the Anti-Willians to endeavour to disable the evidence of Jonson,
Heywood, Heminge, and Condell. Their attempts take the shape of the
most extravagant and complex conjectures; with certain petty
objections to Ben's various estimates of the MERITS of the plays. He
is constant in his witness to the authorship. To these efforts of
despair we return later, when we hope to justify what is here
deliberately advanced.

Meanwhile we study Mr. Greenwood's attempts to destroy or weaken the
testimony of contemporary literary allusions, in prose or verse, to
the plays as the work of the actor. Mr. Greenwood rests on an
argument which perhaps could only have occurred to legal minds,
originally, perhaps to the mind of Judge Webb, not in the prime
vigour of his faculties. Not very many literary allusions remain,
made during Will's life-time, to the plays of Shakespeare. The
writers, usually, speak of "Shakespeare," or "W. Shakespeare," or
"Will Shakespeare," and leave it there. In the same way, when they
speak of other contemporaries, they name them,--and leave it there,
without telling us "who" (Frank) Beaumont, or (Kit) Marlowe, or
(Robin) Greene, or (Jack) Fletcher, or any of the others "were." All
interested readers knew who they were: and also knew who
"Shakespeare" or "Will Shakespeare" was. No other Will Shak(&c.) was
prominently before the literary and dramatic world, in 1592-1616,
except the Warwickshire provincial who played with Burbage.

But though the mere names of the poets, Ben Jonson, Kit Marlowe,
Frank Beaumont, Harry Chettle, and so forth, are accepted as
indicating the well-known men whom they designate, this evidence to
identity does not satisfy Mr. Greenwood, and the Baconians, where
Will is concerned. "We should expect to find allusions to dramatic