The Haunts of Old CockaigneThompson, Alexander M. (Alexander Mattock)
General
The Haunts of Old Cockaigne
Thompson, Alexander M. (Alexander Mattock)
London (England) -- Description and travel
"And what for no'? It is a perfect specimen of pure Anglo-Saxon
English, without corrupt admixture of Norman or Roman words. It is
terse and dramatic. The very first line, in its revelation of the
hero's remote and solitary state, presents a powerful suggestion
of a contemplative character. His voracity, tempered by intense
conscientiousness, is indicated in a few clear, pertinent touches
that unmistakably betoken the master-hand. Yet the author's name
is lost in the dust of the centuries; it has eluded the vigilance
of antiquarian research. Only I am acquainted with the secret. If
you doubt it, turn the poem into an anagram, and the truth shall be
clear even to you."
"But," I began, "if"--
"Bah! Look at here!" cried Roderick, jumping to his feet and
brandishing his sword, "I came here to improve your mind; but if you
are not amenable to reason, it's no use talking. So get out of it,
ye puir, daft, gawkie Southron loon!"
And so saying, he struck me so terrible a blow across the nose with
his sword that I sneezed, and lo, behold! he was gone, and in the
place where he had been, was nothing but a great, busy, buzzing
moth, that hovered round my nose as though it had been a joy-beacon.
* * * * *
It was a strange experience. I don't know what to make of it. But
I don't think that Shakespeare was Bacon. And, as I hadn't the
slightest trace of headache when I awoke, I think that, after all,
the Scottish Spirit was right. Bacon hasn't a ham to stand on. Bacon
is smoked. To honest nostrils Bacon hereafter is rancid.
Be that as it may, there can be no doubt henceforth as to the
authorship of "Little Jack Horner." Following Roderick's
instructions, I have taken the letters of the lines of that poem,
and have constructed with them an anagram which establishes beyond
possibility of dispute that Shakespeare wrote them.
I am prepared to prove it to the British Association, and defy
_The Daily Chronicle_. It is true the spelling is rather bad, but
Shakespeare's was notoriously beastly, so that is another proof in
my favour.
It is moreover a perfect anagram, in which each letter is used,
and used once only. The letters are L i t t l e j a c k
h o r n e r s a t i n a c o r n e r e a t i n g a
c h r i s t m a s p i e h e p u l l e d o u t a p l u m
w i t h h i s f i n g e r a n d t h u m b a n d s a i d
w h a t a g o o d b o y a m i.
Now, mark, hey presto! there's no deception; mix these letters and
form them into new combinations, and you evolve this remarkable,
startling, conclusive, and scientifically historical revelation:--
_=Mistir Shakesper aloan was the Lyturery
gent wich rote this Bootiful Pome in Elizabuth Raign, and Jaimce
had Damn Good Lauph.=_
Could anything be clearer?
FLEET STREET
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account