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
and left no trace of his existence except his share in the works
called Shakespearean.
However, the idea of the Great Unknown has, for its partisans, this
advantage, that as the life of the august Shade is wholly unknown, we
cannot, as in Bacon's case, show how he was occupied while the plays
were being composed.
Pages:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31