Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1916-02-10
COULD sHAKEsPEARE
EVEN WRITE AT ALL
William Conway Says No, and offers
Signature as Proof.

signature as froor.
The question Of who did write
Shakespeare" does not cencern
William Conway who has written
monograph on his Shakespeare theo-
Shakespeare of Stratford-on-AVon
write at all?"Mr. Conway is convinc-
ed that whoever did write the plays,
1t was not the Bard of Avon, so called.
He bases his belief on evidence pre-
senred by certain existing signatures
made by William Shakespeare, and
which seem to prove him to have been
an illiterate man.
Mr.. Conway admits that, though so
evidently illiterate, Shakespeare pos
sessed native ability, manifested by
his money getting faculties, and adds
the fact that as a theatrical manager
Shakespeare secured to himself the
plays that he did and thus stamped
himself competent man of business
and Judge of public taste. But in
regard to certain deficiencies exhibit
ed by his signature, Mr.. Conway, af-
ter having made study of the char
acteristics Of signatures, says:
observations of the efforts and
performances of illiterate men in the
laborious production Of signatures has
led me to the conclusion that here was
man ashamed of his inability to
write, made so by his associations
and the rise in his condition of life,
seeking to cover his intellectual nak-
edness with garment provided by
sympathizing friend.
"The sympathizing friend in this
instance floated into the imagination
in the form of some scrivener who
set the copy so laboriously reproduced
in the form of the signatures to the
deed and mortgage of 1913 and to the
will Of 1916"
Mr.. Conway refers to the original
documents unearthed by Professor
Wallace in 1910, and his theory is that
the solicitor who drew up the papers
of the mortgage and OF the will is the
man who made for Shakespeare copy
of his name, which the illiterate
Shakespeare then followed in scrawl-
ing uncertain imitation to make the
signatures to the documents. This
saved him from the humiliation OF
having to make his x mark.
A second document put in evidence
by Mr.. Conway is fragment re-
lating to litigation in respect to GER
tain money interests in the Globe
Theatre. In this fragment appears, in
two places, the name "Wllm. Shakes
peare." written by the professional
scrivener who prepared the case. Mr..
Conway points out that Shakes
peare's own signature appended Is
laborious imitation, performed by a
man who could not read his chirogra-
ply when he had written it.
Mr.. Conway Is convinced that
this scrivener Is the man who made
the copy which enabled "Willm.
Shakespeare" to execute legal papers
without the humiliation of the
"X mark" The rule of legal pro
cedure required the evidence to be
written out and signed by the witness
before leaving the presence of the
court.
Special attention is called to this
signature" says Mr. Conway, "as
it Is much abbreviated The Great
Dramatist,' who had at his command,
as evidenced by the putative works,
wealth of words measuring five times
the number gathered into the diction-
ary Of the time, uses but moiety of
the characters which he had been
taught to use as the telegraph to rep
resent his name.
I'VE are told that he was instruct
ed to appear later before the court
for further examination; but the
record nowhere shows that he ever
appeared, although the other wit
nesses appeared a second time. Would
they be considered cynical who might
surmise that the position in which
Shakespeare of Stratford found him
self when called upon to attach his
signature to the record in open court
was one of extreme embarrassment
in that he could not without some ex-
posure of ignorance use his copy to
guide his penn. Y. Sun.