THE AUTHORSHIP OF "THE BIRTH OF MERLIN"

Before its publication in 1662 no record exists of the play bearing the following title-page inscription: "The Birth of Merlin: Or, the Childe hath found his Father: As it hath been several times acted with great Applause. Written by William Shakespeare and William Rowley. London: Printed by Tho. Johnson for Francis Kirkman and Henry Marsh, and are to be sold at the Prince's Arms in Chancery Lane. 1662." Since this ascription of its authorship to Shakespeare constitutes the sole evidence of his connection with the play, the question of the validity of this evidence is the first matter for investigation in an attempt to determine the authorship. It is the question, first, of the publisher's knowledge of the facts, and secondly, of his honesty in setting them forth.

Francis Kirkman was born in 1632. According to his own testimony, he had been an enthusiastic play-collector from boyhood, and had gathered many curious particulars of the lives of the old dramatists. If he had taken an early interest in this play, he might possibly have acquainted himself with its real authorship; but as the absence of all mention of it previous to its publication goes to indicate that it was not a popular production, he probably had no particular incentive to investigate the question closely, and, no doubt, by the time he had decided to print it the means for such investigation would have become as inadequate for him as for us now. Even if, as Warnke and Proescholdt guess, he followed an old copy in his possession, it is still uncertain that he did not alter the title-page. And even if the old title-page could be produced in evidence that he copied it unchanged, that would not prove that Shakespeare had a hand in the play; for both before and after the death of the master many plays were ascribed to him of whose composition he was wholly guiltless. All that can be said about Kirkman's knowledge of

1 Warnke and Proescholdt's edition.

2 See Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. XXXI.

93

94

the authorship of the play is that he might possibly have ascertained the facts, but that no special reason appears why he should have investigated the question before 1662.

But if it was not that he believed Shakespeare to be the author of the play, what possible motive, asks Tieck,' can be assigned to Kirkman for falsely ascribing it to the great dramatist, since Shakespeare's name could not at that time help the sale of the publication? In reply it may be said that, while the tide of Shakespeare's popularity reached low ebb during the Restoration period, it had by no means reached it by 1662, and a strong business motive is not far to seek." With the reopening of the theaters the traditions of Shakespeare's successes were revived, and though it soon became a fad with the smart set to cry him down as old-fashioned, his plays still drew crowds to the theaters. For example, while Pepys in his trifling way criticises Shakespeare severely, he yet records no less than thirty-six performances of twelve different plays of Shakespeare that he attended between October 11, 1660, and February 6, 1668. It must be remembered, furthermore, that at the reopening of the theaters the actors had no choice but to resort to the pieces that had been on the stage before the civil war, since no new playwrights had yet come forward to cater to the new tastes of the public. Three of the older dramatists still retained the prominence that they had enjoyed from the first-Shakespeare, Jonson, and Fletcher.‘ Under these conditions it was surely not difficult for a keen and not over-scrupulous bookseller to find a shrewd business reason for assigning one of his published plays to Shakespeare. The theaters had been closed for twenty years, a new generation had since grown up, and in those uncritical days the danger of the discovery of the fraud was not a great deterrent.

That Francis Kirkman was not over-scrupulous is a distinct impression derived from the accounts of him that have survived." At least one of his contemporaries disputes his assertion concern

1 Shakespeares Vorschule, Vol. II (Leipzig 1829).

2 See Lounsbury, Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist, pp. 257, 258.

3 Sidney Lee, A Life of William Shakespeare (New York, 1898), p. 329.

4 Lounsbury, Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist, p. 262.

5 Dictionary of National Biography.

ing a point of fact about which there could be no difference of mere opinion. Again, can we quite credit his declaration that he had seen acted every one of the 806 plays he catalogued in 1671? Symonds' characterizes him as "a most untrustworthy caterer and angler for the public." Ulrici' makes a similar remark and cites evidence of his unreliability. Upon the whole, the title. page ascription to Shakespeare must be regarded with suspicion, and as inconclusive respecting the real authorship of the play.

The opinions of the leading English and German critics who have discussed the play may be classified as follows:

1. Shakespeare wrote most of the play: Horne; see Knight, Pictorial Edition of Shakespeare, pp. 311ff.

2. Shakespeare had a large share in it along with Rowley: Delius, Pseudo-Shakespeare'sche Dramen, Preface; Tieck, Shakespeares Vorschule, Vol. II, Preface.

3. Shakespeare might have had a hand in a sketch that Rowley worked over later: Symonds, Shakespeare's Predecessors, p. 373.

4. Shakespeare had nothing to do with the play: Ulrici, Shakespeare's Dramatic Art, Vol. II, p. 401; Warnke and Proescholdt, PseudoShakesperian Plays; Ward, History of English Dramatic Literature, (1898), Vol. II, pp. 243ff; Knight, Pictorial Edition of Shakespeare; Fleay, Life and Works of Shakespeare, p. 289; Morley, English Writers, Vol. XI, p. 286; Daniel and Bullen also take this view.

5. Rowley wrote all of it: Ulrici, Ward, Bullen, Ellis (Mermaid Edition, Middleton).

6. The comic parts were written by Rowley, the serious parts by Middleton: Fleay, Daniel.

Since the second of the above propositions cannot be maintained, it is unnecessary to notice the first. There is no question that Ulrici has effectively disposed of the arguments advanced by Tieck and repeated by Delius in support of the opinion that Shakespeare had a considerable share in the play along with Rowley. Ward has produced further arguments against this position based upon considerations of character portrayal, while Warnke and Proescholdt have pointed out additional objections concerned with plot construction. All of these reasons

1 Shakespeare's Predecessors in the English Drama, p. 296.

2 Shakespeare's Dramatic Art, Vol. II, pp. 401, 366. See also Charles Knight, Shakespeare: Doubtful Plays, p. 311; Nathan Drake, Shakespeare and His Times (London 1817), Vol. II, p. 570; Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. XLIX, p. 363; remarks of Malone and Steevens.

taken together constitute convincing proof that Shakespeare had no share of any importance in The Birth of Merlin. It is enough to say of the third proposition that it is of too vague a character to admit of any argument. Critics are generally agreed that Rowley wrote the comic parts of the play; it is quite possible, also, that he is responsible for the use of the supernatural element in it. At all events Shakespeare never makes so crudely burlesque a use of that element. Subtracting, therefore, the whole Merlin action, we have left a fairly complete plot concerning the fortunes of Aurelius and his Saxon foes, to which is subjoined the episode of Modestia and Constantia. Now, this episode has absolutely nothing to do with the main action; the two daughters of Donobert are without the slightest excuse in the play. Now, while Shakespeare makes use of double plots and episodes, he never leaves the minor actions totally without organic connection with the main plot. It is certain that he did not design the plot that remains after cutting out Rowley's supposed parts. And if we should still further dissect the action by dropping out the episode of the two sisters, we should have left nothing that Rowley or anyone else could not just as well have derived from Geoffrey of Monmouth as from Shakespeare. There is not the slightest evidence that Rowley worked over a draft of the story by Shakespeare; no one would have ventured the suggestion, had it not been for the highly questionable title-page ascription. The absurd theory proposed by Tieck, that Shakespeare could assume at will the manner of any other dramatist, and that here he adopts Rowley's style, becomes still more ridiculous when it is asked how Shakespeare knew, when writing his "youthful sketch," that it was Rowley who was predestined to work it over.

On the whole, it appears quite probable that the fourth position is the true one, namely, that Shakespeare had no part in The Birth of Merlin. Practically the entire array of authoritative critical opinion supports it. Still, considerations of character and plot development are not quite sufficient in themselves to demonstrate the proposition. For the more convincing proof resort must be had to an examination of the language. Omitting the "clown" parts, which are universally conceded to be Rowley's, the

results of a study of the versification of the remainder of the drama may be compared with those tabulated by Dowden' of an examination of Shakespeare's versification at a period when, if at all, he must have joined Rowley in The Birth of Merlin.

This indicates conclusively that Shakespeare did not write the serious parts of the play late in his career, for the versification is not that of this period of the great dramatist's work; but it was only at this period that he could have joined Rowley in writing a play, considering the probable age of the latter, the date of his first appearance as a dramatist, and other significant circumstances. It is beyond question that Shakespeare did not co-operate with Rowley in writing The Birth of Merlin.

As to the point raised by Tieck that the play contains a number of Shakespearean touches, it may be noticed that these did not appear to be so striking as to be worth pointing out. Fleay,' however, notes two such passages, and a third may be added, viz., Birth of Merlin, IV, i, 194 (and cf. King Lear, III, iv, 69). But a few real or fancied echoes of the Shakespearean manner furnish no proof that Shakespeare participated in the authorship of the play. Admitting such evidence, one might argue that the master had a hand in many of the dramas written by his contemporaries and successors, who were impressed with his striking phrases, for many of them consciously or unconsciously echo his manner. A number of such echoes, for example, may be found in Middleton, and, more pointedly for a later consideration, in The Mayor of Queenborough.

There remain for discussion the last two propositions; the fifth, being involved in the sixth, may be neglected.

1 Shakespeare Primer, pp. 40-44.

The

2 Life and Works of Shakespeare p. 289. See Symonds, Shakespeare's Predecessors,

p. 373.