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. revis'd by Fletcher, Dyce, Skeat, Swinburne, Littledale).Shakspere and Fletcher, or Fletcher revis'd by Shakspere. Hickson.
Act I. sc. iii, iv.Shakspere. Spalding, Hickson, Littledale.
Act I. sc. v.Shakspere. Spalding, ? Sh. Hickson. ? Fletcher. Littledale.
Act II. sc. i (prose).[A]Shakspere. Hickson, Coleridge, Littledale.[A]Fletcher. Spalding, Dyce.
Act II. sc. ii, iii, iv, v, vi. Fletcher. Spalding, Hickson, Littledale.
Act III. sc. i.Shakspere. Spalding, Hickson.
Act III. sc. ii.[A]Shakspere. Hickson (not Fletcher, Furnivall).[A]Fletcher. Spalding, Dyce.
Act III. sc. iii, iv, v, vi. Fletcher. Spalding, Hickson, Littledale.
Act IV. sc. i, ii. Fletcher. Spalding, Hickson.
Act IV. sc. iii.[A]Shakspere. Hickson.[A]Fletcher. Spalding, Dyce.
Act V. sc. i (includes Weber's sc. i, ii, iii).Shakspere. Spalding, Hickson, &c. ? lines 1-17 by Fletcher. Skeat, Littledale.
Act V. sc. ii. Fletcher. Spalding, Hickson,&c.
Act V. sc. iii, iv.Shakspere. Spalding, Hickson, &c., with a few lines Fletcher. Sc. iv. (with Fletcher interpolations. Swinburne, Littledale).
Epilogue Fletcher. Littledale.
[A] Here Prof. Spalding and Mr Hickson differ.

Mr Swinburne, when duly clothed and in his right mind, and not exposing himself in his April-Fool's cap and bells, will have something to say on the subject; and it will no doubt be matter of controversy to the end of time. Let every one study, and be fully convinct in his own mind.

To Mrs Spalding and her family I am greatly obligd for their willing consent to the present reprint. To Dr John Hill Burton, the Historian of Scotland, we are all grateful for his interesting Life of his

old schoolfellow and friend, which comes before the author's Letter. Miss Spalding too I have to thank for help. And our Members, Mrs Bidder—the friend of our lost sweet-natured helper and friend, Richard Simpson—and Mr *****, for their gifts of £10 each, and the Rev. Stopford Brooke for his gift of four guineas, towards the cost of the present volume.

To my friend Miss Constance O'Brien I am indebted for the annext Scheme of Prof. Spalding's argument, and the Notes and Index. The side-notes, head-lines, and the additions to the original title-page[xi:1] are mine. I only regret that the very large amount of his time—so much wanted for other pressing duties,—which Mr Harold Littledale has given to his extremely careful edition of The Two Noble Kinsmen for us, has thrown on me, who know the Play so much less intimately than he does, the duty of writing these Forewords. But we shall get his mature opinion in his Introduction to the Play in a year or two[xi:2].

F. J. Furnivall.

3, St George's Square, Primrose Hill,
London, N.W., Sept. 27-Oct. 13, 1876.