From Robert Greene's
Greene's Groatsworth of Wit,
bought with a million of Repentaunce

Mark Alexander

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:
Robert Greene.

[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 Explication.]


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...'" (I, 100)

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, 22)

"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." (150)

"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)


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.' " (57)

"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." (57, 58)

[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?" (34)

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 at best.

The Tygers hart line 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 crow.

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 little boy.
1581 G. Pettie Guazzo’s 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 tygrish?
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" below).

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.

Diana Price, who accepts that the passage refers to Shakspere, stands behind the following paraphrase in her "What's in a Name? Shakespeare, Shake-scene and the Clayton Loan."

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 do." (168-169)

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.

Related Links

Volker Multhopp's "The extraordinary first glimpse of our
greatest playwright"

John Jowett's Review of D. Allen Carroll's edition of the *Groatsworth*

"What's in a Name? Shakespeare, Shake-scene and the Clayton Loan" by Diana Price

"On Greene's Groatsworth of Wit by Richard Malim

"Of Greene and the Upstart Crow" by Bob Grumman

Copyright © 1997-2003 by Mark Alexander. All Rights Reserved.
Text on this entire web site may be downloaded for personal and educational use only.