It has been supposed in consequence of statements made by Malone and Boswell that a third edition of King Lear was published in 1608. We shall show that there is no evidence for this. In the _Variorum Shakespeare_ (II. 652), edited by Boswell in 1821, three Quartos are described, which are distinguished in the notes to the play by the letters A, B, C, respectively. The first of these is a copy of Q₂, quoted by us as Q₂ (Bodl. 1); the second is a copy of Q₁; and the third, which is in reality another copy of Q₂ and is quoted by us as Q₂ (Bodl. 2), is described as follows: "Title the same as the two former, except that like the first it begins at signature B: and like the second, has no reference to the place of sale." This statement of Boswell's is taken from a note in Malone's handwriting prefixed to the copy in question, which we transcribe. "This copy of King Lear differs in some particulars from the two others in Vol. IV. "The title-page of it is the same as the second of those copies, that is, it has no direction to the place of sale, and the first signat. is B,--notwithstanding which there are minute diversities; thus, in this copy in H₃ verso, we have 'A _foole_ vsurps my _bed_'; in the other whose first signature is also B, we find--'My _foote_ usurps my _body_', and in the copy without any direction to the place of sale (whose first signature is A) 'My _foote_ usurps my _head_'." Now it is a little remarkable that at present the copy has no title-page at all, and there is no trace of the title-page having been removed since the volume has been in its present condition. The probability is that the title was originally wanting and that one had been supplied from a copy of Q₁ before it came into Malone's hands, and that while it was in this condition he wrote the above note upon it. It was then sent to be bound in a volume with other quartos, and the title may have been lost at the binder's, or may have been intentionally removed as not belonging to the book. That alterations were made by the binder is evident from the fact that the copy to which Malone refers as the _second_ of those in Vol. IV. is in reality the _first_. Malone, writing his note when Vol. IV. was arranged for binding, described the then order of the plays, which must afterwards have been altered. In any case, however Malone's statement is to be accounted for, it is quite clear that Boswell must have described the Quarto after it was bound, when the title could not have existed.