in their policy, not to destroy, but rather to humiliate the Spanish power in Europe; for it was Burghley's purpose to have Spain continue as a factor in continental affairs, and thus to act as a counterpoise to France. Never did Burghley dominate Elizabeth; still, to the end of his life he remained her most trusted adviser. The Queen was confident that her minister's wisdom and loyalty, coupled with her own dexterity, would save the English nation from disaster.

Peace was his [Burghley's] object, and, if possible, the maintenance of the old Spanish alliance. For he always dreaded and distrusted France; and so in the latter part of the reign he is always the drag on the coach, and the Innes, England under the Tudors, pp. 5-6.

'Ibid., p. 426.