Again, “he had had but little schooling; he had ’small Latin and less Greek’” (as Ben Jonson truly says), “but he was a good Johannes Factotum; he could arrange a scene, and, when necessary, ’bumbast out a blank verse.’” {19b}

The “Johannes Factotum,” who could “bumbast out a blank verse,” is taken from Robert Greene’s hackneyed attack on an actor-poet, “Shake-scene,” published in 1592.  “Poet-Ape that would be thought our chief,” is from an epigram on an actor-poet by Ben Jonson (1601-16?).  If the allusions by Greene and Jonson are to our Will, he, by 1592, had a literary ambition so towering that he thought his own work in the new art of dramatic blank verse was equal to that of Marlowe (not to speak of Wilkins), and Greene reckoned him a dangerous rival to three of his playwright friends, of whom Marlowe is one, apparently.

If Jonson’s “Poet-Ape” be meant for Will, by 1601 Will would fain “be thought the chief” of contemporary dramatists.  His vanity soared far above George Wilkins!  Greene’s phrases and Jonson’s are dictated by spite, jealousy, and envy; and from them a true view of the work of the man whom they envy, the actor-poet, cannot be obtained.  We might as well judge Moliere in the spirit of the author of Elomire Hypocondre, and of de Vise!  The Anti-Willian arguments keep on appearing, going behind the scenes, and reappearing, like a stage army.  To avoid this phenomenon I reserve what is to be said about “Shake-scene” and “Poet-Ape” for another place (pp. 138-145 infra).  But I must give the reader a warning.  Concerning “William Shakespeare” as a “nom de plume,” or pseudonym, Mr. Greenwood says, “Some, indeed, would see through it, and roundly accuse the player of putting forth the works of others as his own.  To such he would be a ‘Poet-Ape,’ or ‘an upstart crow’ (Shake-scene) ’beautified with the feathers of other writers.’” {21a}

If this be true, if “some would see through” (Mr. Greenwood, apparently, means did “see through”) the “nom de plume,” the case of the Anti-Willians is promising.  But, in this matter, Mr. Greenwood se trompe.  Neither Greene nor Jonson accused “Shake-scene” or “Poet-Ape” of “putting forth the works of others as his own.”  That is quite certain, as far as the scorns of Jonson and Greene have reached us. (See pp. 141-145 infra.)

If an actor, obviously incapable of wit and poetry, were credited with the plays, the keenest curiosity would arise in “the profession,” and among rival playwrights who envied the wealth and “glory” of the actors.  This curiosity, prompting the wits and players to watch and “shadow” Will, would, to put it mildly, most seriously imperil the secret of the concealed author who had the folly to sign himself “William Shakespeare.”  Human nature could not rest under such a provocation as the “concealed poet” offered.

This is so obvious that had one desired to prove Bacon or the Unknown to be the concealed author, one must have credited his mask, Will, with abundance of wit and fancy, and, as for learning—­with about as much as he probably possessed.  But the Baconians make him an illiterate yokel, and we have quoted Mr. Greenwood’s estimate of the young Warwickshire provincial.