thin ice. Already, in two volumes (In Re Shakespeare, 1909, and The
Vindicators of Shakespeare), Mr. Greenwood has accused his critics of
frequently misconceiving and misrepresenting his ideas: wherefore I
also tremble. I am perfectly confident in saying that he "holds no
brief for the Baconians." He is NOT a Baconian. His position is
negative merely: Will of Stratford is NOT the author of the
Shakespearean plays and poems. Then who is? Mr. Greenwood believes
that work by an unknown number of hands exists in the plays first
published all together in 1623. Here few will differ from him. But,
setting aside this aspect of the case, Mr. Greenwood appears to me to
believe in an entity named "Shakespeare," or "the Author," who is the
predominating partner; though Mr. Greenwood does not credit him with
all the plays in the Folio of 1623 (nor, perhaps, with the absolute
entirety of any given play). "The Author" or "Shakespeare" is not a
syndicate (like the Homer of many critics), but an individual human
being, apparently of the male sex. As to the name by which he was
called on earth, Mr. Greenwood is "agnostic." He himself is not
Anti-Baconian. He does not oust Bacon and put the Unknown in his
place. He neither affirms nor denies that Bacon may have
contributed, more or less, to the bulk of Shakespearean work. To put
it briefly: Mr. Greenwood backs the field against the favourite (our
Will), and Bacon MAY be in the field. If he has any part in the
whole I suspect that it is "the lion's part," but Mr. Greenwood does
not commit himself to anything positive. We shall find (if I am not
mistaken) that Mr. Greenwood regards the hypothesis of the Baconians
as "an extremely reasonable one," {7a} and that for his purposes it
would be an extremely serviceable one, if not even essential. For as
Bacon was a genius to whose potentialities one can set no limit, he
is something to stand by, whereas we cannot easily believe--I cannot
believe--that the actual "Author," the "Shakespeare" lived and died