56.
{17e} Ibid., p. 59.
{17f} Ibid., p. 62.
{17g} Ibid., p. 193.
{18a} See his Vindicators of Shakespeare, p. 210.
{19a} Vindicators, p. 187.
{19b} The Shakespeare Problem Restated, p. 223.
{21a} In Re Shakespeare, p. 54.
{22a} In a brief note of two pages (Cornhill Magazine, November
1911) he makes such reply as the space permits to a paper of my own,
"Shakespeare or X?" in the September number. With my goodwill he
might have written thirty-two pages to my sixteen, but I am not the
Editor, and never heard of Mr. Greenwood's note till May 1912.
He says that I had represented him as stating that the Unknown genius
adopted the name of William Shake-speare or Shakespeare as a good nom
de guerre, without any reference to the fact that there was an actor
in existence of the name of William Shakspere, whose name was
sometimes written Shakespeare, and without the least idea that the
works he published under this pseudonym would be fathered upon the
actor . . . " (My meaning has obviously been too obscurely stated by
me.)
Mr. Greenwood next writes that the confusion between the actor, and
the unknown taking the name William Shakespeare, "did happen and was
intended to happen."
C'est la le miracle!
How could it happen if the actor were the bookless, ignorant man whom
Mr. Greenwood describes? It could not happen: Will must have been
unmasked in a day.
Pages:
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274