Democratic Sentinel, Volume 11, Number 31, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 September 1887 — WHO WROTE SHAKSPEARE? [ARTICLE]

WHO WROTE SHAKSPEARE?

Ignatius Donnelly’s Claim at a Baconian Authorship Carefully Reviewed. Many Facts Sustaining His Theories Called to the Public Attention. [New York special.] The New York World prints a very elaborate exposition of Mr. Ignatius Donnelly’s attempt to dethrone Shakßpeare, and award the honor of the so-called Shakspeare plays to Lord Bacon. The article is written by Professor Thomas Davidson, a well-known scholar, philosoEher and critic, whose opinion as to Mr, •onnelly’s work can not fail to carry great weight. Mr. Davidson has recently paid Mr. Donnelly a visit at his home at Hastings, Minn., examined the manuscript of his forthcoming work, the “Great Cryptogram,” had the main features of the cypher explained to him, and obtained permission to report. Before examining Mr. Donnelly’s work Mr. Davidson was an entire skeptic in regard to the Bacon theory; but he now admits that he is very much shaken in his belief that the plays were written by Shakspeare, and declares that if they had come down to ns without any anthor’s name attached, they would have been unhesitatingly attributed to Bacon. He says he reached this conviction altogether apart from the cypher. The articles give a brief summary of the results reached in Mr. Donnelly's book, which is to be Knblished about the Ist of December. The ook is divided into two parts—an argument and a demonstration. The former collects, arranges, and sums up all the arguments that have been put forward in the last thirty years in favor of the Baconian theory, and adds a large number to them. The author first endeavors to show that the education and character of William Shakspeare were such that it is even ridiculous to imagine that he conld have written plays which are distilled from all the wisdom and learning of the world. He shows that his education must have been extremely meager, while that of the author of the plays was broad and deep'. He emphasizes the fact that we have no record of any study on the part of Shakspeare. His account of Shakspeare’s character will certainly be a surprise to most readers. He shows him to have been steeped in almost every kind of vice, to have been a fornicator, au adulterer, a usurer and oppressor of the poor, a drunkard, a systematic liar, and forger of pedigrees, dying in the prime of life from the results of a three days’ drunken spree. He next shows that we have no record that Shakspeare ever owned a library of even a book, and that not a single scrap of manuscript of his ever came down to us, not even a letter to any of the numerous men with whom he is known to have been acquainted; nay, more, that there is extant no letter addressed to him, except one asking for a loan of money. There is nothing to show that Shakspeare was not very illiterate. Mr. Donnelly next proves very clearly that while the author of the plays was an accomplished lawyer, there is nothing to show that Shakspeare ever opened a law book, or was inside a lawyer's office, except on usurious business. Having demonstrated to his own satisfaction that the author of the plays was not Shakspeare, Mr. Donnelly next proceeds to prove that he was Bacon. After adducing evidence to show that Bacon was a poet, and the author of the plays, and a profound and learned philosopher, he treats of the geography of the plays, and here he brings out some most tell-tale facts. While neither Stratford (where Shakspeare was born) nor Avon is ever once mentioned in the plays, St. Albans, the home of Bacon, is mentioned twenty-three times. He next shows that the politics and the religion of the writer of the plays are identical with Bacon’s politics and religion, and that what Bacon declared to be his great life purpose is fully exemplified in the plays. A chapter is devoted to Bacon’s reasons for concealment, and here come out some startling facts. It appears not only that Bacon wrote works which he never publicly acknowledged, but that he is addressed by one of his friends as the greatest wit in England, though not known as such by h;s own name. Among the reasons for concealment, Mr. Donnelly puts the political tendency of some of the plays, which was to encourage treason. The first part of the work closes with a long list of parallelisms between Bacon’s acknowledged works and the Shakspearaan plays, identical expressions metaphors, opinions, quotations, studies, errors, use of unusual words, character, style, etc. The parallelisms will occupy over seventy closely printed pages. The result of the whole argument according to Mr. Davidson, is to leave upon the mind a strong impression that, if Bacon was not the sole author of the plays, ho Lad at least a principal hand in them, supplying the scholarship, the art, and the philosophy. After the argument making the authorship of Bacon probable comes the demonstration, that is, the cipher narrative, which has already aroused so much interest in the public. Mr. Davidson’s article tells how Mr. Donnelly came to look for a cipher, and the laborious process by which he finally found it (as he believes). The story is full of interest As to the cipher itself, Mr. Davidson does not claim to be in a position to entirely satisfy the public, not having received from Mr. Donnelly the ultimate formula of it. He does, however, express his strong conviction that Mr. Donnelly is neither a fraud nor a “crank.” To clear away any feeling of this sort on the part of the public, he gives a brief account of Mr. Donnelly’s career, and a description of his simple home life in Minnesota. It seems that Mr. Donnelly is a quiet, genial, coun-try-loving, studious man, devoted to thought, and fond of a good joke. The picture drawn of his life on the Mississippi bluff is charming. It being certain that Mr. Donnelly is not a fraud, and not likely, his character and intelligence being taken into account, to be self-deceived, Mr. Davidson hardly sees how the conclusion that the cipher is a reality can be avoided. He, however, suspends his own judgment until Mr. Donnelly has said his last word. About the cipher itself, much new information is given. Its basis, numbers, and its modifiers are disclosed, and it is shown whence they are derived. Information is also given as to how the calculations are made, and assurance is made excepting possible clerical errors they are correct. notion of the labor gone

.through by Mr. Donnelly may be obtained from the statement that the slips of paper on which he has made his calculations ; the writes a find hand and on both sides of the slip) when tied np in a bundle, can with difficulty be lifted from the floor by a strong man using one hand. Four essential points Mr. Davidson ; declares that Mr. Donnelly still reserves to himself: First, the role determining the succession of the basis numbers; second, the rule determining the nsa of the various modifiers; third, the rule determining the column or page on which the connt in each case is made; fourth, the rule determining the starting point of the count in each case after the page is settled. These, he admits, are the most important points to know, since without them it is utterly impossible to pronounce any independent judgment on the cipher. He quotes, however, _rom a letter in which Mr. Donnelly affirms in the most positive and unequivocal wav that everything is conducted according to fixed and invariable rules of microscopic accuracy. Mr. Donnelly has evidently made the issue a very definite one. If such roles exist the cipher is a reality and the author of the plays settled. And a great deal more is true, for the cipher narrative contains a whole history of Shakspeare and his relation to the plays and of the time in which he lived. The whole thing reads like a novel written in vigorous Elizabethan English. Here is a passage from it describing Elizabeth’s treatment of Hayward, author of the “Life of Henry IV.:” “Her grace was in a fearful passion, and, rising up, struck your poor friend with the steel end of her heavy crutch. The poor wretch took to his heels, but the ill-tempered old jade followed him, striking him again and again on the head and the sides of his body. His health was not good; his limbs were weakened with a fever he had had. His joints gave way under him and he fell to the earth. She doth bestride him, and, bending down, beats him till the stick breaks.” There is here certainly no lack of vigor or definiteness. The article is illustrated with numerous cuts and sac-similes.