of different mental conditions. For example, in 1635 or 1636,
Cuthbert Burbage, brother of Richard, the famous actor, Will's
comrade, petitioned Lord Pembroke, then Lord Chamberlain, for
consideration in a quarrel about certain theatres. Telling the
history of the houses, he mentions that the Burbages "to ourselves
joined those deserving men, Shakspere, Heminge, Condell, Phillips and
others." Cuthbert is arguing his case solely from the point of the
original owners or lease-holders of the houses, and of the well-known
actors to whom they joined themselves. Judge Webb and Mr. Greenwood
think that "it does indeed seem strange . . . that the proprietor[s]
of the playhouses which had been made famous by the production of the
Shakespearean plays, should, in 1635--twelve years after the
publication of the great Folio--describe their reputed author to the
survivor of the Incomparable Pair, as merely a 'man-player' and 'a
deserving man.'" Why did he not remind the Lord Chamberlain that
this "deserving man" was the author of all these famous dramas? Was
it because he was aware that the Earl of Pembroke "knew better than
that"? {0h}

These arguments are regarded by some Baconians as proof positive of
their case.

Cuthbert Burbage, in 1635 or 1636, did not remind the Earl of what
the Earl knew very well, that the Folio had been dedicated, in 1623,
to him and his brother, by Will's friends, Heminge and Condell, as
they had been patrons of the late William Shakspere and admirers of
his plays. The terms of this dedication are to be cited in the text,
later. WE all NOW would have reminded the Earl of what he very well
knew. Cuthbert did not.