Page:The Journal of English and Germanic Philology Volume 18.djvu/236

 230 Oliphant of the fact that he was a regular, recognised writer of plays; he may have been both sole author and transcriber (as is, having regard to blunders in transcription in V 3 and the final scene, exceedingly unlikely) ; or he may have been only part author, but for some reason or other (probably because more of the work came from his pen than from any other, and also because all the opening portion was his) have undertaken the entire work of transcription was perhaps pushed into it by his lazier colleagues. This is the one possibility which seems to me to meet all the facts of the case. If one regard Mundy as merely a transcriber, we are thrown back on the internal evi- dence and a consideration of the probabilities for a determina- tion of the question whether the play in its first form was the work of one man or of several. If one regard Mundy as sole author, one has to explain how he can have been guilty of one particularly ignorant blunder in transcription, and how it came about that the work of revision was performed by no fewer than four men. I therefore feel that all the probabilities are in favor of the supposition that he was one of three or four authors of the original version of the play. Although I can detect the presence of only three authors in that first draft, I believe that four were concerned in it, though the work of the fourth, Dekker, exists only in his revised version of it. That his alterations were made at the same time as those of A and B seems to be indicated by the fact that some of his matter, as well as some of B's and some of Mundy 's, has been copied out by C. It is unlikely that Dekker would have a hand in the revision at that stage if he were not one of the original authors. The course of events I believe to have been somewhat as follows: Mundy, who was responsible for approximately half the play, copied out the whole of it, and then each of the other authors made certain alterations in his own work. In this revised form it was offered to the King's men, who set Shakspere to rewrite the insurrection scene. Having thus been made acceptable to the King's company, it was presented to the Master of the Revels for his approval; and his verdict was such as to put the production of the play out of the question. Besides the probabilities of the case already referred to, there are two circumstances telling strongly in favor of my