state this as an ascertained fact. (2) That I fail to understand, if
Shakespeare acted properly in case of the third edition, why we should
talk nonsense about his "acting the part of a great man very well" and
"with dignity taking no notice of the error" in the first edition. In
the first edition he was wrongly credited with pieces that belonged
to Marlowe, Barnefield, Griffin, and some authors unknown. In the
third he was credited with these and some pieces by Heywood as well.
In the name of common logic I ask why, if it were "dignified" to say
nothing in the case of Marlowe and Barnefield, it suddenly became
right and proper to protest in the case of Heywood? But (3) what right
have we to assume that Shakespeare "took no notice of the error on the
title-page of the first edition"? We know this only--that if he
protested, he did not prevail as far as the first edition was
concerned. That edition may have been already exhausted. It is even
possible that he _did_ prevail in the matter of the second edition,
and that Jaggard reverted to his old courses in the third. I don't for
a moment suppose this was the case. I merely suggest that where so
many hypotheses will fit the scanty data known, it is best to lay down
no particular hypothesis as fact.


Another.

For I imagine that anyone can, in five minutes, fit up an hypothesis
quite as valuable as Mr. Humphreys'. Here is one which at least has
the merit of not making Shakespeare look a fool:--W. Jaggard,
publisher, comes to William Shakespeare, poet, with the information
that he intends to bring out a small miscellany of verse. If the poet
has an unconsidered trifle or so to spare, Jaggard will not mind
giving a few shillings for them. "You may have, if you like," says