Therefore, by this hypothesis of Mr. Greenwood, {220c} the Great Unknown was Bacon,—­just the hypothesis of the common Baconian.

Is my reasoning erroneous?  Is the “supposing” suggested by Mr. Greenwood {220d} any other than that of Miss Delia Bacon, and Judge Webb?  True, Mr. Greenwood’s Baconian “supposing” is only a working hypothesis:  not a confirmed belief.  But it is useful to his argument (see “Ben Jonson and Shakespeare”) when he wants to explain away Ben’s evidence, in his verses in the Folio, to the Stratford actor as the Author.

Mr. Greenwood writes, in the first page of his Preface:  “It is no part of my plan or intention to defend that theory,” “the Baconian theory.”  Apparently it pops out contrary to the intention of Mr. Greenwood.  But pop out it does:  at least I can find no flaw in the reasoning of my detection of Bacon:  I see no way out of it except this:  after recapitulating what is said about Ben as one of Bacon’s “good pens” with other details, Mr. Greenwood says, “But no doubt that way madness lies!” {221a} Ah no! not madness, no, but Baconism “lies that way.”  However, “let it be granted” (as Euclid says in his sportsmanlike way) that Mr. Greenwood by no means thinks that his “concealed poet” is Bacon—­only some one similar and similarly situated and still active in 1623, and occupied with other business than supervising a collected edition of plays written under his “nom de plume” of Shakespeare.  Bacon, too, was busy, with supervising, or toiling at the Latin translation of his scientific works, and Ben (according to Judge Webb) was busy in turning the Advancement of Learning into Latin prose.  Mr. Greenwood quotes, without reference, Archbishop Tenison as saying that Ben helped Bacon in doing his works into Latin. {221b} Tenison is a very late witness.  The prophetic soul of Bacon did not quite trust English to last as long as Latin, or he thought Latin, the lingua franca of Europe in his day, more easily accessible to foreign students, as, of course, it was.  Thus Bacon was very busy; so was Ben.  The sad consequence of Ben’s business, perhaps, is that the editing of the Folio is notoriously bad; whether Ben were the Editor or not, it is infamously bad.

Conceivably Mr. Greenwood is of the same opinion.  He says, “It stands admitted that a very large part of that volume” (the Folio) “consists of work that is not ‘Shakespeare’s’ at all.”

How strange, if Ben edited it for the Great Unknown—­who knew, if any human being knew, what work was “Shakespeare’s”!  On Mr. Greenwood’s hypothesis, {222a} or “supposing,” the Unknown Author “may well have conceived the idea of publishing a collected edition of the plays which had been written” (not “published,” Written) “under the name of Shakespeare, and, being himself busy with other matters, he may have entrusted the business to” some “good pen,” “and why not to”—­Ben.  Nevertheless “a very large part of that volume consists of work that is not ‘Shakespeare’s’ at all.” {222b} How did this occur?  The book {222c} is “that very doubtful ‘canon.’” How, if “Shakespeare’s” man edited it for “Shakespeare”?  Did “Shakespeare” not care what stuff was placed under his immortal “nom de plume”?