concealed author, and the secret of the pseudonym. But of the
hypothesis of such a choice of a pseudonym, enough has been said.
Whatever happened, whatever the Earl knew, if it were discreditable
to be dedicated to by an actor, Southampton was discredited; for we
are to prove that all in the world of letters and theatre who have
left any notice of Shakespeare identified the actor with the poet.

This appears to me to be the natural way of looking at the affair.
But, says Mr. Greenwood, of this intimacy or "patronage" of
Southampton "not a scrap of evidence exists." {109a} Where would Mr.
Greenwood expect to find a scrap of evidence? In literary anecdote?
Of contemporary literary anecdote about Shakespeare, as about
Beaumont, Dekker, Chapman, Heywood, and Fletcher, there is none, or
next to none. There is the tradition that Southampton gave the poet
1000 pounds towards a purchase to which he had a mind. (Rowe seems
to have got this from Davenant,--through Betterton.) In what
documents would the critic expect to find a scrap of evidence?
Perhaps in Southampton's book of his expenditure, and that does not
exist. It is in the accounts of Prince Charlie that I find him, poor
as he was, giving money to Jean Jacques Rousseau.

As to the chances of an actor's knowing "smart people," Heywood, who
knew all that world, tells us {109b} that "Tarleton, in his time, was
gracious with the Queen, his sovereign," Queen Elizabeth. "Will
Kempe was in the favour of his sovereign."

THEY had advantages, they were not literary men, but low comedians.
I am not pretending that, though his