Blame not scholars vexed with sharp lines if they reprove thy too much liberty of reproof.” Nash was very angry, but only because Greene’s letter was given to the public by Chettle, who felt constrained to placate “that byting satyrist,” whose raillery he had reason to fear, by bearing witness to “his civil demeanor and factitious grace in writing.” Votaries of Shakspere may take their choice of one of the three addressed. Which one shall be named? What matter it to them, with Shakspere barred, whether Nash, Peele or Marlowe be named, the least of whom was worthy of Chettle’s commendation? There is not a crumb of evidence adduced for Shakspere as a putative author of plays until 1598, and then only in the variable and shadowy Elizabethan title page. Chettle terms Greene “the only comedian of a vulgar writer,” meaning he was a writer in the vernacular tongue or common language, a fact which proves Shakspere’s nihility as playmaker in 1592. Now the fact of the matter is that this “lying pamphlet,” so called by Nash, was not authored by Greene. It should be called, “Chettle’s Groats Worth of Wit,” for the pamphlet proper is from his pen or some other hack writer’s. The letter alone was authored by Greene, addressed as a private letter to three fellow poets, and surreptitiously procured for Chettle and transcribed by him. Chettle writes, “I had only in the copy this share—it was ill written—licensed it must be, ere it could be printed, which could never be if it might not be read. To be brief I writ it over and as nearly as I could follow the copy. Only, in that letter I put something out, but in the whole book, not a word in, for I protest it was all Greene’s, not mine, nor Master Nash’s, as some unjustly have affirmed.”