THE GREAT CRYPTOGRAM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9142, 25 August 1888, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE GREAT CRYPTOGRAM.

A REPLY TO SIR W. FOX.

[BY REV. K. H. GULLIVER.]

For some time past the literary world has been on the qui five in anticipation of a promised work by Mr. Donnelly dealing with the authorship of the wondrous plays, which are probably the fairest monument of transcendent genius in the English tongue. Since their publication they had always been ascribed to William Shakspere. True, there were some few, more critical, or possibly more eccentric, than the majority of their fellows, who, without any very apparent reason, dethroned the recognised author and attributed the plays to Francis Bacon, the great Chancellor of England. Such a theory was, however, pretty generally rejected, and men were content to leave their idol untouched in his majestic and serene isolation. Bub Mr. Donnelly was to set our doubts absolutely at irest, and settle the question once and for over. He had discovered, in the very plays themselves, a cryptogram, a hidden key, devised by the great master, which should solve the riddle beyond possibility of further doubt. (Edipus was at hand, and we have all been looking out for the promised solution of the enigma. That solution has at length beer, published, and 1 venture to say that so far as it is concerned, to any unprejudiced eyes, the claim of William Shakspere stands more untouched than ever. To my own mind, so clearly is this the case that I should not have thought it necessary to take up a brief in the matter but for the openlyexpressed wish of several of my friends, interested in the question by the recent papers of Sir W. Fox. But, before commencing the inquiry, a few words with reference to Mr. Donnelly's capacity for the task he has assumed. I give him all credit for great patience and perseverance; but, in an investigation of this kind, there is one mental attribute more valuable, more essential even, than patience, and that is judicial fairness; the faculty which enables us to set prejudices on one side, whilst we weigh calmly and dispassionately the various facts which bear on the matter at issue. This faculty in Mr. Donnelly is conspicuous by its absence. To justify this statement, let us take a few words written by Lord Bacon, and give Mr. Donnelly's deliberate interpretation of those words. In p. 541) of "The Great Cryptogram," Mr. Donnelly quotes the following from Lord Bacon :— "As for my essay and some other particulars of that nature, I count them but as the recreation of my other studies, and in that sort I propose to continue them." These simple words Mr. Donnelly interprets as follows : —" As for my essays and the Shakspere plays, I will continue them — preserve them for posterity." What shall we say of the judicial fairness of an author who could take such liberties with a text as confront us here? Surely, if interpretation of this kind be admissable, we have left the realms of common sense; words may mean anything or nothing at the will or caprice of their latest reader, and the sense of a passage must be sought not in what it contains, bub in the bias of the I man who reads it. The fact is Mr. Donnelly starts with a theory of his own which ! he is determined to prove, and, if the facts at his command do not fife in with this theory, why, so much the worse for the facts. He chooses one particular edition of the plays—that of 1623 —because, as he frankly admits, the others would not suit; and, resting on this crutch, he proceeds to hobble along through the mazes of his Cryptogram, whilst he proves to his own satisfaction the astounding theory that Lord Bacon wrote not only the plays of Shakspere, but also Marlowe's plays, Montaigne's Essays, and the "Anatomy of Melancholy." Surely Mr. Donnelly's work is but half done? Let him pluck up heart, and curry the method of this marvellous Cryptogram into these books themselves. Who can tell what may not be yet revealed under its Ithuriel touch ? There are still some great works contemporary with these we have mentioned—the plays of Chapman, Webster, Bfcaumont and Fletcher, Ben Jonson, Massinger, &c. — all these, and probably the " Fairie Queene" itself, with Sidney's "Arcadia" to boot, must bo ascribed to the fertile bruin of the great Chancellor. In fact, the history of English literature, so far as the Baconian age is concerned, will need rewriting. The task awaits Mr. Donnelly. Let it not bo thought that this is mere pleasantry. Mr. Donnelly himself asserts as much, for he draws pur attention to the fact that there are " Baconranisms of thought and expression not only in the plays of Marlowe, but in the writings of Marston, M-tssinger, Middleton, Greene, Shirley, and Webster" (G. C., p. 954). This, however, is not to be wondered at, for Mr. Donnelly allows Bacon a fortnight for one play ! "We can imagine him," he says, " when his pockets grew empty, hurriedly scribbling off a farce or an afterpiece or a blood-and-thunder tragedy on any subject of popular interest at the time, and giving it to Harry Percy (his servant) to sell to some of the royst.ering. playwrights, to produce as his own." Well, suppose, for the sake of argument, we can imagine thus far, yet what our imagination absolutely rejects is the belief I that this hasty " blood-and-thunder" work j would live as the mighty creations of Shak- j spore's marvellous brain have lived. No, Mr. Donnelly. Men can on occasion ; write at high pressure, but what they thus j write passes away almost as rapidly as it j came into being. Do "Hamlet," Mac- i beth," " Lear," " The Tempest," for example, bear any traces of this unseemly haste? Methinks not; or, think you, had such been the case, would the greatest commentators and critics of the last three centuries have found in them problems so j many and so deep as to tax the very utmost resources of criticism ? Nay ; here all men find themselves in the fathomless i depths of a mighty ocean, which their putty sounding-lines are unable to bottom. Besides, in the case of Bacon himself, it is well to remember that his work was not of this perfunctory character. The "Novum Organom," one of his principal books, was, we are told, copied out twelve times by his own hand. Men in those days were not enamoured of this hasty style of work. Their buildings, their books, their thought*, ' all they did, were elaborated with deliberation and care, and meant to last, and i Mr. Donnelly is simply transplanting from j the feverish present into an age that knew | them not the fugitive habits of " Our Own j Correspondent" and the ephemeral glitter j of the " Shilling Shocker."

There is one matter which should be mentioned here. Mr. Donnelly, as has I been stated above, takes as the basis for ! " The Great Cryptogram" the edition of 1623. In this lie tells us the wonderful cipher was hidden by the author, until it should be laid bare to the awestruck eyes of future generations by the wife and patient investigations of—shall we say ? —Mr. Donnelly. We are not at all sure that Mr. Donnelly's name is not, as it were, prophetically revealed in this mysterious manner, if his modesty will permit him to continue his research in this direction, But how comes it that in this very edition, which Mr. Donnelly allows is essential to his work, there are so many traces of the master whom Mr. Donnelly seeks to dethrone ? It is edited by two of his fellow -actors—John Heminge and Henry Condell—who had known him well, j It contains the portrait of William Shak- ; spere; it bears his name on the title- ; page ; it is prefaced by poems speaking in i the highest terms of his poetic power, two ' of these poems being by Ben Jonson, an- i other by Hugh Holland, and inscribed "upon the lines and life of the famous scenicke poet, Master William Shakspere." Another, again, by L. Digges, " To the memorie of the deceased authour, Maister W. Shakspere." Want of space alone forbids our quoting these poems, but they all tell the same tale, viz., the high admiration which the writers had for the works and abilities of the mighty dead. Yet Mr. Donnelly would have us believe that this edition was specially brought out under the eye of Lord Bacon to contain a cryptogram, the imaginary statements of which are contradicted in the plainest way by the title-page and introductions of the very book in which, it appears : Mr. Donnelly wishes to persuade us that Lord Bacon's object was to set aside Shakspere's claim, and assert his own ; with this idea, he actually lets the volume go forth with the name of Shakspere on its title-page, under the auspices of Shakspere's friends, and heralded by the triumphant notes of 1 those who appreciated Shakspere's genius,

whilst lie contents himself with hiding his important secret so effectually that it has taken the lapse of more than two and a half centuries and the wit of Mr. Donnelly to discover it. If the supposition be correct, Mr. Donnelly has succeeded beyond his expectations, for he has not only dethroned Snakspere, but also proved that the great Chancellor was closely akin to a fool; at least we are certain that such would be the unanimous verdict of men on a proceeding so egregiously idiotic and so absolutely inexplicable. But, leaving for the present these general questions, let us, as briefly as may be, having regard to the space at our disposal, follow Mr. Donnelly through the devious paths of " The Great Cryptogram." The first position he seeks to make good is this : Shakspere did not write, and could not have written, the plays which bear his name. These plays bear the mark of the scholar. • How could Shakspere acquire scholarship ? There was, of course, a grammar school at Stratford, but, as Sir William Fox says, "it was one where little or nothing was taught, certainly neither Latin, Greek, French, Spanish, nor Italian." With all due deference to Sir William Fox, I ven- • ture to assert that, whatever was not taught, we may look upon it as absolutely certain that Latin was. It is hardly too much to say that, in Shakspere's time, Latin formed the sole curriculum of a school. His Latin, then, methinks lay ready at his hand, or, speaking generally, the rudiments of education, as the term ; was understood in that age. Surely too [ much is made of this matter. Here we have a quite exceptional nature, gifted with transcendent power. What right have we to limit his abilities, or deny his acquisitions, because, forsooth, they were 1 not gained, as it were, under our eyes, or according to our humdrum methods? Granted even that he did live till he was 20 in a little country town, what right have we to say, therefore, he could not be ) what his works lead us to expect ? What do we know of the processes of such a mind as he possessed ? In much smaller matters we are every now and then astonished by what appear to be abnormal powers. Can we explain how the child Hoffman gained his marvellous musical ability? By what rules did the boy Bidder perform his wonderful calculations ? He could not tell himself, and certainly no one yet has been able to explain. Who taught the ploughman Burns to frame his beautiful lyrics ? Whence did the Bronte family obtain the knowledge of human nature which startles us in " Jane Eyre" or "Shirley?" How absurd to suppose that such knowledge could be acquired in the narrow limits of a moorland rectory. So at least it might be said, but the fact remains that it was there acquired. All these cases are not. to be explained, and yet they deal with infinitely smaller people than was Shakspere. The conclusion of the whole matter is this : Genius has its own ways, not to be trodden or even discerned by ordinary men ; it works by methods incomprehensible to us, and gathers its stores of knowledge or experience by an intuition which daunts and eludes our curious gaze. As well might the sparrow seek to emulate the proud flight of the albatross as we to apprehend the thought and mental processes of our kingly Shakspere. Again, much is said about Shakspere's idle and dissolute habits, his humble origin and surroundings. All this, by the way, is based on tradition, not always very reliable ; but on the strength of these possibly idle tales Mr. Donnelly speaks of him as "the butcher's apprentice, the deer-stealer, the beer-guzzler." He is "poacher, fugitive, vagabond, actor, manager, brewer, money-lender, landgrabber." But this aspect of the question has already been presented to us by Sir William Fox in his criticism of Mr. Donnelly's work. Let us rather see what can be gathered from the testimony of those who wer€ either his contemporaries or but little removed from his age in point of time. Leaving his early life, we find him as an actor in London. There is no dispute about that. Bub it is said his abilities in this line were so small that he could only take the part of the ghost in " Hamlet." Let us examine this a little more closely. In an edition of Ben Jonson, which Mr. Shaw kindly placed at my disposal, there is given after each [day a list of the principal actors. Afuer " Every Man In His Humour" that list runs as follows :—" Principal comedians : William Shakspere, Richard Burbage," &c., Slmkspere'a name appearing first of all. At the end of "Sejanus" we find :—" Principal tragedians : Richard Burbage and, bracketed with him, William Shakspere." What becomes of the poor actor —"the vassal actor," as Mr. Donnelly terms him —in the face of direct evidence such as this Surely this tends to indicate a man of firstrate capacity in this particular line, ranking with Burbage himself, and able to do justice to comedy as well as tragedy. Next, as to his wit, we have the distinct testimony of men whose word and authority to speak may not be assailed even on the strength of "The Great Cryptogram." lien Jonson's lines are so well known that I need but allude to them. What says Milton, writing in 1630, "24 years after Shakspere's death ?

What needs my Shakspere for his honour'd bones Tin; labour of an age in piled stones ? Or that hi* hallowed roluiues .should be hid Under a starry-pointed pyramid ? Dear son of Memory, peat heir of Fame,

What nue I'st thou such weak witness of thy name ? Thou in our wonder ami astonishment Hath built thyself a live-long monument.

for whilst to the shame of slow-endeavouring art Thy easy numbers flow, and that each heart Hath from the leaves of thy unvalued book Those Delphic lines with deep impression took, Than thou, our fancy of itself bereaving, Dost make ib marble with too much conceiving. And so sepulchred, in such pomp dost lie That kings for such a tomb would wish to die.

Can grander lines be found anywhere than these in which the great Puritan poet does homage to the genius of William Shakspere? For it is to Shakspere as a living reality, as the author of the writings which bear his name, that Milton dedicates his tribute of lofty admiration. What says the quaint inscription on the monument erected to his memory within seven years of his death ?

Stay, passenger, why goest thou by so fast ? Bead, if thou canst, whom envious Death hath plast Within this monument; Shakspere, with whom Cheat Nature died; whose name doth deck ys tombe. Far more than cost ; sitli all yt he hath writt Leaves living art, but pays to serve his witt.

Here in his birthplace we have a direct testimony to the recognised worth of his writings. How could .such lines as these be penned to his memory, were he the ordinary, disreputable, witless character that Mr. Donnelly and his followers strive to make him ? It is an insult to common sense even to state the alternative.

Francis Meres, a Cambridge M.A., writing in 1598, in his "Comparative Discourse of our English Poets," beats testimony to the high reputation which Shakspere held then. Amongst other things, he says :—" As the soul of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras, so the sweet, witty soul of Ovid lives in melliiluous and honey-tongued Shakspere; witness his ' Venus and Adonis,' his ' Lucrece,' his sugared sonnets among his private friends, &c. As l'lautus and Seneca are accounted the best for comedy and tragedy among the Latins, so Shakspere among the English is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage. As Epius Stolo said that the Muses would speak with Plautus' tongue, if they would speak Latin ; so I say that the Muses would speak with Shakspere's fine-filed phrase, if they would speak English."

Of Shakspere's closing years little need be said. They were spent in comfort, perhaps in affluence. Though he had withdrawn from the actual practice of his profession, he still derived from the theatre a considerable income. He had realised considerable sums, which were invested in real property in his native place. He had improved his worldly advantages with that rare good sense which was as striking a characteristic of the man as the genius apparent in his works. That he acquired nothing by unfair dealings with his fellowlabourers, authors, or actors we may well believe, even without the testimony of Henry Chettle, in the early period of his career, that " divers of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing," and of Heminge and Condell, after his death, who speak in their dedication with deep reverence of " so worthy a friend and fellow." These later years were, however, rendered more illustrious by the composition of some of his noblest plays, pre-eminently " Lear," " Macbeth," and "The Tempest." So time passed on, until in 1616 the curtain fell on the last scene of all, and William Shakspere was numbered with " the dead though sceptred sovereigns who yet rule our spirits from their urns."

Looking at the whole story, it may be confidently asserted that what is known of Shakspere's life does not countenance the base and scurrilous record which Mr Donnelly tries to make out. The scanty traditions which Mr. Donnelly has used for his purpose are regarded by the best authorities as mere idle tales. With his life, strangely enough, ceases the publication of the Shaksperean plays. Strangely, indeed, if Bacon be their author, for the Great Chancellor did not die until ten years after William Shakspere, his late years being devoted to literary pursuits. But here we must bring to an end the first of these papers, and leave to another issue the examination of Bacon's life and work, and the consideration of the Great Cryptogram.