1622, but never took the trouble to correct the errors in the quarto.
And so on in other plays similarly treated. "Is it not a more
natural conclusion that 'Shakespeare'" (Bungay) "himself revised its
publication, and that some part of this revision, at any rate, was
done after 1616 and before 1623." {217a}

Mr. Greenwood, after criticising other systems, writes, {217b} "There
is, of course, another hypothesis. It is that Shakespeare" (meaning
the real author) "did not die in 1616," and here follows the usual
notion that "Shakespeare" was the "nom de plume" of that transcendent
genius, "moving in Court circles among the highest of his day (as
assuredly Shakespeare must have moved)--who wished to conceal his
identity."

I have not the shadow of assurance that the Author "moved in Court
circles," though Will would see a good deal when he played at Court,
and in the houses of nobles, before "Eliza and our James." I never
moved in Court circles: Mr. Greenwood must know them better than I
do, and I have explained (see Love's Labour's Lost, and Shakespeare,
Genius, and Society) how Will picked up his notions of courtly ways.

"Another hypothesis," the Baconian hypothesis,--"nom de plume" and
all,--Mr. Greenwood thinks "an extremely reasonable one": I cannot
easily conceive of one more unreasonable.

"Supposing that there was such an author as I have suggested, he may
well have conceived the idea of publishing a collected edition of the
plays which had been written under the name of Shakespeare, and being
himself busy with other matters, he may have entrusted the business
to some 'literary man,' to some 'good pen,' who was at the time doing