224 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



[August 1, 1888. 



that blind conceit which crass ignorance alone is capable of 

 begetting. 



But now that Mr. Donnelly has been pnshed to disclose 

 his key-number 83G, he has out-Heroded hi^< own Herodian 

 nonsense (slaughtering those innocents, the laws of arithme- 

 tic). He positively attempts to make the final proof of the 

 absurdity of his cryptogi-am a proof decisive of its validity. 



If he had in some way, independent of foregone conclu- 

 sions, detected the number 83G as a key-number, and thence 

 deduced his five cipher numbers with their modifiers, and if 

 he could then have said " Here are certain numbers which, 

 applied to the folio edition of particular plays, according to 

 definite laws lead to a clear and consistent narrative," men 

 of sense might have been content to look into the matter. 

 The inherent d. priori improbability that a n.arrative about 

 Shakespeare should be concealed in a badly printed edition 

 of plays really written by Bacon but attributed to Shake- 

 speare would have outweighed tolerably heavy probabilities 

 of the a 2>osteriori sort, and the coar.se brutality of the 

 narrative which appeared actually to result from the appli- 

 cation of the suggested method would be a very strong 

 argument against the reality of the discovery. Yet it would 

 be impossible to avoid noticing evidence so curious ; and if 

 the case were found to be as suggested, antiquarians would 

 be set inquiring who might be the wretch who bad so 

 arranged the printing of the folio that it contained evi- 

 dence injurious to the reputation alike of J 'aeon and of 

 Shakespeare. Certain that the ill-written, and in parts 

 perfectly loathsome, story could not be Bacon's work, who, 

 with all the ftiults which marred his greatness, never 

 did aught which could compare with the foul ofience 

 imputed, we might imagine some enemy alike of Bacon and 

 of Shakespeare venting his m.xlice and misapplying his 

 ingenuity and industry, to foist into a noble play his own 

 coarse and offensive imaginings. But the interpretation 

 given to the matter by Mr. Donnelly and his following no 

 man of sense could for a moment admit. 



Fortunately we are perplexed by no such puzzle. Mr. 

 Donnelly's search began at the other end. He worked on 

 a plan which was bound to give him a cypher system 

 enabling him to find anything he liked in any one of 

 Shakespeare's plays, and in any edition on which he chose to 

 labour. He says, indeed, that those who speak thus of his 

 wonderful work have not themselves shown that such work 

 can be easily done. Not one of them has shown that with a 

 sufficient set of cipher numbers and modifiers, and a suffi- 

 ciently wide choice as to starting points, ways of counting, 

 and so forth, you can find any story in almost any printed 

 work, though more conveniently in a work like the folio 

 edition of Shakespeare, with its brackets and hyphens and 

 irregularities in the use of both. This, we may readily 

 grant, and rejoice that it is so. A man foolish enough to 

 waste time and ingenuity on work so worthless would be 

 foolish enough to believe in the results he evolved as having 

 a real value. But luckily such folk are few. Were it not for 

 Mr. Donnelly, we might have hoped that they were impossible. 



Tiie way in which Mr. Donnelly has worked at his foolish 

 task has been quite obviously such as must inevitably lead 

 him to some such result as he has obtained. With the 

 notion that the occurrence of such words as Francis, Bacon, 

 St. Albones, Nicholas, &c., was to be speoi.ally noticed as 

 likely to suggest the key to some cipher, he counts back- 

 wards and forwai'ds from all such words, to tops or bottoms 

 of columns, beginnings of scenes, breaks in the printing, 

 and so forth, including and excluding in different counts the 

 words in brackets, counting hyphenated words as one . or 

 two, and otherwise v.ai-ying his count. Failing to find any 

 one number, as indicated in this way, he strives to limit the 

 numbers to which he is thus led to as small a list as pos- 



sible, the device of " modifiers" helping him to make a list 

 which is really long enough look smaller than it is. 



Now it stands to reason that a series of numbers thus 

 long enough to account for the occurrence of all the more 

 char.acteristic word-; dealt with in this initial search for 

 cipher numbers, must equally suflioe (or suffice even more 

 readily) to lead by the use of equally varied counting 

 methods to any word in the text of the plays which ISIr. 

 Donnelly ia concocting his narrative might want. Suppose 

 he wishes to find in the play of Henry IV., first part, folio 

 edition, the words " Will Shakespeare is a miserable 

 wretch," or " to that defect." All he has to do is to take a 

 concordance and find where the several words he wants 

 occur in the play, and then to work backwards and forwards 

 from each in succession with each one of his varied methods, 

 numbers and modifiers, until he comes on one count which 

 brings him to a point which he may confidently describe as 

 a n.atural starting point. He thus successively finds " will " 

 and " shakes " and " peer " — of course he has no trouble 

 with "is" and "a" — but the words "miserable" and 

 " wretch " are not to be found, for the simple reason that, 

 as it chances, neither occurs in the play. This, however, 

 is a m.atter of no importance. For " miserable " sub- 

 stitute " wretched," and for " wretch " substitute " fellow." 

 Find an effective count for each, and, lo 1 we have the 

 sentence, " Will Shakespeare is a wretched fellow." We 

 have only, then, to urge the argument from probabilities 

 (confident in the general ignorance of mankind about its 

 laws), asking what are the odds against these six words 

 coming out in grammatical sequence (though we know full 

 well that by our method they, or an equivalent set, were 

 absolutely certain to come out under the actual conditions), 

 and our case is nearly com|.)lete. We make any narrative 

 we like in this way, working in whatever our taste, or 

 absence of taste, may suggest, and tell the world that that 

 narrative was found in the famous folio edition of Shakes|)eare. 



I have said that, in this way, our case is "nearly com- 

 plete." But there is still a touch to be added, by which tlie 

 confiding public may be more thoroughly gulled. If only it 

 can be shown that the numbers and modifiers we have been 

 obliged to use may all be represented as derived from one, 

 the eflfect will assuredly be decisive so far as the ignorant 

 many are concerned. 



Now our numbers in this particular case are 505, 513, 

 516, 506, and 523. We have kept them carefully from 

 diverging too widely by the suitable choice of starting 

 points. The difference between the highest, 5'23, and the 

 lowest, 505, is only 18. If, then, we can in any way find a 

 set of five numbers running pretty nearly equal, but which 

 may by any device whatsoever be able to show differences 

 corresponding to those between our five numbers, we shall 

 be able to reduce these five different numbers to one numlier. 

 There are only four differences to be .accounted for, viz., 

 8 (513—505), 11 (516-505), I (506 -505), and 18. Sup- 

 pose we can find a column, or a pige, or a scene in our play 

 in which there are 18 words which are in some way 

 distinguished from the rest — or, rather (for so much we can 

 surely find), suppose we examine every section, be it page, 

 column, or scene, fulfilling this condition — and then inquire 

 whether we cannot in some way separate 8, 11, and 1 of 

 these 18 exceptional words from the rest. The odds are 

 enormously in favour of our being able to do this, though 

 there are other devices to be tried if this one fails. (.Some of 

 these, indeed, Mr. Donnelly doubtless did try before trying 

 this one, and finding, after continued search, a case that 

 .suited his requirements.) The case occurs at p. 74. (That 

 p.age is unfortunately not in the first part of " Henry IV.," 

 where Bacon, Francis. Nicholas, and other striking words 

 had been noted ; but I venture to say it woyild have suited 



