The representative., 1899-11-23
VlLLAINOUS WORK
A MINNEAPOLIS JOURNAL EDITOR
REVIEWS BOOKS WITHOUT
READING THEM
AND LIES ABOUT THEM so THAT
HE MAY ABUSE THEM.

A few days ago we left with Mr.. Nc
Lean. managing editor OF the Mime
apolis Evening Journal, a-copy of our
new book, "The Cipher in the Plays
and On the Tombstone" and on last
Saturday there appeared what purported
to be review of the book, 80 false and
outrageous that we at once wrote the
following letter to the paper:
Hastings. Mimi, Nov. 10, 1899.
To the Editor of the Journal, Minneapolis,
Mlnn.-Dear Sir In your issue of last Sat-
urday you give what purports to be re-
view of my new book. 'The Cipher in the
Plays on the Tombstone In 1t you say:
The cipher he reads in the irregularity
OF the letters. some being small and some
capitals, as he processes to read Bacon's
revelation of himself IN THE IRREGULAR
ITY OF THE TYPES WITH WHICH He
MINGES AND CONDELL SET UP THE
1923 FOLIO"
There is not in that book, or any other
written by me. single word setting forth
that the cipher in the plays depended upon
the irregularity in the types with which
Heminges and Condell set up the 1923
fOlio.'
1t is very evident your reviewer pro-
ceeded to review and denounce my book
before he had ever read 1t.
Again he says:
I'VE are called upon by Donnely to be-
lieve that the folio edition of 1923, printed
and edited by devoted friends Of Shakes
peare. had the Baconian cipher injected into
1t, setting forth that Francis Bacon wrote
the plays; that is, Bacon bribed the COM
positors of Heminges and Condell to set
up the plays in kind of melange of italics,
romans. hyphens and parenthesis marks,
and that proofs of the Baconian matter
were sent to Bacon for correction and re-
turned-all this without the knowledge of
the editors OF the edition. Heminges and
Condell!"
challenge your reviewer to produce a
single line or word from that book, or
The Great CryptOgram,' or from any writ
ing of mine sustaining any such charge.
He invents an absurd theory, charges 1t
to me, and then denounces me for it!
MAN THAT WOULD DO THAT
WOULD PICK POCKETS
Respectfully yours
IGNATIUS DONNELLY.
On Monday last we called at the
Journal Office and handed this letter to
Mr.. Mclean. He promised to publish
it. ~s
He said to US: Perhaps you would
like to see the man who wrote that
article?"
We replied: Eyes, we would like to
see the man who reviews books without
reading them
He took us into little dark room,
where like spider at the back of his
web, sat narrow-headed man, named
Cochran" We had lively conversa-
tion with Mr. Cochran.
We charged that he had never read
a line of the book he had pretended to
review. He admitted that such was the
case, "but 1 knew" said he, that it was
the same as the Great Cryptogram.'
We doubt If he ever read a line of the
Great Cryptogram," but If he did, how
could he review book of 1868 pages.
written and published in 1899, by his
of book of 1000 pages pub
lished II years ago? And there is
scarcely any resemblance between the
two books in any particular.
There are no words too strong for
the denunciation Of a man who would
act as this fellow Cochran has done.
The Journal owes it to itself to dis
charge him and employ someone honest
enough to treat books and authors fair
ly. If the Journal retains him, what
confidence can the public place in anv
Of the other departments of the paper?
l. D.