Note. Nothing seems to have been effected by this suit, in which the poet was only indirectly concerned. Eight years later (Nov. 24, 1597) a chancery suit against Lambert was instituted in the name of John and Mary Shakespeare, but doubtless at the expense of the poet, who however is not mentioned. The case dragged on for several years without profit to the Shakespeares. The documents are given by Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 7th ed., ii. 14 ff.
VI. GREENE’S INDICTMENT OF SHAKESPEARE AS ‘JOHANNES FAC TOTUM’ OF THE THEATRE (1592).
Epilogue to Robert Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit, bought with a Million of Repentance (August–September, 1592).
To those gentlemen, his quondam acquaintance, that spend their wits in making plays, R. G. wisheth a better exercise, and wisdom to prevent his extremities. . . .
Base minded men all three of you, if by my misery you be not warned: for unto none of you (like me) sought those burs to cleave, those puppets (I mean) that spake from our mouths, those antics garnished in our colors. Is it not strange that I, to whom they all
premises. The aforesaid John Lambert, on the twenty-sixth day of September in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our said lady the Queen (1587), at Stratford-on-Avon in the aforesaid county, in consideration of this took upon himself and then and there faithfully promised the said John Shakespeare that he, the same John Lambert, would well and faithfully pay and satisfy to the said John Shakespeare twenty pounds of legal money of England: and the said J. S. says in fact that he has not hitherto sued the said J. L. for the premises nor any part of them, and moreover that he the said J. S. and Mary his wife, together with William Shakespeare their son, have always been ready both to confirm [J. L.’s possession of] the aforesaid premises and to deliver to the same J. L. all writings and evidences concerning the said premises. Nevertheless the said J. L., very little regarding his promise and undertaking aforesaid, but scheming and fraudulently intending to deceive and defraud J. S. of the said twenty pounds, has not hitherto paid the twenty pounds to the said J. S. according to his promise and undertaking.’
