Page:The Journal of English and Germanic Philology Volume 18.djvu/238

 232 Oliphant plays in which Mundy was concerned. (To speak more pre- cisely, I established to my own satisfaction a date of 1598-9 from a study of Mundy's work before I noticed how it fitted in with the probabilities in regard to Dekker.) Mundy's other plays are "Two Italian Gentlemen" and "John a Kent,'* both of which he wrote alone, the two "Robin Hood" plays, in which his work has to be distinguished from that of Chettle, and "Oldcastle," in which he collaborated with Drayton, Hathwaye, and Wilson, of two of whom no other work is known to be extant. The resemblances between any two of the six plays in which Mundy was concerned are scarcely more marked than the differences, though in each case the external evidence leaves no doubt as to his presence (save "More," in regard to which the evidence as to handwriting is conclusive). To determine the order of the six plays, one must first determine the extent of Mundy's contribution to each. I have already stated to what extent I regard him as having participated in "More" and "Oldcastle." As for the "Robin Hood" plays, it does not seem difficult to separate his work from Chettle's. In the first, as it stands, Chettle provided the Induction, per- haps I 1, that portion of II 1 lying between Leicester's entry and Ely's (an insertion in a scene by Mundy), and IV 1 from the serving-man's entry, though here he has perhaps left a few lines of Mundy's original work. All the rest I believe to be Mundy's. In part 2, the whole of the Matilda story that is to say, the whole of Acts II, III, IV, and V may, with the doubtful exception of the final scene of IV, be credited to Chet- tle, whose is the "uncunning hand" of the Epilogue. He also wrote the Induction, perhaps I 1, I 2 from the carrying out of Warman's body to the King's entry, and in I 3 a couple of dozen speeches beginning with the King's inquiry as to Don- caster. This leaves Mundy only the beginning and ending of I 3, and the Interlude. A comparison of his work in the various plays leaves absolutely no doubt as to the priority of the Italian play, the order of the others being "John," "1 Robin," "2 Robin," "More," "Oldcastle." His style in the play here under discussion seems to me to approach much more closely to his style in "Oldcastle" than to that in any other. For- tunately we know the dates of both "2 Robin Hood" and "Oldcastle," the former having been written in 1597-8, and