It is not my fault if I think that Mr. Greenwood’s hypotheses {222d}- -the genuine “Shakespeare” either revised his own works, or put Ben on the editorial task—­are absolutely contradicted by his statements in another part of his book. {222e} For the genuine “Shakespeare” knew what plays he had written, knew what he could honestly put forth as his own, as “Shakespeare’s.”  Or, if he placed the task of editing in Ben’s hands, he must have told Ben what plays were of his own making.  In either case the Folio would contain these, and no others.  But—­“the plat contraire,”—­the very reverse,—­is stated by Mr. Greenwood.  “It stands admitted that a very large portion of that volume” (the Folio) “consists of work that is not ‘Shakespeare’s’” (is not Bacon’s, or the other man’s) “at all.” {223a} Then away fly the hypotheses {223b} that the auto-Shakespeare, or that Ben, employed by the auto-Shakespeare (apparently Bacon) revised, edited, and prepared for publication the auto-Shakespearean plays.  For Mr. Greenwood “has already dealt with Titus (Andronicus) and Henry vi,” {223c} and proved them not to be auto-Shakespearean—­and he adds “there are many other plays in that very doubtful ‘canon’” (the Folio) “which, by universal admission, contain much non-Shakespearean composition.” {223d} Perhaps! but if so the two hypotheses, {223e} that either the genuine Shakespeare {223f} revised ("is it not a more natural solution that ‘Shakespeare’ himself revised his works for publication, and that some part, at any rate, of this revision {223g} was done after 1616 and before 1623?"), or {223h} that he gave Ben (who was working, by the conjecture, for Bacon) the task of editing the Folio,—­are annihilated.  For neither the auto-Shakespeare (if honest), nor Ben (if sober), could have stuffed the Folio full of non-Shakespearean work,—­including four “non-Shakespearean” plays,—­ nor could the Folio be “that very doubtful canon.” {224a} Again, if either the auto-Shakespeare or Ben following his instructions, were Editor, neither could have, as the Folio Editor had “evidently no little doubt about” Troilus and Cressida. {224b}

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?