fessor Brandes seems to think, strengthens the case, because the dedication would naturally be reticent. The argument recalls the old retort—
My wound is great, because it is so small:
Then it were greater were it none at all!
If there had been no dedication, the proof apparently would have been conclusive, because the reticence would have been absolute. The true argument is surely simple. If there were otherwise very strong reasons for believing in the Pembroke theory, it might be a plausible conjecture that the initials were suggested by association, though it would still be odd that reticence pushed so far did not go a step further. In the absence of such reasons, the obscurity cannot of itself be any ground for conviction. People forget how frequent are much closer and yet purely accidental coincidences; but when there is a chance of the glory of a discovery of such a bit of personal history, 'trifles light as air' become demonstrative to enthusiastic worshippers.
There is a more fundamental objection to the whole theory. Were it proved that the sonnets refer to the conjectured history, the fact would be interesting, but would hardly throw much light
