My purpose in this essay is to argue against the passive acceptance of received wisdom about collaborative authorship of plays in early modern England. I hope to demonstrate that carelessness in the application of attribution methodologies has led scholars astray in their consideration of various issues relating to multiple authorship. I focus on The Changeling because of the persistence with which students of that play have disregarded the implications of various thoughtful discussions of attribution methodologies and of dramatic collaboration for their practice of 'sharing' The Changeling between two playwrights. It is my basic contention that students of The Changeling are operating in an evidentiary vacuum. As I shall try to explain in the pages that follow, the evidence simply does not exist that would enable us to determine how much and which parts of The Changeling were 'written' (I will discuss that problematic word) by Thomas Middleton or by William Rowley.The unusual degree to which scholars have agreed about details of the authorship of The Changeling did cause me to hesitate in forming my own skeptical conclusions. I was faced with a preponderance of critical opinion that Rowley wrote the beginning and the ending of the play, and the comic scenes throughout. This view was established by Fleay and Wiggin more than a century ago, and it has persisted up through the most recent edition of the play, Bawcutt's 1998 edition. 1 However, both the awkwardness and the neatness of the arrangement worried me. Would a playwright (Middleton, we are told) who had the role of creating the main plot of the play really be comfortable not having any role in the creation of the first and last acts? Does it make sense that each of two playwrights imaginatively immersed in the chaotic world described in Jacobean drama would abide by a neat, clearly arbitrary, obviously unnecessary arrangment to keep hands off the distinct portions of the play assigned to his collaborator? I was uncomfortable with the picture of the conditions of playwrighting that I was being asked to accept both as a fact for this play and as typical for collaborative playwrighting of the time.