All this does but show how well-founded was the judgment which that sound scholar and able Shaksperian critic, Prof. Ingram,[ix:1] expresst in our _Transactions_ for 1874, p. 454. My own words on pages 73, 64*,--written after short acquaintance with the play, and under stress of Prof. Spalding's and Mr Hickson's able Papers, and the metrical evidence--were incautiously strong. In modifying them now, I do but follow the example of Prof. Spalding himself. Little as my opinion may be worth, I wish to say that I think the metrical and æsthetic evidence are conclusive as to there being two hands in the play. I do not think the evidence that Shakspere wrote all the parts that either Prof. Spalding or Mr Hickson assigns to him, at all conclusive. If it could be shown that Beaumont[ix:2] or any other author wrote the suppos'd Shakspere parts, and that Shakspere toucht them up, that theory would suit me best. It failing, I accept, for the time, Shakspere as the second author, subject to Fletcher having spoilt parts of his conception and work. The following scheme shows where Prof. Spalding and Mr Hickson agree, and where they differ:-- Prologue | FLETCHER (Littledale). | Act I. sc. i. SHAKSPERE. Spalding, Hickson | (Bridal Song not Sh.'s: | Dowden, Nicholson, Littledale, | Furnivall[x:1]). | | Act I. sc. ii. SHAKSPERE. Spalding (Sh. | SHAKSPERE and FLETCHER, or revis'd by Fletcher, Dyce, | Fletcher revis'd by Shakspere. Skeat, Swinburne, Littledale). | Hickson. | Act I. sc. iii, SHAKSPERE. Spalding, | iv. Hickson, Littledale. | | Act I. sc. v. SHAKSPERE. Spalding, ? Sh. | ? FLETCHER. Littledale. Hickson. | | Act II. sc. i *SHAKSPERE. Hickson, | *FLETCHER. Spalding, Dyce. (prose). Coleridge, Littledale. | | Act II. sc. ii, | FLETCHER. Spalding, Hickson, iii, iv, v, | Littledale. vi. | | Act III. sc. i. SHAKSPERE. Spalding, | Hickson. | | Act III. sc. *SHAKSPERE. Hickson (not | *FLETCHER. Spalding, Dyce. ii. Fletcher, Furnivall). | | Act III. sc. iii, | FLETCHER. Spalding, Hickson,