But there is another “Anti-Willian” theory, which would dethrone Will Shakspere, and put but a Shadow in his place.  Conceive a “concealed poet,” of high social position, contemporary with Bacon and Shakespeare.  Let him be so fond of the Law that he cannot keep legal “shop” out of his love Sonnets even.  Make him a courtier; a statesman; a philosopher; a scholar who does not blench even from the difficult Latin of Ovid and Plautus.  Let this almost omniscient being possess supreme poetic genius, extensive classical attainments, and a tendency to make false quantities.  Then conceive him to live through the reigns of “Eliza and our James,” without leaving in history, in science, in society, in law, in politics or scholarship, a single trace of his existence.  He left nothing but the poems and plays usually attributed to Will.  As to the date of his decease, we only know that it must necessarily have been later than the composition of the last genuine Shakespearean play—­for this paragon wrote it.

Such is the Being who occupies, in the theory of the non-Baconian, but not anti-Baconian, Anti-Willians, the intellectual throne filled, in the Will Shakespeare theory, by Will; and in the Baconian, by Bacon—­two kings of Brentford on one throne.

We are to be much engaged by the form of this theory which is held by Mr. G. G. Greenwood in his The Shakespeare Problem Restated.  In attempting to explain what he means I feel that I am skating on very thin ice.  Already, in two volumes (In Re Shakespeare, 1909, and The Vindicators of Shakespeare), Mr. Greenwood has accused his critics of frequently misconceiving and misrepresenting his ideas:  wherefore I also tremble.  I am perfectly confident in saying that he “holds no brief for the Baconians.”  He is not a Baconian.  His position is negative merely:  Will of Stratford is not the author of the Shakespearean plays and poems.  Then who is?  Mr. Greenwood believes that work by an unknown number of hands exists in the plays first published all together in 1623.  Here few will differ from him.  But, setting aside this aspect of the case, Mr. Greenwood appears to me to believe in an entity named “Shakespeare,” or “the Author,” who is the predominating partner; though Mr. 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