and poetical works published under the name of 'Shakespeare'; we
should expect to find Shakespeare spoken of as a poet and a
dramatist; we should expect, further, to find some few allusions to
Shakespeare or Shakspere the player. And these, of course, we do
find; but these are not the objects of our quest. What we require is
evidence to establish the identity of the player with the poet and
dramatist; to prove that the player was the author of the PLAYS and
POEMS. THAT is the proposition to be established, and THAT the
allusions fail, as it appears to me, to prove," says Mr. Greenwood.
He adds, "At any rate they do not disprove the theory that the true
authorship was hidden under a pseudonym" {136a}--which raises an
entirely different question.

Makers of allusions to the plays must identify Shakespeare with the
actor, explicitly; must tell us who this Shakespeare was, though they
need not, and usually do not, tell us who the other authors mentioned
were; and though the world of letters and the Stage knew but one
William Shakspere or Shakespeare, who was far too familiar to them to
require further identification. But even if the makers of allusions
did all this, and said, "by W. Shakespeare the poet, we mean W.
Shakespeare the actor"--THAT is not enough. For they may all be
deceived, may all believe that a bookless, untutored man is the
author. So we cannot get evidence correct enough for Mr. Greenwood.

Destitute as I am of legal training, I leave this notable way of
disposing of the evidence to the judgement of the Bench and the Bar,
a layman intermeddleth not with it. Still, I am, like other readers,
on the Jury addressed,--I do not accept the arguments. Miror magis,
as Mr. Greenwood might quote Latin. We have already seen one example
of this argument, when Heywood speaks of the author of poems by