Neither Ben, nor the actual Simon Pure, the author, the auto-Shakespeare, could fail to know the truth about _Trodus and Cressida_. But the Editor {224c} did _not_ know the truth, the whole canon is “doubtful.” Therefore the hypothesis, the “supposing,” that the actual author did the revising, {224d} and the other hypothesis that he gave Ben the work, {224e} seem to me wholly impossible. But Mr. Greenwood needs the “supposings” of pp. 290, 293; and as he rejects _Titus Andronicus_ and _Henry VI_ (both in the Folio), he also needs the contradictory views of pp. 351, 358. On which set of supposings and averments does he stand to win? Perhaps he thinks to find a way out of what appears to me to be a dilemma in the following fashion: He will not accept _Titus Andronicus_ and _Henry VI_, though both are in the Folio, as the work of _his_ “Shakespeare,” his Unknown, the Bacon of the Baconians. Well, we ask, if your Unknown, or Bacon, or Ben,—instructed by Bacon, or by the Unknown,—edited the Folio, how could any one of the three insert _Titus_, and _Henry VI_, and be “in no little doubt about” _Troilus and Cressida_? Bacon, or the Unknown, or the Editor employed by either, knew perfectly well which plays either man could honestly claim as his own work, done under the “_nom de plume_” of “William Shakespeare” (with or without the hyphen). Yet the Editor of the Folio does not know—and Mr. Greenwood does know—_Henry VI_ and _Titus_ are “wrong ones.” Mr. Greenwood’s way out, if I follow him, is this: {225a} “Judge Stotsenburg asks, ‘Who wrote _The Taming of a Shrew_ printed in 1594, and who wrote _Titus Andronicus_, _Henry VI_, or _King Lear_ referred to in the Diary?’” (Henslowe’s). The Judge continues: “Neither Collier nor any of the Shaxper commentators make (_sic_) any claim to their authorship in behalf of William Shaxper. Since these plays have the same names as those included in the Folio of 1623 the presumption is that they are the same plays until the contrary is shown. Of course it may be shown, either that those in the Folio are entirely different except in name, or that these plays were revised, improved, and dressed by some one whom they” (who?) “called Shakespeare.” Mr. Greenwood says, “My own conviction is that . . . these plays were ‘revised, improved, and dressed by some one whom they called Shakespeare.’” {226a} (Whom _who_ called Shakespeare?) In that case these plays,—say _Titus Andronicus_ and _Henry VI_, Part 1,—which Mr. Greenwood denies to _his_ “Shakespeare” were just as much _his_ Shakespeare’s plays as any other plays (and there are several), which _his_ Shakespeare “revised, improved, and dressed.” Yet _his_ Shakespeare is _not_ author of _Henry VI_, {226b} not the author of _Titus Andronicus_. {226c} “Mr. Anders,” writes Mr. Greenwood, “makes what I think to be a great error in citing _Henry VI_ and _Titus_ as genuine plays of Shakespeare.” {226d}