He hammers at this denial in nineteen references in his Index to _Titus Andronicus_. Yet Ben, or Bacon, or the Unknown thought that these plays _were_ “genuine plays” of “Shakespeare,” the concealed author—Bacon or Mr. Greenwood’s man. It appears that the immense poet who used the “_nom de plume_” of “Shakespeare” did not know the plays of which he could rightfully call himself the author; that (not foreseeing Mr. Greenwood’s constantly repeated objections) he boldly annexed four plays, or two certainly, which Mr. Greenwood denies to him, and another about which “the Folio Editor was in no little doubt.” Finally, {227a} Mr. Greenwood is “convinced,” “it is my conviction” that some plays which he often denies to his “Shakespeare” were “revised, improved, and dressed by some one whom they called Shakespeare.” That some one, if he edited or caused to be edited the Folio, thought that his revision, improvement, and dressing up of the plays gave him a right to claim their authorship—and Mr. Greenwood, a dozen times and more, denies to him their authorship. One is seriously puzzled to discover the critic’s meaning. _The Taming of a Shrew_, _Titus_, _Henry VI_, and _King Lear_, referred to in Henslowe’s “Diary,” are not “Shakespearean,” we are repeatedly told. But “my own conviction is that . . . ” these plays were “revised, improved, and dressed by some one whom they called Shakespeare.” But to be revised, improved, and dressed by some one whom they called Shakespeare, is to be as truly “Shakespearean” work as is any play so handled “by Shakespeare.” Thus the plays mentioned are as truly “Shakespearean” as any others in which “Shakespeare” worked on an earlier canvas, and also _Titus_ “is not _Shakespearean_ at all.” Mr. Greenwood, I repeat, constantly denies the “Shakespearean” character to _Titus_ and _Henry VI_. “The conclusion of the whole matter is that _Titus_ and _The Trilogy of Henry VI_ are not the work of Shakespeare: that his hand is probably not to be found at all in _Titus_, and only once or twice, if at all, in _Henry VI_, Part I, but that he it probably was who altered and remodelled the two parts of the old _Contention of the Houses of York and Lancaster_, thereby producing _Henry VI_, Parts II and III.” {228a}