Shakespeare, Bacon and the Great Unknown | Page 4

the Folio (1623), the world seems to have
taken more interest in literary matters. Mr. Greenwood says that then
while "the multitude" would take Ben Jonson's noble panegyric on
Shakespeare as a poet "au pied de la lettre," "the enlightened few would
recognise that it had an esoteric meaning." {0g} Then, it seems, "the
world"--the "multitude"--regarded the actor as the author. Only "the
enlightened few" were aware that when Ben SAID "Shakespeare," and
"Swan of Avon," he MEANT--somebody else.
Quite different inferences are drawn from the same facts by persons 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.
The intelligence of Cuthbert Burbage may be gauged by anyone who
will read pp. 481-484 in William Shakespeare, His Family and Friends,
by the late Mr. Charles Elton, Q.C., of White Staunton. Cuthbert was a
puzzle-pated old boy. The silence as to Will's authorship on the part of
this muddle-headed old Cuthbert, in 1635-36, cannot outweigh the
explicit and positive public testimony to his authorship, signed by his
friends and fellow-actors in 1623.
Men believe what they may; but I prefer positive evidence for the
affirmative to negative evidence from silence, the silence of Cuthbert
Burbage.
One may read through Mr. Greenwood's three books and note the
engaging varieties of his views; they vary as suits his argument; but he

is unaware of it, or can justify his varyings. Thus, in 1610, one John
Davies wrote rhymes in which he speaks of "our English Terence, Mr.
Will Shakespeare"; "good Will." In his period patriotic English critics
called a comic dramatist "the English Terence," or "the English
Plautus," precisely as American critics used to call Mr. Bryant "the
American Wordsworth," or Cooper "the American Scott"; and as Scots
called the Rev. Mr. Thomson "the Scottish Turner." Somewhere, I
believe, exists "the Belgian Shakespeare."
Following this practice, Davies had to call Will either "our English
Terence," or "our English Plautus." Aristophanes would not have been
generally recognised; and Will was no more like one of these ancient
authors than another. Thus Davies was apt to choose either Plautus or
Terence; it was even betting which he selected. But he chanced to
choose Terence; and this is "curious," and suggests suspicions to Mr.
Greenwood--and the Baconians. They are so very full of suspicions!
It does not suit the Baconians, or Mr. Greenwood, to find contemporary
recognition of Will as an author. {0i} Consequently, Mr. Greenwood
finds Davies's "curious, and at first sight, inappropriate comparison of
'Shake-speare' to Terence worthy of remark, for Terence is the very
author whose name is alleged to have been used as a mask-name, or
nom de plume, for the writings of great men who wished to keep the
fact of their authorship concealed."
Now Davies felt bound to bring in SOME Roman parallel to
Shakespeare; and had only the choice of Terence or Plautus. Meres
(1598) used Plautus; Davies used Terence. Mr. Greenwood {0j} shows
us that Plautus would not do. "Could HE" (Shakespeare) "write only of
courtesans and cocottes, and not of ladies highly born, cultured, and
refined? . . . "
"The supposed parallel" (Plautus and Shakespeare) "breaks down at
every point." Thus, on Mr. Greenwood's showing, Plautus could not