Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1962-10-25
McGM on the Bard

stopping the Anti-Shake-
speare Cult" by Ralph Nc
Gill is an incomplete synopsis
of the Shakespeare contro-
versy. Mr.. McGill states that
since no evidence or proof
exists to disprove Shake
speare's authorship-no rea-
son exists to inspect his
tomb. Many Of the reasons
for doubt in Shakespeare's
authorship are reasonable as
sumptions. To merely discuss
one of these assumptions and
then refer to all nonbelievers
as "a SNUG and prissy lot"
certainly does not show criti-
cal thinking on Mr.. McGill's
part.
All of the works Of Shake
speare contain knowledge
that this man could not have
possessed. A great knowledge
of the law is displayed in
the plays, yet Shakespeare
was but a layman. The man
who wrote the plays must
have been a great traveller,
for France, Spain, Italy, Den
mark, Scotland, Navarro and
the seacoast of Bohemia are
described in detail. There is
no evidence that Shakespeare
ever left England. We have
no records that Shakespeare
ever went to q university,
and the records Of his school
ing are very dubious. Yet the
man who wrote the plays
must have been highly cul-
tured, speaking many Ian
guages and learned in many
subjects. Many nonbelievers
feel that much more would
have been known about the
author of the plays and that
he would have at least been
recognized by his contempo-
raries. The records we have
of Shakespeare's handwriting
show that he was an illiterate
and illegible writer. Many OF
those who feel that these
factors are worthy of atten-
ton and investigation believe
that Sir Francis Bacon or de
We're might have written the
plays. Both Of these writers
have all of the characteristics
discussed above.
Mr.. McGill states that
since the evidence against the
supposed author is dubious,
the tomb should not be in
vestigated. Surely the fact
that a controversy exists and
that there is doubt on the
part of both sides justifies
an attempt to settle the quar-
rel by inspecting the tomb.
Paul Davids.
=
Pansophist Ralph McGill is
either far out of his depth
in the pool of colossal ig-
norance or is as Intellectual
ly dishonest as are those
many others who have viii
fled, Unfortunately, all
those who have doubted that
the illiterate man Willm
Shaksper was William Shake
speare. In either case, he has
proved in arguing against
the latest attempt to solve
the mystery that he has new
er bothered to study any OF
the facts in the case a n d,
further, that his knowledge
of the countryma n from
Stratford is both confused
and distorted.
I am sure the widow OF j,
Thomas Looney, the British
schoolmaster who published
the monumental "'Shake-
speare' Identified" in 1920,
will not object GRANTED she
still lives) if I quote the two
closing paragraphs OF the
foreword to the 1949 edition
of the work. Written by the
late William McFee, it goes:
1.-THE intellectual integrity
of the Stratfordian priest
hood, the professors, ped
agogues, and curators VIII G
refuse to discuss the POSSIBLE
ity of error, will be dealt
with by more competent pens
than mine. Like all hier-
arches, they tend to dis
parage heretics.
1--WE who believe that j
Thomas Looney was on the
right track face the same OPP
position as those who Sug-
gested that the sun did not
really go around the earth
and those who questioned the
literal story of Creation in
Genesis. 1t is to be hoped
that the issue of '"Shake-
speare" Identified in this
new edition will arouse fresh
interest in one of the most
absorbing of historical mys'
teries."
I suggest that Atlanta-Ed-
itor-Columnist McGill might
well read all of Looney's
book or, if he is Just too