Page:The Journal of English and Germanic Philology Volume 18.djvu/237

 "Sir Thomas More" 231 theory. One is, that the only interference in the Mundy portion of the play is of a trivial character, being made by B, apparently in the capacity of supervisor. His serious revision was confined to his own portion of the play. The other fact in favor of my view is that it deprives Mundy of the glorification of More for his adherence to the Romanist faith. That so bitter an anti- Romanist as Mundy should have written that portion of the play does not seem to me probable. I must, however, in fairness mention three circumstances that tell, if not against my view as a whole at least against my division of the work amongst the various authors. The first is, that there are two versions of a portion of the final scene, both in the handwriting of Mundy, though, according to me, the authorship is that of B. The second is, that the ejaculations are tolerably uniform, so that we find, on my division, Mundy, A, B, and Shakspere all using " 'Fore God" or " Afore God" or ''Before God," and Mundy, A, and B all using "A' God's name" or "In God's name." The third is, that the spirit of a passage in IV 5 "I have bethought me, and I'll now satisfy the King's good pleasure. . . . Oh, pardon me: I will subscribe to go unto the Tower" is closely paralleled in IV 4 of "Oldcastle" "I see my error; but yet understand me: I mean not error in the faith I hold." The resemblance between these two passages is not verbal: it is to be found in the mental attitude of the speakers; and, as Mundy is known to have been one of the authors of " Old- castle," this may be thought to indicate Mundy's responsibility for both scenes; but they do not seem to me to be from the one hand. (I may add that I regard Mundy's share of "Old- castle" as confined to IV 3, V 9, from Lee's entry, and the final scene.) The question of date is important. The character of Shak- spere's work seems to call for an early date; but Dekker as a dramatic writer cannot with certainty be traced back beyond 1597-8, though he may possibly have been writing in 1595-6, when a "Fortunatus" was performed. I should say then that Dekker's presence is a sure sign that the play was not written before 1598, as he would hardly have been taken into partner- ship with Mundy and two other presumably established drama- tists until he had proved his quality; and my conclusion on this score is amply borne out by my examination of the various