Page:The Journal of English and Germanic Philology Volume 18.djvu/235

 "Sir Thomas More" 229 as given in his edition of the play in his excellent volume of "Shakespeare Apocrypha"), is somewhat old-fashioned; the second, who wrote IV 1 and the whole of V, is much jerkier and less regular, with a partiality for an anapaestic foot here and there; whib the third, from whom we have the balance of IV, is the master of a much finer and more impressive verse than either of the others. (It may also be remarked that he uses "for to, " as the others do not.) These three I take to be, in the order in which I have mentioned them, Mundy and Dr. Greg's "B" and "A." Of the identity of A with the author of the bulk of IV I feel fairly confident, but I am not quite so sure of the identity of the other author with B. Turning to the addi- tions and alterations, A provided the part of IV 5 that is in his handwriting; Mundy wrote II 3; and B is to be credited with the additions to II 2, the insertion in II 4 (which I cannot understand editors stumbling over: it should surely read "Ay, and save us from the gallows, else a deals double"), the insertions in III 1, III 3, the alterations and addition to IV 1, and the revised version of a portion of V 4. Of the other two writers, whose touch is not discernible in the original draft, Shakspere is responsible only for the revised version of II 4 that is in his hand; and the other, for all the added portions of III 2, whether in his hand or the hand of "C." Dr. Greg remarked that the hand of this writer bore some resemblance to that of Dekker; but even without the hint thus given I think I should hardly have failed to recognise in the author of this part of the play the most lovable of all our old dramatists. The prose is precisely that of part 2 of "The Honest Whore," and the characterisation of Faulkner is distinctly reminiscent of that of Orlando Frescobaldo. It is to be noted that his addition entirely changes the final attitude of Faulkner. Pre- sumably the part of the scene in C's writing was copied from a draft by Dekker, who subsequently added to it. Before I attempt to explain what really happened in regard to the play, let me consider the probabilities, for the benefit of those who think it is impossible to determine any questions of authorship on internal evidence. There are three possible positions for Mundy to have occupied: he, may have had nothing to do with the authorship of the play, but merely have been employed to transcribe it an unlikely supposition, in view