Greene's Greene's Groatsworth of Wit,
bought with a million of Repentaunce
Robert Greene died on September 3, 1592, and Groatsworth of Wit was
published 17 days later on September 20.
The following is a complete text (with original spelling) of that portion
of Greene's posthumous pamphlet that remains an object of hot debate and
discussion. It is from the 1592 edition.
Only one sentence in this section is said to refer to Shakspere. That
sentence is here put in bold typeface. There is also a version with modernized
spelling. If you wish, you can read some background
on Robert Greene written by A. W. Ward.
[NOTE: Links in the text give the OED 2nd edition definition.]
You can download the complete original text of Groatsworth here.
Greenes Groatsworth of Wit, bought with a Million of Repentance.
To those Gentlemen his Quondam acquaintance,
that spend their wits in making plaies, R.G.
wisheth a better exercise, and wisdome
to preuent his extremities.
If wofull experience may moue you (Gentlemen) to beware, or vnheard
of wretchednes intreate you to take heed: I doubt not but you wil looke
backe with sorrow on your time past, and indeuour with repentance to
spend that which is to come. Wonder not, (for with thee wil I first
begin) thou famous "racer of Tragedians, that Greene, who
hath said with thee (like the foole in his heart) There is no God, shoulde
now giue glorie vnto his greatnes: for penetrating is his power, his
hand lyes heauie vpon me, hee hath spoken vnto mee with a voice of thunder,
and I have felt he is a God that can punish enemies. Why should thy
excellent wit, his gift, bee so blinded, that thou shouldst giue no
glorie to the giuer? Is it pestilent Machiuilian pollicy that thou hast
studied? O peeuish follie! What are his rules but meere confused mockeries,
able to extirpate in small time the generation of mankind. For if Sic
volo, sic iubeo, hold in those that are able to commaund: and it
it be lawfull Fas & nefas to do any thing that is beneficiall:
only Tyrants should possesse the earth, and they striuing to exceed
in tyrannie, should each to other be a slaughter man; till the mightiest
outliuing all, one stroke were lefte for Death, that in one age mans
life should end. The brocher of this Diabolicall Atheisme is dead, and
in his life had neuer the felicitie hee aymed at: but as he began in
craft; liued in feare, and ended in despaire. Quam inscrutabilia
sunt Dei iudicia? This murder of many brethren, had his conscience
seared like Caine: this betrayer of him that gaue his life for
him, inherited the portion of Iudas: this Apostata perished as
ill as Iulian: and wilt thou my friend be his disciple? Looke
but to me, by him perswaded to that libertie, and thou shalt find it
an infernall bondage. I knowe the least of my demerits merit this miserable
death, but wilfull striuing against knowne truth, exceedeth all the
terrors of my soule. Defer not (with me) till this last point of extremitie;
for little knowst thou how in the end thou shalt be visited.
With thee I ioyne yong Iuuenall, that byting Satyrist, that
lastly with mee together writ a Comedie. Sweet boy, might I aduise thee,
be aduisde, and get not many enemies by bitter wordes: inueigh against
vaine men, for thou canst do it, no man better, no man so well: thou
hast a libertie to reprooue all, and name none; for one being spoken
to, all are offended; none being blamed no man is iniured. Stop shallow
water still running, it will rage, or tread on a worme and it will turne:
then blame not Schollers vexed with sharpe lines, if they reproue thy
too much liberty of reproofe.
And thou no lesse deseruing than the oher two, in some things rarer,
in nothing inferiour; driuen (as my selfe) to extreme shiftes, a litle
haue I to say to thee: and were it not an idolatrous oth, I would sweare
by sweet S. George, thou art vnworthy better hap, sith thou dependest
on so meane a stay. Base minded men all three of you, if by my miserie
you be not warnd: for vnto none of you (like mee) sought those burres
to cleaue: those Puppets (I meane) that spake from our mouths, those
Anticks garnisht in our colours. Is it not strange, that I, to whom
they all haue beene beholding: is it not like that you, to whome they
all haue beene beholding, shall (were yee in that case as I am now)
bee both at once of them forsaken? Yes
trust them not: for there is an vpstart
Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers hart wrapt
in a Players hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best
of you: and beeing an absolute Iohannes
fac totum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a
countrey. O that I might intreat your rare wits to be imploied in
more profitable courses: & let those Apes imitate your past excellence,
and neuer more acquaint them with your admired inuentions. I knowe the
best husband of you all will neuer proue an Vsurer, and the kindest
of them all will neuer proue a kind nurse: yet whilest you may, seeke
you better Maisters; for it is pittie men of such rare wits, should
be subject to the pleasure of such rude groomes.
In this I might insert two more, that both haue writ against these
buckram Gentlemen: but lette their owne workes serue to witnesse against
their owne wickednesse, it they perseuere to maintaine any more such
peasants. For other new-commers, I leaue them to the mercie of these
painted monsters, who (I doubt not) will driue the best minded to despise
them: for the rest, it skils not though they make a ieast at them.
But now returne I againe to you three, knowing my miserie is to you
no newes: and let mee hartily intreat you to be warned by my harms.
Delight not (as I haue done) in irreligious oathes; for from the blasphemers
house, a curse shall not depart. Despise drunkennes, which wasteth the
wit, and maketh men all equall vnto beasts. Flie lust, as the deathsman
of the soule, and defile not the Temple of the holy Ghost. Abhorre those
Epicures, whose loose life hath made religion lothsome to your eares:
and when they sooth you with tearms of Maistership, remember Robert
Greene, whome they haue often so flattered, perishes now for want
of comfort. Remember Gentlemen, your liues are like so many lighted
Tapers, that are with care deliuered to all of you to maintaine: these
with wind-puff wrath may be extinguisht, which drunkennes put out, which
negligence let fall: for mans time is not of it selfe so short, but
it is more shortened by sinne. The fire of my light is now at the last
snuffe, and for want of wherewith to sustaine it, there is no substance
lefte for life to feede on. Trust not then (I beseech ye) to such weake
staies: for they are as changeable in minde, as in many attyres. Wel,
my hand is tyrde, and I am forst to leaue where I would begin: for a
whole booke cannot containe their wrongs, which I am forst to knit vp
in some few lines of words.
Desirous that you should liue, though himselfe be dying:
[NOTE: "Stratfordian Interpretive Model" simply refers to the
overarching belief that Shakspere is the author of the Shakespeare poems
and plays. Within this model there can be several subsidiary Stratfordian
interpretations, sub-models, all of which assume Shakspere is the correct
candidate. "Oxfordian Interpretive Model" also refers to a similar
construct. If you are not familiar with the scholar's habit of fluidly
moving from one interpetive model to another, then please read this Brief
STRATFORDIAN INTERPRETIVE MODEL
J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps in Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare
writes: "The Groatsworth of Wit was published very soon after the
unfortunate writer's decease, that is to say, it appeared towards the
end of September, 1592; and it is clear that one portion of it had been
composed under the influence of a profound jealousy of Shakespeare. Greene
is addressing his fellow-dramatists, and speaking of the actors of their
plays, thus introduces his satirical observations on the author of the
Third Part of Henry the Sixth, with a travesty of the line above mentioned...'"
E.K. Chambers in William Shakespeare--A Study of Facts and
Problems writes: "We have no certainty of Shakespeare's presence
in London before 1592, when a scoffing notice by Robert Greene shows that
he was already an actor and had already begun to write plays." (I,
"Greene's letter in itself is sufficient to show that by September
1592 Shakespeare was both a player and a maker of plays." (I, 59)
Samuel Schoenbaum in his revised William Shakespeare A Compact
Documentary Life writes: "In the Groatsworth of Wit he
makes the first unmistakable reference we have to Shakespeare in London."
"Yet the Groatsworth Of Wit contains -- no question -- a
desperate shaft directed at Shakespeare. The author hurls it later, after
having abandoned any pretence of fiction; he speaks as Greene, offering,
while life still beats, the bitter wisdom of experience....That Greene
has singled out Shakespeare for attack is evident from the punning reference
to a Shake-scene, and confirmed by a parodic allusion to one of Shakespeare's
earliest plays." (151)
Irvin Matus in Shakespeare, IN FACT writes: "This
has every appearance of being a pretty straightforward reference to Shakespeare
-- in the roundabout language of such verbal assaults in that time. In
plain words, it says that a presumptuous player, beautified as such with
the plumage (the words) of these playwrights, now imagines that he can
write with the best of them. Who might this 'upstart crow' be? Greene
chastises him with a parody of the line in Shakespeare's Henry VI,
Part Three, "O tiger's heart wrapped in a woman's hide,"
and caps it off with a play on his name in calling him a 'Shake-scene.'
It all fits the orthodox Shakespeare to a T." (67)
OXFORDIAN INTERPRETIVE MODEL
Charlton Ogburn in The Mysterious William Shakespeare writes:
"'R.G.' is telling his three fellow playwrights: 'Be warned by my
fate, for in the hour of my extremity I have been forsaken by the actors
who are beholden to me for the words I have put in their mouths, and so
shall you be. In particular, mistrust a merciless upstart, beautified
through our agency, who, being a jack-of-all-trades, believes himself
as well able to fill out a blank verse as the best of you and esteems
himself the only actor of power in the country. Let the actors perform
the plays with which you have already supplied them and give them no more.'
"I leave it up to the Stratfordians to explain what it was about
their man to have caused a dying penitent, facing eternity, and in the
presence of his Maker, to castigate him as an arrogant upstart with a
tiger's heart -- a tiger's heart, mind you. Even if professional
rivalry alone could account for such a savage characterization -- which
we may well doubt -- Greene would surely have passed beyond such considerations:
he was not going to write any more for the stage. But when the
Stratfordians tell us that Greene identified the upstart crow as a playwright,
we have to draw the line. He did no such thing. "R.G." was inveighing
against actors, one in particular who was 'beautified with our
feathers' -- that is, we playwrights' feathers -- not his own. The upstart
crow's plumes were borrowed plumes-borrowed from the playwrights."
[NOTE: On page 62, Ogburn outlines the work of Warren B. Austin, who
wrote an article for the December 1970 issue of Professor Louis Marder's
The Shakespeare Newsletter showing how he used a computer to prove
that Henry Chettle was the real author of Groatsworth of Wit. On
pages 63-64, Ogburn critiques Schoenbaum's response to Austin's work.]
Joseph Sobran in Alias Shakespeare writes: "This supposed
swipe at Shakespeare is mentioned in every biography, and appears even
in the shortest biographical sketches. It has been quoted so often that
most readers, including most English professors, have formed the mistaken
impression that not only this sentence but the whole pamphlet is directed
at Shakespeare." (33, 34)
"Yet there are problems with this interpretation, apart from its
assumption of a rather poor and awkward pun. For one thing, Henry VI,
Part 3, was not yet publicly known to be Shakespeare's in 1592. In
fact, when it was first published three years later, it bore no author's
name -- a curious fact, if its author was already a subject of controversy.
Only the Folio, many years later, definitely connected it with Shakespeare.
So the writer could not have expected a single oblique reference to remind
his readers of the play's author. But what else could the passage mean?"
Richard F. Whalen in Shakespeare: Who Was He? writes: "These
are the passages cited by Stratfordian scholars to construct the equation
that Will Shakspere = actor = Shake-scene = dramatist = Shakespeare....For
Stratfordian scholars, it is crucial that the passages be interpreted
in a way that proves the equation to be true. And, in fact, they insist
that the passages are 'obvious' and 'clear.' If their interpretation is
not true, then Will Shakspere's life is devoid of anything literary. No
other evidence from his lifetime links him personally as an actual person
living and working in London to the writing of Shakespeare's poems and
plays...far from being a fairly clear identification, it is deliberately
evasive and obscure." (44)
The standard interpretation of Greene's statement is not controversial
and is actually quite appealing within the context of the Stratfordian
Interpretive Model. However, it should be noted that Halliwell-Phillipps,
Chambers, and Schoenbaum see no room for any other Stratfordian interpretation,
while Matus, writing a book that explicitly responds to Oxfordian arguments,
leaves the door slightly ajar with his "This has every appearance...."
Also it should be noted that Schoenbaum qualifies the identity of the
author with his "he speaks as Greene." This is probably in response
to Austin's work that identifies Chettle as the author. Therefore, we
should be careful in evaluating Groatsworth since the real author's
motive could be quite different than what we would perceive as Greene's
motive. In other words, the sincerity of Groatsworth is suspect.
I find it curious that there is so little argument among leading Stratfordians
on the statement's interpretation. Perhaps with Halliwell-Phillipps' initial
declaration, a comfortable tradition is established that this statement
represents the first *proof* Shakspere was in London at that time and
was both a player and a playwright. Since the authorship has been so roundly
questioned, perhaps it's understandable that Stratfordians would hold
on to this interpretation of Groatsworth and declare it sufficient,
straightforward, and unquestionable.
But the statement adequately supports more than one interpretation, even
under the Stratfordian Interpretive Model.
Some Basic Facts
There is no evidence that "William Shakespeare" had any public
recognition as a poet or playwright at the time Groatsworth was
published in 1592. (This fact accounts for the strength of Stratfordian
scholars' desire to make Groatsworth the confirmation of Shakspere
being in London and recognized as a playwright. No other contemporary
record gives such evidence.) Venus and Adonis, which first introduced
the name "William Shakespeare" to the public, was not published
until the following year, 1593. No play to date had Shakespeare's name
attached. If "Shake-scene" was a pun designed to identify
the target of Greene's attack, it would be obscure and poorly executed
The Tygers hartline was not seen in published form until
1595 in the quarto of The True Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke,
and the quarto lists no author on the title page. In fact, the first
indication we have that the play containing this line was Shakespeare's
is in the First Folio of 1623, which first attached the Shakespeare
name to 3 Henry VI. So a reference to that line would not necessarily
and automatically trigger thoughts of William Shakespeare.
Some Stratfordians have offered arguments that parts of Groatsworth
were written as early as 1589 (Eric Sams, The Real Shakespeare,
Retrieving the Early Years) and that 3 Henry VI was composed
as late as 1591 (Gerald Eades Bentley, Shakespeare, A Biographical
Handbook). Thus, some Stratfordian scholars present the possibility
that this passage in Groatsworth was published before
the play was composed. (I do not believe this, but I make this point
to demonstrate how "flexible" is the evidence concerning this
matter. See W. Ron Hess's Robert Greene's Wit Re-evaluated in
The Elizabethan Review,
Autumn 1996, Vol. 4, No. 2.)
Tyger's hart and 3 Henry VI
In light of the facts above, there is clearly room for the Tygers hart
line being used to address another player. If The True Tragedie of
Richard Duke of Yorke were being drawn on to indicate that Shakespeare
was indeed the target of the attack, then Greene's attack on him as an
untalented "upstart crow" (players in those days were known
as "crows") appears to be irrational. Here is the passage as
it appears in 3 Henry VI. (Thanks to Nina Green, the editor of
the Edward De Vere Newsletter, No. 3, May 1989, for this insight.)
Duke of York
She-wolf of France, but worse than wolves of France,
Whose tongue more poisons than the adder's tooth!
How ill-beseeming is it in thy sex
To triumph like an Amazonian trull,
Upon their woes whom fortune captivates!
But that thy face is vizard-like, unchanging,
Made impudent with use of evil deeds,
I would assay, proud queen, to make thee blush.
To tell thee whence thou cam'st, of whom derived,
Were shame enough to shame thee, wert thou not shameless.
Thy father bears the type of King of Naples,
Of both the Sicils, and Jerusalem,
Yet not so wealthy as an English yeoman.
Hath that poor monarch taught thee to insult?
It needs not, nor it boots thee not, proud queen,
Unless the adage must be verified,
That beggars mounted run their horse to death.
'Tis beauty that doth oft make women proud,
But God he knows thy share thereof is small:
'Tis virtue that doth make them most admired,
The contrary doth make thee wondered at:
'Tis government that makes them seem divine,
The want thereof makes thee abominable:
Thou art as opposite to every good
As the Antipodes are unto us,
Or as the south to the septentrion. O tiger's heart wrapped in a woman's hide!
How couldst thou drain the life-blood of the child,
To bid the father wipe his eyes withal,
And yet be seen to bear a woman's face?
Women are soft, mild, pitiful, and flexible;
Thou stern, obdurate, flinty, rough, remorseless.
Bidd'st thou me rage? Why, now thou hast thy wish:
Wouldst have me weep? Why, now thou hast thy will;
For raging wind blows up incessant showers,
And when the rage allays, the rain begins.
These tears are my sweet Rutland's obsequies,
And every drop cries vengeance for his death,
'Gainst thee, fell Clifford, and thee, false Frenchwoman.
This passage conveys dignity, beauty, and power. It shows a command of
language and imagery. Greene could not have been ignorant of these facts.
This understanding supports the possibility that Greene used the tiger's
heart allusion to *characterize* rather than to *identify* the upstart
W. Ron Hess makes several good points on this passage (Robert Greene's
Wit Re-evaluated in The
Elizabethan Review, Autumn 1996, Vol. 4, No. 2.)
The OED does not list Shakespeare as in any way the originator of the
phrase "tiger's heart." In fact, comparing a woman to a tiger
or pointing to a tigrish heart has a history prior to Shakespeare.
1573 L. Lloyd Marrow of Hist. (1653) 265 Her cruel and Tigrish heart.
1576 Gascoigne Philomene cxxxi. (Arb.) 107 (Tygrelike) she toke The
1581 G. Pettie Guazzos Civ. Conv. iii. (1586) 124 So monstrous
a creature..that it was doubtfull whether she were a woman or a tigar.
1586 Sidney Arcadia (1622) 467 Were thy eyes so stonie, thy breast so
1587 Turberv. Trag. T. (1837) 67 The tyrants mother Calvia, tygreleeke,
Procurde her plagues.
From this we can see that the phrase "tiger's heart wrapped
in a woman's hide" could possibly have a history as well, and
that Greene and Shakespeare could be either drawing from a common source
or simply conveying a known metaphor. In 1600, Samual Nicholson in his
Acolasus wrote: "O woolvish heart wrapt in a womans hyde"
(The Shakspere Allusion-Book, p. 74). Shall we automatically
assume that Nicholson was alluding to Shakespeare or Greene?
Richard "Couer de Lion" (the Lion-hearted) from the late 1100s
indicates that the idea of "animal hearted" has a long history.
An interesting connection that seems stretched on its face but closer
to hitting home upon examination is the fact that an outdoor boy servant
was traditionally called a "tiger". If this phrase were used
on the Elizabethan stage, then a boy playing a female would be a "tiger's
heart wrapped in a player's hide."
It is reasonable to think that Greene's audience (the three playwrights)
would understand the Tygers hart allusion to simply characterize
the upstart actor as ruthless. There is no compelling reason to believe
that the allusion is an attempt to indirectly identify the upstart actor
as the author of the passage.
If we accept that the three playwrights did in fact know that
the allusion was to a play written by Shakespeare, there is also room
for interpreting the passage as characterizing the upstart actor as one
who was trying to put on the *look* of an accomplished playwright, when
in fact he was only a mere player, perhaps one who added his own lines
in the worst way, thus destroying the accomplished writing of the playwright.
Both Stratfordians and Oxfordians have advanced alternatives to the traditional
identification of Shakspere as the upstart crow. (See "Three Alternatives
to Shakspere" below.)
Johannes fac totum
It seems to be a given that Johannes fac totum means a "jack-of-all-trades".
But The Oxford English Dictionary supplies a secondary definition
of "a busybody." This definition works just as well in the passage.
Is "Shake-scene" a definitive reference to or pun on Shakspere
or Shakespeare? Certainly there is room for such an interpretation, but
there seems to be room for other interpretations as well. None of the
sources cited above *define* the term "Shake-scene." What does
it mean? Why must it be a pun identifying Shakspere or Shakespeare? Could
it not simply refer to a player who shook scenes with his over-exuberant
style, perhaps especially when performing in a Shakespeare play? There
were such players (as is noted in "Three Alternatives to Shakspere"
Stratfordians claim it is self-evident that these two parts of the statement
(the "tiger's heart" allusion and "Shake-scene") confirm
Shakspere or Shakespeare as the object of the attack. But this is arguing
from the end. If we assume that Shakspere is both a player and a playwright,
then this statement confirms both. The passage could as easily refer to
another player filling out his speeches by bombasting out his own blank
verse or another player who has visions of becoming a playwright.
Following Ogburn's argument, there seems to be reason to doubt that the
statement actually affirms that the player is trying to be a playwright.
Rather, it can refer to a player who usurps the role of a playwright *while
acting the part* by making up lines that are not part of the script.
You [playwright #3] are no less talented than the other two playwrights.
You have been impoverished, as I have, but you don't deserve any better
luck than I if you rely on such a despicable prop to support you. Contemptible
fellows, all three of you, if you don't learn from my misfortune. The
actors are only as good as our words make them, and they owe me. They
owe you too, but since I have been deserted by them, (by one in particular)
in my time of need, beware. Beware of one untrustworthy actor, the
"upstart Crow." We make him look good in the roles we write,
but this player is callous and duplicitous. He fancies himself able
to extemporize lines in blank verse that are as good as any of yours;
he even passes off some of your material as his own. And this conceited
know-it-all thinks he's the only "Shake-scene" actor in the
country. [emphasis added] I beg all three of you talented playwrights
to re-direct your skills in a more profitable direction, and away from
this unscrupulous actor. Let him recite or plagiarize your past plays.
Don't give him any new ones. I know that the most financially prudent
[most frugal manager of finances] of you would not stoop to usury (i.e.,
as did Shake-scene), and even the most compassionate usurer is not charitable
at all to someone driven to desperation, on his deathbed and needing
care. So while you still have a chance to escape my fate, find some
paymasters with more integrity. Stay away from actor-paymasters (and
usurers like Johannes Factotum), because you three are too talented
to be exploited by such contemptuous knaves.
Three Alternatives to Shakspere
1) Edward Alleyn
A. D. Wraight in her Christopher
Marlowe and Edward Alleyn (Chichester, Sussex) makes a good
case that the upstart crow is Edward Alleyn. She begins her 20+-page
examination of Greene's Groatsworth on page 158. The disputed
passage is often analyzed out of context. There is difficulty in summarizing
the detailed and complex argument because it takes in earlier portions
of Groatsworth that refer to the Player who "employs"
Roberto (clearly identified as Greene himself). Alleyn was a well-known
actor, ambitious and scene-stealing, who was also a theatre manager
and small-time private banker. Greene was known to be a profligate borrower
and he died penniless, owing money to his lenders. Wraight shows how
easily the identification fits Greene's text.
A. D. Wraight shows how Greene refers to Alleyn in other parts of the
pamphlet and how naturally the disputed passage refers to Alleyn. Note
that immediately following the disputed passage is this: "O that
I might intreat your rare wits to be imploied in more profitable courses:
& let those Apes imitate your past excellence, and neuer more
acquaint them with your admired inuentions. I knowe the best husband
of you all will neuer proue an Vsurer, and the kindest of them
all will neuer proue a kind nurse:" This part is totally ignored
in attempting to interpret the passage immediately before it. Wraight
points out that Greene here implies that "'Apes' are affluent men
who use their wealth garnered from profits of performing the plays to
act as usurers to the (impecunious) dramatists, like himself, from whose
'admired inuentions' their wealth stems; while his acquaintances, his
fellow dramatists -- even those careful at husbanding their money --
would never dream of lending to others on terms of usury as the actors
2) Will Kemp As W. Ron Hess points out in The
Elizabethan Review, Winifred Frazer advances the theory that the
comedic actor Will Kemp is a viable candidate for the "upstart
crow." He was know as an actor, a clown, an acrobat, a musician,
a morris dancer, a self-promoter, and a sometime author who definitely
fits the description of a Johannes fac totum (Jack of all trades).
She further points out that upon the death of Richard Tarlton in 1588,
Kemp succeeded him in the popular role of The Crow Sits Upon The
Wall. Since the text of this play was published in 1592, Kemp becomes
a possible candidate for the "upstart crow," who took over
Tarlton's crow. Kemp was not as popular with playwrights or his fellow
actors as he was with audiences precisely because he added his own lines,
thus botching cues and destroying timing.
3) Ben Jonson Although in some ways I think this the least likely of the alternatives,
it does hold a certain attraction. Nina Green in the Edward De Vere
Newsletter, No. 3, May 1989, points out that in 1592, "Jonson,
at 20, was in all likelihood an actor with burgeoning aspirations as
a writer. His arrogance, his own considerable opinion of his talents,
and his lack of charity toward other writers are amply attested to in
his own words as recorded by William Drummond of Hawthornden. Drummond
also commented on the excessive fondness for drink which could well
have made Jonson one of the fairweather tavern companions of whom Greene
complains. Finally, and most importantly, the first syllable of Jonson's
surname corresponds to the Latin form Johannes."
Responses by Readers
Although he is not attempting a full and direct response to this page,
Bob Grumman does marshal some criticisms in his Of Greene and the Upstart
Crow. A close reading will reveal at least two good critical points,
in my opinion.