diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/67462-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67462-0.txt | 29040 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 29040 deletions
diff --git a/old/67462-0.txt b/old/67462-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index d70d903..0000000 --- a/old/67462-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,29040 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Elizabethan Stage (Vol 3 of 4), by -E. K. Chambers - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The Elizabethan Stage (Vol 3 of 4) - -Author: E. K. Chambers - -Release Date: February 21, 2022 [eBook #67462] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Tim Lindell, Karin Spence and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE (VOL 3 -OF 4) *** - - - - - - THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE - - VOL. III - - - - - Oxford University Press - - _London_ _Edinburgh_ _Glasgow_ _Copenhagen_ - _New York_ _Toronto_ _Melbourne_ _Cape Town_ - _Bombay_ _Calcutta_ _Madras_ _Shanghai_ - - Humphrey Milford Publisher to the UNIVERSITY - - [Illustration: FROM THE VENICE TERENCE OF 1499] - - - - - THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE - BY E. K. CHAMBERS. VOL. III - - OXFORD: AT THE CLARENDON PRESS - M.CMXXIII - - - - - Printed in England - - - - - CONTENTS - - VOLUME III - - - PAGE - XIX. STAGING AT COURT 1 - - XX. STAGING IN THE THEATRES: SIXTEENTH CENTURY 47 - - XXI. STAGING IN THE THEATRES: SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 103 - - - BOOK V. PLAYS AND PLAYWRIGHTS - - XXII. THE PRINTING OF PLAYS 157 - - XXIII. PLAYWRIGHTS 201 - - - - - LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS - - - Coliseus sive Theatrum. From edition of Terence - published by Lazarus Soardus (Venice, 1497 - and 1499) _Frontispiece_ - - Diagrams of Stages pp. 84, 85 - - - - - NOTE ON SYMBOLS - - -I have found it convenient, especially in Appendix A, to use the symbol -< following a date, to indicate an uncertain date not earlier than that -named, and the symbol > followed by a date, to indicate an uncertain -date not later than that named. Thus 1903 <> 23 would indicate the -composition date of any part of this book. I have sometimes placed the -date of a play in italics, where it was desirable to indicate the date -of production rather than publication. - - - - - XIX - - STAGING AT COURT - - - [_Bibliographical Note._--Of the dissertations named in the - _note_ to ch. xviii, T. S. Graves, _The Court and the London - Theatres_ (1913), is perhaps the most valuable for the subject - of the present chapter, which was mainly written before it - reached me. A general account of the Italian drama of the - Renaissance is in W. Creizenach, _Geschichte des neueren - Dramas_, vol. ii (1901). Full details for Ferrara and Mantua - are given by A. D’Ancona, _Origini del Teatro Italiano_ - (1891), of which App. II is a special study of _Il Teatro - Mantovano nel secolo xvi_. F. Neri, _La Tragedia italiana del - Cinquecento_ (1904), E. Gardner, _Dukes and Poets at Ferrara_ - (1904), and _The King of Court Poets_ (1906), W. Smith, _The - Commedia dell’ Arte_ (1912), are also useful. Special works - on staging are E. Flechsig, _Die Dekorationen der modernen - Bühne in Italien_ (1894), and G. Ferrari, _La Scenografia_ - (1902). The Terence engravings are described by M. Herrmann, - _Forschungen zur deutschen Theatergeschichte des Mittelalters - und der Renaissance_ (1914). Of contemporary Italian treatises, - the unprinted _Spectacula_ of Pellegrino Prisciano is in - _Cod. Est. lat._ d. x. 1, 6 (cf. G. Bertoni, _La Biblioteca - Estense_, 13), and of L. de Sommi’s _Dialoghi in materia di - rappresentazione scenica_ (c. 1565) a part only is in L. - Rasi, _I Comici italiani_ (1897), i. 107. The first complete - edition of S. Serlio, _Architettura_ (1551), contains Bk. ii, - on _Perspettiva_; the English translation was published by - R. Peake (1611); extracts are in App. G; a biography is L. - Charvet, _Sébastien Serlio_ (1869). Later are L. Sirigatti, _La - pratica di prospettiva_ (1596), A. Ingegneri, _Della poesia - rappresentativa e del modo di rappresentare le favole sceniche_ - (1598), and N. Sabbatini, _Pratica di fabricar scene e macchine - ne’ Teatri_ (1638). - - For France, E. Rigal, _Le Théâtre de la Renaissance_ and _Le - Théâtre au xvii^e siècle avant Corneille_, both in L. Petit - de Julleville, _Hist. de la Langue et de la Litt. Françaises_ - (1897), iii. 261, iv. 186, and the same writer’s _Le Théâtre - Français avant la Période Classique_ (1901), may be supplemented - by a series of studies in _Revue d’Histoire Littéraire de la - France_--P. Toldo, _La Comédie Française de la Renaissance_ - (1897–1900, iv. 336; v. 220, 554; vi. 571; vii. 263), G. Lanson, - _Études sur les Origines de la Tragédie Classique en France_ - (1903, x. 177, 413) and _L’Idée de la Tragédie en France avant - Jodelle_ (1904, xi. 541), E. Rigal, _La Mise en Scène dans les - Tragédies du xvi^e siècle_ (1905, xii. 1, 203), J. Haraszti, - _La Comédie Française de la Renaissance et la Scène_ (1909, - xvi. 285); also G. Lanson, _Note sur un Passage de Vitruve_, - in _Revue de la Renaissance_ (1904), 72. Less important is E. - Lintilhac, _Hist. Générale du Théâtre en France_ (1904–9, in - progress). G. Bapst, _Essai sur l’Histoire du Théâtre_ (1893), - and D. C. Stuart, _Stage Decoration and the Unity of Place in - France in the Seventeenth Century_ (1913, _M. P._ x. 393), deal - with staging, for which the chief material is E. Dacier, _La - Mise en Scène à Paris au xvii^e siècle: Mémoire de L. Mahelot - et M. Laurent_ in _Mémoires de la Soc. de l’Hist. de Paris et - de l’Ile-de-France_, xxviii (1901), 105. An edition by H. C. - Lancaster (1920) adds Mahelot’s designs.] - -We come now to the problems, reserved from treatment in the foregoing -chapter, of scenic background. What sort of setting did the types -of theatre described afford for the plots, often complicated, and -the range of incident, so extraordinarily wide, which we find in -Elizabethan drama? No subject in literary history has been more often -or more minutely discussed, during the quarter of a century since the -Swan drawing was discovered, and much valuable spadework has been done, -not merely in the collecting and marshalling of external evidence, -but also in the interpretation of this in the light of an analysis of -the action of plays and of the stage-directions by which these are -accompanied.[1] Some points have emerged clearly enough; and if on -others there is still room for controversy, this may be partly due to -the fact that external and internal evidence, when put together, have -proved inadequate, and partly also to certain defects of method into -which some of the researchers have fallen. To start from the assumption -of a ‘typical Shakespearian stage’ is not perhaps the best way of -approaching an investigation which covers the practices of thirty or -forty playing companies, in a score of theatres, over a period of not -much less than a century. It is true that, in view of the constant -shifting of companies and their plays from one theatre to another, some -‘standardization of effects’, in Mr. Archer’s phrase, may at any one -date be taken for granted.[2] But analogous effects can be produced -by very different arrangements, and even apart from the obvious -probability that the structural divergences between public and private -theatres led to corresponding divergences in the systems of setting -adopted, it is hardly safe to neglect the possibility of a considerable -evolution in the capacities of stage-management between 1558 and 1642, -or even between 1576 and 1616. At any rate a historical treatment -will be well advised to follow the historical method. The scope of -the inquiry, moreover, must be wide enough to cover performances at -Court, as well as those on the regular stage, since the plays used for -both purposes were undoubtedly the same. Nor can Elizabethan Court -performances, in their turn, be properly considered, except in the -perspective afforded by a short preliminary survey of the earlier -developments of the art of scenic representation at other Renaissance -Courts. - -The story begins with the study of Vitruvius in the latter part of -the fifteenth century by the architect Alberti and others, which led -scholars to realize that the tragedies of the pseudo-Seneca and the -comedies of Terence and the recently discovered Plautus had been -not merely recited, but acted much in the fashion already familiar -in contemporary _ludi_ of the miracle-play type.[3] The next step -was, naturally, to act them, in the original or in translations. -Alberti planned a _theatrum_ in the Vatican for Nicholas V, but the -three immediate successors of Nicholas were not humanists, and it -is not until the papacy of Innocent VIII that we hear of classical -performances at Rome by the pupils of Pomponius Laetus. One of these -was Tommaso Inghirami, who became a cardinal, without escaping the -nickname of Phaedra from the part he had played in _Hippolytus_. This, -as well as at least one comedy, had already been given before the -publication (_c._ 1484–92) of an edition of Vitruvius by Sulpicius -Verulanus, with an epistle addressed by the editor to Cardinal -Raffaelle Riario, as a notable patron of the revived art. Sulpicius is -allusive rather than descriptive, but we hear of a fair adorned stage, -5 ft. high, for the tragedy in the forum, of a second performance in -the Castle of St. Angelo, and a third in Riario’s house, where the -audience sat under _umbracula_, and of the ‘picturatae scenae facies’, -which the cardinal provided for a comedy by the Pomponiani.[4] -Performances continued after the death of Pomponius in 1597, but we -get no more scenic details, and when the _Menaechmi_ was given at the -wedding of Alfonso d’Este and Lucrezia Borgia in 1502 it is noted that -‘non gli era scena alcuna, perchè la camera non era capace’.[5] It -is not until 1513 that we get anything like a description of a Roman -neo-classical stage, at the conferment of Roman citizenship on Giuliano -and Lorenzo de’ Medici, the Florentine kinsmen of Leo X.[6] This had a -decorated back wall divided by pilasters into five spaces, in each of -which was a door covered by a curtain of golden stuff. There were also -two side-doors, for entrance and exit, marked ‘via ad forum’. - -An even more important centre of humanistic drama than Rome was -Ferrara, where the poets and artists, who gathered round Duke Ercole -I of Este, established a tradition which spread to the allied courts -of the Gonzagas at Mantua and the Delle Rovere at Urbino. The first -neo-classical revival on record at Ferrara was of the _Menaechmi_ -in 1486, from which we learn that Epidamnus was represented by five -marvellous ‘case’ each with its door and window, and that a practicable -boat moved across the _cortile_ where the performance was given.[7] - -In 1487 it was the turn of the _Amphitrio_ ‘in dicto cortile a tempo -di notte, con uno paradiso cum stelle et altre rode’.[8] Both the -_Amphitrio_ and the _Menaechmi_ were revived in 1491; the former had -its ‘paradiso’, while for the latter ‘nella sala era al prospecto -de quattro castelli, dove avevano a uscire quilli dovevano fare la -representatione’.[9] Many other productions followed, of some of -which no details are preserved. For the _Eunuchus_, _Trinummus_, -and _Penulus_ in 1499 there was a stage, 4 ft. high, with decorated -columns, hangings of red, white, and green cloth, and ‘cinque casamenti -merlati’ painted by Fino and Bernardino Marsigli.[10] In 1502, when -Lucrezia Borgia came, the stage for the _Epidicus_, _Bacchides_, _Miles -Gloriosus_, _Casina_, and _Asinaria_ was of the height of a man, and -resembled a city wall, ‘sopra gli sono le case de le comedie, che sono -sei, non avantagiate del consueto’.[11] The most elaborate description -on record is, however, one of a theatre set up at Mantua during the -carnival of 1501, for some play of which the name has not reached us. -Unfortunately it is not very clearly worded, but the stage appears to -have been rather wider than its depth, arcaded round, and hung at the -back with gold and greenery. Its base had the priceless decoration of -Mantegna’s _Triumphs_, and above was a heaven with a representation of -the zodiac. Only one ‘casa’ is noted, a ‘grocta’ within four columns at -a corner of the stage.[12] - -The scanty data available seem to point to the existence of two -rather different types of staging, making their appearance at Ferrara -and at Rome respectively. The scene of the Ferrarese comedies, with -its ‘case’ as the principal feature, is hardly distinguishable from -that of the mediaeval _sacre rappresentazioni_, with its ‘luoghi -deputati’ for the leading personages, which in their turn correspond -to the ‘loci’, ‘domus’, or ‘sedes’ of the western miracle-plays.[13] -The methods of the _rappresentazioni_ had long been adopted for -pieces in the mediaeval manner, but upon secular themes, such as -Poliziano’s _Favola d’Orfeo_, which continued, side by side with -the classical comedies, to form part of the entertainment of Duke -Ercole’s Court.[14] The persistence of the mediaeval tradition is very -clearly seen in the interspersing of the acts of the comedies, just -as the _rappresentazioni_ had been interspersed, with ‘moresche’ and -other ‘intermedii’ of spectacle and dance, to which the ‘dumb-shows’ -of the English drama owe their ultimate origin.[15] At Rome, on the -other hand, it looks as if, at any rate by 1513, the ‘case’ had been -conventionalized, perhaps under the influence of some archaeological -theory as to classical methods, into nothing more than curtained -compartments forming part of the architectural embellishments of the -_scena_ wall. It is a tempting conjecture that some reflex, both of the -Ferrarese and of the Roman experiments, may be traced in the woodcut -illustrations of a number of printed editions of Terence, which are all -derived from archetypes published in the last decade of the fifteenth -century. The synchronism between the revival of classical acting and -the emergence of scenic features in such illustrations is certainly -marked. The Terentian miniatures of the earlier part of the century -show no Vitruvian knowledge. If they figure a performance, it is a -recitation by the wraith Calliopius and his gesticulating mimes.[16] -Nor is there any obvious scenic influence in the printed Ulm _Eunuchus_ -of 1486, with its distinct background for each separate woodcut.[17] -The new spirit comes in with the Lyons _Terence_ of 1493, wherein may -be seen the hand of the humanist Jodocus Badius Ascensius, who had -certainly visited Ferrara, and may well also have been in touch with -the Pomponiani.[18] The Lyons woodcuts, of which there are several to -each play, undoubtedly represent stage performances, real or imaginary. -The stage itself is an unrailed quadrangular platform, of which the -supports are sometimes visible. The back wall is decorated with -statuettes and swags of Renaissance ornament, and in front of it is a -range of three, four, or five small compartments, separated by columns -and veiled by fringed curtains. They have rather the effect of a row of -bathing boxes. Over each is inscribed the name of a character, whose -‘house’ it is supposed to be. Thus for the _Andria_ the inscriptions -are ‘Carini’, ‘Chreme[tis]’, ‘Chrisidis’, ‘Do[mus] Symonis’. On the -scaffold, before the houses, action is proceeding between characters -each labelled with his name. Sometimes a curtain is drawn back and a -character is emerging, or the interior of a house is revealed, with -some one sitting or in bed, and a window behind. It is noteworthy -that, while the decoration of the back wall and the arrangement of the -houses remain uniform through all the woodcuts belonging to any one -play, they vary from play to play. Sometimes the line of houses follows -that of the wall; sometimes it advances and retires, and may leave -a part of the wall uncovered, suggesting an entrance from without. -In addition to the special woodcuts for each play, there is a large -introductory design of a ‘Theatrum’. It is a round building, with -an exterior staircase, to which spectators are proceeding, and are -accosted on their way by women issuing from the ‘Fornices’, over which -the theatre is built. Through the removal of part of the walls, the -interior is also made visible. It has two galleries and standing-room -below. A box next the stage in the upper gallery is marked ‘Aediles’. -The stage is cut off by curtains, which are divided by two narrow -columns. In front of the curtains sits a flute-player. Above is -inscribed ‘Proscenium’. Some of the Lyons cuts are adopted, with others -from the Ulm _Eunuchus_, in the Strasburg _Terence_ of 1496.[19] This, -however, has a different ‘Theatrum’, which shows the exterior only, and -also a new comprehensive design for each play, in which no scaffold -or back wall appears, and the houses are drawn on either side of an -open place, with the characters standing before them. They are more -realistic than the Lyons ‘bathing boxes’ and have doors and windows -and roofs, but they are drawn, like the Ulm houses, on a smaller scale -than the characters. If they have a scenic origin, it may be rather -in the ‘case’ of Ferrara than in the conventional ‘domus’ of Rome. -Finally, the Venice _Terence_ of 1497, while again reproducing with -modifications the smaller Lyons cuts, replaces the ‘Theatrum’ by a new -‘Coliseus sive Theatrum’, in which the point of view is taken from the -proscenium.[20] No raised stage is visible, but an actor or prologue is -speaking from a semicircular orchestra on the floor-level. To right and -left of him are two houses, of the ‘bathing-box’ type, but roofed, from -which characters emerge. He faces an auditorium with two rows of seats -and a gallery above. - -We are moving in shadowy regions of conjecture, and if all the material -were forthcoming, the interrelations of Rome and Ferrara and the -Terentian editors might prove to have been somewhat different from -those here sketched. After all, we have not found anything which -quite explains the ‘picturatae scenae facies’ for which Cardinal -Raffaelle Riario won such praise, and perhaps Ferrara is not really -entitled to credit for the innovation, which is generally supposed -to have accompanied the production of the first of Ariosto’s great -Italian comedies on classical lines, the _Cassaria_ of 1508. This -is the utilization for stage scenery of the beloved Italian art of -architectural perspective. It has been suggested, on no very secure -grounds, that the first to experiment in this direction may have been -the architect Bramante Lazzari.[21] But the scene of the _Cassaria_ -is the earliest which is described by contemporary observers as a -_prospettiva_, and it evidently left a vivid impression upon the -imagination of the spectators.[22] The artist was Pellegrino da -Udine, and the city represented was Mytilene, where the action of the -_Cassaria_ was laid. The same, or another, example of perspective may -have served as a background in the following year for Ariosto’s second -comedy, _I Suppositi_, of which the scene was Ferrara itself.[23] -But other artists, in other cities, followed in the footsteps of -Pellegrino. The designer for the first performance of Bernardo -da Bibbiena’s _Calandra_ at Urbino in 1513 was probably Girolamo -Genga;[24] and for the second, at Rome in 1514, Baldassarre Peruzzi, to -whom Vasari perhaps gives exaggerated credit for scenes which ‘apersono -la via a coloro che ne hanno poi fatte a’ tempi nostri’.[25] Five -years later, _I Suppositi_ was also revived at Rome, in the Sala d’ -Innocenzio of the Vatican, and on this occasion no less an artist was -employed than Raphael himself.[26] As well as the scene, there was an -elaborately painted front curtain, which fell at the beginning of the -performance. For this device, something analogous to which had almost -certainly already been used at Ferrara, there was a precedent in the -classical _aulaeum_. Its object was apparently to give the audience -a sudden vision of the scene, and it was not raised again during the -action of the play, and had therefore no strictly scenic function.[27] - -The sixteenth-century _prospettiva_, of which there were many later -examples, is the type of scenery so fully described and illustrated -by the architect Sebastiano Serlio in the Second Book of his -_Architettura_ (1551). Serlio had himself been the designer of a -theatre at Vicenza, and had also been familiar at Rome with Baldassarre -Peruzzi, whose notes had passed into his possession. He was therefore -well in the movement.[28] At the time of the publication of the -_Architettura_ he was resident in France, where he was employed, -like other Italians, by Francis I upon the palace of Fontainebleau. -Extracts from Serlio’s treatise will be found in an appendix and I need -therefore only briefly summarize here the system of staging which it -sets out.[29] This is a combination of the more or less solid ‘case’ -with flat cloths painted in perspective. The proscenium is long and -comparatively shallow, with an entrance at each end, and flat. But from -the line of the _scena_ wall the level of the stage slopes slightly -upwards and backwards, and on this slope stand to right and left the -‘case’ of boards or laths covered with canvas, while in the centre is -a large aperture, disclosing a space across which the flat cloths are -drawn, a large one at the back and smaller ones on frames projecting -by increasing degrees from behind the ‘case’. Out of these elements -is constructed, by the art of perspective, a consistent scene with -architectural perspectives facing the audience, and broken in the -centre by a symmetrical vista. For the sake of variety, the action can -use practicable doors and windows in the façades, and to some extent -also within the central aperture, on the lower part of the slope. It -was possible to arrange for interior action by discovering a space -within the ‘case’ behind the façades, but this does not seem to have -been regarded as a very effective device.[30] Nor is there anything -to suggest that Serlio contemplated any substantial amount of action -within his central recess, for which, indeed, the slope required by -his principles of perspective made it hardly suitable. As a matter of -fact the action of the Italian _commedia sostenuta_, following here -the tradition of its Latin models, is essentially exterior action -before contiguous houses, and some amusing conventions, as Creizenach -notes, follow from this fact; such as that it is reasonable to come -out-of-doors in order to communicate secrets, that the street is a good -place in which to bury treasure, and that you do not know who lives in -the next house until you are told.[31] In discussing the decoration -of the stage, Serlio is careful to distinguish between the kinds of -scenery appropriate for tragedy, comedy, and the satyric play or -pastoral, respectively, herein clearly indicating his debt and that of -his school to the doctrine of Vitruvius. - -It must not be supposed that Serlio said the last word on Italian -Renaissance staging. He has mainly temporary theatres in his mind, and -when theatres became permanent it was possible to replace laths and -painted cloths by a more solid architectural _scena_ in relief. Of -this type was the famous _Teatro Olympico_ of Vicenza begun by Andrea -Palladio about 1565 and finished by Vincenzo Scamozzi about 1584.[32] -It closely followed the indications of Vitruvius, with its _porta -regia_ in the middle of the _scena_, its _portae minores_ to right -and left, and its proscenium doors in _versurae_ under balconies for -spectators. And it did not leave room for much variety in decoration, -as between play and play.[33] It appears, indeed, to have been used -only for tragedy. A more important tendency was really just in the -opposite direction, towards change rather than uniformity of scenic -effect. Even the perspectives, however beautiful, of the comedies -did not prove quite as amusing, as the opening heavens and hells and -other ingeniously varied backgrounds of the mediaeval plays had been, -and by the end of the sixteenth century devices were being tried for -movable scenes, which ultimately led to the complete elimination of the -comparatively solid and not very manageable ‘case’.[34] - -It is difficult to say how far the Italian perspective scene made its -way westwards. Mediaeval drama--on the one hand the miracle-play, on -the other the morality and the farce--still retained an unbounded -vitality in sixteenth-century France. The miracle-play had its own -elaborate and traditional system of staging. The morality and the -farce required very little staging at all, and could be content at -need with nothing more than a bare platform, backed by a semicircle -or hollow square of suspended curtains, through the interstices of -which the actors might come and go.[35] But from the beginning of -the century there is observable in educated circles an infiltration -of the humanist interest in the classical drama; and this, in course -of time, was reinforced through two distinct channels. One of these -was the educational influence, coming indirectly through Germany and -the Netherlands, of the ‘Christian Terence’, which led about 1540 to -the academic Latin tragedies of Buchanan and Muretus at Bordeaux.[36] -The other was the direct contact with humanist civilization, which -followed upon the Italian adventures of Charles VIII and Louis XII, -and dominated the reigns of François I and his house, notably after -the marriage of Catherine de’ Medici to the future Henri II in 1533. -In 1541 came Sebastiano Serlio with his comprehensive knowledge of -stage-craft; and the translation of his _Architettura_, shortly after -its publication in 1545, by Jean Martin, a friend of Ronsard, may be -taken as evidence of its vogue. In 1548 the French Court may be said to -have been in immediate touch with the _nidus_ of Italian scenic art -at Ferrara, for when Henri and Catherine visited Lyons it was Cardinal -Hippolyte d’Este who provided entertainment for them with a magnificent -performance of Bibbiena’s famous _Calandra_. This was ‘nella gran sala -di San Gianni’ and was certainly staged in the full Italian manner, -with perspective by Andrea Nannoccio and a range of terra-cotta statues -by one Zanobi.[37] Henceforward it is possible to trace the existence -of a Court drama in France. The Italian influence persisted. It is not, -indeed, until 1571 that we find regular companies of Italian actors -settling in Paris, and these, when they came, probably played, mainly -if not entirely, _commedie dell’ arte_.[38] But Court performances in -1555 and 1556 of the _Lucidi_ of Firenzuola and the _Flora_ of Luigi -Alamanni show that the _commedia sostenuta_ was already established -in favour at a much earlier date.[39] More important, however, is the -outcrop of vernacular tragedy and comedy, on classical and Italian -models, which was one of the literary activities of the Pléiade. -The pioneer in both _genres_ was Étienne Jodelle, whose tragedy of -_Cléopâtre Captive_ was produced before Henri II by the author and his -friends at the Hôtel de Reims early in 1553, and subsequently repeated -at the Collège de Boncour, where it was accompanied by his comedy of -_La Rencontre_, probably identical with the extant _Eugène_, which is -believed to date from 1552. Jodelle had several successors: in tragedy, -Mellin de Saint-Gelais, Jacques and Jean de la Taille, Jacques Grévin, -Robert Garnier, Antoine de Montchrestien; and in comedy, Rémy Belleau, -Jean de Baïf, Jean de la Taille, Jacques Grévin, and Pierre Larivey. -So far as tragedy was concerned, the Court representations soon came -to an end. Catherine de’ Medici, always superstitious, believed that -the _Sophonisbe_ of Mellin de Saint-Gelais in 1556 had brought ill -luck, and would have no more.[40] The academies may have continued to -find hospitality for a few, but the best critical opinion appears to -be that most of the tragedies of Garnier and his fellows were for the -printing-press only, and that their scenic indications, divorced from -the actualities of representation, can hardly be regarded as evidence -on any system of staging.[41] Probably this is also true of many of the -literary comedies, although Court performances of comedies, apart from -those of the professional players, continue to be traceable throughout -the century. Unfortunately archaeological research has not succeeded in -exhuming from the archives of the French royal households anything that -throws much light on the details of staging, and very possibly little -material of this kind exists. _Cléopâtre_ is said to have been produced -‘in Henrici II aula ... magnifico veteris scenae apparatu’.[42] The -prologue of _Eugène_, again, apologizes for the meagreness of an -academic setting: - - Quand au théâtre, encore qu’il ne soit - En demi-rond, comme on le compassoit, - Et qu’on ne l’ait ordonné de la sorte - Que l’on faisoit, il faut qu’on le supporte: - Veu que l’exquis de ce vieil ornement - Ores se voue aux Princes seulement. - -Hangings round the stage probably sufficed for the colleges, and -possibly even on some occasions for royal _châteaux_.[43] But Jodelle -evidently envisaged something more splendid as possible at Court, -and a notice, on the occasion of some comedies given before Charles -IX at Bayonne in 1565, of ‘la bravade et magnificence de la dite -scène ou théâtre, et des feux ou verres de couleur, desquelles elle -etait allumée et enrichie’ at once recalls a device dear to Serlio, -and suggests a probability that the whole method of staging, which -Serlio expounds, may at least have been tried.[44] Of an actual -theatre ‘en demi-rond’ at any French palace we have no clear proof. -Philibert de l’Orme built a _salle de spectacle_ for Catherine in the -Tuileries, on a site afterwards occupied by the grand staircase, but -its shape and dimensions are not on record.[45] There was another in -the pleasure-house, which he planned for Henri II in the grounds of -Saint-Germain, and which was completed by Guillaume Marchand under -Henri IV. This seems, from the extant plan, to have been designed as -a parallelogram.[46] The hall of the Hôtel de Bourbon, hard by the -Louvre, in which plays were sometimes given, is shown by the engravings -of the _Balet Comique_, which was danced there in 1581, to have been, -in the main, of similar shape. But it had an apse ‘en demi-rond’ at -one end.[47] It may be that the Terence illustrations come again to -our help, and that the new engravings which appear, side by side with -others of the older tradition, in the _Terence_ published by Jean de -Roigny in 1552 give some notion of the kind of stage which Jodelle and -his friends used.[48] The view is from the auditorium. The stage is -a platform, about 3½ ft. high, with three shallow steps at the back, -on which actors are sitting, while a prologue declaims. There are no -hangings or scenes. Pillars divide the back of the stage from a gallery -which runs behind and in which stand spectators. Obviously this is not -on Italian lines, but it might preserve the memory of some type of -academic stage. - -If we know little of the scenic methods of the French Court, we know -a good deal of those employed in the only public theatre of which, -during the sixteenth century and the first quarter of the seventeenth, -Paris could boast. This was the Hôtel de Bourgogne, a rectangular hall -built by the Confrérie de la Passion in 1548, used by that body for the -representation of miracle-plays and farces up to 1598, let between 1598 -and 1608 to a succession of visiting companies, native and foreign, and -definitively occupied from the latter year by the Comédiens du Roi, to -whom Alexandre Hardy was dramatist in chief.[49] The _Mémoire pour la -décoration des pièces qui se représentent par les comediens du roy, -entretenus de sa Magesté_ is one of the most valuable documents of -theatrical history which the hazard of time has preserved in any land. -It, or rather the earlier of the two sections into which it is divided, -is the work of Laurent Mahelot, probably a machinist at the Hôtel de -Bourgogne, and contains notes, in some cases apparently emanating from -the authors, of the scenery required for seventy-one plays belonging -to the repertory of the theatre, to which are appended, in forty-seven -cases, drawings showing the way in which the requirements were to be -met.[50] It is true that the _Mémoire_ is of no earlier date than about -1633, but the close resemblance of the system which it illustrates to -that used in the miracle-plays of the Confrèrie de la Passion justifies -the inference that there had been no marked breach of continuity since -1598. In essence it is the mediaeval system of juxtaposed ‘maisons’, -corresponding to the ‘case’ of the Italian and the ‘houses’ of the -English tradition, a series of independent structures, visually related -to each other upon the stage, but dramatically distinct and serving, -each in its turn, as the background to action upon the whole of the -free space--_platea_ in mediaeval terminology, _proscenium_ in that of -the Renaissance--which stretched before and between them. The stage -of the Hôtel de Bourgogne had room for five such ‘maisons’, one in -the middle of the back wall, two in the angles between the back and -side-walls, and two standing forward against the side-walls; but in -practice two or three of these compartments were often devoted to a -‘maison’ of large size. A ‘maison’ might be a unit of architecture, -such as a palace, a senate house, a castle, a prison, a temple, a -tavern; or of landscape, such as a garden, a wood, a rock, a cave, a -sea.[51] And very often it represented an interior, such as a chamber -with a bed in it.[52] A good illustration of the arrangement may be -found in the _scenario_ for the familiar story of Pyramus and Thisbe, -as dramatized about 1617 by Théophile de Viaud.[53] - - ‘Il faut, au milieu du théâtre, un mur de marbre et pierre - fermé; des ballustres; il faut aussi de chasque costé deux ou - trois marches pour monster. A un des costez du théâtre, un - murier, un tombeau entouré de piramides. Des fleurs, une éponge, - du sang, un poignard, un voile, un antre d’où sort un lion, - du costé de la fontaine, et un autre antre à l’autre bout du - théâtre où il rentre.’ - -The _Pandoste_ of Alexandre Hardy required different settings for the -two parts, which were given on different days.[54] On the first day, - - ‘Au milieu du théâtre, il faut un beau palais; à un des costez, - une grande prison où l’on paroist tout entier. A l’autre costé, - un temple; au dessous, une pointe de vaisseau, une mer basse, - des rozeaux et marches de degrez.’ - -The needs of the second day were more simply met by ‘deux palais et une -maison de paysan et un bois’. - -Many examples make it clear that the methods of the Hôtel de Bourgogne -did not entirely exclude the use of perspective, which was applied -on the back wall, ‘au milieu du théâtre’; and as the Italian stage, -on its side, was slow to abandon altogether the use of ‘case’ in -relief, it is possible that under favourable circumstances Mahelot -and his colleagues may have succeeded in producing the illusion of -a consistently built up background much upon the lines contemplated -by Serlio.[55] There were some plays whose plot called for nothing -more than a single continuous scene in a street, perhaps a known and -nameable street, or a forest.[56] Nor was the illusion necessarily -broken by such incidents as the withdrawal of a curtain from before an -interior at the point when it came into action, or the introduction of -the movable ship which the Middle Ages had already known.[57] It was -broken, however, when the ‘belle chambre’ was so large and practicable -as to be out of scale with the other ‘maisons’.[58] And it was broken -when, as in _Pandoste_ and many other plays, the apparently contiguous -‘maisons’ had to be supposed, for dramatic purposes, to be situated in -widely separated localities. It is, indeed, as we shall find to our -cost, not the continuous scene, but the need for change of scene, which -constitutes the problem of staging. It is a problem which the Italians -had no occasion to face; they had inherited, almost unconsciously, the -classical tradition of continuous action in an unchanged locality, -or in a locality no more changed than is entailed by the successive -bringing into use of various apertures in a single façade. But the -Middle Ages had had no such tradition, and the problem at once declared -itself, as soon as the matter of the Middle Ages and the manner of -the Renaissance began to come together in the ‘Christian Terence’. -The protest of Cornelius Crocus in the preface to his _Joseph_ (1535) -against ‘multiple’ staging, as alike intrinsically absurd and alien -to the practice of the ancients, anticipates by many years that law -of the unity of place, the formulation of which is generally assigned -to Lodovico Castelvetro, and which was handed down by the Italians -to the Pléiade and to the ‘classical’ criticism of the seventeenth -century.[59] We are not here concerned with the unity of place as a -law of dramatic structure, but we are very much concerned with the -fact that the romantic drama of western Europe did not observe unity -of place in actual practice, and that consequently the stage-managers -of Shakespeare in England, as well as those of Hardy in France, had to -face the problem of a system of staging, which should be able rapidly -and intelligibly to represent shifting localities. The French solution, -as we have seen, was the so-called ‘multiple’ system, inherited from -the Middle Ages, of juxtaposed and logically incongruous backgrounds. - -Geography would be misleading if it suggested that, in the westward -drift of the Renaissance, England was primarily dependent upon the -mediation of France. During the early Tudor reigns direct relations -with Italy were firmly established, and the classical scholars of -Oxford and Cambridge drew their inspiration at first hand from the -authentic well-heads of Rome and Florence. In matters dramatic, in -particular, the insular had little or nothing to learn from the -continental kingdom. There were French players, indeed, at the Court -of Henry VII in 1494 and 1495, who obviously at that date can only -have had farces and morals to contribute.[60] And thereafter the -lines of stimulus may just as well have run the other way. If the -academic tragedy and comedy of the Pléiade had its reaction upon the -closet dramas of Lady Pembroke, Kyd, Daniel, Lord Brooke, yet London -possessed its public theatres long before the Parisian makeshift of -the Hôtel de Bourgogne, and English, no less than Italian, companies -haunted the Court of Henri IV, while it is not until Caroline days that -the French visit of 1495 can be shown to have had its successor. The -earliest record of a classical performance in England was at Greenwich -on 7 March 1519, when ‘there was a goodly commedy of Plautus plaied’, -followed by a mask, in the great chamber, which the King had caused -‘to be staged and great lightes to be set on pillers that were gilt, -with basons gilt, and the rofe was covered with blewe satyn set full -of presses of fyne gold and flowers’.[61] The staging here spoken of, -in association with lights, was probably for spectators rather than -for actors, for in May 1527, when a dialogue, barriers, and mask were -to be given in a banqueting-house at Greenwich, we are told that ‘thys -chambre was raised with stages v. degrees on every syde, and rayled -and counterailed, borne by pillars of azure, full of starres and -flower delice of gold; every pillar had at the toppe a basin silver, -wherein stode great braunches of white waxe’.[62] In this same year -1527, Wolsey had a performance of the _Menaechmi_ at his palace of York -Place, and it was followed in 1528 by one of the _Phormio_, of which -a notice is preserved in a letter of Gasparo Spinelli, the secretary -to the Italian embassy in London.[63] Unfortunately, Spinelli’s -description proves rather elusive. I am not quite clear whether he is -describing the exterior or the interior of a building, and whether his -_zoglia_ is, as one would like to think, the framework of a proscenium -arch, or merely that of a doorway.[64] One point, however, is certain. -Somewhere or other, the decorations displayed in golden letters the -title of the play which was about to be given. Perhaps this explains -why, more than a quarter of a century later, when the Westminster boys -played the _Miles Gloriosus_ before Elizabeth in January 1565, one -of the items of expenditure was for ‘paper, inke and colores for the -wryting of greate letters’.[65] - -Investigation of Court records reveals nothing more precise than -this as to the staging of plays, whether classical or mediaeval in -type, under Henry VIII. It is noticeable, however, that a play often -formed but one episode in a composite entertainment, other parts of -which required the elaborate pageantry which was Henry’s contribution -to the development of the mask; and it may be conjectured that in -these cases the structure of the pageant served also as a sufficient -background for the play. Thus in 1527 a Latin tragedy celebrating the -deliverance of the Pope and of France by Wolsey was given in the ‘great -chamber of disguysings’, at the end of which stood a fountain with a -mulberry and a hawthorn tree, about which sat eight fair ladies in -strange attire upon ‘benches of rosemary fretted in braydes layd on -gold, all the sydes sette wyth roses in braunches as they wer growyng -about this fountayne’.[66] The device was picturesque enough, but can -only have had an allegorical relation to the action of the play. The -copious Revels Accounts of Edward and of Mary are silent about play -settings. It is only with those of Elizabeth that the indications of -‘houses’ and curtains already detailed in an earlier chapter make their -appearance.[67] The ‘houses’ of lath and canvas have their analogy -alike in the ‘case’ of Ferrara, which even Serlio had not abandoned, -and in the ‘maisons’ which the Hôtel de Bourgogne inherited from the -Confrérie de la Passion. We are left without guide as to whether the -use of them at the English Court was a direct tradition from English -miracle-plays, or owed its immediate origin to an Italian practice, -which was itself in any case only an outgrowth of mediaeval methods -familiar in Italy as well as in England. Nor can we tell, so far as the -Revels Accounts go, whether the ‘houses’ were juxtaposed on the stage -after the ‘multiple’ fashion of the Hôtel de Bourgogne, or were fused -with the help of perspective into a continuous façade or vista, as -Serlio bade. Certainly the Revels officers were not wholly ignorant of -the use of perspective, but this is also true of the machinists of the -Hôtel de Bourgogne.[68] Serlio does not appear to have used curtains, -as the Revels officers did, for the discovery of interior scenes, but -if, on the other hand, any of the great curtains of the Revels were -front curtains, these were employed at Ferrara and Rome, and we have no -knowledge that they were employed at Paris. At this point the archives -leave us fairly in an _impasse_. - -It will be well to start upon a new tack and to attempt to ascertain, -by an analysis of such early plays as survive, what kind of setting -these can be supposed, on internal evidence, to have needed. And -the first and most salient fact which emerges is that a very large -number of them needed practically no setting at all. This is broadly -true, with exceptions which shall be detailed, of the great group -of interludes which extends over about fifty years of the sixteenth -century, from the end of Henry VII’s reign or the beginning of Henry -VIII’s, to a point in Elizabeth’s almost coincident with the opening -of the theatres. Of these, if mere fragments are neglected, there -are not less than forty-five. Twenty are Henrican;[69] perhaps seven -Edwardian or Marian;[70] eighteen Elizabethan.[71] Characteristically, -they are morals, presenting abstract personages varied in an increasing -degree with farcical types; but several are semi-morals, with a -sprinkling of concrete personages, which point backwards to the -miracle-plays, or forward to the romantic or historical drama. One or -two are almost purely miracle-play or farce; and towards the end one -or two show some traces of classical influence.[72] Subject, then, to -the exceptions, the interludes--and this, as already indicated, is a -fundamental point for staging--call for no changes of locality, with -which, indeed, the purely abstract themes of moralities could easily -dispense. The action proceeds continuously in a locality, which is -either wholly undefined, or at the most vaguely defined as in London -(_Hickscorner_), or in England (_King Johan_). This is referred to, -both in stage-directions and in dialogue, as ‘the place’, and with -such persistency as inevitably to suggest a term of art, of which the -obvious derivation is from the _platea_ of the miracle-plays.[73] It -may be either an exterior or an interior place, but often it is not -clearly envisaged as either. In _Pardoner and Friar_ and possibly in -_Johan the Evangelist_ it is a church; in _Johan Johan_ it is Johan’s -house. Whether interior or exterior, a door is often referred to as the -means of entrance and exit for the characters.[74] In _Johan Johan_ a -door is supposed to lead to the priest’s chamber, and there is a long -colloquy at the ‘chamber dore’. In exterior plays some kind of a house -may be suggested in close proximity to the ‘place’. In _Youth_ and in -_Four Elements_ the characters come and go to a tavern. The ‘place’ of -_Apius and Virginia_ is before the gate of Apius. There is no obvious -necessity why these houses should have been represented by anything -but a door. The properties used in the action are few and simple; -a throne or other seat, a table or banquet (_Johan Johan_, _Godly -Queen Hester_, _King Darius_), a hearth (_Nature_, _Johan Johan_), a -pulpit (_Johan the Evangelist_), a pail (_Johan Johan_), a dice-board -(_Nice Wanton_). My inference is that the setting of the interludes -was nothing but the hall in which performances were given, with for -properties the plenishing of that hall or such movables as could be -readily carried in. Direct hints are not lacking to confirm this view. -A stage-direction in _Four Elements_ tells us that at a certain point -‘the daunsers without the hall syng’. In _Impatient Poverty_ (242) -Abundance comes in with the greeting, ‘Joye and solace be in this -hall!’ _All for Money_ (1019) uses ‘this hall’, where we should expect -‘this place’. And I think that, apart from interludes woven into the -pageantry of Henry VIII’s disguising chambers, the hall contemplated -was at first just the ordinary everyday hall, after dinner or supper, -with the sovereigns or lords still on the dais, the tables and benches -below pushed aside, and a free space left for the performers on the -floor, with the screen and its convenient doors as a background and -the hearth ready to hand if it was wanted to figure in the action. If -I am right, the staged dais, with the sovereign on a high state in the -middle of the hall, was a later development, or a method reserved for -very formal entertainments.[75] The actors of the more homely interlude -would have had to rub shoulders all the time with the inferior members -of their audience. And so they did. In _Youth_ (39) the principal -character enters, for all the world like the St. George of a village -mummers’ play, with an - - A backe, felowes, and gyve me roume - Or I shall make you to auoyde sone.[76] - -In _Like Will to Like_ the Vice brings in a knave of clubs, which he -‘offreth vnto one of the men or boyes standing by’. In _King Darius_ -(109) Iniquity, when he wants a seat, calls out - - Syrs, who is there that hath a stoole? - I will buy it for thys Gentleman; - If you will take money, come as fast as you can. - -A similar and earlier example than any of these now presents itself in -_Fulgens and Lucres_, where there is an inductive dialogue between -spectators, one of whom says to another - - I thought verely by your apparel, - That ye had bene a player. - -Of a raised stage the only indication is in _All for Money_, a late -example of the type, where one stage-direction notes (203), ‘There must -be a chayre for him to sit in, and vnder it or neere the same there -must be some hollowe place for one to come vp in’, while another (279) -requires ‘some fine conueyance’ to enable characters to vomit each -other up. - -I come now to nine interludes which, for various reasons, demand -special remark. In _Jacob and Esau_ (> 1558) there is coming and going -between the place and the tent of Isaac, before which stands a bench, -the tent of Jacob, and probably also the tent of Esau. In _Wit and -Wisdom_ (> 1579) action takes place at the entrances of the house of -Wantonness, of the den of Irksomeness, of a prison, and of Mother Bee’s -house, and the prison, as commonly in plays of later types, must have -been so arranged as to allow a prisoner to take part in the dialogue -from within. Some realism, also, in the treatment of the den may be -signified by an allusion to ‘these craggie clifts’. In _Misogonus_ -(_c._ 1560–77), the place of which is before the house of Philogonus, -there is one scene in Melissa’s ‘bowre’ (ii. 4, 12), which must somehow -have been represented. In _Thersites_ (1537), of which one of the -characters is a snail that ‘draweth her hornes in’, Mulciber, according -to the stage-directions, ‘must have a shop made in the place’, which he -leaves and returns to, and in which he is perhaps seen making a sallet. -Similarly, the Mater of Thersites, when she drops out of the dialogue, -‘goeth in the place which is prepared for her’, and hither later -‘Thersites must ren awaye, and hyde hym behynde hys mothers backe’. -These four examples only differ from the normal interlude type by some -multiplication of the houses suggested in the background, and probably -by some closer approximation than a mere door to the visual realization -of these. There is no change of locality, and only an adumbration of -interior action within the houses. Four other examples do entail -some change of locality. Much stress must not be laid on the sudden -conversions in the fourth act of _The Conflict of Conscience_ (> 1581) -and the last scene of _Three Ladies of London_ of the open ‘place’ -into Court, for these are very belated specimens of the moral. And -the opening dialogue of the _Three Ladies_, on the way to London, may -glide readily enough into the main action before two houses in London -itself. But in _The Disobedient Child_ (_c._ 1560) some episodes are -before the house of the father, and others before that of the son in -another locality forty miles away. In _Mary Magdalene_ (< 1566), again, -the action begins in Magdalo, but there is a break (842) when Mary -and the Vice start on their travels, and it is resumed at Jerusalem, -where it proceeds first in some public place, and afterwards by a -sudden transition (1557) at a repast within the house of Simon. In both -cases it may be conjectured that the two localities were indicated on -opposite sides of the hall or stage, and that the personages travelled -from one to the other over the intervening space, which was regarded -as representing a considerable distance. You may call this ‘multiple -staging’, if you will. The same imaginative foreshortening of space -had been employed both in the miracle-plays and in the ‘Christian -Terence’.[77] Simon’s house at Jerusalem was, no doubt, some kind of -open _loggia_ with a table in it, directly approachable from the open -place where the earlier part of the Jerusalem action was located. - -_Godly Queen Hester_ (? 1525–9) has a different interest, in that, of -all the forty-four interludes, it affords the only possible evidence -for the use of a curtain. In most respects it is quite a normal -interlude. The action is continuous, in a ‘place’, which represents -a council-chamber, with a chair for Ahasuerus. But there is no -mention of a door, and while the means of exit and entrance for the -ordinary personages are unspecified, the stage-directions note, on -two occasions (139, 635) when the King goes out, that he ‘entreth the -trauerse’. Now ‘traverses’ have played a considerable part in attempts -to reconstruct the Elizabethan theatre, and some imaginative writers -have depicted them as criss-crossing about the stage in all sorts of -possible and impossible directions.[78] The term is not a very happy -one to employ in the discussion of late sixteenth-century or early -seventeenth-century conditions. After _Godly Queen Hester_ it does -not appear again in any play for nearly a hundred years, and then, so -far as I know, is only used by Jonson in _Volpone_, where it appears -to indicate a low movable screen, probably of a non-structural kind, -and by John Webster, both in _The White Devil_ and in _The Duchess of -Malfi_, where it is an exact equivalent to the ‘curtains’ or ‘arras’, -often referred to as screening off a recess at the back of the -stage.[79] Half a century later still, it is used in the Restoration -play of _The Duke of Guise_ to indicate, not this normal back curtain, -but a screen placed across the recess itself, or the inner stage which -had developed out of it, behind ‘the scene’.[80] Webster’s use seems -to be an individual one. Properly a ‘traverse’ means, I think, not a -curtain suspended from the roof, but a screen shutting off from view -a compartment within a larger room, but leaving it open above. Such -a screen might, of course, very well be formed by a curtain running -on a rod or cord.[81] And a ‘traverse’ also certainly came to mean -the compartment itself which was so shut off.[82] The construction is -familiar in the old-fashioned pews of our churches, and as it happens, -it is from the records of the royal chapel that its Elizabethan use can -best be illustrated. Thus when Elizabeth took her Easter communion at -St. James’s in 1593, she came down, doubtless from her ‘closet’ above, -after the Gospel had been read, ‘into her Majestes Travess’, whence -she emerged to make her offering, and then ‘retorned to her princely -travess sumptuously sett forthe’, until it was time to emerge again and -receive the communion. So too, when the Spanish treaty was sworn in -1604, ‘in the chappell weare two traverses sett up of equall state in -all thinges as neare as might be’. One was the King’s traverse ‘where -he usually sitteth’, the other for the Spanish ambassador, and from -them they proceeded to ‘the halfe pace’ for the actual swearing of -the oath.[83] The traverse figures in several other chapel ceremonies -of the time, and it is by this analogy, rather than as a technical -term of stage-craft, that we must interpret the references to it in -_Godly Queen Hester_. It is not inconceivable that the play, which was -very likely performed by the Chapel, was actually performed in the -chapel.[84] Nor is it inconceivable, also, that the sense of the term -‘traverse’ may have been wide enough to cover the screen at the bottom -of a Tudor hall. - -I come now to the group of four mid-century farces, _Gammer Gurton’s -Needle_, _Jack Juggler_, _Ralph Roister Doister_, and _Tom Tyler_, -which literary historians have distinguished from the interludes as -early ‘regular comedies’. No doubt they show traces of Renaissance -influence upon their dramatic handling. But, so far as scenic setting -is concerned, they do not diverge markedly from the interlude type. -Nor is this surprising, since Renaissance comedy, like the classical -comedy upon which it was based, was essentially an affair of continuous -action, in an open place, before a background of houses. _Gammer -Gurton’s Needle_ requires two houses, those of Gammer Gurton and of -Dame Chat; _Jack Juggler_ one, that of Boungrace; _Ralph Roister -Doister_ one, that of Christian Custance. Oddly enough, both _Gammer -Gurton’s Needle_ and _Jack Juggler_ contain indications of the presence -of a post, so placed that it could be used in the action.[85] _Tom -Tyler_, which may have reached us in a sophisticated text, has a -slightly more complicated staging. There are some quite early features. -The locality is ‘this place’ (835), and the audience are asked (18), as -in the much earlier _Youth_, to ‘make them room’. On the other hand, as -in _Mary Magdalene_ and in _The Conflict of Conscience_, there is at -one point (512) a transition from exterior to interior action. Hitherto -it has been in front of Tom’s house; now it is within, and his wife is -in bed. An open _loggia_ here hardly meets the case. The bed demands -some discovery, perhaps by the withdrawal of a curtain. - -I am of course aware that the forty-four interludes and the four farces -hitherto dealt with cannot be regarded as forming a homogeneous body -of Court drama. Not one of them, in fact, can be absolutely proved to -have been given at Court. Several of them bear signs of having been -given elsewhere, including at least three of the small number which -present exceptional features.[86] Others lie under suspicion of having -been written primarily for the printing-press, in the hope that any -one who cared to act them would buy copies, and may therefore never -have been given at all; and it is obvious that in such circumstances a -writer might very likely limit himself to demands upon stage-management -far short of what the Court would be prepared to meet.[87] This is all -true enough, but at the same time I see no reason to doubt that the -surviving plays broadly represent the kind of piece that was produced, -at Court as well as elsewhere, until well into Elizabeth’s reign. -Amongst their authors are men, Skelton, Medwall, Rastell, Redford, -Bale, Heywood, Udall, Gascoigne, who were about the Court, and some -of whom we know to have written plays, if not these plays, for the -Court; and the survival of the moral as a Court entertainment is borne -witness to by the Revels Accounts of 1578–9, in which the ‘morrall of -the _Marriage of Mind and Measure_’ still holds its own beside the -classical and romantic histories which had already become fashionable. -As we proceed, however, we come more clearly within the Court sphere. -The lawyers stand very close, in their interests and their amusements, -to the Court, and with the next group of plays, a characteristically -Renaissance one, of four Italianate comedies and four Senecan -tragedies, the lawyers had a good deal to do. Gascoigne’s Gray’s -Inn _Supposes_ is based directly upon one of Ariosto’s epoch-making -comedies, _I Suppositi_, and adopts its staging. Jeffere’s _Bugbears_ -and the anonymous _Two Italian Gentlemen_ are similarly indebted -to their models in Grazzini’s _La Spiritata_ and Pasqualigo’s _Il -Fedele_. Each preserves complete unity of place, and the continuous -action in the street before the houses, two or three in number, of the -principal personages, is only varied by occasional colloquies at a door -or window, and in the case of the _Two Italian Gentlemen_ by an episode -of concealment in a tomb which stands in a ‘temple’ or shrine beneath -a burning lamp. Whetstone’s _Promos and Cassandra_, the neo-classical -inspiration of which is advertised in the prefatory epistle, follows -the same formula with a certain freedom of handling. In the first part, -opportunity for a certain amount of interior action is afforded by -two of the three houses; one is a prison, the other a barber’s shop, -presumably an open stall with a door and a flap-down shutter. The third -is the courtesan’s house, on which Serlio insists. This reappears in -the second part and has a window large enough for four women to sit -in.[88] The other houses in this part are a temple with a tomb in it, -and a pageant stage used at a royal entry. The conveniences of exterior -action lead to a convention which often recurs in later plays, by which -royal justice is dispensed in the street. And the strict unity of place -is broken by a scene (iv. 2) which takes place, not like the rest of -the action in the town of Julio, but in a wood through which the actors -are approaching it. Here also we have, I think, the beginnings of a -convention by which action on the extreme edge of a stage, or possibly -on the floor of the hall or on steps leading to the stage, was treated -as a little remote from the place represented by the setting in the -background. The four tragedies were all produced at the Court itself -by actors from the Inns of Court. It is a little curious that the -earliest of the four, _Gorboduc_ (1562), is also the most regardless -of the unity of place. While Acts I and III-V are at the Court of -Gorboduc, Act II is divided between the independent Courts of Ferrex -and Porrex. We can hardly suppose that there was any substantial change -of decoration, and probably the same generalized palace background -served for all three. Here also the convention, classical enough, -rules, by which the affairs of state are conducted in the open. By 1562 -the raised stage had clearly established itself. There are no regular -stage-directions in _Gorboduc_, but the stage is often mentioned in the -descriptions of the dumb-shows between the acts, and in the fourth of -these ‘there came from vnder the stage, as though out of hell, three -furies’. Similarly in _Jocasta_ (1566) the stage opens in the dumb-shows -to disclose, at one time a grave, at another the gulf of Curtius. -The action of the play itself is before the palace of Jocasta, but -there are also entrances and exits, which are carefully specified in -stage-directions as being through ‘the gates called Electrae’ and ‘the -gates called Homoloydes’. Perhaps we are to infer that the gates which, -if the stage-manager had Vitruvius in mind, would have stood on the -right and left of the proscenium, were labelled ‘in great letters’ with -their names; and if so, a similar device may have served in _Gorboduc_ -to indicate at which of the three Courts action was for the time being -proceeding. _Gismond of Salerne_ has not only a hell, for Megaera, but -also a heaven, for the descent and ascent of Cupid. Like _Jocasta_, it -preserves unity of place, but it has two houses in the background, the -palace of Tancred and an independent ‘chamber’ for Gismond, which is -open enough and deep enough to allow part of the action, with Gismond -lying poisoned and Tancred mourning over her, to take place within it. -_The Misfortunes of Arthur_ is, of course, twenty years later than -the other members of the group. But it is true to type. The action -is in front of three _domus_, the ‘houses’ of Arthur and of Mordred, -which ought not perhaps historically to have been in the same city, -and a cloister. A few years later still, in 1591, Wilmot, one of the -authors of _Gismond of Salerne_, rewrote it as _Tancred and Gismund_. -He did not materially interfere with the old staging, but he added an -epilogue, of which the final couplet runs: - - Thus end our sorrowes with the setting sun: - Now draw the curtens for our Scaene is done. - -If these lines had occurred in the original version of the play, they -would naturally have been taken as referring to curtains used to cover -and discover Gismond’s death-chamber. But in this point Wilmot has -modified the original action, and has made Gismund take her poison and -die, not in her chamber, but on the open stage. Are we then faced, -as part of the paraphernalia of a Court stage, at any rate by 1591, -with a front curtain--a curtain drawn aside, and not sinking like the -curtains of Ferrara and Rome, but like those curtains used to mark the -beginning and end of a play, rather than to facilitate any changing -of scenes?[89] It is difficult to say. Wilmot, not re-writing for the -stage, may have rewritten loosely. Or the epilogue may after all have -belonged to the first version of the play, and have dropped out of the -manuscript in which that version is preserved. The Revels Accounts -testify that ‘great curtains’ were used in Court plays, but certainly -do not prove that they were used as front curtains. The nearest -approach to a corroboration of Wilmot is to be found in an epigram -which exists in various forms, and is ascribed in some manuscripts to -Sir Walter Raleigh.[90] - - What is our life? a play of passion. - Our mirth? the musick of diuision. - Our mothers wombs the tyring houses bee - Where we are drest for liues short comedy. - The earth the stage, heauen the spectator is, - Who still doth note who ere do act amisse. - Our graues, that hyde vs from the all-seeing sun, - Are but drawne curtaynes when the play is done. - -If these four comedies and four tragedies were taken alone, it -would, I think, be natural to conclude that, with the Italianized -types of drama, the English Court had also adopted the Italian type -of setting.[91] Certainly the tragedies would fit well enough into -Serlio’s stately façade of palaces, and the comedies into his more -homely group of bourgeois houses, with its open shop, its ‘temple’, and -its discreet abode of a _ruffiana_.[92] - -As courtly, beyond doubt, we must treat the main outlook of the choir -companies during their long hegemony of the Elizabethan drama, which -ended with the putting down of Paul’s in 1590. Unfortunately it is not -until the last decade of this period, with the ‘court comedies’ of -Lyly, that we have any substantial body of their work, differentiated -from the interludes and the Italianate comedies, to go upon. The _Damon -and Pythias_ of Richard Edwardes has a simple setting before the gates -of a court. Lyly’s own methods require rather careful analysis.[93] The -locality of _Campaspe_ is throughout at Athens, in ‘the market-place’ -(III. ii. 56).[94] On this there are three _domus_: Alexander’s palace, -probably represented by a portico in which he receives visitors, and -from which inmates ‘draw in’ (IV. iii. 32) to get off the stage; a -tub ‘turned towardes the sun’ (I. iii. 12) for Diogenes over which he -can ‘pry’ (V. iii. 21); a shop for Apelles, which has a window (III. -i. 18), outside which a page is posted, and open enough for Apelles -to carry on dialogue with Campaspe (III. iii.; IV. iv), while he -paints her within. These three _domus_ are quite certainly all visible -together, as continuous action can pass from one to another. At one -point (I. iii. 110) the philosophers walk direct from the palace to the -tub; at another (III. iv. 44, 57) Alexander, going to the shop, passes -the tub on the way; at a third (V. iv. 82) Apelles, standing at the -tub, is bidden ‘looke about you, your shop is on fire!’ As Alexander -(V. iv. 71) tells Diogenes that he ‘wil haue thy cabin remoued nerer -to my court’, I infer that the palace and the tub were at opposite -ends of the stage, and the shop in the middle, where the interior -action could best be seen. In _Sapho and Phao_ the unity of place is -not so marked. All the action is more or less at Syracuse, but, with -the exception of one scene (II. iii), the whole of the first two acts -are near Phao’s ferry outside the city. I do not think that the actual -ferry is visible, for passengers go ‘away’ (I. i. 72; ii. 69) to cross, -and no use is made of a ferryman’s house, but somewhere quite near -Sibylla sits ‘in the mouth of her caue’ (II. i. 13), and talks with -Phao.[95] The rest of the action is in the city itself, either before -the palace of Sapho, or within her chamber, or at the forge of Vulcan, -where he is perhaps seen ‘making of the arrowes’ (IV. iv. 33) during a -song. Certainly Sapho’s chamber is practicable. The stage-directions -do not always indicate its opening and shutting. At one point (III. -iii. 1) we simply get ‘Sapho in her bed’ in a list of interlocutors; -at another (IV. i. 20) ‘Exit Sapho’, which can only mean that the door -closes upon her. It was a door, not a curtain, for she tells a handmaid -(V. ii. 101) to ‘shut’ it. Curtains are ‘drawne’ (III. iii. 36; IV. -iii. 95), but these are bed-curtains, and the drawing of them does not -put Sapho’s chamber in or out of action. As in _Campaspe_, there is -interplay between house and house. A long continuous stretch of action, -not even broken by the act-intervals, begins with III. iii and extends -to the end of V. ii, and in the course of this Venus sends Cupid to -Sapho, and herself waits at Vulcan’s forge (V. i. 50). Presently (V. -ii. 45) she gets tired of waiting, and without leaving the stage, -advances to the chamber and says, ‘How now, in Saphoes lap?’ There is -not the same interplay between the city houses and Sibylla’s cave, to -which the last scene of the play returns. I think we must suppose that -two neighbouring spots within the same general locality were shown -in different parts of the stage, and this certainly entails a bolder -use of dramatic foreshortening of distance than the mere crossing the -market-place in _Campaspe_. This foreshortening recurs in _Endymion_. -Most of the action is in an open place which must be supposed to be -near the palace of Cynthia, or at the lunary bank (II. iii. 9), of -Endymion’s slumber, which is also near the palace.[96] It stands in a -grove (IV. iii. 160), and is called a ‘caban’ (IV. iii. 111). Somewhere -also in the open space is, in Act V, the aspen-tree, into which Dipsas -has turned Bagoa and from which she is delivered (V. iii. 283). But -III. ii and IV. i are at the door of ‘the Castle in the Deserte’ (III. -i. 41; ii. 1) and III. iv is also in the desert (cf. V. iii. 35), -before a fountain. This fountain was, however, ‘hard by’ the lunary -bank (IV. ii. 67), and probably the desert was no farther off than -the end of the stage.[97] In _Midas_ the convention of foreshortening -becomes inadequate, and we are faced with a definite change of -locality. The greater part of the play is at the Court of Midas, -presumably in Lydia rather than in Phrygia, although an Elizabethan -audience is not likely to have been punctilious about Anatolian -geography. Some scenes require as background a palace, to which it is -possible to go ‘in’ (I. i. 117; II. ii. 83; III. iii. 104). A temple -of Bacchus may also have been represented, but is not essential. Other -scenes are in a neighbouring spot, where the speaking reeds grow. There -is a hunting scene (IV. i) on ‘the hill Tmolus’ (cf. V. iii. 44). So -far Lyly’s canons of foreshortening are not exceeded. But the last -scene (V. iii) is out of the picture altogether. The opening words are -‘This is Delphos’, and we are overseas, before the temple of Apollo. In -_Galathea_ and in _Love’s Metamorphosis_, on the other hand, unity is -fully achieved. The whole of _Galathea_ may well proceed in a single -spot, on the edge of a wood, before a tree sacred to Neptune, and in -Lincolnshire (I. iv. 12). The sea is hard by, but need not be seen. -The action of _Love’s Metamorphosis_ is rather more diffuse, but an -all-over pastoral setting, such as we see in Serlio’s _scena satirica_, -with scattered _domus_ in different glades, would serve it. Or, as -the management of the Hôtel de Bourgogne would have put it, the stage -is _tout en pastoralle_. There are a tree of Ceres and a temple of -Cupid. These are used successively in the same scene (II. i). Somewhat -apart, on the sea-shore, but close to the wood, dwells Erisichthon. -There is a rock for the Siren, and Erisichthon’s house may also have -been shown.[98] Finally, _Mother Bombie_ is an extreme example of the -traditional Italian comic manner. The action comes and goes, rapidly -for Lyly, in an open place, surrounded by no less than seven houses, -the doors of which are freely used. - -Two other Chapel plays furnish sufficient evidence that the type of -staging just described was not Lyly’s and Lyly’s alone.[99] Peele’s -_Arraignment of Paris_ is _tout en pastoralle_. A poplar-tree dominates -the stage throughout, and the only house is a bower of Diana, large -enough to hold the council of gods (381, 915). A trap is required -for the rising and sinking of a golden tree (489) and the ascent of -Pluto (902). Marlowe’s _Dido_ has proved rather a puzzle to editors -who have not fully appreciated the principles on which the Chapel -plays were produced. I think that one side of the stage was arranged -_en pastoralle_, and represented the wood between the sea-shore and -Carthage, where the shipwrecked Trojans land and where later Aeneas -and Dido hunt. Here was the cave where they take shelter from the -storm.[100] Here too must have been the curtained-off _domus_ of -Jupiter.[101] This is only used in a kind of prelude. Of course it -ought to have been in heaven, but the Gods are omnipresent, and it -is quite clear that when the curtain is drawn on Jupiter, Venus, who -has been discoursing with him, is left in the wood, where she then -meets Aeneas (134, 139, 173). The other side of the stage represents -Carthage. Possibly a wall with a gate in it was built across the stage, -dividing off the two regions. In the opening line of Act II, Aeneas -says, - - Where am I now? these should be Carthage walles, - -and we must think of him as advancing through the wood to the -gate.[102] He is amazed at a carved or printed representation of Troy, -which Virgil placed in a temple of Juno, but which Marlowe probably -thought of as at the gate. He meets other Trojans who have already -reached the city, and they call his attention to Dido’s servitors, who -‘passe through the hall’ bearing a banquet. Evidently he is now within -the city and has approached a _domus_ representing the palace. The -so-called ‘hall’ is probably an open _loggia_. Here Dido entertains -him, and in a later scene (773) points out to him the pictures of her -suitors. There is perhaps an altar in front of the palace, where Iarbas -does his sacrifice (1095), and somewhere close by a pyre is made for -Dido (1692). Either within or without the walls may be the grove in -which Ascanius is hidden while Cupid takes his place.[103] If, as is -more probable, it is without, action passes through the gate when Venus -beguiles him away. It certainly does at the beginning (912, 960) and -end (1085) of the hunt, and again when Aeneas first attempts flight and -Anna brings him back from the sea-shore (1151, 1207). - -The plays of the Lylyan school, if one may so call it, seem to me to -illustrate very precisely, on the side of staging, that blend of the -classical and the romantic tempers which is characteristic of the later -Renaissance. The mediaeval instinct for a story, which the Elizabethans -fully shared, is with difficulty accommodated to the form of an action -coherent in place and time, which the Italians had established on the -basis of Latin comedy. The Shakespearian romantic drama is on the -point of being born. Lyly and his fellow University wits deal with -the problem to the best of their ability. They widen the conception -of locality, to a city and its environs instead of a street; and even -then the narrative sometimes proves unmanageable, and the distance -from one end of the stage to the other must represent a foreshortening -of leagues, or even of the crossing of an ocean. In the hands of less -skilful workmen the tendency was naturally accentuated, and plays had -been written, long before Lyly was sent down from Magdalen, in which -the episodes of breathless adventure altogether overstepped the most -elastic confines of locality. A glance at the titles of the plays -presented at Court during the second decade of Elizabeth’s reign will -show the extent to which themes drawn from narrative literature were -already beginning to oust those of the old interlude type.[104] The -new development is apparent in the contributions both of men and of -boys; with this distinction, that the boys find their sources mainly -in the storehouse of classical history and legend, while the men turn -either to contemporary events at home and abroad, or more often to the -belated and somewhat jaded versions, still dear to the Elizabethan -laity, of mediaeval romance. The break-down of the Italian staging must -therefore be regarded from the beginning, as in part at least a result -of the reaction of popular taste upon that of the Court. The noblemen’s -players came to London when the winter set in, and brought with them -the pieces which had delighted _bourgeois_ and village audiences up -and down the land throughout the summer; and on the whole it proved -easier for the Revels officers to adapt the stage to the plays than the -plays to the stage. Nor need it be doubted that, even in so cultivated -a Court as that of Elizabeth, the popular taste was not without its -echoes. - -Of all this wealth of forgotten play-making, only five examples -survive; but they are sufficient to indicate the scenic trend.[105] -Their affiliation with the earlier interludes is direct. The ‘vice’ and -other moral abstractions still mingle with the concrete personages, -and the proscenium is still the ‘place’.[106] The simplest setting is -that of _Cambyses_. All is at or within sight of the Persian Court. -If any _domus_ was represented, it was the palace, to which there are -departures (567, 929). Cambyses consults his council (1–125) and there -is a banquet (965–1042) with a ‘boorde’, at the end of which order -is given to ‘take all these things away’.[107] In other episodes the -Court is ‘yonder’ (732, 938); it is only necessary to suppose that they -were played well away from the _domus_. One is in a ‘feeld so green’ -(843–937), and a stage-direction tells us ‘Heere trace up and downe -playing’. In another (754–842) clowns are on their way to market.[108] -The only other noteworthy point is that, not for the first nor for -the last time, a post upon the stage is utilized in the action.[109] -_Patient Grissell_, on the other hand, requires two localities. The -more important is Salucia (Saluzzo), where are Gautier’s mansion, -Janickell’s cottage, and the house of Mother Apleyarde, a midwife -(1306). The other is Bullin Lagras (Bologna), where there are two short -episodes (1235–92, 1877–1900) at the house of the Countess of Pango. -There can be little doubt that all the _domus_ were staged at once. -There is direct transfer of action from Gautier’s to the cottage and -back again (612–34; cf. 1719, 2042, 2090). Yet there is some little -distance between, for when a messenger is sent, the foreshortening of -space is indicated by the stage-direction (1835), ‘Go once or twise -about the Staige’.[110] Similarly, unless an ‘Exiunt’ has dropped -out, there is direct transfer (1900) from Bullin Lagras to Salucia. -In _Orestes_ the problem of discrete localities is quite differently -handled. The play falls into five quasi-acts of unequal length, which -are situated successively at Mycenae, Crete, Mycenae, Athens, Mycenae. -For all, as in _Gorboduc_, the same sketchy palace background might -serve, with one interesting and prophetic exception. The middle -episodes (538–925), at Mycenae, afford the first example of those siege -scenes which the Shakespearian stage came to love. A messenger brings -warning to Aegisthus and Clytemnestra of the purpose of Orestes ‘to -inuade this Mycoene Citie stronge’. Aegisthus goes into the ‘realme’, -to take up men, and Clytemnestra will defend the city. There is a -quarrel between a soldier and a woman and the Vice sings a martial -song. Then ‘Horestes entrith with his bande and marcheth about the -stage’. He instructs a Herald, who advances with his trumpeter. ‘Let -y^e trumpet go towarde the Citie and blowe.’ Clytemnestra answers. ‘Let -y^e trumpet leaue soundyng and let Harrauld speake and Clytemnestra -speake ouer y^e wal.’ Summons and defiance follow, and Orestes calls -on his men for an assault. ‘Go and make your liuely battel and let it -be longe, eare you can win y^e Citie, and when you haue won it, let -Horestes bringe out his mother by the armes, and let y^e droum sease -playing and the trumpet also, when she is taken.’ But now Aegisthus -is at hand. ‘Let Egistus enter and set hys men in a raye, and let the -drom play tyll Horestes speaketh.’ There is more fighting, which ends -with the capture and hanging of Aegisthus. ‘Fling him of y^e lader, -and then let on bringe in his mother Clytemnestra; but let her loke -wher Egistus hangeth’. Finally Orestes announces that ‘Enter now we -wyll the citie gate’. In the two other plays the changes of locality -come thick and fast. The action of _Clyomon and Clamydes_ begins in -Denmark, and passes successively to Swabia, to the Forest of Marvels -on the borders of Macedonia, to the Isle of Strange Marshes twenty -days’ sail from Macedonia, to the Forest again, to the Isle again, -to Norway, to the Forest, to the Isle, to the Forest, to a road near -Denmark, to the Isle, to Denmark. Only two _domus_ are needed, a -palace (733) in the Isle, and Bryan Sans Foy’s Castle in the Forest. -This is a prison, with a practicable door and a window, from which -Clamydes speaks (872). At one point Providence descends and ascends -(1550–64). In one of the Forest scenes a hearse is brought in and it -is still there in the next (1450, 1534), although a short Isle scene -has intervened. This looks as though the two ends of the stage may -have been assigned throughout to the two principal localities, the -Forest and the Isle. Some care is taken to let the speakers give the -audience a clue when a new locality is made use of for the first time. -Afterwards the recurrence of characters whom they had already seen -would help them. The Norway episode (1121) is the only one which need -have much puzzled them. But _Clyomon and Clamydes_ may have made use of -a peculiar device, which becomes apparent in the stage-directions of -_Common Conditions_. The play opens in Arabia, where first a spot near -the Court and then a wood are indicated; but the latter part alternates -between Phrygia, near the sea-shore, and the Isle of Marofus. No -_domus_ is necessary, and it must remain uncertain whether the wood -was represented by visualized trees. It is introduced (295) with the -stage-direction, ‘Here enter Sedmond with Clarisia and Condicions -out of the wood’. Similarly Phrygia is introduced (478) with ‘Here -entreth Galiarbus out of Phrygia’, and a few lines later (510) we get -‘Here enter Lamphedon out of Phrygia’. Now it is to be noted that the -episodes which follow these directions are not away from, but in the -wood and Phrygia respectively; and the inference has been drawn that -there were labelled doors, entrance through one of which warned the -spectators that action was about to take place in the locality whose -title the label bore.[111] This theory obtains some plausibility from -the use of the gates Homoloydes and Electrae in _Jocasta_; and perhaps -also from the inscribed house of the _ruffiana_ in Serlio’s _scena -comica_, from the early Terence engravings, and from certain examples -of lettered _mansions_ in French miracle-plays.[112] But of course -these analogies do not go the whole way in support of a practice of -using differently lettered entrances to help out an imagined conversion -of the same ‘place’ into different localities. More direct confirmation -may perhaps be derived from Sidney’s criticism of the contemporary -drama in his _Defence of Poesie_ (_c._ 1583). There are two passages to -be cited.[113] The first forms part of an argument that poets are not -liars. Their feigning is a convention, and is accepted as such by their -hearers. ‘What Childe is there’, says Sidney, ‘that, comming to a Play, -and seeing _Thebes_ written in great letters vpon an olde doore, doth -beleeue that it is _Thebes_?’ Later on he deals more formally with the -stage, as a classicist, writing after the unity of place had hardened -into a doctrine. Even _Gorboduc_ is no perfect tragedy. - - ‘For it is faulty both in place and time, the two necessary - companions of all corporall actions. For where the stage - should alwaies represent but one place, and the vttermost time - presupposed in it should be, both by _Aristotles_ precept and - common reason, but one day, there is both many dayes, and many - places, inartificially imagined. But if it be so in _Gorboduck_, - how much more in al the rest? where you shal haue _Asia_ of - the one side, and _Affrick_ of the other, and so many other - vnder-kingdoms, that the Player, when he commeth in, must - ever begin with telling where he is, or els the tale wil not - be conceiued. Now ye shal haue three ladies walke to gather - flowers, and then we must beleeue the stage to be a Garden. By - and by, we heare newes of shipwracke in the same place, and - then wee are to blame if we accept it not for a Rock. Vpon the - backe of that, comes out a hidious Monster, with fire and smoke, - and then the miserable beholders are bounde to take it for a - Caue. While in the meantime two Armies flye in, represented with - foure swords and bucklers, and then what harde heart will not - receiue it for a pitched fielde?’ - -It is evident that the plays which Sidney has mostly in mind, the -‘al the rest’ of his antithesis with _Gorboduc_, are precisely those -romantic histories which the noblemen’s players in particular were -bringing to Court in his day, and of which _Clyomon and Clamydes_ and -_Common Conditions_ may reasonably be taken as the characteristic -débris. He hints at what we might have guessed that, where changes -of scene were numerous, the actual visualization of the different -scenes left much to the imagination. He lays his finger upon the -foreshortening, which permits the two ends of the stage to stand -for localities separated by a considerable distance, and upon the -obligation which the players were under to let the opening phrases of -their dialogue make it clear where they were supposed to be situated. -And it certainly seems from the shorter passage, as if he was also -familiar with an alternative or supplementary device of indicating -locality by great letters on a door. The whole business remains rather -obscure. What happened if the distinct localities were more numerous -than the doors? Were the labels shifted, or were the players then -driven, as Sidney seems to suggest, to rely entirely upon the method -of spoken hints? The labelling of special doors with great letters -must be distinguished from the analogous use of great letters, as -at the _Phormio_ of 1528, to publish the title of a play.[114] That -this practice also survived in Court drama may be inferred from Kyd’s -_Spanish Tragedy_, in which Hieronimo gives a Court play, and bids -his assistant (IV. iii. 17) ‘hang up the Title: Our scene is Rhodes’. -Even if the ‘scene’ formed part of the title in such cases, it would -only name a generalized locality or localities for the play, and would -not serve as a clue to the localization of individual episodes.[115] -A retrospect over this discussion of Tudor staging, which is mainly -Court staging, up to a point well subsequent to the establishment of -the first regular theatres, seems to offer the following results. The -earliest interludes, other than revivals of Plautus and Terence or -elements in spectacular disguisings, limited themselves to the setting -of the hall in which they were performed, with its doors, hearth, and -furniture. In such conditions either exterior or interior action could -be indifferently represented. This arrangement, however, soon ceased -to satisfy, in the Court at any rate, the sixteenth-century love of -decoration; and one or more houses were introduced into the background, -probably on a Renaissance rather than a mediaeval suggestion, through -which, as well as the undifferentiated doors, the personages could -come and go. The addition of an elevated stage enabled traps to be -used (_All for Money_, _Gorboduc_, _Jocasta_, _Gismond of Salerne_, -_Arraignment of Paris_); but here, as in the corresponding device of -a descent from above (_Gismond of Salerne_, _Clyomon and Clamydes_), -it is the mediaeval grading for heaven and hell which lies behind the -Renaissance usage. With houses in the background, the normal action -becomes uniformly exterior. If a visit is paid to a house, conversation -takes place at its door rather than within. The exceptions are rare and -tentative, amounting to little more than the provision of a shallow -recess within a house, from which personages, usually one or two only, -can speak. This may be a window (_Two Italian Gentlemen_, _Promos -and Cassandra_), a prison (_Wit and Wisdom_, _Promos and Cassandra_, -_Clyomon and Clamydes_), a bower (_Misogonus_, _Endymion_, _Dido_, -_Arraignment of Paris_), a tub (_Campaspe_), a shrine or tomb (_Two -Italian Gentlemen_, _Promos and Cassandra_), a shop (_Thersites_, -_Promos and Cassandra_, _Campaspe_, _Sapho and Phao_), a bedchamber -(_Gismund of Salerne_, _Tom Tyler_, _Sapho and Phao_). Somewhat -more difficulty is afforded by episodes in which there is a banquet -(_Mary Magdalene_, _Dido_, _Cambyses_), or a law court (_Conflict -of Conscience_), or a king confers with his councillors (_Midas_, -_Cambyses_). These, according to modern notions, require the setting of -a hall; but my impression is that the Italianized imagination of the -Elizabethans was content to accept them as taking place more or less -out-of-doors, on the steps or in the cortile of a palace, with perhaps -some arcaded _loggia_, such as Serlio suggests, in the background, -which would be employed when the action was supposed to be withdrawn -from the public market-place or street. And this convention I believe -to have lasted well into the Shakespearian period.[116] - -The simplicity of this scheme of staging is broken into, when a -mediaeval survival or the popular instinct for storytelling faces -the producer with a plot incapable of continuous presentation in -a single locality. A mere foreshortening of the distance between -houses conceived as surrounding one and the same open _platea_, or as -dispersed in the same wood, is hardly felt as a breach of unity. But -the principle is endangered, when action within a city is diversified -by one or more ‘approach’ episodes, in which the edge of the stage -or the steps leading up to it must stand for a road or a wood in the -environs (_Promos and Cassandra_, _Sapho and Phao_, _Dido_). It is -on the point of abandonment, when the foreshortening is carried so -far that one end of the stage represents one locality and the other -end another at a distance (_Disobedient Child_, _Mary Magdalene_, -_Endymion_, _Midas_, _Patient Grissell_). And it has been abandoned -altogether, when the same background or a part of it is taken to -represent different localities in different episodes, and ingenuity -has to be taxed to find means of informing the audience where any -particular bit of action is proceeding (_Gorboduc_, _Orestes_, _Clyomon -and Clamydes_, _Common Conditions_).[117] - -After considering the classicist group of comedies and tragedies, I -suggested that these, taken by themselves, would point to a method of -staging at the Elizabethan Court not unlike that recommended by Serlio. -The more comprehensive survey now completed points to some revision -of that judgement. Two localities at opposite ends of the stage could -not, obviously, be worked into a continuous architectural façade. They -call for something more on the lines of the multiple setting of the -Hôtel de Bourgogne, although the width of the Elizabethan palace halls -may perhaps have accommodated a longer stage than that of the Hôtel, -and permitted of a less crude juxtaposition of the houses belonging to -distinct localities than Mahelot offers us. Any use of perspective, for -which there is some Elizabethan evidence, was presumably within the -limits of one locality.[118] - -The indications of the Revels Accounts, scanty as they are, are not -inconsistent with those yielded by the plays.[119] If the _Orestes_ -of 1567–8, as may reasonably be supposed, was Pikeryng’s, his ‘howse’ -must have been the common structure used successively for Mycenae, -Crete, and Athens. The ‘Scotland and a gret Castell on thothere side’ -give us the familiar arrangement for two localities. I think that the -‘city’ of the later accounts may stand for a group of houses on one -street or market-place, and a ‘mountain’ or ‘wood’ for a setting _tout -en pastoralle_. There were tents for _A Game of the Cards_ in 1582–3, -as in _Jacob and Esau_, a prison for _The Four Sons of Fabius_ in -1579–80, as in several extant plays. I cannot parallel from any early -survival the senate house for the _Quintus Fabius_ of 1573–4, but this -became a common type of scene at a later date. These are recessed -houses, and curtains, quite distinct from the front curtain, if any, -were provided by the Revels officers to open and close them, as the -needs of the action required. Smaller structures, to which the accounts -refer, are also needed by the plays; a well by _Endymion_, a gibbet by -_Orestes_, a tree by _The Arraignment of Paris_, and inferentially by -all pastoral, and many other plays. The brief record of 1567–8 does not -specify the battlement or gated wall, solid enough for Clytemnestra -to speak ‘ouer y^e wal’, which was a feature in the siege episode of -_Orestes_. Presumably it was part of the ‘howse’, which is mentioned, -and indeed it would by itself furnish sufficient background for the -scenes alike at Mycenae, Crete, and Athens. If it stood alone, it -probably extended along the back of the stage, where it would interfere -least with the arrays of Orestes and of Aegisthus. But in the accounts -of 1579–85, the plays, of which there are many, with battlements also, -as a rule, have cities, and here we must suppose some situation for -the battlement which will not interfere with the city. If it stood for -the gate and wall of some other city, it may have been reared at an -opposite end of the stage. In _Dido_, where the gate of Troy seems to -have been shown, although there is no action ‘ouer’ it, I can visualize -it best as extending across the middle of the stage from back to -front. With an unchanging setting it need not always have occupied -the same place. The large number of plays between 1579 and 1585 which -required battlements, no less than fourteen out of twenty-eight in all, -is rather striking. No doubt the assault motive was beloved in the -popular type of drama, of which _Orestes_ was an early representative. -A castle in a wood, where a knight is imprisoned, is assaulted in -_Clyomon and Clamydes_, and the Shakespearian stage never wearied of -the device. I have sometimes thought that with the Revels officers -‘battlement’ was a technical term for any platform provided for action -at a higher level than the floor of the stage. Certainly a battlement -was provided in 1585 for an entertainment which was not a play at all, -but a performance of feats of activities.[120] But as a matter of fact -raised action, so common in the Shakespearian period, is extremely -rare in these early plays. With the exceptions of Clytemnestra peering -over her wall, and the descents from heaven in _Gismond of Salerne_ -and _Clyomon and Clamydes_, which may of course have been through -the roof rather than from a platform, the seventy or so plays just -discussed contain nothing of the kind. There are, however, two plays -still to be mentioned, in which use is made of a platform, and one of -these gives some colour to my suggestion. In 1582 Derby’s men played -_Love and Fortune_ at Court, and a city and a battlement, together with -some other structure of canvas, the name of which is left blank, were -provided. This may reasonably be identified with the _Rare Triumphs -of Love and Fortune_, which claims on its title-page of 1589 to have -been played before the Queen. It is a piece of the romantic type. The -action is divided between a court and a cave in a wood, which account -for the city and the unnamed structure of the Revels record. They were -evidently shown together, at opposite ends of the stage, for action -passes directly from one to the other. There is no assault scene. But -there is an induction, in which the gods are in assembly, and Tisiphone -arises from hell. At the end of it Jupiter says to Venus and Fortune: - - Take up your places here, to work your will, - -and Vulcan comments: - - They are set sunning like a crow in a gutter. - -They remain as spectators of the play until they ‘shew themselves’ and -intervene in the _dénouement_. Evidently they are in a raised place -or balcony. And this balcony must be the battlement. An exact analogy -is furnished by the one of Lyly’s plays to which I have not as yet -referred. This is _The Woman in the Moon_, Lyly’s only verse play, and -possibly of later date than his group of productions with the Paul’s -boys. The first act has the character of an induction. Nature and the -seven Planets are on the stage and ‘They draw the curtins from before -Natures shop’. During the other four there is a human action in a -pastoral setting with a cave, beneath which is a trap, a grove on the -bank of Enipeus, and a spot near the sea-shore. And throughout one or -other of the Planets is watching the play from a ‘seate’ (II. 176; III. -i. 1) above, between which and the stage they ‘ascend’ and ‘descend’ -(I. 138, 230; II. 174, 236; III. ii. 35; IV. 3). - - - - - XX - - STAGING IN THE THEATRES: SIXTEENTH CENTURY - - [For _Bibliographical Note_, _vide_ ch. xviii.] - - -In dealing with the groups of plays brought under review in the -last chapter, the main problem considered has been that of their -adaptability to the conditions of a Court stage. In the present chapter -the point of view must be shifted to that of the common theatres. -Obviously no hard and fast line is to be drawn. There had been regular -public performances in London since the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign -or earlier, and there is no reason to suppose that the adult companies -at least did not draw upon the same repertory both for popular and for -private representation. But there is not much profit in attempting -to investigate the methods of staging in the inns, of which we know -nothing more than that quasi-permanent structures of carpenter’s work -came in time to supplement the doors, windows, and galleries which -surrounded the yards; and so far as the published plays go, it is -fairly apparent that, up to the date of the suppression of Paul’s, the -Court, or at any rate the private, interest was the dominating one. A -turning-point may be discerned in 1576, at the establishment, on the -one hand of the Theatre and the Curtain, and on the other of Farrant’s -house in the Blackfriars. It is not likely that the Blackfriars -did more than reproduce the conditions of a courtly hall. But the -investment of capital in the Theatre and the Curtain was an incident -in the history of the companies, the economic importance of which has -already been emphasized in an earlier discussion.[121] It was followed -by the formation of strong theatrical organizations in the Queen’s men, -the Admiral’s, Strange’s, the Chamberlain’s. For a time the economic -changes are masked by the continued vogue of the boy companies; but -when these dropped out at the beginning of the ’nineties, it is clear -that the English stage had become a public stage, and that the eyes of -its controllers were fixed primarily upon the pence gathered by the -box-holders, and only secondarily upon the rewards of the Treasurer of -the Chamber. - -The first play published ‘as it was publikely acted’ is the -_Troublesome Raigne of John_ of 1591, and henceforward I think it -is true to say that the staging suggested by the public texts and -their directions in the main represents the arrangements of the -public theatres. There is no sudden breach of continuity with the -earlier period, but that continuity is far greater with the small -group of popular plays typified by _Clyomon and Clamydes_ and _Common -Conditions_, than with anything which Lyly and his friends produced -at Paul’s or the Blackfriars. Again it is necessary to beware of -any exaggeration of antithesis. There is one Chapel play, _The Wars -of Cyrus_, the date of which is obscure, and the setting of which -certainly falls on the theatre rather than the Court side of any -border-line. On the other hand, the Queen’s men and their successors -continued to serve the Court, and one of the published Queen’s plays, -_The Old Wive’s Tale_, was evidently staged in a way exactly analogous -to that adopted by Lyly, or by Peele himself in _The Arraignment of -Paris_. It is _tout en pastoralle_, and about the stage are dispersed a -hut with a door, at the threshold of which presenters sit to watch the -main action (71, 128, 1163), a little hill or mound with a practicable -turf (512, 734, 1034), a cross (173, 521), a ‘well of life’ (743, -773), an inn before which a table is set (904, 916), and a ‘cell’ or -‘studie’ for the conjurer, before which ‘he draweth a curten’ (411, -773, 1060).[122] Of one other play by Peele it is difficult to take -any account in estimating evidence as to staging. This is _David and -Bethsabe_, of which the extant text apparently represents an attempt to -bring within the compass of a single performance a piece or fragments -of a piece originally written in three ‘discourses’. I mention it here, -because somewhat undue use has been made of its opening direction in -speculations as to the configuration of the back wall of the public -stage.[123] It uses the favourite assault motive, and has many changes -of locality. The title-page suggests that in its present form it was -meant for public performance. But almost anything may lie behind that -present form, possibly a Chapel play, possibly a University play, or -even a neo-miracle in the tradition of Bale; and the staging of any -particular scene may contain original elements, imperfectly adapted to -later conditions. - -Counting in _The Wars of Cyrus_ then, and counting out _The Old Wive’s -Tale_ and _David and Bethsabe_, there are about seventy-four plays -which may reasonably be taken to have been presented upon common -stages, between the establishment of the Queen’s men in 1583 and the -building of the Globe for the Chamberlain’s men in 1599 and of the -Fortune for the Admiral’s men in 1600. With a few exceptions they were -also published during the same period, and the scenic arrangements -implied by their texts and stage-directions may therefore be looked -upon as those of the sixteenth-century theatres. These form the -next group for our consideration. Of the seventy-four plays, the -original production of nine may with certainty or fair probability be -assigned to the Queen’s men, of two to Sussex’s, five to Pembroke’s, -fourteen to Strange’s or the Admiral’s or the two in combination, -thirteen to the Admiral’s after the combination broke up, seventeen -to the Chamberlain’s, three to Derby’s, one to Oxford’s, and one to -the Chapel; nine must remained unassigned.[124] It is far less easy -to make a guess at the individual theatre whose staging each play -represents. The migrations of the companies before 1594 in the main -elude us. Thereafter the Admiral’s were settled at the Rose until 1600. -The Chamberlain’s may have passed from the Theatre to the Curtain -about 1597. The habitations of the other later companies are very -conjectural. Moreover, plays were carried from theatre to theatre, -and even transferred from company to company. _Titus Andronicus_, -successively presented by Pembroke’s, Strange’s, Sussex’s, and the -Chamberlain’s, is an extreme case in point. The ideal method would have -been to study the staging of each theatre separately, before coming to -any conclusion as to the similarity or diversity of their arrangements. -This is impracticable, and I propose therefore to proceed on the -assumption that the stages of the Theatre, the Curtain, and the Rose -were in their main features similar. For this there is an _a priori_ -argument in the convenience of what Mr. Archer calls a ‘standardisation -of effects’, especially at a time when the bonds between companies and -theatres were so loose.[125] Moreover, the Theatre and the Curtain -were built at much the same date, and although there was room for -development in the art of theatrical architecture before the addition -of the Rose, I am unable, after a careful examination of the relevant -plays, to lay my finger upon any definite new feature which Henslowe -can be supposed to have introduced. It is exceedingly provoking that -the sixteenth-century repertory of the Swan has yielded nothing which -can serve as a _point de liaison_ between De Witt’s drawing and the -mass of extant texts. - -It will be well to begin with some analysis of the various types of -scene which the sixteenth-century managers were called upon to produce; -and these may with advantage be arranged according to the degree of -use which they make of a structural background.[126] There are, of -course, a certain number of scenes which make no use of a background -at all, and may in a sense be called unlocated scenes--mere bits of -conversation which might be carried on between the speakers wherever -they happened to meet, and which give no indication of where that -meeting is supposed to be. Perhaps these scenes are not so numerous as -is sometimes suggested.[127] At any rate it must be borne in mind that -they were located to the audience, who saw them against a background, -although, if they were kept well to the front or side of the stage, -their relation to that background would be minimized. - -A great many scenes are in what may be called open country--in a -road, a meadow, a grove, a forest, a desert, a mountain, a sea-shore. -The personages are travelling, or hunting, or in outlawry, or merely -taking the air. The background does not generally include a house in -the stricter sense; but there may be a cottage,[128] a hermit’s or -friar’s cell,[129] a rustic bower,[130] a cave,[131] a beacon.[132] -Even where there is no evidence, in dialogue or stage-directions, -for a dwelling, a table or board may be suddenly forthcoming for a -banquet.[133] There may be a fountain or well,[134] and a few scenes -seem to imply the presence of a river.[135] But often there is no -suggestion of any surroundings but rocks or trees, and the references -to the landscape, which are frequently put in the mouths of speakers, -have been interpreted as intended to stimulate the imagination of -spectators before whose eyes no representation, or a very imperfect -representation, of wilderness or woodland had been placed.[136] But -it is not likely that this literary artifice was alone relied upon, -and in some cases practicable trees or rocks are certainly required -by the action and must have been represented.[137] There are plays -which are set continuously in the open country throughout, or during a -succession of scenes, and are thus analogous to Court plays _tout en -pastoralle_. But there are others in which the open-country scenes are -only interspersed among scenes of a different type.[138] - -Nothing was more beloved by a popular audience, especially in an -historical play or one of the _Tamburlaine_ order, than an episode -of war. A war scene was often only a variety of the open-country scene. -Armies come and go on the road, and a battle naturally takes place in -more or less open ground. It may be in a wood, or a tree or river may -be introduced.[139] Obviously large forces could not be shown on the -stage. - - We shall much disgrace, - With four or five most vile and ragged foils, - Right ill disposed in brawl ridiculous, - The name of Agincourt.[140] - -The actual fighting tended to be sketchy and symbolical. There were -alarums and excursions, much beating of drums and blowing of trumpets. -But the stage was often only on the outskirts of the main battle.[141] -It served for a duel of protagonists, or for a flight and pursuit of -stragglers; and when all was over a triumphant train marched across it. -There may be a succession of ‘excursions’ of this kind, in which the -stage may be supposed, if you like, to stand for different parts of a -battle-field.[142] Battle scenes have little need for background; the -inn at St. Albans in _Henry VI_ is an exception due to the fulfilment -of an oracular prophecy.[143] A more natural indication of _milieu_ is -a tent, and battle scenes merge into camp scenes, in which the tents -are sometimes elaborate pavilions, with doors and even locks to the -doors. Seats and tables may be available, and the action is clearly -sometimes within an opened tent.[144] Two opposing camps can be -concurrently represented, and action may alternate between them.[145] -Another kind of background is furnished, as in _Orestes_, by the walls -of a besieged city. On these walls the defenders can appear and parley -with the besieging host. They can descend and open the gates.[146] They -can shoot, and be shot at from below.[147] The walls can be taken by -assault and the defenders can leap from them.[148] Such scenes had an -unfailing appeal, and are sometimes repeated, before different cities, -in the same play.[149] - -Several scenes, analogous in some ways to those in the open country, -are set in a garden, an orchard, a park. These also sometimes utilize -tents.[150] Alternative shelter may be afforded by an arbour or bower, -which facilitates eavesdropping.[151] The presence of trees, banks, or -herbs is often required or suggested.[152] As a rule, the neighbourhood -of a dwelling is implied, and from this personages may issue, or may -hold discourse with those outside. Juliet’s balcony, overlooking -Capulet’s orchard, is a typical instance.[153] A banquet may be brought -out and served in the open.[154] - -The next great group of scenes consists of those which pass in some -public spot in a city--in a street, a market-place, or a churchyard. -Especially if the play is located in or near London, this may be -a definite and familiar spot--Cheapside, Lombard Street, Paul’s -Churchyard, Westminster.[155] Often the action is self-sufficient and -the background merely suggestive or decorative. A procession passes; -a watch is set; friends meet and converse; a stranger asks his way. -But sometimes a structure comes into use. There is a scaffold for an -execution.[156] Lists are set, and there must be at least a raised -place for the judge, and probably a barrier.[157] One street scene -in _Soliman and Perseda_ is outside a tiltyard; another close to an -accessible tower.[158] Bills may be set up.[159] In _Lord Cromwell_ -this is apparently done on a bridge, and twice in this play it is -difficult to resist the conclusion, already pointed to in certain -open-country scenes, that some kind of representation of a river-side -was feasible.[160] In Rome there are scenes in which the dialogue is -partly amongst senators in the capitol and partly amongst citizens -within ear-shot outside.[161] A street may provide a corner, again, -whence passers-by can be overheard or waylaid.[162] And in it, just -as well as in a garden, a lover may hold an assignation, or bring a -serenade before the window of his mistress.[163] A churchyard, or in -a Roman play a market-place, may hold a tomb.[164] Finally one or more -shops may be visible, and action may take place within them as well as -before them.[165] Such a shop would, of course, be nothing more than a -shallow stall, with an open front for the display of wares, which may -be closed by a shutter or flap from above.[166] It may also, like the -inn in _Henry VI_, have a sign.[167] - -Where there is a window, there can of course be a door, and street -scenes very readily become threshold scenes. I do not think that it -has been fully realized how large a proportion of the action of -Elizabethan plays passes at the doors of houses; and as a result -the problem of staging, difficult enough anyhow, has been rendered -unnecessarily difficult. Here we have probably to thank the editors -of plays, who have freely interspersed their texts with notes of -locality, which are not in the original stage-directions, and, with -eighteenth-century models before them, have tended to assume that -action at a house is action in some room within that house. The -playwrights, on the other hand, followed the neo-classic Italian -tradition, and for them action at a house was most naturally action -before the door of that house. If a man visited his friend he was -almost certain to meet him on the doorstep; and here domestic -discussions, even on matters of delicacy, commonly took place. Here -too, of course, meals might be served.[168] A clue to this convention -is afforded by the numerous passages in which a servant or other -personage is brought on to the stage by a ‘Who’s within?’ or a call -to ‘Come forth!’ or in which an episode is wound up by some such -invitation as ‘Let us in!’ No doubt such phrases remain appropriate -when it is merely a question of transference between an outer room -and an inner; and no doubt also the point of view of the personages -is sometimes deflected by that of the actors, to whom ‘in’ means ‘in -the tiring-room’ and ‘out’ means ‘on the stage’.[169] But, broadly -speaking, the frequency of their use points to a corresponding -frequency of threshold scenes; and, where there is a doubt, they -should, I think, be interpreted in the light of that economy of -interior action which was very evident in the mid-sixteenth-century -plays, and in my opinion continued to prevail after the opening -of the theatres. The use of a house door was so frequent that the -stage-directions do not, as a rule, trouble to specify it.[170] Two -complications are, however, to be observed. Sometimes, in a scene -which employs the ‘Let us in!’ formula, or on other ground looks like -a threshold scene, we are suddenly pulled up either by a suggestion -of the host that we are ‘in’ his house or under his roof, or by an -indication that persons outside are to be brought ‘in’.[171] The first -answer is, I think, that the threshold is not always a mere doorstep -opening from the street; it may be something of the nature of a porch -or even a lobby, and that you may fairly be said to be under a man’s -roof when you are in his porch.[172] The second is that in some -threshold scenes the stage was certainly regarded as representing a -courtyard, shut off from the street or road by an outer gate, through -which strangers could quite properly be supposed to come ‘in’.[173] -Such courtyard scenes are not out of place, even before an ordinary -private house; still less, of course, when the house is a castle, and -in a castle courtyard scene we get very near the scenes with ‘walls’ -already described.[174] Some prison scenes, in the Tower or elsewhere, -are apparently of this type, although others seem to require interior -action in a close chamber or even a dungeon.[175] Threshold scenes may -also be before the outer gate of a palace or castle, where another -analogy to assault scenes presents itself;[176] or before a church or -temple, a friar’s cell, an inn, a stable, or the like.[177] Nor are -shop scenes, since a shop may be a mere adjunct to a house, really -different in kind. - -The threshold theory must not be pushed to a disregard of the clear -evidence for a certain amount of interior action. We have already come -across examples of shallow recesses, such as a tent, a cave, a bower, a -tomb, a shop, a window, within which, or from within which, personages -can speak. There are also scenes which must be supposed to take -place within a room. In dealing with these, I propose to distinguish -between spacious hall scenes and limited chamber scenes. Hall scenes -are especially appropriate to palaces. Full value should no doubt be -given to the extension in a palace of a porch to a portico, and to the -convention, which kings as well as private men follow in Elizabethan -plays, especially those located in Italian or Oriental surroundings, of -transacting much important business more or less out-of-doors.[178] The -characteristic Roman ‘senate house’, already described, is a case in -point.[179] But some scenes must be in a closed presence-chamber.[180] -Others are in a formal council room or parliament house. The conception -of a hall, often with a numerous company, cannot therefore be -altogether excluded. Nor are halls confined to palaces. They must be -assumed for law courts.[181] There are scenes in such buildings as the -London Exchange, Leadenhall, the Regent House at Oxford.[182] There -are scenes in churches or heathen temples and in monasteries.[183] -There are certainly also hall scenes in castles or private houses, -and it is sometimes a matter of taste whether you assume a hall scene -or a threshold scene.[184] Certain features of hall scenes may be -enumerated. Personages can go into, or come forth from, an inner room. -They can be brought in from without.[185] Seats are available, and -a chair or ‘state’ for a sovereign.[186] A law court has its ‘bar’. -Banquets can be served.[187] Masks may come dancing in.[188] Even a -play ‘within a play’ can be presented; that of Bottom and his fellows -in ‘the great chamber’ of Theseus’ palace is an example.[189] - -My final group is formed by the chamber scenes, in which the action -is clearly regarded as within the limits of an ordinary room. They -are far from numerous, in proportion to the total number of scenes in -the seventy-three plays, and in view of their importance in relation -to staging all for which there is clear evidence must be put upon -record. Most of them fall under two or three sub-types, which tend to -repeat themselves. The commonest are perhaps bedchamber scenes.[190] -These, like prison scenes, which are also frequent, give opportunity -for tragic episodes of death and sickness.[191] There are scenes -in living-rooms, often called ‘studies’.[192] A lady’s bower,[193] -a counting-house,[194] an inn parlour,[195] a buttery,[196] a -gallery,[197] may also be represented. - -This then is the practical problem, which the manager of an -Elizabethan theatre had to solve--the provision of settings, not -necessarily so elaborate or decorative as those of the Court, but -at least intelligible, for open country scenes, battle and siege -scenes, garden scenes, street and threshold scenes, hall scenes, -chamber scenes. Like the Master of the Revels, he made far less use -of interior action than the modern or even the Restoration producer -of plays; but he could not altogether avoid it, either on the larger -scale of a hall scene, in which a considerable number of persons had -occasionally to be staged for a parliament or a council or the like, -or on the smaller scale when only a few persons had to be shown in -a chamber, or in the still shallower enclosure which might stand as -part of a mainly out-of-doors setting for a cell, a bower, a cave, a -tent, a senate house, a window, a tomb, a shop, a porch, a shrine, a -niche.[198] Even more than the Master of the Revels, he had to face -the complication due to the taste of an English audience for romantic -or historical drama, and the changes of locality which a narrative -theme inevitably involved. Not for him, except here and there in a -comedy, that blessed unity of place upon which the whole dramatic art -of the Italian neo-classic school had been built up. Our corresponding -antiquarian problem is to reconstruct, so far as the evidence permits, -the structural resources which were at the Elizabethan manager’s -disposal for the accomplishment of his task. As material we have the -numerous indications in dialogue and stage-directions with which the -footnotes to this chapter are groaning; we have such contemporary -allusions as those of Dekker’s _Gull’s Hornbook_; we have the débris of -Philip Henslowe’s business memoranda; we have the tradition inherited -from the earlier Elizabethan period, for all the types of scene usual -in the theatres had already made their appearance before the theatres -came into existence; to a much less degree, owing to the interposition -of the roofed and rectangular Caroline theatre, we have also the -tradition bequeathed to the Restoration; and as almost sole graphic -presentment we have that drawing of the Swan theatre by Johannes de -Witt, which has already claimed a good deal of our consideration, and -to which we shall have to return from time to time, as a _point de -repère_, in the course of the forthcoming discussion. It is peculiarly -unfortunate that of all the seventy-three plays, now under review, -not one can be shown to have been performed at the Swan, and that the -only relics of the productions at that house, the plot of _England’s -Joy_ of 1602 and Middleton’s _Chaste Maid in Cheapside_ of 1611, stand -at such a distance of time from DeWitt’s drawing as not to exclude -the hypothesis of an intermediate reconstruction of its stage. One -other source of information, which throws a sidelight or two upon the -questions at issue, I will here deal with at more length, because it -has been a good deal overlooked. The so-called ‘English Wagner Book’ -of 1594, which contains the adventures of Wagner after the death of -his master Faustus, although based upon a German original, is largely -an independent work by an author who shows more than one sign of -familiarity with the English theatre.[199] The most important of these -is in chapter viii, which is headed ‘The Tragedy of Doctor Faustus -seene in the Ayre, and acted in the presence of a thousand people of -Wittenberg. An. 1540’. It describes, not an actual performance, but an -aerial vision produced by Wagner’s magic arts for the bewilderment of -an imperial pursuivant. The architecture has therefore, no doubt, its -elements of fantasy. Nevertheless, it is our nearest approach to a pen -picture of an Elizabethan stage, whereby to eke out that of De Witt’s -pencil. - - ‘They might distinctly perceiue a goodlye Stage to be reard - (shining to sight like the bright burnish golde) uppon many a - faire Pillar of clearest Cristall, whose feete rested uppon the - Arch of the broad Raynebow, therein was the high Throne wherein - the King should sit, and that prowdly placed with two and twenty - degrees to the top, and round about curious wrought chaires for - diverse other Potentates, there might you see the ground-worke - at the one end of the Stage whereout the personated divels - should enter in their fiery ornaments, made like the broad wide - mouth of an huge Dragon ... the teeth of this Hels-mouth far - out stretching.... At the other end in opposition was seene the - place where in the bloudlesse skirmishes are so often perfourmed - on the Stage, the Wals ... of ... Iron attempered with the most - firme steele ... environed with high and stately Turrets of the - like metall and beautye, and hereat many in-gates and out-gates: - out of each side lay the bended Ordinaunces, showing at their - wide hollowes the crueltye of death: out of sundry loopes many - large Banners and Streamers were pendant, brieflye nothing was - there wanting that might make it a faire Castle. There might - you see to be short the Gibbet, the Posts, the Ladders, the - tiring-house, there everything which in the like houses either - use or necessity makes common. Now above all was there the gay - Clowdes _Vsque quaque_ adorned with the heavenly firmament, and - often spotted with golden teares which men callen Stars. There - was lively portrayed the whole Imperiall Army of the faire - heavenly inhabitaunts.... This excellent faire Theator erected, - immediatly after the third sound of the Trumpets, there entreth - in the Prologue attired in a blacke vesture, and making his - three obeysances, began to shew the argument of that Scenicall - Tragedy, but because it was so far off they could not understand - the wordes, and having thrice bowed himselfe to the high Throne, - presently vanished.’ - -The action of the play is then described. Devils issue from hell mouth -and besiege the castle. Faustus appears on the battlements and defies -them. Angels descend from heaven to the tower and are dismissed by -Faustus. The devils assault the castle, capture Faustus and raze the -tower. The great devil and all the imperial rulers of hell occupy the -throne and chairs and dispute with Faustus. Finally, - - ‘Faustus ... leapt down headlong of the stage, the whole company - immediatly vanishing, but the stage with a most monstrous - thundering crack followed Faustus hastely, the people verily - thinking that they would have fallen uppon them ran all away.’ - -The three salient features of the Swan stage, as depicted by De Witt, -are, firstly the two pairs of folding doors in the back wall; secondly, -the ‘heavens’ supported on posts, which give the effect of a division -of the space into a covered rear and an uncovered front; and thirdly, -the gallery or row of boxes, which occupies the upper part of the back -wall. Each of these lends itself to a good deal of comment. The two -doors find abundant confirmation from numerous stage-directions, which -lead up to the favourite dramatic device of bringing in personages from -different points to meet in the centre of the stage. The formula which -agrees most closely with the drawing is that which directs entrance -‘at one door’ and ‘at the other door’, and is of very common use.[200] -But there are a great many variants, which are used, as for example -in the plot of _2 Seven Deadly Sins_, with such indifference as to -suggest that no variation of structure is necessarily involved.[201] -Thus an equally common antithesis is that between ‘one door’ and, not -‘the other door’, but ‘an other door’.[202] Other analogous expressions -are ‘one way’ and ‘at an other door’, ‘one way’ and ‘another way’, -‘at two sundry doors’, ‘at diverse doors’, ‘two ways’, ‘met by’;[203] -or again, ‘at several doors’, ‘several ways’, ‘severally’.[204] There -is a divergence, however, from De Witt’s indications, when we come -upon terminology which suggests that more than two doors may have -been available for entrances, a possibility with which the references -to ‘one door’ and ‘an other’ are themselves not inconsistent. Thus -in one of the _2 Seven Deadly Sins_ variants, after other personages -have entered ‘seuerall waies’, we find ‘Gorboduk entreing in the midst -between’. There are other examples of triple entrance in _Fair Em_, -in _Patient Grissell_, and in _The Trial of Chivalry_, although it -is not until the seventeenth century that three doors are in so many -words enumerated.[205] We get entrance ‘at every door’, however, in -_The Downfall of Robin Hood_, and this, with other more disputable -phrases, might perhaps be pressed into an argument that even three -points of entrance did not exhaust the limits of practicability.[206] -It should be added that, while doors are most commonly indicated as the -avenue of entrance, this is not always the case. Sometimes personages -are said to enter from one or other ‘end’, or ‘side’, or ‘part’ of -the stage.[207] I take it that the three terms have the same meaning, -and that the ‘end’ of a stage wider than its depth is what we should -call its ‘side’. A few minor points about doors may be noted, and -the discussion of a difficulty may be deferred.[208] Some entrances -were of considerable size; an animal could be ridden on and off.[209] -There were practicable and fairly solid doors; in _A Knack to Know an -Honest Man_, a door is taken off its hinges.[210] And as the doors give -admittance indifferently to hall scenes and to out-of-door scenes, -it is obvious that the term, as used in the stage-directions, often -indicates a part of the theatrical structure rather than a feature -properly belonging to a garden or woodland background.[211] - -Some observations upon the heavens have already been made in an earlier -chapter.[212] I feel little doubt that, while the supporting posts -had primarily a structural object, and probably formed some obstacle -to the free vision of the spectators, they were occasionally worked -by the ingenuity of the dramatists and actors into the ‘business’ of -the plays. The hints for such business are not very numerous, but they -are sufficient to confirm the view that the Swan was not the only -sixteenth-century theatre in which the posts existed. Thus in a street -scene of _Englishmen for my Money_ and in an open country scene of _Two -Angry Women of Abingdon_ we get episodes in which personages groping -in the darkness stumble up against posts, and the second of these is -particularly illuminating, because the victim utters a malediction -upon the carpenter who set the post up, which a carpenter may have -done upon the stage, but certainly did not do in a coney burrow.[213] -In _Englishmen for my Money_ the posts are taken for maypoles, and -there are two of them. There are two of them also in _Three Lords -and Three Ladies of London_, a post and ‘the contrarie post’, and -to one of them a character is bound, just as Kempe tells us that -pickpockets taken in a theatre were bound.[214] The binding to a post -occurs also in _Soliman and Perseda_.[215] In _James IV_ and in _Lord -Cromwell_ bills are set up on the stage, and for this purpose the posts -would conveniently serve.[216] All these are out-of-door scenes, but -there was a post in the middle of a warehouse in _Every Man In his -Humour_, and Miles sits down by a post during one of the scenes in the -conjurer’s cell in _Bacon and Bungay_.[217] I am not oblivious of the -fact that there were doubtless other structural posts on the stage -besides those of the heavens, but I do not see how they can have been -so conspicuous or so well adapted to serve in the action.[218] Posts -may have supported the gallery, but I find it difficult to visualize -the back of the stage without supposing these to have been veiled by -the hangings. But two of them may have become visible when the hangings -were drawn, or some porch-like projection from the back wall may have -had its posts, and one of these may be in question, at any rate in the -indoor scenes. - -The roof of the heavens was presumably used to facilitate certain -spectacular effects, the tradition of which the public theatres -inherited from the miracle-plays and the Court stage.[219] Startling -atmospheric phenomena were not infrequently represented.[220] These -came most naturally in out-of-door scenes, but I have noted one example -in a scene which on general grounds one would classify as a hall -scene.[221] The illusion may not have gone much beyond a painted cloth -drawn under the roof of the heavens.[222] More elaborate machinery may -have been entailed by aerial ascents and descents, which were also -not uncommon. Many Elizabethan actors were half acrobats, and could -no doubt fly upon a wire; but there is also clear evidence for the -use of a chair let down from above.[223] And was the arrangement of -cords and pulleys required for this purpose also that by which the -chair of state, which figures in so many hall scenes and even a few -out-of-door scenes, was put into position?[224] Henslowe had a throne -made in the heavens of the Rose in 1595.[225] Jonson sneered at the -jubilation of boyhood over the descent of the creaking chair.[226] The -device would lighten the labours of the tire-man, for a state would be -an awkward thing to carry on and off. It would avoid the presence of -a large incongruous property on the stage during action to which it -was inappropriate. And it would often serve as a convenient signal -for the beginning or ending of a hall scene. But to this aspect of the -matter I must return.[227] Whatever the machinery, it must have been -worked in some way from the upper part of the tire-house; possibly from -the somewhat obscure third floor, which De Witt’s drawing leaves to -conjecture; possibly from the superstructure known as the hut, if that -really stood further forward than De Witt’s drawing suggests. Perhaps -the late reference to Jove leaning on his elbows in the garret, or -employed to make squibs and crackers to grace the play, rather points -to the former hypothesis.[228] In favour of the latter, for what it -is worth, is the description, also late, of a theatre set up by the -English actors under John Spencer at Regensburg in 1613. This had a -lower stage for music, over that a main stage thirty feet high with a -roof supported by six great pillars, and under the roof a quadrangular -aperture, through which beautiful effects were contrived.[229] - -There has been a general abandonment of the hypothesis, which found -favour when De Witt’s drawing was first discovered, of a division of -the stage into an inner and an outer part by a ‘traverse’ curtain -running between the two posts, perhaps supplemented by two other -curtains running from the posts back to the tire-house.[230] Certainly -I do not wish to revive it. Any such arrangement would be inconsistent -with the use of the tire-house doors and gallery in out-of-door scenes; -for, on the hypothesis, these were played with the traverse closed. And -it would entail a serious interference with the vision of such scenes -by spectators sitting far round in the galleries or ‘above the stage’. -It does not, of course, follow that no use at all was made of curtains -upon the stage. It is true that no hangings of any kind are shown by -De Witt. Either there were none visible when he drew the Swan in 1596, -or, if they were visible, he failed to draw them; it is impossible to -say which. We know that even the Swan was not altogether undraped in -1602, for during the riot which followed the ‘cousening prancke’ of -_England’s Joy_ in that year the audience are said to have ‘revenged -themselves upon the hangings, curtains, chairs, stooles, walles, -and whatsoever came in their way’.[231] It is not, indeed, stated -that these hangings and curtains were upon the stage, and possibly, -although not very probably, they may have been in the auditorium. -Apart, however, from the Swan, there is abundant evidence for the use -of some kind of stage hangings in the public theatres of the sixteenth -century generally. To the references in dialogue and stage-directions -quoted in the footnotes to this chapter may be added the testimony -of Florio in 1598, of Ben Jonson in 1601, of Heywood in 1608, and of -Flecknoe after the Restoration.[232] We can go further, and point to -several passages which attest a well-defined practice, clearly going -back to the sixteenth century, of using black hangings for the special -purpose of providing an appropriate setting for a tragedy.[233] Where -then were these hangings? For a front curtain, on the public stage, -as distinct from the Court stage, there is no evidence whatever, and -the precautions taken to remove dead bodies in the course of action -enable us quite safely to leave it out of account.[234] There may have -been hangings of a decorative kind in various places, of course; round -the base of the stage, for example, or dependent, as Malone thought, -from the heavens. But the only place where we can be sure that there -were hangings was what Heywood calls the ‘fore-front’ of the stage, -by which it seems clear from Florio that he means the fore-front of -the tiring-house, which was at the same time the back wall of the -stage. It is, I believe, exclusively to hangings in this region that -our stage-directions refer. Their terminology is not quite uniform. -‘Traverse’ I do not find in a sixteenth-century public play.[235] By -far the most common term is ‘curtain’, but I do not think that there -is any technical difference between ‘curtain’ and the not infrequent -‘arras’ or the unique ‘veil’ of _The Death of Robin Hood_.[236] ‘Arras’ -is the ordinary Elizabethan name for a hanging of tapestry used as -a wall decoration, and often projected from a frame so as to leave -a narrow space, valuable to eavesdroppers and other persons in need -of seclusion, between itself and the wall. The stage arras serves -precisely this purpose as a background to interior scenes. Here stand -the murderers in _King John_; here Falstaff goes to sleep in _1 Henry -IV_; and here too he proposes to ‘ensconce’ himself, in order to -avoid being confronted with both his ladyloves together in _The Merry -Wives_.[237] - -The stage-directions, however, make it quite clear that the curtains -were not merely an immovable decoration of the back wall. They could -be ‘opened’ and ‘shut’ or ‘closed’; and either operation could -indifferently be expressed by the term ‘drawn’. This drawing was -presumably effected by sliding the curtain laterally along a straight -rod to which it was affixed by rings sewn on to its upper edge; -there is no sign of any rise or fall of the curtain. The operator -may be an actor upon the stage; in _Bacon and Bungay_ Friar Bacon -draws the curtains ‘with a white sticke’. He may be the speaker of -a prologue.[238] Whether the ‘servitours’ of a theatre ever came -upon the stage, undisguised, to draw the curtains, I am uncertain; -but obviously it would be quite easy to work the transformation from -behind, by a cord and pulley, without any visible intervention.[239] -The object of the drawing is to introduce interior action, either in -a mere recess, or in a larger space, such as a chamber; and this, not -only where curtains are dramatically appropriate, as within a house, -or at the door of a tent, but also where they are less so, as before a -cave or a forest bower. One may further accept the term ‘discovered’ -as indicating the unveiling of an interior by the play of a curtain, -even when the curtain is not specifically mentioned;[240] and may -recognize that the stage-directions sometimes use ‘Enter’ and ‘Exit’ -in a loose sense of persons, who do not actually move in or out, but -are ‘discovered’, or covered, by a curtain.[241] - -Of what nature, then, was the space so disclosed? There was ordinarily, -as already stated, a narrow space behind an arras; and if the gallery -above the stage jutted forward, or had, as the Swan drawing perhaps -indicates, a projecting weather-board, this might be widened into a -six- or seven-foot corridor, still in front of the back wall.[242] -Such a corridor would, however, hardly give the effect of a chamber, -although it might that of a portico. Nor would it be adequate in -size to hold all the scenes which it is natural to class as chamber -scenes; such, for example, as that in _Tamburlaine_, where no less than -ten persons are discovered grouped around Zenocrate’s bed.[243] The -stage-directions themselves do not help us much; that in _Alphonsus_ -alone names ‘the place behind the stage’, and as this is only required -to contain the head of Mahomet, a corridor, in this particular scene, -would have sufficed.[244] There is, however, no reason why the opening -curtains should not have revealed a quite considerable aperture in the -back wall, and an alcove or recess of quite considerable size lying -behind this aperture. With a 43-foot stage, as at the Fortune, and -doors placed rather nearer the ends of it than De Witt shows them, -it would be possible to get a 15-foot aperture, and still leave room -for the drawn curtains to hang between the aperture and the doors. -Allow 3 feet for the strip of stage between arras and wall, and a -back-run of 10 feet behind the wall, and you get an adequate chamber -of 15 feet × 13 feet. My actual measurements are, of course, merely -illustrative. There would be advantages, as regards vision, in not -making the alcove too deep. The height, if the gallery over the stage -ran in a line with the middle gallery for spectators, would be about 8 -feet or 9 feet; rather low, I admit.[245] A critic may point out that -behind the back wall of the outer stage lay the tire-house, and that -the 14-foot deep framework of a theatre no greater in dimensions than -the Fortune does not leave room for an inner stage in addition to the -tire-house. I think the answer is that the ‘place behind the stage’ was -in fact nothing but an _enclave_ within the tire-house, that its walls -consisted of nothing but screens covered with some more arras, that -these were only put up when they were needed for some particular scene, -and that when they were up, although they extended to nearly the full -depth of the tire-house, they did not occupy its full width, but left -room on either side for the actors to crowd into, and for the stairs -leading to the upper floors. When no interior scene had to be set, -there was nothing between the tire-house and the outer stage but the -curtains; and this renders quite intelligible the references quoted in -an earlier chapter to actors peeping through a curtain at the audience, -and to the audience ‘banding tile and pear’ against the curtains, to -allure the actors forth.[246] I do not think it is necessary to assume -that there was a third pair of folding doors permanently fixed in the -aperture.[247] They would be big and clumsy, although no doubt they -would help to keep out noise. In any case, there is not much evidence -on the point. If Tarlton’s head was seen ‘the Tire-House doore and -tapistrie betweene’, he may very well have gone to the end of the -narrow passage behind the arras, and looked out where that was broken -by one of the side-doors. No doubt, however, the aperture is the third -place of entrance ‘in the midst’, which the stage-directions or action -of some plays require, and which, as such, came to be regarded as a -third door.[248] - - [Illustration: A. SQUARE THEATRE (Proportions of Fortune)] - -I conceive, therefore, of the alcove as a space which the tire-man, -behind the curtains and in close proximity to the screens and -properties stored in the tire-house, can arrange as he likes, without -any interruption to continuous action proceeding on the outer stage. He -can put up a house-front with a door, and if needed, a porch. He can -put up a shop, or for that matter, a couple of adjacent shops. He can -put up the arched gates of a city or castle. These are comparatively -shallow structures. But he can also take advantage of the whole depth -of the space, and arrange a chamber, a cave, or a bower, furnishing -it as he pleases, and adding doors at the back or side, or a back -window, which would enable him to give more light, even if only -borrowed light from the tire-house, to an interior scene.[249] One -point, however, is rather puzzling. There are some scenes which imply -entrance to a chamber, not from behind, but from the open stage in -front, and by a visible door which can be knocked at or locked. Thus -in _Romeo and Juliet_, of which all the staging is rather difficult -on any hypothesis, the Friar observes Juliet coming towards his cell, -and after they have discoursed Juliet bids him shut the door. Here, -no doubt, the Friar may have looked out and seen Juliet through a back -window, and she may have entered by a back door. But in an earlier -scene, where we get the stage-direction ‘Enter Nurse and knockes’, and -the knocking is repeated until the Nurse is admitted to the cell, we -are, I think, bound to suppose that the entry is in front, in the sight -of the audience, and antecedent to the knocking.[250] Perhaps an even -clearer case is in _Captain Thomas Stukeley_, where Stukeley’s chamber -in the Temple is certainly approached from the open stage by a door -at which Stukeley’s father knocks, and which is unlocked and locked -again.[251] Yet how can a door be inserted in that side of a chamber -which is open to the stage and the audience. Possibly it was a very -conventional door set across the narrow space between the arras and -the back wall of the main stage, at the corner of the aperture and at -right angles to its plane. The accompanying diagrams will perhaps make -my notion of the inner stage clearer. - - [Illustration: B. OCTAGONAL THEATRE (e.g. Globe; size of Fortune)] - -It has been suggested, by me as well as by others, that the inner stage -may have been raised by a step or two above the outer stage.[252] On -reflection, I now think this unlikely. There would be none too much -height to spare, at any rate if the height of the alcove was determined -by that of the spectators’ galleries. The only stage-direction which -suggests any such arrangement is in the _Death of Robin Hood_, where -the King sits in a chair behind the curtains, and the Queen ascends to -him and descends again.[253] But even if the tire-man put up an exalted -seat in this case, there need have been no permanent elevation. The -missing woodcut of the Anglo-German stage at Frankfort in 1597 is said -to have shown a raised inner stage; but until it is recovered, it is -difficult to estimate its value as testimony upon the structure of the -London theatres.[254] - -It must not, of course, be taken for granted that every curtain, -referred to in text or stage-directions as ‘drawn’, was necessarily a -back curtain disclosing an alcove. In some, although not all, of the -bedchamber scenes the indications do not of themselves exclude the -hypothesis of a bed standing on the open stage and the revealing of the -occupant by the mere drawing of bed-curtains.[255] I do not think there -is any certain example of such an arrangement in a sixteenth-century -play.[256] But tents also could be closed by curtains, and the plot -of _2 Seven Deadly Sins_ requires Henry VI to lie asleep in ‘A tent -being plast one the stage’, while dumb-shows enter ‘at one dore’ and -‘at an other dore’.[257] However it may have been with other theatres, -we cannot, on the evidence before us, assert that the Swan had an -alcove at all; and if it had not, it was probably driven to provide for -chamber scenes by means of some curtained structure on the stage itself. - -On the other hand, it must not be supposed that every case, in which -a back curtain was drawn, will have found record in the printed book -of the play concerned; and when the existence of an alcove has once -been established, it becomes legitimate to infer its use for various -chamber and analogous scenes, to the presentation of which it would -have been well adapted. But this inference, again, must not be twisted -into a theory that the stage in front of the back wall served only for -out-of-door scenes, and that all interior action was housed, wholly -or in part, in the alcove. This is, I think, demonstrably untrue, as -regards the large group of indoor scenes which I have called hall -scenes. In the first place, the alcove would not have been spacious -enough to be of any value for a great many of the hall scenes. You -could not stage spectacular action, such as that of a coronation, a -sitting of parliament, or a trial at the bar, in a box of 15 by 13 feet -and only 9 feet high. A group of even so many as ten persons clustered -round a bed is quite another thing. I admit the device of the so-called -‘split’ scene, by which action beginning in the alcove is gradually -extended so as to take the whole of the stage into its ambit.[258] This -might perhaps serve for a court of justice, with the judges in the -alcove, the ‘bar’ drawn across the aperture, and the prisoners brought -in before it. A scene in which the arras is drawn in _Sir Thomas More_ -points to such a setting.[259] But a scene in which a royal ‘state’ is -the dominating feature would be singularly ineffective if the state -were wedged in under the low roof of the alcove; and if I am right -in thinking that the ‘state’ normally creaked down into its position -from the heavens, it would clearly land, not within the alcove, but -upon the open stage in front of it. Indeed, if it could be placed into -position behind a curtain, there would be no reason for bringing it -from the heavens at all. Then, again, hall scenes are regularly served -by two or more doors, which one certainly would not suppose from the -stage-directions to be any other than the doors similarly used to -approach out-of-door scenes; and they frequently end with injunctions -to ‘come in’, which would be superfluous if the personages on the -stage could be withdrawn from sight by the closing of the curtain. -Occasionally, moreover, the gallery over the stage comes into play in -a hall scene, in a way which would not be possible if the personages -were disposed in the alcove, over which, of course, this gallery -projected.[260] Some of these considerations tell more directly against -the exclusive use of the alcove for hall scenes, than against its use -in combination with the outer stage; and this combined use, where -suitable, I am quite prepared to allow. But ordinarily, I think, the -hall scenes were wholly on the outer stage; and this must necessarily -have been the case where two rooms were employed, of which one opens -out behind the other.[261] - -It may be said that the main object of the curtain is to allow of -the furniture and decorations of a ‘set’ scene, which is usually an -interior scene, being put in place behind it, without any interruption -to the continuous progress of an act; and that hall scenes cannot -be set properly, unless they also are behind the curtain line. I do -not think that there is much in this argument. A hall scene does -not require so much setting as a chamber scene. It is sufficiently -furnished, at any rate over the greater part of its area, with the -state and such lesser seats as can very readily be carried on during -the opening speeches or during the procession by which the action is -often introduced. A bar can be set up, or a banquet spread, or a sick -man brought in on his chair, as part of the action itself.[262] Even -an out-of-door scene, such as an execution or a duel in the lists, -sometimes demands a similar adjustment;[263] it need no more give pause -than the analogous devices entailed by the removal of dead bodies from -where they have fallen. - -I must not be taken to give any countenance to the doctrine that -properties, incongruous to the particular scene that was being played, -were allowed to stand on the public Elizabethan stage, and that the -audience, actually or through a convention, was not disturbed by -them.[264] This doctrine appears to me to rest upon misunderstandings -of the evidence produced in its support, and in particular upon a -failure to distinguish between the transitional methods of setting -employed by Lyly and his clan, and those of the permanent theatres -with which we are now concerned. The former certainly permitted of -incongruities in the sense that, as the neo-classic stage strove to -adapt itself to a romantic subject-matter, separate localities, with -inconsistent properties, came to be set at one and the same time in -different regions of the stage. But the system proved inadequate to -the needs of romanticism, as popular audiences understood it; and, -apart from some apparent rejuvenescence in the ‘private’ houses, -with which I must deal later, it gave way, about the time of the -building of the permanent theatres, to the alternative system, by -which different localities were represented, not synchronously but -successively, and each in its turn had full occupation of the whole -field of the stage. This full occupation was not, I venture to think, -qualified by the presence in any scene of a property inappropriate -to that scene, but retained there because it had been used for some -previous, or was to be used for some coming, scene. I do not mean to -say that some colourless or insignificant property, such as a bench, -may not have served, without being moved, first in an indoors and then -in an out-of-doors scene. But that the management of the Theatre or -the Rose was so bankrupt in ingenuity that the audience had to watch -a coronation through a fringe of trees or to pretend unconsciousness -while the strayed lovers in a forest dodged each other round the -corners of a derelict ‘state’, I, for one, see no adequate reason to -believe. It is chiefly the state and the trees which have caused the -trouble. But, after all, a state which has creaked down can creak up -again, just as a banquet or a gallows which has been carried on can be -carried off. Trees are perhaps a little more difficult. A procession of -porters, each with a tree in his arms, would be a legitimate subject -for the raillery of _The Admirable Bashville_. A special back curtain -painted _en pastoralle_ would hardly be adequate, even if there were -any evidence for changes of curtain; trees were certainly sometimes -practicable and therefore quasi-solid.[265] The alcove, filled with -shrubs, would by itself give the illusion of a greenhouse rather -than a forest; moreover, the alcove was available in forest scenes -to serve as a rustic bower or cottage.[266] Probably the number of -trees dispersed over the body of the stage was not great; they were a -symbolical rather than a realistic setting. On the whole, I am inclined -to think that, at need, trees ascended and descended through traps; -and that this is not a mere conjecture is suggested by a few cases in -which the ascent and descent, being part of a conjuring action, are -recorded in the stage-directions.[267] One of these shows that the -traps would carry not merely a tree but an arbour. The traps had, of -course, other functions. Through them apparitions arose and sank;[268] -Jonah was spewed up from the whale’s belly;[269] and the old device of -hell-mouth still kept alive a mediaeval tradition.[270] Only primitive -hydraulics would have been required to make a fountain flow or a fog -arise;[271] although it may perhaps be supposed that the episodes, -in which personages pass to and from boats or fling themselves into -a river, were performed upon the extreme edge of the stage rather -than over a trap.[272] I do not find any clear case, in the public -sixteenth-century theatres, of the convention apparently traceable in -Lyly and Whetstone, by which the extreme edge of the stage is used -for ‘approach’ scenes, as when a traveller arrives from afar, or when -some episode has to be represented in the environs of a city which -furnishes the principal setting.[273] And I think it would certainly -be wrong to regard the main stage, apart from the alcove, as divided -into an inner area covered by the heavens and an outer area, not so -covered and appropriate to open-country scenes. Indeed, the notion that -any substantial section of the stage appeared to the audience not to -lie under the heavens is in my view an illusion due to the unskilful -draughtsmanship of De Witt or his copyist. Skyey phenomena belong most -naturally to open-country scenes, nor are these wholly debarred from -the use of the state; and the machinery employed in both cases seems to -imply the existence of a superincumbent heavens.[274] - -I come finally to the interesting question of the gallery above the -stage. This, in the Swan drawing, may project very slightly over the -scenic wall, and is divided by short vertical columns into six small -compartments, in each of which one or two occupants are sitting. They -might, of course, be personages in the play; but, if so, they seem -curiously dissociated from the action. They might be musicians, but -they appear to include women, and there is no clear sign of musical -instruments. On the whole, they have the air of spectators.[275] -However this may be, let us recall what has already been established -in an earlier chapter, that there is conclusive evidence for some use -of the space above the stage for spectators, at least until the end -of the sixteenth century, and for some use of it as a music-room, at -least during the seventeenth century.[276] With these uses we have -to reconcile the equally clear indications that this region, or some -part of it, was available when needed, throughout the whole of the -period under our consideration, as a field for dramatic action. For -the moment we are only concerned with the sixteenth century. A glance -back over my footnotes will show many examples in which action is said -to be ‘above’ or ‘aloft’, or is accompanied by the ascent or descent -of personages from or to the level of the main stage. This interplay -of different levels is indeed the outstanding characteristic of the -Elizabethan public theatre, as compared with the other systems of -stage-presentment to which it stands in relation. There are mediaeval -analogies, no doubt, and one would not wish to assert categorically -that no use was ever made of a balcony or a house-roof in a Greek -or Roman or Italian setting. But, broadly speaking, the classical -and neo-classical stage-tradition, apart from theophanies, is one of -action on a single level. Even in the Elizabethan Court drama, the -platform comes in late and rarely, although the constant references to -‘battlements’ in the Revels Accounts enable us to infer that, by the -time when the public theatres came to be built, the case of _Orestes_ -was not an isolated one. Battlements, whatever the extension which -the Revels officers came to give to the term, were primarily for -the beloved siege scenes, and to the way in which siege scenes were -treated in the theatres I must revert. But from two plays, _The Rare -Triumphs of Love and Fortune_ and _The Woman in the Moon_, both of -which probably represent a late development of the Court drama, we may -gather at least one other definite function of the platform, as a point -of vantage from which presenters, in both cases of a divine type, may -sit ‘sunning like a crow in a gutter’, and watch the evolution of their -puppets on the stage below.[277] This disposition of presenters ‘aloft’ -finds more than one parallel in the public theatres. The divine element -is retained in _The Battle of Alcazar_, where Henslowe’s plot gives us, -as part of the direction for a dumb-show, ‘Enter aboue Nemesis’.[278] -There are traces of it also in _James IV_ and in _A Looking Glass for -London and England_. In _James IV_ the presenters are Bohan, a Scot, -and Oberon, king of fairies. They come on the stage for an induction, -at the end of which Bohan says, ‘Gang with me to the Gallery, and Ile -show thee the same in action by guid fellowes of our country men’, and -they ‘_Exeunt_’. Obviously they watch the action, for they enter again -and comment upon it during act-intervals. One of their interpositions -is closed with the words ‘Gow shrowd vs in our harbor’; another with -‘Lets to our sell, and sit & see the rest’.[279] In the _Looking Glass_ -we get after the first scene the direction, ‘Enters brought in by an -angell Oseas the Prophet, and set downe ouer the Stage in a Throne’. -Oseas is evidently a presenter; the actors ignore him, but he makes -moral comments after various scenes, and at the end of Act IV comes the -further direction, ‘Oseas taken away’.[280] Purely human presenters in -_The Taming of a Shrew_ are still on a raised level. Sly is removed -from the main stage during the first scene of the induction. He is -brought back at the beginning of the second scene, presumably above, -whence he criticizes the play, for towards the end the lord bids his -servants - - lay him in the place where we did find him, - Just underneath the alehouse side below; - -and this is done by way of an epilogue.[281] - -I do not suggest that presenters were always above; it is not so when -they merely furnish the equivalent of a prologue or epilogue, but only -when it is desired to keep them visible during the action, and on -the other hand they must not obstruct it. Sometimes, even when their -continued presence might be desirable, it has to be dispensed with, or -otherwise provided for. The presenters in _Soliman and Perseda_ come -and go; those in _The Spanish Tragedy_ sit upon the stage itself. Why? -I think the answer is the same in both cases. A platform was required -for other purposes. In _Soliman and Perseda_ one scene has the outer -wall of a tiltyard reached by ladders from the stage; another has a -tower, from which victims are tumbled down out of sight.[282] In the -_Spanish Tragedy_, apart from some minor action ‘above’, there is -the elaborate presentation of Hieronimo’s ‘play within the play’ to -be provided for. This must be supposed to be part of a hall scene. -It occupies, with its preparations, most of the fourth, which is -the last, act; and for it the King and his train are clearly seated -in an upper ‘gallerie’, while the performance takes place on the -floor of the hall below, with the body of Horatio concealed behind a -curtain, for revelation at the appropriate moment.[283] We are thus -brought face to face with an extension on the public stage of the -use of ‘above’, beyond what is entailed by the needs of sieges or of -exalted presenters. Nor, of course, are the instances already cited -exhaustive. The gallery overlooking a hall in the _Spanish Tragedy_ has -its parallel in the window overlooking a hall in _Dr. Faustus_.[284] -More frequent is an external window, door, or balcony, overlooking an -external scene in street or garden.[285] In these cases the action -‘above’ is generally slight. Some one appears in answer to a summons -from without; an eavesdropper listens to a conversation below; a girl -talks to her lover, and there may be an ascent or descent with the help -of a rope-ladder or a basket. But there are a few plays in which we -are obliged to constitute the existence of a regular chamber scene, -with several personages and perhaps furniture, set ‘above’. The second -scene of the induction to the _Taming of the Shrew_, just cited, is -already a case in point. The presenters here do not merely sit, as -spectators in the lord’s room might, and listen. They move about a -chamber and occupy considerable space. Scenes which similarly require -the whole interior of an upper room to be visible, and not merely its -balcony or window bay, are to be found in _1 Sir John Oldcastle_, in -_Every Man In his Humour_, twice in _The Jew of Malta_, in _2 Henry -IV_, and in _Look About You_.[286] I do not know whether I ought to add -_Romeo and Juliet_. Certainly the love scenes, Act II, scc. i and ii, -and Act III, sc. v, require Juliet’s chamber to be aloft, and in these -there is no interior action entailing more than the sound of voices, -followed by the appearance of the speakers over Juliet’s shoulder as -she stands at the casement or on a balcony.[287] It would be natural -to assume that the chamber of Act IV, sc. iii, in which Juliet drinks -her potion, and sc. v, in which she is found lying on her bed, is the -same, and therefore also aloft. Obviously its interior, with the bed -and Juliet, must be visible to the spectators. The difficulty is that -it also appears to be visible to the wedding guests and the musicians, -as they enter the courtyard from without; and this could only be, -if it were upon the main level of the stage. If the scene stood by -itself, one would undoubtedly assign it to the curtained recess behind -the stage; and on the whole it is probable that on this occasion -architectural consistency was sacrificed to dramatic effect, and -Juliet’s chamber was placed sometimes above and sometimes below.[288] -There is one other type of scene which requires elevated action, and -that is the senate-house scene, as we find it in _The Wounds of Civil -War_ and in _Titus Andronicus_, where the Capitol clearly stands above -the Forum, but is within ear-shot and of easy approach.[289] - -I think we are bound to assume that some or all of this action ‘above’ -took place in the gallery ‘over the stage’, where it could be readily -approached from the tiring-house behind, and could be disposed with the -minimum of obstruction to the vision of the auditorium. A transition -from the use of this region for spectators to its use for action is -afforded by the placing there of those idealized spectators, the -presenters. So far as they are concerned, all that would be needed, in -a house arranged like the Swan, would be to assign to them one or more, -according to their number, of the rooms or compartments, into which the -gallery was normally divided. One such compartment, too, would serve -well for a window, and would be accepted without demur as forming part -of the same ‘domus’ to which a door below, or, as in _The Merchant -of Venice_, a penthouse set in the central aperture, gave access. -To get a practicable chamber, it would be necessary to take down a -partition and throw two of the compartments, probably the two central -compartments, into one; but there would still be four rooms left for -the lords. As a matter of fact, most upper chamber scenes, even of -the sixteenth century, are of later date than the Swan drawing, and -some architectural evolution, including the provision of a music-room, -may already have taken place, and have been facilitated by the waning -popularity of the lord’s rooms. It will be easier to survey the whole -evolution of the upper stage in the next chapter.[290] For the present, -let us think of the upper chamber as running back on the first floor of -the tiring-house above the alcove, and reached from within by stairs -behind the scenic wall, of which, if desired, the foot could perhaps be -made visible within the alcove.[291] Borrowed light could be given by -a window at the back, from which also the occupants of the room could -pretend to look out behind.[292] Internal doors could of course also be -made available. A scene in _The Jew of Malta_ requires a trap in the -floor of the upper chamber, over a cauldron discovered in the alcove -below.[293] The upper chamber could be fitted, like the alcove itself, -with an independent curtain for discoveries.[294] - -Are we to conclude that all action ‘above’ was on or behind the back -line of the stage? The point upon which I feel most uncertainty is -the arrangement of the battlements in the stricter sense.[295] These -appear to be generally regarded as running along the whole of the back -line, with the gates of the town or castle represented in the central -aperture below. Some writers suggest that they occupied, not the actual -space of the rooms or boxes ‘over the stage’, but a narrow balcony -running in front of these.[296] I cannot satisfy myself that the Swan -drawing bears out the existence of any projecting ledge adequate for -the purpose. On the other hand, if all the compartments of the gallery -were made available and their partitions removed, all the spectators -‘over the stage’ must have been displaced; and siege scenes are early, -and numerous. I do not know that it is essential to assume that the -battlements extended beyond the width of two compartments. There is -some definite evidence for a position of the ‘walles’ on the scenic -line, apart from the patent convenience of keeping the main stage clear -for besieging armies, in Jasper Mayne’s laudation of Ben Jonson: - - Thou laid’st no sieges to the music-room.[297] - -I am content to believe that this is where they normally stood. At -the same time, it is possible that alternative arrangements were not -unknown. In the _Wagner Book_, which must be supposed to describe a -setting of a type not incredible on the public stage, we are told of -a high throne, presumably at the back, of hell mouth ‘at the one -end of the stage’, and of an elaborate castle ‘at the other end in -opposition’. This is ‘the place where in the bloudlesse skirmishes -are so often perfourmed upon the stage’, and although I should not -press this as meaning that the walls were always at an ‘end’ of the -stage, the passage would be absurd, if they were invariably at the -back.[298] Further, there is at least one extant play in which it is -very difficult to envisage certain scenes with the walls at the back. -This is _1 Henry VI_, the Orleans scenes of which, with the leaping -over the walls, and the rapid succession of action in the market-place -within the town and in the field without, seem to me clearly to point -to walls standing across the main stage from back to front.[299] But if -so, how were such walls put into place? The imagination boggles at the -notion of masons coming in to build a wall during the action, in the -way in which attendants might set up a bar or a lists, or carpenters -the gibbet for an execution. Bottom’s device for _Pyramus and Thisbe_ -would hardly be more grotesque. Yet the Orleans siege scenes in _1 -Henry VI_ are by no means coincident with acts, and could not therefore -be set in advance and dismantled at leisure when done with. Can the -walls have been drawn forwards and backwards, with the help of some -machine, through the doors or the central aperture?[300] It is not -inconceivable, and possibly we have here the explanation of the ‘j -whell and frame in the Sege of London’, which figures in the Admiral’s -inventories. Once the possibility of a scenic structure brought on to -the main stage is mooted, one begins to look for other kinds of episode -in which it would be useful. This, after all, may have been the way in -which a gibbet was introduced, and the Admiral’s had also ‘j frame for -the heading in Black Jone’, although nothing is said of a wheel.[301] -The senate houses could, I think, have been located in the gallery, -but the beacon in _King Leir_ would not look plausible there, and the -Admiral’s had a beacon, apparently as a detached property.[302] I am -also inclined to think that a wall may occasionally have been drawn -across the stage to make a close of part of it for a garden scene. In -Act II of _Romeo and Juliet_ Romeo pretty clearly comes in with his -friends in some public place of the city, and then leaps a wall into -an orchard, where he is lost to their sight, and finds himself under -Juliet’s window. He must have a wall to leap. I mentioned _Pyramus and -Thisbe_ just above with intent, for what is _Pyramus and Thisbe_ but a -burlesque of the _Romeo and Juliet_ motive, which would have been all -the more amusing, if a somewhat conspicuous and unusual wall had been -introduced into its model? Another case in point may be the ‘close -walk’ before Labervele’s house in _A Humorous Day’s Mirth_.[303] I have -allowed myself to stray into the field of conjecture. - -One other possible feature of action ‘above’ must not be left out of -account. The use of the gallery may have been supplemented on occasion -by that of some window or balcony in the space above it, which De -Witt’s drawing conceals from our view. Here may have been the ‘top’ on -which La Pucelle appears in the Rouen episode of _1 Henry VI_, and the -towers or turrets, which are sometimes utilized or referred to in this -and other plays.[304] It would be difficult to describe the central -boxes of the Swan gallery as a tower. - -Before any attempt is made to sum up the result of this long -chapter, one other feature of sixteenth-century staging, which is -often overlooked, requires discussion. In the majority of cases the -background of an out-of-door scene need contain at most a single -_domus_; and this, it is now clear, can be represented either by a -light structure, such as a tent or arbour, placed temporarily upon -the floor of the stage, or more usually by the _scena_ or back wall, -with its doors, its central aperture, and its upper gallery. There -are, however, certain scenes in which one _domus_ will not suffice, -and two or possibly even three, must be represented. Thus, as in -_Richard III_, there may be two hostile camps, with alternating action -at tents in each of them.[305] There may also be interplay, without -change of scene, between different houses in one town or village. -In _Arden of Feversham_, Arden’s house and the painter’s are set -together;[306] in _The Taming of A Shrew_, the lord’s house and the -alehouse for the induction, and Polidor’s and Alphonso’s during the -main play;[307] in _The Blind Beggar of Alexandria_, the houses of -Elimine and Samethis;[308] in _1 Sir John Oldcastle_, Cobham’s gate -and an inn;[309] in _Stukeley_, Newton’s house and a chamber in the -Temple;[310] in _A Knack to Know an Honest Man_, Lelio’s and Bristeo’s -for one scene, Lelio’s and a Senator’s for another, possibly Lelio’s -and Servio’s, though of this I am less sure, for a third.[311] These -are the most indisputable cases; given the principle, we are at liberty -to conjecture its application in other plays. Generally the houses -may be supposed to be contiguous; it is not so in _Stukeley_, where -Old Stukeley clearly walks some little distance to the Temple, and -here therefore we get an example of that foreshortening of distance -between two parts of a city, with which we became familiar in the -arrangement of Court plays.[312] It is not the only example. In -_George a Greene_ Jenkin and the Shoemaker walk from one end to the -other of Wakefield.[313] In _Arden of Feversham_, although this is -an open-country and not an urban scene, Arden and Francklin travel -some little way to Raynham Down.[314] In _Dr. Faustus_, so far as -we can judge from the unsatisfactory text preserved, any limitation -to a particular neighbourhood is abandoned, and Faustus passes -without change of scene from the Emperor’s Court to his own home in -Wittenberg.[315] Somewhat analogous is the curious device in _Romeo and -Juliet_, where the maskers, after preparing in the open, ‘march about -the stage’, while the scene changes to the hall of Capulet, which they -then enter.[316] - -I think, then, it must be taken that the background of a public stage -could stand at need, not merely for a single _domus_, but for a ‘city’. -Presumably in such cases the central aperture and the gallery above it -were reserved for any house in which interior action was to proceed, -and for the others mere doors in the scenic wall were regarded as -adequate. I do not find any sixteenth-century play which demands either -interior action or action ‘above’ in more than one house.[317] But a -question arises as to how, for a scene in which the scenic doors had to -represent house doors, provision was made for external entrances and -exits, which certainly cannot be excluded from such scenes. Possibly -the answer is, although I feel very doubtful about it, that there -were never more than two houses, and that therefore one door always -remained available to lead on and off the main stage.[318] Possibly -also entrances and exits by other avenues than the two scenic doors, -which we infer from the Swan drawing, and the central aperture which we -feel bound to add, are not inconceivable. We have already had some hint -that three may not have been the maximum number of entrances. If the -Elizabethan theatre limited itself to three, it would have been worse -off than any of the early neo-classic theatres based upon Vitruvius, in -which the _porta regia_ and _portae minores_ of the scenic wall were -regularly supplemented by the _viae ad forum_ in the _versurae_ to -right and left of the _proscenium_.[319] No doubt such wings could not -be constructed at the Swan, where a space was left on the level of the -‘yard’ between the spectators’ galleries and the right and left edges -of a narrow stage. But they would be feasible in theatres with wider -stages, and the arrangement, if it existed, would make the problem of -seats on the stage easier.[320] It is no more than a conjecture. It has -also been suggested that the heavy columns drawn by De Witt may have -prevented him from showing two entrances round the extreme ends of the -scenic wall, such as are perhaps indicated in some of the Terentian -woodcuts of 1493.[321] Or, finally, actors might have emerged from the -tiring-house into the space on the level of the yard just referred to, -and thence reached the stage, as from without, by means of a short -flight of steps.[322] - -Working then from the Swan stage, and only departing in any essential -from De Witt’s drawing by what appears to be, at any rate for theatres -other than the Swan, the inevitable addition of a back curtain, we -find no insuperable difficulty in accounting for the setting of all -the types of scenes recognizable in sixteenth-century plays. The -great majority of them, both out-of-door scenes and hall scenes, were -acted on the open stage, under the heavens, with no more properties -and practicable _terrains_ than could reasonably be carried on by the -actors, lowered from the heavens, raised by traps, or thrust on by -frames and wheels. For more permanent background they had the scenic -doors, the gallery above, the scenic curtain, and whatever the tire-man -might choose to insert in the aperture, backed by an alcove within the -tire-house, which the drawing of the curtain discovered. For entrances -they had at least the scenic doors and aperture. The comparatively few -chamber scenes were set either in the alcove or in a chamber ‘above’, -formed by throwing together two compartments of the gallery. A window -in a still higher story could, if necessary, be brought into play. So, -with all due respect to the obscurities of the evidence, I reconstruct -the facts. It will, I hope, be apparent without any elaborate -demonstration that this system of public staging, as practised by -Burbadge at the Theatre, by Lanman at the Curtain, by Henslowe at the -Rose, and perhaps with some modifications by Langley at the Swan, is -very fairly in line with the earlier sixteenth-century tradition, as -we have studied it in texts in which the Court methods are paramount. -This is only natural, in view of the fact that the same plays continued -to be presented to the public and to the sovereign. There is the same -economy of recessed action, the same conspicuous tendency to dialogue -on a threshold, the same unwillingness to break the flow of an act by -any deliberate pause for resetting. The public theatre gets in some -ways a greater variety of dramatic situation, partly owing to its free -use of the open stage, instead of merely a portico, for hall scenes, -partly owing to its characteristic development of action ‘above’. -This, in spite of the battlements of the Revels accounts, may perhaps -be a contribution of the inn-yard. The main change is, of course, the -substitution for the multiple staging of the Court, with its adjacent -regions for different episodes, of a principle of successive staging, -by which the whole space became in turn available for each distinct -scene. This was an inevitable change, as soon as the Elizabethan love -for history and romance broke down the Renaissance doctrine of the -unity of place; and it will not be forgotten that the beginnings of -it are already clearly discernible in the later Court drama, which of -course overlaps with the popular drama, itself. Incidentally the actors -got elbow-room; some of the Lylyan scenes must have been very cramped. -But they had to put up with a common form setting, capable only of -minor modifications, and no doubt their architectural decorations and -unvarying curtain were less interesting from the point of view of -_spectacle_, than the diversity of ‘houses’ which the ingenuity and -the resources of the Court architects were in a position to produce. -In any case, however, economy would probably have forbidden them to -enter into rivalry with the Revels Office. Whether the Elizabethan type -of public stage was the invention of Burbadge, the ‘first builder of -theatres’, or had already come into use in the inn-yards, is perhaps -an idle subject for wonder. The only definite guess at its origin -is that of Professor Creizenach, who suggests that it may have been -adapted from the out-of-door stages, set up from time to time for the -dramatic contests held by the Rederijker or Chambers of Rhetoric in -Flanders.[323] Certainly there are common features in the division of -the field of action into two levels and the use of curtained apertures -both below and above. But the latest examples of the Flemish festivals -were at Ghent in 1539 and at Antwerp in 1561 respectively; and it would -be something of a chance if Burbadge or any other English builder had -any detailed knowledge of them.[324] - - - - - XXI - - STAGING IN THE THEATRES: SEVENTEENTH CENTURY - - [For _Bibliographical Note_, _vide_ ch. xviii.] - - -The turn of the century is also a turning-point in the history of the -public theatres. In 1599 the Chamberlain’s men built the Globe, and in -1600, not to be outdone, the Admiral’s men built upon the same model -the Fortune. These remained the head-quarters of the same companies, -when at the beginning of the reign of James the one became the King’s -and the other the Prince’s men. Worcester’s, afterwards the Queen’s, -men were content for a time with the older houses, first the Rose, -then the Curtain and the Boar’s Head, but by 1605 or 1606 they were -occupying the Red Bull, probably a new building, but one of which we -know very little. Meanwhile the earlier Tudor fashion of plays by boys -had been revived, both at Paul’s, and at the Blackfriars, where a -theatre had been contrived by James Burbadge about 1596 in a chamber of -the ancient priory, for the purposes of a public stage. - -We cannot on _a priori_ grounds assume that the structural arrangements -of the sixteenth-century houses were merely carried into those of -the seventeenth century without modification; the experience of -twenty-five years’ working may well have disclosed features in the -original plan of James Burbadge which were not altogether convenient -or which lent themselves to further development. On the other -hand, we have not got to take into account the possibility of any -fundamental change or sharp breach of continuity. The introduction -of a new type of stage, even if it escaped explicit record, would -inevitably have left its mark both upon the dramatic construction of -plays and upon the wording of their stage-directions. No such mark -can be discerned. You cannot tell an early seventeenth-century play -from a late sixteenth-century one on this kind of evidence alone; -the handling and the conventions, the situations and the spectacular -effects, remain broadly the same, and such differences as do gradually -become apparent, concern rather the trend of dramatic interest than -the external methods of stage-presentation. Moreover, it is evident -that the sixteenth-century plays did not pass wholly into disuse. From -time to time they were revived, and lent themselves, perhaps with some -minor adaptation, to the new boards as well as to the old. In dealing -with early seventeenth-century staging, then, I will assume the general -continuance of the sixteenth-century plan, and will content myself with -giving some further examples of its main features, and with considering -any evidence which may seem to point to specific development in one -or more particular directions. And on the whole it will be convenient -to concentrate now mainly upon the theatres occupied by the King’s -men. For this there are various reasons. One is that the possession of -Shakespeare’s plays gives them a prerogative interest in modern eyes; -another that the repertories of the other companies have hardly reached -us in a form which renders any very safe induction feasible. - -Even in the case of the King’s men, the material is not very ample, and -there are complications which make it necessary to proceed by cautious -steps to somewhat tentative conclusions. The Globe was probably opened -in the autumn of 1599. The first play which we can definitely locate -there is _Every Man Out of his Humour_; but I have decided with some -hesitation to treat _Henry V_ and _Much Ado about Nothing_, for the -purposes of these chapters, as Globe plays.[325] So far as we know, -the Globe was the only theatre used by the company up to the winter -of 1609, when they also came into possession of the Blackfriars. From -1609 to 1613 they used both houses, but probably the Globe was still -the more important of the two, for when it was burnt in 1613 they -found it worth while to rebuild it fairer than before. At some time, -possibly about the end of James’s reign, the Blackfriars began to come -into greater prominence, and gradually displaced the Globe as the main -head-quarters of the London drama. This, however, is a development -which lies outside the scope of these volumes; nor can I with advantage -inquire in detail whether there were any important structural features -in which the new Globe is likely to have differed from the old Globe. -At the most I can only offer a suggestion for the historian of the -Caroline stage to take up in his turn. In the main, therefore, we -have to consider the staging of the Globe from 1599 to 1609, and of -the Globe and the Blackfriars from 1609 to 1613. The plays available -fall into four groups. There are nineteen or twenty printed and -probably produced during 1599–1609, of which, however, one or two were -originally written for private theatres.[326] There are two produced -and printed during 1609–12, and one preserved in manuscript from the -same period.[327] There are ten probably produced during 1599–1603, -but not printed before 1622 or 1623.[328] There are perhaps nine or -ten produced during 1609–13, and printed at various dates from 1619 to -1634.[329] It will be seen that the first group is of much the greatest -value evidentially, as well as fortunately the longest, but that it -only throws light upon the Globe and not upon the Blackfriars; that -the value of the second and fourth groups is discounted by our not -knowing how far they reflect Globe and how far Blackfriars conditions; -and that the original features of the third and fourth groups may -have been modified in revivals, either at the Blackfriars or at the -later Globe, before they got into print. I shall use them all, but, -I hope, with discrimination.[330] I shall also use, for illustration -and confirmation, rather than as direct evidence, plays from other -seventeenth-century theatres. The Prince’s men were at the Fortune -during the whole of the period with which we are concerned, and then on -to and after the fire of 1621, and the reconstruction, possibly on new -lines, of 1623. We know that its staging arrangements resembled those -of the Globe, for it was provided in the builder’s contract that this -should be so, and also that the stage should be ‘placed and sett’ in -accordance with ‘a plott thereof drawen’. Alleyn would have saved me -a great deal of trouble if he had put away this little piece of paper -along with so many others. Unfortunately, the Prince’s men kept their -plays very close, and only five or six of our period got into print -before 1623.[331] From the Queen’s men we have rather more, perhaps -sixteen in all; but we do not always know whether these were given at -the Red Bull or the Curtain. Nor do we know whether any structural -improvements introduced at the Globe and Fortune were adopted at the -Red Bull, although this is _a priori_ not unlikely.[332] From the Swan -we have only _The Chaste Maid of Cheapside_, and from the Hope only -_Bartholomew Fair_. - -At the Globe, then, the types of scene presented are much the same as -those with which we have become familiar in the sixteenth century; the -old categories of open-country scenes, battle scenes, garden scenes, -street scenes, threshold scenes, hall scenes, and chamber scenes -will still serve. Their relative importance alters, no doubt, as the -playwrights tend more and more to concern themselves with subjects of -urban life. But there are plenty of battle scenes in certain plays, -much on the traditional lines, with marchings and counter-marchings, -alarums for fighting ‘within’, and occasional ‘excursions’ on the field -of the stage itself.[333] Practicable tents still afford a convenient -camp background, and these, I think, continue to be pitched on the -open boards.[334] The opposing camps of _Richard III_ are precisely -repeated in _Henry V_.[335] There are episodes before the ‘walls’ -too, with defenders speaking from above, assaults by means of scaling -ladders, and coming and going through the gates.[336] I find no example -in which a wall inserted on the line of the scenic curtain would not -meet the needs of the situation. Pastoral scenes are also common, for -the urban preoccupation has its regular reaction in the direction of -pastoral. There is plenty of evidence for practicable trees, such as -that on which Orlando in _As You Like It_ hangs his love verses, and -the most likely machinery for putting trees into position still seems -to me to be the trap.[337] A trap, too, might bring up the bower for -the play within the play of _Hamlet_, the pleached arbour of _Much -Ado about Nothing_, the pulpit in the forum of _Julius Caesar_, the -tombstone in the woods of _Timon of Athens_, the wayside cross of -_Every Man Out of his Humour_, and other _terrains_ most easily thought -of as free-standing structures.[338] It would open for Ophelia’s -grave, and for the still beloved ascents of spirits from the lower -regions.[339] It remains difficult to see how a riverbank or the -sea-shores was represented.[340] As a rule, the edge of the stage, with -steps into the auditorium taken for water stairs, seems most plausible. -But there is a complicated episode in _The Devil’s Charter_, with a -conduit and a bridge over the Tiber, which I do not feel quite able -to envisage.[341] There is another bridge over the Tiber for Horatius -Cocles in the Red Bull play of the _Rape of Lucrece_. But this is -easier; it is projected from the walls of Rome, and there must be a -trapped cavity on the scenic line, into which Horatius leaps.[342] - -The Hope contract of 1613 provides for the heavens to be supported -without the help of posts rising from the stage. For this there was -a special reason at the Hope, since the stage had to be capable of -removal to make room for bear-baitings. But the advantage of dispensing -with the posts and the obstacle to the free vision of the spectators -which they presented must have been so great, that the innovation may -well have occurred to the builders of the Globe. Whether it did, I do -not think that we can say. There are one or two references to posts in -stage-directions, but they need not be the posts of the heavens.[343] -Possibly, too, there was less use of the descending chair. One might -even fancy that Jonson’s sarcasm in the prologue to _Every Man In -his Humour_ discredited it. The new type of play did not so often -call for spectacular palace scenes, and perhaps some simpler and -more portable kind of ‘state’ was allowed to serve the turn. There -is no suggestion of a descent from the heavens in the theophanies -of _As You Like It_ and _Pericles_; Juno, however, descends in _The -Tempest_.[344] This, although it has practically no change of setting, -is in some ways, under the mask influence, the most spectacular -performance attempted by the King’s men at Globe or Blackfriars during -our period.[345] But it is far outdone by the Queen’s plays of the -_Golden_, _Silver_, and _Brazen Ages_, which, if they were really -given just as Heywood printed them, must have strained the scenic -resources of the Red Bull to an extreme. Here are ascents and descents -and entries from every conceivable point of the stage;[346] divinities -in fantastic disguise;[347] mythological dumb-shows;[348] battles and -hunting episodes and revels;[349] ingenious properties, often with -a melodramatic thrill;[350] and from beginning to end a succession -of atmospheric phenomena, which suggest that the Jacobeans had made -considerable progress in the art of stage pyrotechnics.[351] The Globe, -with its traditional ‘blazing star’, is left far behind.[352] - -The critical points of staging are the recesses below and above. -Some kind of recess on the level of the main stage is often required -by the King’s plays; for action in or before a prison,[353] a -cell,[354] a cave,[355] a closet,[356] a study,[357] a tomb,[358] a -chapel,[359] a shop;[360] for the revelation of dead bodies or other -concealed sights.[361] In many cases the alcove constructed in the -tiring-house behind the scenic wall would give all that is required, -and occasionally a mention of the ‘curtains’ or of ‘discovery’ in a -stage-direction points plainly to this arrangement. The ‘traverse’ of -Webster’s plays, both for the King’s and the Queen’s men, appears, -as already pointed out, to be nothing more than a terminological -variant.[362] Similarly, hall scenes have still their ‘arras’ or their -‘hangings’, behind which a spy can post himself.[363] A new feature, -however, now presents itself in the existence of certain scenes, -including some bedchamber scenes, which entail the use of properties -and would, I think, during the sixteenth century have been placed in -the alcove, but now appear to have been brought forward and to occupy, -like hall scenes, the main stage. The usage is by no means invariable. -Even in so late a play as _Cymbeline_, Imogen’s chamber, with Iachimo’s -trunk and the elaborate fire-places in it, must, in spite of the -absence of any reference to curtains, have been disposed in the alcove; -for the trunk scene is immediately followed by another before the door -of the same chamber, from which Imogen presently emerges.[364] But I do -not think that the alcove was used for Gertrude’s closet in _Hamlet_, -the whole of which play seems to me to be set very continuously on -the outer stage.[365] Hamlet does not enter the closet direct from in -front, but goes off and comes on again. A little distance is required -for the vision of the Ghost, who goes out at a visible ‘portal’. When -Hamlet has killed Polonius, he lugs the guts into the neighbour room, -according to the ordinary device for clearing a dead body from the -main stage, which is superfluous when the death has taken place in the -alcove. There is an arras, behind which Polonius esconces himself, and -on this, or perhaps on an inner arras disclosed by a slight parting -of the ordinary one, hangs the picture of Hamlet’s father. Nor do I -think, although it is difficult to be certain, that the alcove held -Desdemona’s death-chamber in _Othello_.[366] True, there are curtains -drawn here, but they may be only bed-curtains. A longish chamber, with -an outer door, seems to be indicated. A good many persons, including -Cassio ‘in a chaire’, have to be accommodated, and when Emilia enters, -it is some time before her attention is drawn to Desdemona behind -the curtains. If anything is in the alcove, it can only be just the -bed itself. The best illustrations of my point, however, are to be -found in _The Devil’s Charter_, a singular play, with full and naïve -stage-directions, which perhaps betray the hand of an inexperienced -writer. Much of the action takes place in the palace of Alexander -Borgia at Rome. The alcove seems to be reserved for Alexander’s study. -Other scenes of an intimately domestic character are staged in front, -and the necessary furniture is very frankly carried on, in one case -by a protagonist. This is a scene in a parlour by night, in which -Lucrezia Borgia murders her husband.[367] Another scene represents -Lucrezia’s toilet;[368] in a third young men come in from tennis and -are groomed by a barber.[369] My impression is that in the seventeenth -century, instead of discovering a bedchamber in the alcove, it became -the custom to secure more space and light by projecting the bed through -the central aperture on to the main stage, and removing it by the -same avenue when the scene was over. As to this a stage-direction in -_2 Henry VI_ may be significant. There was a scene in _1 Contention_ -in which the murdered body of the Duke of Gloucester is discovered in -his bedchamber. This recurs in _2 Henry VI_, but instead of a full -direction for the drawing of curtains, the Folio has the simple note -‘Bed put forth’.[370] This is one of a group of formulas which have -been the subject of some discussion.[371] I do not think that either -‘Bed put forth’ or still less ‘Bed thrust out’ can be dismissed as -a mere equivalent of ‘Enter in a bed’, which may admittedly cover a -parting of the curtains, or of such a warning to the tire-man as ‘Bed -set out’ or ‘ready’ or ‘prepared’.[372] There is a difference between -‘setting out’ and ‘thrusting out’, for the one does and the other -does not carry the notion of a push. And if ‘Bed put forth’ is rather -more colourless, ‘Bed drawn out’, which also occurs, is clear enough. -Unfortunately the extant text of _2 Henry VI_ may be of any date up -to 1623, and none of the other examples of the formulas in question -are direct evidence for the Globe in 1599–1613.[373] To be sure of the -projected bed at so early a date, we have to turn to the Red Bull, -where we find it both in the _Golden_ and the _Silver Age_, as well -as the amateur _Hector of Germany_, or to the Swan, where we find it -in _The Chaste Maid of Cheapside_.[374] The _Golden Age_ particularly -repays study. The whole of the last two acts are devoted to the episode -of Jupiter and Danae. The scene is set in - - the Darreine Tower - Guirt with a triple mure of shining brasse. - -Most of the action requires a courtyard, and the wall and gate of this, -with a porter’s lodge and an alarm-bell, must have been given some kind -of structural representation on the stage. An inner door is supposed to -lead to Danae’s chamber above. It is in this chamber, presumably, that -attendants enter ‘drawing out Danae’s bed’, and when ‘The bed is drawn -in’, action is resumed in the courtyard below.[375] - -There are chamber scenes in the King’s plays also, which are neither in -the alcove nor on the main stage, but above. This is an extension of a -practice already observable in pre-Globe days. Hero’s chamber in _Much -Ado about Nothing_ is above.[376] So is Celia’s in _Volpone_.[377] So -is Falstaff’s at the Garter Inn in _The Merry Wives of Windsor_.[378] -In all these examples, which are not exhaustive, a reasonable amount -of space is required for action.[379] This is still more the case in -_The Yorkshire Tragedy_, where the violent scene of the triple murder -at Calverley Hall is clearly located upstairs.[380] Moreover, there -are two plays which stage above what one would normally regard as hall -rather than chamber scenes. One is _Sejanus_, where a break in the -dialogue in the first act can best be explained by the interpretation -of a scene in an upper ‘gallery’.[381] The other is _Every Man Out -of his Humour_, where the personages go ‘up’ to the great chamber at -Court.[382] Elaborate use is also made of the upper level in _Antony -and Cleopatra_, where it represents the refuge of Cleopatra upon a -monument, to which Antony is heaved up for his death scene, and on -which Cleopatra is afterwards surprised by Caesar’s troops.[383] But I -do not agree with the suggestion that it was used in shipboard scenes, -for which, as we learn from the presenter’s speeches in _Pericles_, the -stage-manager gave up the idea of providing a realistic setting, and -fell back upon an appeal to the imagination of the audience.[384] Nor -do I think that it was used for the ‘platform’ at Elsinore Castle in -_Hamlet_;[385] or, as it was in the sixteenth century, for scenes in a -Capitoline senate overlooking the forum at Rome.[386] In _Bonduca_, if -that is of our period, it was adapted for a high rock, with fugitives -upon it, in a wood.[387] I do not find extensive chamber scenes -‘above’ in any King’s play later than 1609, and that may be a fact -of significance to which I shall return.[388] But shallow action, at -windows or in a gallery overlooking a hall or open space, continues to -be frequent.[389] In _The Devil is an Ass_, which is a Blackfriars -play of 1616, a little beyond the limits of our period, there is an -interesting scene played out of two contiguous upper windows, supposed -to be in different houses.[390] - -There is other evidence to show that in the seventeenth century as -in the sixteenth, the stage was not limited to the presentation of a -single house only at any given moment. A multiplicity of houses would -fit the needs of several plays, but perhaps the most striking instance -for the Globe is afforded by _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_, the last -act of which requires two inns on opposite sides of the stage, the -signs of which have been secretly exchanged, as a trick in the working -out of the plot.[391] The King’s plays do not often require any marked -foreshortening of distance in journeys over the stage. Hamlet, indeed, -comes in ‘a farre off’, according to a stage-direction of the Folio, -but this need mean no more than at the other end of the graveyard, -although Hamlet is in fact returning from a voyage.[392] In _Bonduca_ -the Roman army at one end of the stage are said to be half a furlong -from the rock occupied by Caractacus, which they cannot yet see; but -they go off, and their leaders subsequently emerge upon the rock from -behind.[393] The old device endured at the Red Bull, but even here the -flagrant example usually cited is of a very special type.[394] At the -end of _The Travels of the Three English Brothers_, the action of -which ranges widely over the inhabited world, there is an appeal to -imagination by Fame, the presenter, who says, - - Would your apprehensions helpe poore art, - Into three parts deuiding this our stage, - They all at once shall take their leaues of you. - Thinke this England, this Spaine, this Persia. - -Then follow the stage-directions, ‘Enter three seuerall waies the -three Brothers’, and ‘Fame giues to each a prospective glasse, they -seme to see one another’. Obviously such a visionary dumb-show -cannot legitimately be twisted into an argument that the concurrent -representation of incongruous localities was a matter of normal -staging. Such interplay of opposed houses, as we get in _The Merry -Devil of Edmonton_, would no doubt seem more effective if we could -adopt the ingenious conjecture which regards the scenic wall as not -running in a straight line all the way, but broken by two angles, so -that, while the central apertures below and above directly front the -spectators, the doors to right and left, each with a room or window -above it, are set on a bias, and more or less face each other from end -to end of the stage.[395] I cannot call this more than a conjecture, -for there is no direct evidence in its favour, and the Swan drawing, -for what that is worth, is flatly against it. Structurally it would, -I suppose, fit the round or apsidal ended Globe better than the -rectangular Fortune or Blackfriars. The theory seems to have been -suggested by a desire to make it possible to watch action within the -alcove from a gallery on the level above. I have not, however, come -across any play which can be safely assigned to a public theatre, in -which just this situation presents itself, although it is common enough -for persons above to watch action in a threshold or hall scene. Two -windows in the same plane would, of course, fully meet the needs of -_The Devil is an Ass_. There is, indeed, the often-quoted scene from -_David and Bethsabe_, in which the King watches the Hittite’s wife -bathing at a fountain; but the provenance of _David and Bethsabe_ is -so uncertain and its text so evidently manipulated, that it would be -very temerarious to rely upon it as affording any proof of public -usage.[396] On the other hand, if it is the case, as seems almost -certain, that the boxes over the doors were originally the lord’s -rooms, it would no doubt be desirable that the occupants of those -rooms should be able to see anything that went on within the alcove. -I do not quite know what weight to attach to Mr. Lawrence’s analogy -between the oblique doors which this theory involves and the familiar -post-Restoration proscenium doors, with stage-boxes above them, at -right angles to the plane of the footlights.[397] The roofed Caroline -theatres, with their side-walls to the stage, and the proscenium arch, -probably borrowed from the masks, have intervened, and I cannot pretend -to have traced the history of theatrical structure during the Caroline -period. - -I have felt justified in dealing more briefly with the early -seventeenth-century stages than with those of the sixteenth century, -for, after all, the fundamental conditions, so far as I can judge, -remained unaltered. I seem able to lay my finger upon two directions in -which development took place, and both of these concern the troublesome -problem of interior action. First of all there is the stage gallery. Of -this I venture to reconstruct the story as follows. Its first function -was to provide seating accommodation for dignified and privileged -spectators, amongst whom could be placed, if occasion arose, presenters -or divine agents supposed to be watching or directing the action of -a play. Perhaps a differentiation took place. Parts of the gallery, -above the doors at either end of the scene, were set aside as lord’s -rooms. The central part, with the upper floor of the tiring-house -behind it, was used for the musicians, but was also available for such -scenes as could effectively be staged above, and a curtain was fitted, -corresponding to that below, behind which the recess could be set as -a small chamber. Either as a result of these changes or for other -reasons, the lord’s rooms, about the end of the sixteenth century, lost -their popularity, and it became the fashion for persons of distinction, -or would-be distinction, to sit upon the stage itself instead.[398] -This left additional space free above, and the architects of the Globe -and Fortune took the opportunity to enlarge the accommodation for -their upper scenes. Probably they left windows over the side-doors, so -that the upper parts of three distinct houses could, if necessary, be -represented; and it may be that spectators were not wholly excluded -from these.[399] But they widened the music-room, so that it could now -hold larger scenes, and in fact now became an upper stage and not a -mere recess. Adequate lighting from behind could probably be obtained -rather more easily here than on the crowded floor below. There is an -interesting allusion which I have not yet quoted, and which seems -to point to an upper stage of substantial dimensions in the public -theatres of about the year 1607. It is in Middleton’s _Family of Love_, -itself a King’s Revels play.[400] Some of the characters have been to -a performance, not ‘by the youths’, and there ‘saw Sampson bear the -town-gates on his neck from the lower to the upper stage’. You cannot -carry a pair of town-gates into a mere box, such as the Swan drawing -shows. - -Meanwhile, what of the alcove? I think that it proved too dark and -too cramped for the convenient handling of chamber scenes, and that -the tendency of the early seventeenth century was to confine its use -to action which could be kept shallow, or for which obscurity was -appropriate. It could still serve for a prison, or an ‘unsunned lodge’, -or a chamber of horrors. For scenes requiring more light and movement -it was replaced, sometimes by the more spacious upper stage, sometimes -by the main stage, on to which beds and other properties were carried -or ‘thrust out’, just as they had always been on a less extensive scale -for hall scenes. The difficulties of shifting were, on the whole, -compensated for by the greater effectiveness and visibility which -action on the main scene afforded. I do not therefore think it possible -to accept even such a modified version of the old ‘alternationist’ -theory as I find set out in Professor Thorndike’s recent _Shakespeare’s -Theater_. The older alternationists, starting from the principle, sound -enough in itself, of continuous action within an act, assumed that all -interior or other propertied scenes were played behind the curtains, -and were set there while unpropertied action was played outside; and -they deduced a method of dramatic construction, which required the -dramatists to alternate exterior and interior scenes so as to allow -time for the settings to be carried out.[401] The theory breaks down, -not merely because it entails a much more constant use of the curtains -than the stage-directions give us any warrant for, but also because -it fails to provide for the not infrequent event of a succession of -interior scenes; and in its original form it is abandoned by Professor -Thorndike in common with other recent scholars, who see plainly enough -that what I have called hall scenes must have been given on the outer -stage. I do not think that they have always grasped that the tendency -of the seventeenth century was towards a decreased and not an increased -reliance upon the curtained space, possibly because they have not as -a rule followed the historical method in their investigations; and -Professor Thorndike, although he traces the earlier employment of the -alcove much as I do, treats the opening and closing of the curtains as -coming in time to be used, in _Antony and Cleopatra_ for example and -in _Cymbeline_, as little more than a handy convention for indicating -the transference of the scene from one locality to another.[402] Such -a usage would not of course mean that the new scene was played wholly -or even partly within the alcove itself; the change might be merely one -of background. But, although I admit that there would be a convenience -in Professor Thorndike’s development, I do not see that there is in -fact any evidence for it. The stage-directions never mention the use -of curtains in such circumstances as he has in mind; and while I am -far from supposing that they need always have been mentioned, and have -myself assumed their use in one scene of _Cymbeline_ where they are -not mentioned, yet mentions of them are so common in connexion with -the earlier and admitted functions of the alcove, that I should have -expected Professor Thorndike’s view, if it were sound, to have proved -capable of confirmation from at least one unconjectural case. - -The difficulty which has led Professor Thorndike to his conclusion -is, however, a real one. In the absence of a _scenario_ with notes -of locality, for which certainly there is no evidence, how did the -Elizabethan managers indicate to their audiences the shifts of -action from one place to another? This is both a sixteenth- and a -seventeenth-century problem. We have noted in a former chapter that -unity of place was characteristic of the earlier Elizabethan interlude; -that it failed to impose itself upon the romantic narrative plots -of the popular drama; that it was departed from through the device -of letting two ends of a continuously set stage stand for discrete -localities; that this device proved only a transition to a system in -which the whole stage stood successively for different localities; -and that there are hints of a convention by which the locality of -each scene was indicated with the help of a label, placed over the -door through which the personages in that scene made their exits and -their entrances.[403] The public stage of the sixteenth and early -seventeenth centuries experienced no re-establishment of the principle -of unity; broadly speaking, it presents an extreme type of romantic -drama, with an unfettered freedom of ranging from one to another of any -number of localities required by a narrative plot. But the practice, -or the instinct, of individual playwrights differs. Ben Jonson is -naturally the man who betrays the most conscious preoccupation with the -question. He is not, however, a rigid or consistent unitarian. In his -two earliest plays the scene shifts from the country to a neighbouring -town, and the induction to _Every Man Out of his Humour_ is in part -an apology for his own liberty, in part a criticism of the licence of -others. - - _Mitis._ What’s his scene? - - _Cordatus._ Mary _Insula Fortunata_, sir. - - _Mitis._ O, the fortunate Iland? masse he has bound himself to a - strict law there. - - _Cordatus._ Why so? - - _Mitis._ He cannot lightly alter the scene without crossing the - seas. - - _Cordatus._ He needs not, hauing a whole Ilande to runne through, - I thinke. - - _Mitis._ No? howe comes it then, that in some one play we see so - many seas, countries, and kingdomes, past over with such admirable - dexteritie? - - _Cordatus._ O, that but shewes how well the Authors can travaile in - their vocation, and out-run the apprehension of their Auditorie. - -_Sejanus_ is throughout in Rome, but five or six distinct houses are -required, and it must be doubtful whether such a multiplicity of -houses could be shown without a change of scene.[404] The prologue -to _Volpone_ claims for the author that ‘The laws of time, place, -persons he obserueth’, and this has no more than four houses, all in -Venice.[405] In _Catiline_ the scenes in Rome, with some ten houses, -are broken by two in open country.[406] In _Bartholomew Fair_ a -preliminary act at a London house is followed by four set continuously -before the three booths of the fair. Absolute unity, as distinct from -the unity of a single country, or even a single town, is perhaps only -attained in _The Alchemist_. Here everything takes place, either in a -single room in Lovewit’s house in the Blackfriars, or in front of a -door leading from the street into the same room. Evidently advantage -was taken of the fact that the scene did not have to be changed, to -build a wall containing this door out on to the stage itself, for -action such as speaking through the keyhole requires both sides of the -door to be practicable.[407] There is also a window from which persons -approaching can be seen. Inner doors, presumably in the scenic wall, -lead to a laboratory and other parts of the house, but these are not -discovered, and no use is made of the upper level. Jonson here is a -clear innovator, so far as the English public theatre is concerned; no -other play of our period reproduces this type of permanent interior -setting. - -Shakespeare is no classicist; yet in some of his plays, comedies and -romantic tragedies, it is, I think, possible to discern at least an -instinctive feeling in the direction of scenic unity. _The Comedy of -Errors_, with its action in the streets of Syracuse, near the mart, -or before the Phoenix, the Porpentine, or the priory, follows upon -the lines of its Latin model, although here, as in most of Jonson’s -plays, it is possible that the various houses were shown successively -rather than concurrently. _Twelfth Night_, _Much Ado about Nothing_, -and _Measure for Measure_ each require a single town, with two, three, -and five houses respectively; _Titus Andronicus_, _A Midsummer Night’s -Dream_, _The Merry Wives of Windsor_, _As You Like It_, _Troilus and -Cressida_, _Timon of Athens_, each a single town, with open country -environs. _Love’s Labour’s Lost_ has the unity of a park, with perhaps -a manor-house as background at one end and tents at the other; _The -Tempest_ complete pastoral unity after the opening scene on shipboard. -_Hamlet_ would all be Elsinore, but for one distant open-country scene; -_Romeo and Juliet_ all Venice, but for one scene in Mantua. In another -group of plays the action is divided between two towns. It alternates -from Padua to near Verona in _The Taming of the Shrew_, from Verona -to Milan in _The Two Gentlemen of Verona_, from Venice to Belmont in -_The Merchant of Venice_; in _Othello_ an act in Venice is followed -by four in Cyprus. On the other hand, in a few comedies and in the -histories and historical tragedies, where Shakespeare’s sources leave -him less discretion, he shifts his scenes with a readiness outdone by -no other playwright. The third act of _Richard II_ requires no less -than four localities, three of which have a castle, perhaps the same -castle from the stage-manager’s point of view, in the background. The -second act of _1 Henry IV_ has as many. _King John_ and _Henry V_ -pass lightly between England and France, _All’s Well that Ends Well_ -between France and Italy, _The Winter’s Tale_ between Sicily and -Bohemia, _Cymbeline_ between Britain, Italy, and Wales. Quite a late -play, _Antony and Cleopatra_, might almost be regarded as a challenge -to classicists. Rome, Misenum, Athens, Actium, Syria, Egypt are the -localities, with much further subdivision in the Egyptian scenes. The -second act has four changes of locality, the third no less than eight, -and it is noteworthy that these changes are often for quite short -bits of dialogue, which no modern manager would regard as justifying -a resetting of the stage. Shakespeare must surely have been in some -danger, in this case, of outrunning the apprehension of his auditory, -and I doubt if even Professor Thorndike’s play of curtains would have -saved him. - -It is to be observed also that, in Shakespeare’s plays as in those of -others, no excessive pains are taken to let the changes of locality -coincide with the divisions between the acts. If the second and third -acts of _All’s Well that Ends Well_ are at Paris, the fourth at -Florence, and the fifth at Marseilles, yet the shift from Roussillon -to Paris is in the middle and not at the end of the first act. The -shift from Sicily to Bohemia is in the middle of the third act of -_The Winter’s Tale_; the Agincourt scenes begin in the middle of the -third act of _Henry V_. Indeed, although the poets regarded the acts -as units of literary structure, the act-divisions do not appear to -have been greatly stressed, at any rate on the stages of the public -houses, in the actual presentation of plays.[408] I do not think that -they were wholly disregarded, although the fact that they are so often -unnoted in the prints of plays based on stage copies might point to -that conclusion.[409] The act-interval did not necessarily denote -any substantial time-interval in the action of the play, and perhaps -the actors did not invariably leave the stage. Thus the lovers in _A -Midsummer Night’s Dream_ sleep through the interval between the third -and fourth acts.[410] But some sort of break in the continuity of the -performance is a natural inference from the fact that the act-divisions -are the favourite, although not the only, points for the intervention -of presenters, dumb-shows, and choruses.[411] The act-intervals cannot -have been long, at any rate if the performance was to be completed in -two hours. There may sometimes have been music, which would not have -prevented the audience from stretching themselves and talking.[412] -Short intervals, rather than none at all, are, I think, suggested by -the well-known passage in the induction of _The Malcontent_, as altered -for performance at the Globe, in which it is explained that passages -have been added to the play as originally written for Revels boys, ‘to -entertain a little more time, and to abridge the not-received custom of -music in our theatre’.[413] Some information is perhaps to be gleaned -from the ‘plots’ of plays prepared for the guidance of the book-keeper -or tire-man, of which examples are preserved at Dulwich.[414] These -have lines drawn across them at points which pretty clearly correspond -to the beginnings of scenes, although it can hardly be assumed that -each new scene meant a change of locality. The act-divisions can in -some, but not all, cases be inferred from the occurrence of dumb-shows -and choruses; in one, _The Dead Man’s Fortune_, they are definitely -marked by lines of crosses, and against each such line there is the -marginal note ‘musique’. Other musical directions, ‘sound’, ‘sennet’, -‘alarum’, ‘flourish’, come sometimes at the beginning, sometimes in the -middle of scenes. - -We do not get any encouragement to think that a change of locality was -regularly heralded by notes of music, even if this may incidentally -have been the case when a procession or an army or a monarch was about -to enter. Possibly the lines on the plots may signify an even slighter -pause than that between the acts, such as the modern stage provides -with the added emphasis of a drop-curtain; but of this there is no -proof, and an allusion in _Catiline_ to action as rapid - - As is a veil put off, a visor changed, - Or the scene shifted, in our theatres, - -is distinctly against it.[415] A mere clearance of the stage does -not necessarily entail a change of scene, although there are one or -two instances in which the exit of personages at one door, followed -by their return at another, seems to constitute or accompany such -a change.[416] And even if the fact of a change could be signified -in one or other of these ways, the audience would still be in the -dark as to what the new locality was supposed to be. Can we then -assume a continuance of the old practice of indicating localities by -labels over the doors? This would entail the shifting of the labels -themselves during the progress of the play, at any rate if there were -more localities than entrances, or if, as might usually be expected, -more entrances than one were required to any locality. But there would -be no difficulty about this, and in fact we have an example of the -shifting of a label by a mechanical device in the introduction to _Wily -Beguiled_.[417] This was not a public theatre play, and the label -concerned was one giving the title of the play and not its locality, -but similar machinery could obviously have been applied. There is not, -however, much actual evidence for the use either of title-labels or -of locality-labels on the public stage. The former are perhaps the -more probable of the two, and the practice of posting play-bills at -the theatre door and in places of public resort would not render -them altogether superfluous.[418] In favour of locality-labels it is -possible to quote Dekker’s advice to those entering Paul’s, and also -the praise given to Jonson by Jasper Mayne in _Jonsonus Virbius_: - - Thy stage was still a stage, two entrances - Were not two parts o’ the world, disjoined by seas.[419] - -These, however, are rather vague and inconclusive allusions on which to -base a whole stage practice, and there is not much to be added to them -from the texts and stage-directions of the plays themselves. Signs are -of course used to distinguish particular taverns and shops, just as -they would be in real life.[420] Occasionally, moreover, a locality is -named in a stage-direction in a way that recalls _Common Conditions_, -but this may also be explained as no more than a descriptive touch such -as is not uncommon in stage-directions written by authors.[421] It is -rather against the theory of labels that care is often taken, when a -locality is changed, to let the personages themselves declare their -whereabouts. A careful reader of such rapidly shifting plays as _Edward -I_, _James IV_, _The Battle of Alcazar_, or _King Leir_ will generally -be able to orientate himself with the aid of the opening passages of -dialogue in each new scene, and conceivably a very attentive spectator -might do the same. Once the personages have got themselves grouped in -the mind in relation to their localities, the recurrence of this or -that group would help. It would require a rather careful examination -of texts to enable one to judge how far this method of localization by -dialogue continues throughout our period. I have been mainly struck by -it in early plays. The presenters may also give assistance, either by -declaring the general scene in a prologue, or by intervening to call -attention to particular shifts.[422] Thus in _Dr. Faustus_ the original -scene in Wittenberg is indicated by the chorus, a shift to Rome by -speeches of Wagner and Faustus, a shift to the imperial court by the -chorus, and the return to Wittenberg by a speech of Faustus.[423] -Jonson makes a deliberate experiment with this method in _Every Man Out -of his Humour_, which it is worth while following in detail. It is the -Grex of presenters, Mitis and Cordatus, who serve as guides. The first -act is in open country without background, and it is left to the rustic -Sogliardo to describe it (543) as his lordship. A visit to Puntarvolo’s -is arranged, and at the beginning of the second act Cordatus says, ‘The -Scene is the countrey still, remember’ (946). Presently the stage is -cleared, with the hint, ‘Here he comes, and with him Signior Deliro -a merchant, at whose house hee is come to soiourne. Make your owne -obseruation now; only transferre your thoughts to the Cittie with the -Scene; where, suppose they speake’ (1499). The next scene then is at -Deliro’s. Then, for the first scene of the third act, ‘We must desire -you to presuppose the Stage, the middle Isle in Paules; and that, the -West end of it’ (1918). The second scene of this act is in the open -country again, with a ‘crosse’ on which Sordido hangs himself; we are -left to infer it from the reappearance of the rustic characters. It is -closed with ‘Let your minde keepe companie with the Scene stil, which -now remoues it selfe from the Countrie to the Court’ (2555). After -a scene at Court, ‘You vnderstand where the scene is?’ (2709), and -presumably the entry of personages already familiar brings us back for -the first scene of Act IV to Deliro’s. A visit to ‘the Notaries by the -Exchange’ is planned, and for the second and third scenes the only note -is of the entry of Puntarvolo and the Scrivener; probably a scrivener’s -shop was discovered. Act V is introduced by ‘Let your imagination be -swifter than a paire of oares, and by this, suppose Puntarvolo, Briske, -Fungoso, and the Dog, arriu’d at the court gate, and going vp to the -great chamber’ (3532). The action of the next scene begins in the great -chamber and then shifts to the court gate again. Evidently the two -localities were in some way staged together, and a guide is not called -upon to enlighten us. There are yet two more scenes, according to the -Grex. One opens with ‘Conceiue him but to be enter’d the Mitre’ (3841), -and as action shifts from the Mitre to Deliro’s and back again without -further note, these two houses were probably shown together. The final -scene is introduced by ‘O, this is to be imagin’d the Counter belike’ -(4285). So elaborate a directory would surely render any use of labels -superfluous for this particular play; but, so far as we know, the -experiment was not repeated.[424] - -When Cordatus points to ‘that’, and calls it the west end of Paul’s, -are we to suppose that the imagination of the audience was helped out -by the display of any pictorial background? It is not impossible. The -central aperture, disclosed by the parting curtains, could easily hold, -in place of a discovered alcove or a quasi-solid monument or rock, any -kind of painted cloth which might give colour to the scene. A woodland -cloth or a battlement cloth could serve for play after play, and for a -special occasion something more distinctive could be attempted without -undue expense. Such a back-cloth, perhaps for use in _Dr. Faustus_, may -have been ‘the sittie of Rome’ which we find in Henslowe’s inventory -of 1598.[425] And something of this kind seems to be required in _2 -If You Know not Me, You Know Nobody_, where the scene is before Sir -Thomas Gresham’s newly completed Burse, and the personages say ‘How -do you like this building?’ and ‘We are gazing here on M. Greshams -work’.[426] Possibly Elizabethan imaginations were more vivid than a -tradition of scene-painters allows ours to be, but that does not mean -that an Elizabethan audience did not like to have its eyes tickled -upon occasion. And if as a rule the stage-managers relied mainly upon -garments and properties to minister to this instinct, there is no -particular reason why they should not also have had recourse to so -simple a device as a back-cloth. This conjecture is hardly excluded by -the very general terms in which post-Restoration writers deny ‘scenes’ -and all decorations other than ‘hangings’ to the earlier stage.[427] -By ‘scenes’ they no doubt mean the complete settings with shuttered -‘wings’ as well as back-cloths which Inigo Jones had devised for the -masks and the stage had adopted. Even these were not absolutely unknown -in pre-Restoration plays, and neither this fact nor the incidental -use of special cloths over the central aperture would make it untrue -that the normal background of an Elizabethan or Jacobean play was an -arras.[428] - -The discussions of the last chapter and a half have envisaged the -plays presented, exclusively in open theatres until the King’s took -over the Blackfriars, by professional companies of men. I must deal -in conclusion, perhaps more briefly than the interest of the problem -would itself justify, with those of the revived boy companies which for -a time carried on such an active rivalry with the men, at Paul’s from -1599 to 1606 and at the Blackfriars from 1600 to 1609. It is, I think, -a principal defect of many investigations into Jacobean staging, that -the identity of the devices employed in the so-called ‘public’ and -‘private’ houses has been too hastily assumed, and a uniform hypothesis -built up upon material taken indifferently from both sources, without -regard to the logical possibility of the considerable divergences to -which varying conditions of structure and of tradition may have given -rise. This is a kind of syncretism to which an inadequate respect for -the historic method naturally tends. It is no doubt true that the -‘standardization’ of type, which I have accepted as likely to result -from the frequent migration of companies and plays from one public -house to another, may in a less degree have affected the private houses -also. James Burbadge originally built the Blackfriars for public -performances, and we know that _Satiromastix_ was produced both at -the Globe and at Paul’s in 1601, and that in 1604 the Revels boys and -the King’s men were able to effect mutual piracies of _Jeronimo_ and -_The Malcontent_. Nor is there anything in the general character of -the two groups of ‘public’ and ‘private’ plays, as they have come down -to us, which is in any obvious way inconsistent with some measure of -standardization. It is apparent, indeed, that the act-interval was of -far more importance at both Paul’s and the Blackfriars than elsewhere. -But this is largely a matter of degree. The inter-acts of music and -song and dance were more universal and longer.[429] But the relation -of the acts to each other was not essentially different. The break in -the representation may still correspond to practically no interval -at all in the time-distribution of the play; and there are examples -in which the action continues to be carried on by the personages in -dumb-show, while the music is still sounding.[430] In any case this -particular distinction, while it might well modify the methods of the -dramatist, need only affect the economy of the tire-house in so far -as it would give more time for the preparation of an altered setting -at the beginning of an act. When _The Malcontent_ was taken over at -the Globe, the text had to be lengthened that the music might be -abridged, but there is no indication of any further alteration, due to -a difficulty in adapting the original situations to the peculiarities -of the Globe stage. The types of incident, again, which are familiar in -public plays, reappear in the private ones; in different proportions, -no doubt, since the literary interest of the dramatists and their -audiences tends rather in the directions, on the one hand of definite -pastoral, and on the other of courtly crime and urban humour, than in -that of chronicle history. And there is a marked general analogy in -the stage-directions. Here also those who leave the stage go ‘in’, and -music and voices can be heard ‘within’. There are the same formulae -for the use of several doors, of which one is definitely a ‘middle’ -door.[431] Spirits and so forth can ‘ascend’ from under the stage by -the convenient traps.[432] Possibly they can also ‘descend’ from the -heavens.[433] The normal backing of the stage, even in out-of-door -scenes, is an arras or hanging, through which at Paul’s spectators -can watch a play.[434] At the Blackfriars, while the arras, even more -clearly than in the public theatres, is of a decorative rather than a -realistic kind, it can also be helped out by something in the nature -of perspective.[435] There is action ‘above’, and interior action, -some of which is recessed or ‘discovered’. It must be added, however, -that these formulae, taken by themselves, do not go very far towards -determining the real character of the staging. They make their first -appearance, for the most part, with the interludes in which the -Court influence is paramount, and are handed down as a tradition to -the public and the private plays alike. They would hardly have been -sufficient, without the Swan drawing and other collateral evidence, -to disclose even such a general conception of the various uses and -interplay, at the Globe and elsewhere, of main stage, alcove, and -gallery, as we believe ourselves to have succeeded in adumbrating. -And it is quite possible that at Paul’s and the Blackfriars they may -not--at any rate it must not be taken for granted without inquiry that -they do--mean just the same things. Thus, to take the doors alone, we -infer with the help of the Swan drawing, that in the public theatres -the three main entrances were in the scenic wall and on the same or -nearly the same plane. But the Blackfriars was a rectangular room. We -do not know that any free space was left between its walls and the -sides of the stage. And it is quite conceivable that there may have -been side-doors in the planes of these walls, and at right angles to -the middle door. Whether this was so or not, and if so how far forward -the side-doors stood, there is certainly nothing in the formulae -of the stage-directions to tell us. Perhaps the most noticeable -differentiation, which emerges from a comparative survey of private and -public plays, is that in the main the writers of the former, unlike -those of the latter, appear to be guided by the principle of unity -of place; at any rate to the extent that their _domus_ are generally -located in the same town, although they may be brought for purposes -of representation into closer contiguity than the actual topography -of that town would suggest. There are exceptions, and the scenes in a -town are occasionally broken by one or two, requiring at the most an -open-country background, in the environs. The exact measure in which -the principle is followed will become sufficiently evident in the -sequel. My immediate point is that it was precisely the absence of -unity of place which drove the public stage back upon its common form -background of a curtained alcove below and a curtained gallery above, -supplemented by the side-doors and later the windows above them, and -convertible to the needs of various localities in the course of a -single play. - -Let us now proceed to the analysis, first of the Paul’s plays and then -of the Chapel and Revels plays at the Blackfriars; separately, for -the same caution, which forbids a hasty syncretism of the conditions -of public and private houses, also warns us that divergences may -conceivably have existed between those of the two private houses -themselves. But here too we are faced with the fact that individual -plays were sometimes transferred from one to the other, _The Fawn_ from -Blackfriars to Paul’s, and _The Trick to Catch the Old One_ in its turn -from Paul’s to Blackfriars.[436] - -Seventeen plays, including the two just named and _Satiromastix_, which -was shared with the Globe, are assigned to Paul’s by contemporary -title-pages.[437] To these may be added, with various degrees of -plausibility, _Histriomastix_, _What You Will_, and _Wily Beguiled_. -For Paul’s were also certainly planned, although we cannot be sure -whether, or if so when, they were actually produced, the curious -series of plays left in manuscript by William Percy, of which -unfortunately only two have ever been published. As the company only -endured for six or seven years after its revival, it seems probable -that a very fair proportion of its repertory has reached us. _Jack -Drum’s Entertainment_ speaks of the ‘mustie fopperies of antiquitie’ -with which the company began its career, and one of these is no doubt -to be found in _Histriomastix_, evidently an old play, possibly of -academic origin, and recently brought up to date.[438] The staging -of _Histriomastix_ would have caused no difficulty to the Revels -officers, if it had been put into their hands as a Paul’s play of the -’eighties. The plot illustrates the cyclical progression of Peace, -Plenty, Pride, Envy, War, Poverty, each of whom in turn occupies a -throne, finally resigned to Peace, for whom in an alternative ending -for Court performance is substituted Astraea, who is Elizabeth.[439] -This arrangement recalls that of _The Woman in the Moon_, but the -throne seems to have its position on the main stage rather than above. -Apart from the abstractions, the whole of the action may be supposed -to take place in a single provincial town, largely in an open street, -sometimes in the hall of a lord called Mavortius, on occasion in or -before smaller _domus_ representing the studies of Chrisoganus, a -scholar, and Fourcher, a lawyer, the shop of Velure, a merchant, a -market-cross, which is discovered by a curtain, perhaps a tavern.[440] -Certainly in the ’eighties these would have been disposed together -around the stage, like the _domus_ of _Campaspe_ about the market-place -at Athens. And I believe that this is in fact how _Histriomastix_ was -staged, more particularly as at one point (v. 259) the action appears -to pass directly from the street to the hall without a clearance. -Similarly _The Maid’s Metamorphosis_ is on strictly Lylyan lines. It -is _tout en pastoralle_, in a wood, about whose paths the characters -stray, while in various regions of it are located the cave of Somnus -(II. i. 148), the cottage of Eurymine (IV. ii. 4), and a palace where -‘Phoebus appeares’ (V. ii. 25), possibly above. _Wily Beguiled_ needs -a stage of which part is a wood, and part a village hard by, with some -suggestion of the doors of the houses of Gripe, Ploddall, Churms, and -Mother Midnight. Somewhat less concentration is to be found in _The -Wisdom of Dr. Dodipoll_. Here too, a space of open country, a green -hill with a cave, the harbourage and a bank, is neighboured by the -Court of Alphonso and the houses of Cassimere and of Flores, of which -the last named is adapted for interior action.[441] All this is in -Saxony, but there is also a single short scene (I. iii) of thirty-two -lines, not necessarily requiring a background, in Brunswick. The plays -of William Percy are still, it must be admitted, rather obscure, and -one has an uneasy feeling that the manuscript may not yet have yielded -up all its indications as to date and provenance. But on the assumption -that the conditions contemplated are those of Paul’s in 1599–1606, we -learn some curious details of structure, and are face to face with a -technique which is still closely reminiscent of the ’eighties. Percy, -alone of the dramatists, prefixes to his books, for the guidance of the -producer, a note of the equipment required to set them forth. Thus for -_Cuckqueans and Cuckolds Errant_ he writes: - - ‘The Properties. - - ‘Harwich, In Midde of the Stage Colchester with Image of - Tarlton, Signe and Ghirlond under him also. The Raungers Lodge, - Maldon, A Ladder of Roapes trussed up neare Harwich. Highest and - Aloft the Title The Cuck-Queanes and Cuckolds Errants. A Long - Fourme.’ - -The house at Colchester is the Tarlton Inn, and here the ghost of -Tarlton prologizes, ‘standing at entrance of the doore and right under -the Beame’. That at Harwich is the house of Floredin, and the ladder -leads to the window of his wife Arvania. Thus we have the concurrent -representation of three localities, in three distinct towns of Essex. -To each is assigned one of three doors and, as in _Common Conditions_ -of old, entry by a particular door signifies that a scene is to take -place at the locality to which it belongs.[442] One is at liberty to -conjecture that the doors were nominated by labels, but Percy does not -precisely say so, although he certainly provides for a title label. -Journeys from one locality to another are foreshortened into a crossing -of the stage.[443] For _The Aphrodysial_ there were at least two -houses, the palace of Oceanus ‘in the middle and alofte’, and Proteus -Hall, where interior action takes place.[444] For _The Faery Pastoral_ -there is an elaborate note: - - ‘The Properties - - ‘Highest, aloft, and on the Top of the Musick Tree the Title The - Faery Pastorall, Beneath him pind on Post of the Tree The Scene - Elvida Forrest. Lowest of all over the Canopie ΝΑΠΑΙΤΒΟΔΑΙΟΝ - or Faery Chappell. A kiln of Brick. A Fowen Cott. A Hollowe - Oake with vice of wood to shutt to. A Lowe well with Roape and - Pullye. A Fourme of Turves. A greene Bank being Pillowe to the - Hed but. Lastly A Hole to creepe in and out.’ - -Having written so far, Percy is smitten with a doubt. The stage of -Paul’s was a small one, and spectators sat on it. If he clutters it up -like this with properties, will there be room to act at all? He has a -happy thought and continues: - - ‘Now if so be that the Properties of any These, that be outward, - will not serve the turne by reason of concourse of the People - on the Stage, Then you may omitt the sayd Properties which be - outward and supplye their Places with their Nuncupations onely - in Text Letters. Thus for some.’ - -Whether the master of Paul’s was prepared to avail himself of this -ingenious device, I do not know. There is no other reference to it, -and I do not think it would be safe to assume that it was in ordinary -use upon either the public or the private stage. There is no change -of locality in _The Faery Pastoral_, which is _tout en pastoralle_, -but besides the title label, there was a general scenic label and a -special one for the fairy chapel. This, which had seats on ‘degrees’ -(v. 5), occupied the ‘Canopie, Fane or Trophey’, which I take to -have been a discovered interior under the ‘Beame’ named in the other -play, corresponding to the alcove of the public theatres. The other -properties were smaller ‘practicables’ standing free on the stage, -which is presumably what Percy means by ‘outward’. The arrangement must -have closely resembled that of _The Old Wive’s Tale_. The ‘Fowen Cott’ -is later described as ‘tapistred with cats and fowëns’--a gamekeeper’s -larder. Some kind of action from above was possible; it may have been -only from a tree.[445] - -The plays so far considered seem to point to the use at Paul’s of -continuous settings, even when various localities had to be shown, -rather than the successive settings, with the help of common form -_domus_, which prevailed at the contemporary Globe and Fortune. Perhaps -there is rather an archaistic note about them. Let us turn to the -plays written for Paul’s by more up-to-date dramatists, by Marston, -Dekker and Webster, Chapman, Middleton, and Beaumont. Marston’s hand, -already discernible in the revision of _Histriomastix_, appears to be -dominant in _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_, although neither play was -reclaimed for him in the collected edition of 1633. Unity of locality -is not observed in _Jack Drum_. By far the greater part of the action -takes place on Highgate Green, before the house of Sir Edward Fortune, -with practicable windows above.[446] But there are two scenes (I. -282–428; IV. 207–56) in London, before a tavern (I. 345), which may be -supposed to be also the house where Mistress Brabant lies ‘private’ in -an ‘inner chamber’ (IV. 83, 211). And there are three (II. 170–246; -III. 220–413; V) in an open spot, on the way to Highgate (II. 228) -and near a house, whence a character emerges (III. 249, 310). It is -described as ‘the crosse stile’ (IV. 338), and is evidently quite near -Fortune’s house, and still on the green (V. 96, 228). This suggests to -me a staging closely analogous to that of _Cuckqueans and Cuckolds_, -with Highgate at one end of the stage, London at the other, and the -cross stile between them. It is true that there is no very certain -evidence of direct transference of action from one spot to another, -but the use of two doors at the beginning of the first London scene is -consistent, on my theory, with the fact that one entrant comes from -Highgate, whither also he goes at the end of the scene, and the similar -use at the beginning of the second cross-stile scene is consistent -with the fact that the two entrants are wildly seeking the same lady, -and one may well have been in London and the other at Highgate. She -herself enters from the neighbouring house; that is to say, a third, -central, door. With Marston’s acknowledged plays, we reach an order of -drama in which interior action of the ‘hall’ type is conspicuous.[447] -There are four plays, each limited to a single Italian city, Venice -or Urbino. The main action of _1 Antonio and Mellida_ is in the hall -of the doge’s palace, chiefly on ‘the lower stage’, although ladies -discourse ‘above’, and a chamber can be pointed to from the hall.[448] -One short scene (V. 1–94), although near the Court, is possibly in -the lodging of a courtier, but probably in the open street. And two -(III. i; IV) are in open country, representing ‘the Venice marsh’, -requiring no background, but approachable by more than one door.[449] -The setting of _2 Antonio and Mellida_ is a little more complicated. -There is no open-country scene. The hall recurs and is still the chief -place of action. It can be entered by more than one door (V. 17, -&c.) and has a ‘vault’ (II. 44) with a ‘grate’ (II. ii. 127), whence -a speaker is heard ‘under the stage’ (V. 1). The scenes within it -include several episodes discovered by curtains. One is at the window -of Mellida’s chamber above.[450] Another, in Maria’s chamber, where -the discovery is only of a bed, might be either above or below.[451] A -third involves the appearance of a ghost ‘betwixt the music-houses’, -probably above.[452] Concurrently, a fourth facilitates a murder in a -recess below.[453] Nor is the hall any longer the only interior used. -Three scenes (II. 1–17; III. 1–212; IV. ii) are in an aisle (III. -128) of St. Mark’s, with a trapped grave.[454] As a character passes -(ii. 17) directly from the church to the palace in the course of a -speech, it is clear that the two ‘houses’, consistently with actual -Venetian topography, were staged together and contiguously. _The Fawn_ -was originally produced at Blackfriars and transferred to Paul’s. I -deal with it here, because of the close analogy which it presents to -_1 Antonio and Mellida_. It begins with an open-country scene within -sight of the ‘far-appearing spires’ of Urbino. Thereafter all is within -the hall of the Urbino palace. It is called a ‘presence’ (I. ii. 68), -but one must conceive it as of the nature of an Italian colonnaded -_cortile_, for there is a tree visible, up which a lover climbs to -his lady’s chamber, and although both the tree and the chamber window -might have occupied a bit of façade in the plane of the aperture -showing the hall, they appear in fact to have been within the hall, -since the lovers are later ‘discovered’ to the company there.[455] -_What You Will_, intermediate in date between _Antonio and Mellida_ -and _The Fawn_, has a less concentrated setting than either of them. -The principal house is Albano’s (I; III. ii; IV; V. 1–68), where -there is action at the porch, within the hall, and in a discovered -room behind.[456] But there are also scenes in a shop (III. ii), in -Laverdure’s lodging (II. ii), probably above, and in a schoolroom (II. -ii). The two latter are also discovered.[457] Nevertheless, I do not -think that shifting scenes of the public theatre type are indicated. -Albano’s house does not lend itself to public theatre methods. Act I -is beneath his wife Celia’s window.[458] Similarly III. ii is before -his porch. But III. iv is in his hall, whence the company go to dinner -within, and here they are disclosed in V. Hence, from V. 69 onwards, -they begin to pass to the street, where they presently meet the duke’s -troop. I do not know of any public play in which the porch, the hall, -and an inner room of a house are all represented, and my feeling is -that Albano’s occupied the back corner of a stage, with the porch and -window above to one side, at right angles to the plane of the hall. -At any rate I do not see any definite obstacle to the hypothesis that -all Marston’s plays for Paul’s had continuous settings. For _What You -Will_ the ‘little’ stage would have been rather crowded. The induction -hints that it was, and perhaps that spectators were on this occasion -excluded, while the presenters went behind the back curtains. - -Most of the other Paul’s plays need not detain us as long as Marston’s. -He has been thought to have helped in _Satiromastix_, but that must -be regarded as substantially Dekker’s. Obviously it must have been -capable of representation both at Paul’s and at the Globe. It needs -the houses of Horace, Shorthose, and Vaughan, Prickshaft’s garden -with a ‘bower’ in it, and the palace. Interior action is required in -Horace’s study, which is discovered,[459] the presence-chamber at the -palace, where a ‘chaire is set under a canopie’,[460] and Shorthose’s -hall.[461] The ordinary methods at the Globe would be adequate. On the -other hand, London, in spite of Horace, is the locality throughout, -and at Paul’s the setting may have been continuous, just as well as -in _What You Will_. Dekker is also the leading spirit in _Westward -Ho!_ and _Northward Ho!_, and in these we get, for the first time at -Paul’s, plays for which a continuous setting seems quite impossible. -Not only does _Westward Ho!_ require no less than ten houses and -_Northward Ho!_ seven, but also, although the greater part of both -plays takes place in London, _Westward Ho!_ has scenes at Brentford -and _Northward Ho!_ at Ware.[462] The natural conclusion is that, for -these plays at least, the procedure of the public theatres was adopted. -It is, of course, the combination of numerous houses and changes of -locality which leads me to this conclusion. Mahelot shows us that the -‘multiple’ staging of the Hôtel de Bourgogne permitted inconsistencies -of locality, but could hardly accommodate more than five, or at most -six, _maisons_. Once given the existence of alternative methods at -Paul’s, it becomes rather difficult to say which was applied in any -particular case. Chapman’s _Bussy d’Ambois_ begins, like _The Fawn_, -with an open-country scene, and thereafter uses only three houses, -all in Paris; the presence-chamber at the palace (I. ii; II. i; III. -ii; IV. i), Bussy’s chamber (V. iii), and Tamyra’s chamber in another -house, Montsurry’s (II. ii; III. i; IV. ii; V. i, ii, iv). Both -chambers are trapped for spirits to rise, and Tamyra’s has in it a -‘gulfe’, apparently screened by a ‘canopie’, which communicates with -Bussy’s.[463] As the interplay of scenes in Act V requires transit -through the passage from one chamber to the other, it is natural to -assume an unchanged setting.[464] - -The most prolific contributor to the Paul’s repertory was Middleton. -His first play, _Blurt Master Constable_, needs five houses. They are -all in Venice, and as in certain scenes more than one of them appears -to be visible, they were probably all set together.[465] Similarly, -_The Phoenix_ has six houses, all in Ferrara;[466] and _Michaelmas -Term_ has five houses, all in London.[467] On the other hand, although -_A Mad World, my Masters_ has only four houses,[468] and _A Trick to -Catch the Old One_ seven,[469] yet both these plays resemble Dekker’s, -in that the action is divided between London and one or more places in -the country; and this, so far as it goes, seems to suggest settings -on public theatre lines. I do not know whether Middleton wrote _The -Puritan_, but I think that this play clearly had a continuous setting -with only four houses, in London.[470] And although Beaumont’s -_Woman Hater_ requires seven houses, these are all within or hard -by the palace in Milan, and action seems to pass freely from one to -another.[471] - -The evidence available does not dispose one to dogmatism. But this -is the general impression which I get of the history of the Paul’s -staging. When the performances were revived in 1599, the master had, -as in the days before Lyly took the boys to Blackfriars, to make the -best of a room originally designed for choir-practices. This was -circular, and only had space for a comparatively small stage. At the -back of this, entrance was given by a curtained recess, corresponding -to the alcove of the public theatres, and known at Paul’s as the -‘canopy’.[472] Above the canopy was a beam, which bore the post of the -music-tree. On this post was a small stand, perhaps for the conductor -of the music, and on each side of it was a music-house, forming a -gallery,[473] which could represent a window or balcony. There were -at least two other doors, either beneath the music-houses or at right -angles to these, off the sides of the stage. The master began with -continuous settings on the earlier sixteenth-century court model, using -the doors and galleries as far as he could to represent houses, and -supplementing these by temporary structures; and this plan fitted in -with the general literary trend of his typical dramatists, especially -Marston, to unity of locality. But in time the romantic element proved -too much for him, and when he wanted to enlist the services of writers -of the popular school, such as Dekker, he had to compromise. It may -be that some structural change was carried out during the enforced -suspension of performances in 1603. I do not think that there is any -Paul’s play of earlier date which could not have been given in the -old-fashioned manner. In any event, the increased number of houses and -the not infrequent shiftings of locality from town to country, which -are apparent in the Jacobean plays, seem to me, taken together, to be -more than can be accounted for on a theory of clumsy foreshortening, -and to imply the adoption, either generally or occasionally, of some -such principle of convertible houses, as was already in full swing upon -the public stage.[474] - -I do not think that the history of the Blackfriars was materially -different from that of Paul’s. There are in all twenty-four plays -to be considered; an Elizabethan group of seven produced by the -Children of the Chapel, and a Jacobean group of seventeen produced by -the successive incarnations of the Revels company.[475] Structural -alterations during 1603 are here less probable, for the house only -dated from Burbadge’s enterprise of 1596. Burbadge is said to have -intended a ‘public’ theatre, and it may be argued on _a priori_ grounds -that he would have planned for the type of staging familiar to him -at the Theatre and subsequently elaborated at the Globe. The actual -character of the plays does not, however, bear out this view. Like -Paul’s, the Blackfriars relied at first in part upon revivals. One was -_Love’s Metamorphosis_, already produced by Lyly under Court conditions -with the earlier Paul’s boys, and _tout en pastoralle_.[476] Another, -or if not, quite an archaistic play, was _Liberality and Prodigality_, -the abstract plot of which only needs an equally abstract scene, with -a ‘bower’ for Fortune, holding a throne and scaleable by a ladder (30, -290, 903, 932, 953), another ‘bower’ for Virtue (132), an inn (47, -192, 370), and a high seat for a judge with his clerks beneath him -(1245).[477] The two new playwrights may reasonably be supposed to -have conformed to the traditional methods. Jonson’s _Cynthia’s Revels_ -has a preliminary act of open country, by the Fountain of Self-Love, -in Gargaphia. The rest is all at the Gargaphian palace, either in the -presence, or in an ante-chamber thereto, perhaps before a curtain, or -for one or two scenes in the nymphs’ chamber (IV. i-v), and in or -before the chamber of Asotus (III. v).[478] _Poetaster_ is all at Rome, -within and before the palace, the houses of Albius and Lupus, and the -chamber of Ovid.[479] There is certainly no need for any shifting of -scenes so far. Nor does Chapman demand it. _Sir Giles Goosecap_, except -for one open-country scene, has only two houses, which are demonstrably -contiguous and used together.[480] _The Gentleman Usher_ has only -two houses, supposed to be at a little distance from each other, and -entailing a slight foreshortening, if they were placed at opposite ends -of the stage.[481] _All Fools_ adopts the Italian convention of action -in an open city space before three houses.[482] - -To the Jacobean repertory not less than nine writers contributed. -Chapman still takes the lead with three more comedies and two tragedies -of his own. In the comedies he tends somewhat to increase the number -of his houses, although without any change of general locality. -_M. d’Olive_ has five houses.[483] _May Day_ has four.[484] _The -Widow’s Tears_ has four.[485] But in all cases there is a good deal -of interplay of action between one house and another, and all the -probabilities are in favour of continuous setting. The tragedies are -perhaps another matter. The houses are still not numerous; but the -action is in each play divided between two localities. The _Conspiracy -of Byron_ is partly at Paris and partly at Brussels; the _Tragedy of -Byron_ partly at Paris and partly at Dijon.[486] Jonson’s _Case is -Altered_ has one open-country scene (V. iv) near Milan. The other -scenes require two houses within the city. One is Farneze’s palace, -with a _cortile_ where servants come and go, and a colonnade affording -a private ‘walk’ for his daughters (II. iii; IV. i). Hard by, and -probably in Italian fashion forming part of the structure of the palace -itself, is the cobbler’s shop of Farneze’s retainer, Juniper.[487] -Near, too, is the house of Jaques, with a little walled backside, and -a tree in it.[488] A link with Paul’s is provided by three Blackfriars -plays from Marston. Of these, the _Malcontent_ is in his characteristic -Italian manner. There is a short hunting scene (III. ii) in the middle -of the play. For nearly all the rest the scene is the ‘great chamber’ -in the palace at Genoa, with a door to the apartment of the duchess at -the back (II. i. 1) and the chamber of Malevole visible above.[489] -Part of the last act, however, is before the citadel of Genoa, -from which the action passes direct to the palace.[490] _The Dutch -Courtesan_ is a London comedy with four houses, of the same type as -_What You Will_, but less crowded.[491] In the tragedy of _Sophonisba_, -on the other hand, we come for the first time at Blackfriars to a -piece which seems hopelessly unamenable to continuous setting. It -recalls the structure of such early public plays as the _Battle of -Alcazar_. ‘The scene is Libya’, the prologue tells us. We get the -camps of Massinissa (II. ii), Asdrubal (II. iii), and Scipio (III. -ii; V. iv). We get a battle-field with a ‘mount’ and a ‘throne’ in it -(V. ii). We get the forest of Belos, with a cave’s mouth (IV. i). The -city scenes are divided between Carthage and Cirta. At Carthage there -is a council-chamber (II. i) and also the chamber of Sophonisba (I. -ii), where her bed is ‘discovered’.[492] At Cirta there is the similar -chamber of Syphax (III. i; IV. ii) with a trapped altar.[493] A curious -bit of continuous action, difficult to envisage, comprehends this and -the forest at the junction of Acts IV and V. From a vault within it, a -passage leads to the cave. Down this, in III. i, Sophonisba descends, -followed by Syphax. A camp scene intervenes, and at the beginning of IV -Sophonisba emerges in the forest, is overtaken by Syphax, and sent back -to Cirta. Then Syphax remembers that ‘in this desert’ lives the witch -Erichtho. She enters, and promises to charm Sophonisba to his bed. -Quite suddenly, and without any _Exit_ or other indication of a change -of locality, we are back in the chamber at Cirta. Music sounds within -‘the canopy’ and ‘above’. Erichtho, disguised as Sophonisba, enters the -canopy, as to bed. Syphax follows, and only discovers his misadventure -at the beginning of Act V.[494] Even if the play was staged as a whole -on public theatre methods, it is difficult not to suppose that the two -entrances to the cave, at Cirta and in the forest, were shown together. -It is to be added that, in a note to the print, Marston apologizes -for ‘the fashion of the entrances’ on the ground that the play was -‘presented by youths and after the fashion of the private stage’. -Somewhat exceptional also is the arrangement of _Eastward Ho!_, in -which Chapman, Jonson, and Marston collaborated. The first three acts, -taken by themselves, are easy enough. They need four houses in London. -The most important is Touchstone’s shop, which is ‘discovered’.[495] -The others are the exteriors of Sir Petronel’s house and Security’s -house, with a window or balcony above, and a room in the Blue Anchor -tavern at Billingsgate.[496] But throughout most of Act IV the whole -stage seems to be devoted to a complicated action, for which only one -of these houses, the Blue Anchor, is required. A place above the stage -represents Cuckold’s Haven, on the Surrey side of the Thames near -Rotherhithe, where stood a pole bearing a pair of ox-horns, to which -butchers did a folk-observance. Hither climbs Slitgut, and describes -the wreck of a boat in the river beneath him.[497] It is the boat in -which an elopement was planned from the Blue Anchor in Act III. Slitgut -sees passengers landed successively ‘even just under me’, and then at -St. Katharine’s, Wapping, and the Isle of Dogs. These are three places -on the north bank, all to the east of Billingsgate and on the other -side of the Tower, but as each rescue is described, the passengers -enter the stage, and go off again. Evidently a wild foreshortening is -deliberately involved. Now, although the print obscures the fact, must -begin a new scene.[498] A night has passed, and Winifred, who landed -at St. Katharine’s, returns to the stage, and is now before the Blue -Anchor.[499] From IV. ii onwards the setting is normal again, with -three houses, of which one is Touchstone’s. But the others are now -the exterior of the Counter and of the lodging of Gertrude. One must -conclude that in this play the Blackfriars management was trying an -experiment, and made complete, or nearly complete, changes of setting, -at the end of Act III and again after IV. i. Touchstone’s, which was -discovered, could be covered again. The other houses, except the -tavern, were represented by mere doors or windows, and gave no trouble. -The tavern, the introduction of which in the early acts already -entailed foreshortening, was allowed to stand for IV. i, and was then -removed, while Touchstone’s was discovered again. - -Middleton’s tendency to multiply his houses is noticeable, as at -Paul’s, in _Your Five Gallants_. There are eight, in London, with an -open-country scene in Combe Park (III. ii, iii), and one cannot be -confident of continuous setting.[500] But a group of new writers, -enlisted at Blackfriars in Jacobean days, conform well enough to the -old traditions of the house. Daniel’s _Philotas_ has the abstract stage -characteristic of the closet tragedies to the type of which it really -belongs. Any Renaissance façade would do; at most a hall in the court -and the lodging of Philotas need be distinguished. Day’s _Isle of -Gulls_ is _tout en pastoralle_.[501] His _Law Tricks_ has only four -houses, in Genoa.[502] Sharpham’s _Fleir_, after a prelude at Florence, -which needs no house, has anything from three to six in London.[503] -Fletcher’s _Faithful Shepherdess_, again, is _tout en pastoralle_.[504] -Finally, _The Knight of the Burning Pestle_ is, in the strict sense, an -exception which proves the rule. Its shifts of locality are part of the -burlesque, in which the popular plays are taken off for the amusement -of the select audience of the Blackfriars. Its legitimate houses are -only two, Venturewell’s shop and Merrithought’s dwelling, hard by one -another.[505] But the adventures of the prentice heroes take them not -only over down and through forest to Waltham, where the Bell Inn must -serve for a knightly castle, and the barber’s shop for Barbaroso’s -cave, but also to the court of Moldavia, although the players regret -that they cannot oblige the Citizen’s Wife by showing a house covered -with black velvet and a king’s daughter standing in her window all in -beaten gold, combing her golden locks with a comb of ivory.[506] What -visible parody of public stage methods heightened the fun, it is of -course impossible to say. - -I do not propose to follow the Queen’s Revels to the Whitefriars, or -to attempt any investigation into the characteristics of that house. -It was occupied by the King’s Revels before the Queen’s Revels, and -probably the Lady Elizabeth’s joined the Queen’s Revels there at a -later date. But the number of plays which can definitely be assigned -to it is clearly too small to form the basis of any satisfactory -induction.[507] So far as the Blackfriars is concerned, my conclusion -must be much the same as for Paul’s--that, when plays began in 1600, -the Chapel revived the methods of staging with which their predecessors -had been familiar during the hey-day of the Court drama under Lyly; -that these methods held their own in the competition with the public -theatres, and were handed on to the Queen’s Revels; but that in -course of time they were sometimes variegated by the introduction, -for one reason or another, of some measure of scene-shifting in -individual plays. This reason may have been the nature of the plot -in _Sophonisba_, the desire to experiment in _Eastward Ho!_, the -restlessness of the dramatist in _Your Five Gallants_, the spirit of -raillery in _The Knight of the Burning Pestle_. Whether Chapman’s -tragedies involved scene-shifting, I am not quite sure. The analogy of -the Hôtel de Bourgogne, where a continuous setting was not inconsistent -with the use of widely distant localities, must always be kept in mind. -On the other hand, what did not appear absurd in Paris, might have -appeared absurd in London, where the practice of the public theatres -had taught the spectators to expect a higher degree of consistency. -I am far from claiming that my theory of the survival of continuous -setting at Paul’s and the Blackfriars has been demonstrated. Very -possibly the matter is not capable of demonstration. Many, perhaps -most, of the plays could be produced, if need be, by alternative -methods. It is really on taking them in the mass that I cannot resist -the feeling that ‘the fashion of the private stage’, as Marston called -it, was something different from the fashion of the public stage. The -technique of the dramatists corresponds to the structural conditions. -An increased respect for unity of place is not the only factor, -although it is the most important. An unnecessary multiplicity of -houses is, except by Dekker and Middleton, avoided. Sometimes one or -two suffice. There is much more interior action than in the popular -plays. One hall or chamber scene can follow upon another more freely. -A house may be used for a scene which would seem absurdly short if the -setting were altered for it. More doors are perhaps available, so that -some can be spared for entrance behind the houses. There is more coming -and going between one house and another, although I have made it clear -that even the public stage was not limited to one house at a time.[508] -One point is, I think, quite demonstrable. Marston has a reference -to ‘the lower stage’ at Paul’s, but neither at Paul’s nor at the -Blackfriars was there an upper stage capable of holding the action of -a complete scene, such as we found at the sixteenth-century theatres, -and apparently on a still larger scale at the Globe and the Fortune. -A review of my notes will show that, although there is action ‘above’ -in many private house plays, it is generally a very slight action, -amounting to little more than the use by one or two persons of a window -or balcony. Bedchamber scenes or tavern scenes are provided for below; -the public theatre, as often as not, put them above.[509] I may recall, -in confirmation, that the importance of the upper stage in the plays -of the King’s men sensibly diminishes after their occupation of the -Blackfriars.[510] - -There are enigmas still to be solved, and I fear insoluble. Were the -continuous settings of the type which we find in Serlio, with the unity -of a consistent architectural picture, or of the type which we find -at the Hôtel de Bourgogne, with independent and sometimes incongruous -juxtaposed _mansions_? The taste of the dramatists for Italian cities -and the frequent recurrence of buildings which fit so well into a -Serliesque scheme as the tavern, the shop, the house of the _ruffiana_ -or courtesan, may tempt one’s imagination towards the former. But -Serlio does not seem to contemplate much interior action, and although -the convention of a half out-of-doors _cortile_ or _loggia_ may help -to get over this difficulty, the often crowded presences and the masks -seem to call for an arrangement by which each _mansion_ can at need -become in its turn the background to the whole of the stage and attach -to itself all the external doors. How were the open-country scenes -managed, which we have noticed in several plays, as a prelude, or even -an interruption, to the strict unity of place?[511] Were these merely -played on the edge of the stage, or are we to assume a curtain, cutting -off the background of houses, and perhaps painted with an open-country -or other appropriate perspective? And what use, if any, can we suppose -to have been made of title or locality labels? The latter would not -have had much point where the locality was unchanged; but Envy calls -out ‘Rome’ three times in the prologue to the _Poetaster_, as if she -saw it written up in three places. Percy may more naturally use them in -_Cuckqueans and Cuckolds_, on a stage which represents a foreshortening -of the distance between three distinct towns. Title-labels seem fairly -probable. _Cynthia’s Revels_ and _The Knight of the Burning Pestle_ -bear testimony to them at the Blackfriars; _Wily Beguiled_ perhaps at -Paul’s.[512] And if the prologues none the less thought it necessary -to announce ‘The scene is Libya’, or ‘The scene Gargaphia, which I do -vehemently suspect for some fustian country’, why, we must remember -that there were many, even in a select Elizabethan audience, that could -not hope to be saved by their book. - - - - - BOOK V - - PLAYS AND PLAYWRIGHTS - - Tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, - historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, - tragical-comical-historical-pastoral, scene individable or poem - unlimited.--_Hamlet._ - - - - - XXII - - THE PRINTING OF PLAYS - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The records of the Stationers’ Company - were utilized by W. Herbert in _Typographical Antiquities_ - (1785–90), based on an earlier edition (1749) by J. Ames, - and revised, but not for the period most important to us, by - T. F. Dibdin (1810–19). They are now largely available at - first hand in E. Arber, _Transcript of the Registers of the - Stationers’ Company, 1554–1640_ (1875–94), and G. E. B. Eyre, - _Transcript of the Registers of the Worshipful Company of - Stationers, 1640–1708_ (1913–14). Recent investigations are to - be found in the _Transactions_ and other publications of the - Bibliographical Society, and in the periodicals _Bibliographica_ - and _The Library_. The best historical sketches are H. R. - Plomer, _A Short History of English Printing_ (1900), E. G. - Duff, _The Introduction of Printing into England_ (1908, _C. - H._ ii. 310), H. G. Aldis, _The Book-Trade, 1557–1625_ (1909, - _C. H._ iv. 378), and R. B. McKerrow, _Booksellers, Printers, - and the Stationers’ Trade_ (1916, _Sh. England_, ii. 212). Of - somewhat wider range is H. G. Aldis, _The Printed Book_ (1916). - Records of individual printers are in E. G. Duff, _A Century - of the English Book Trade, 1457–1557_ (1905), R. B. McKerrow, - _Dictionary of Printers and Booksellers, 1557–1640_ (1910), and - H. R. Plomer, _Dictionary of Booksellers and Printers, 1641–67_ - (1907). Special studies of value are R. B. McKerrow, _Printers - and Publishers’ Devices_ (1913), and _Notes on Bibliographical - Evidence for Literary Students_ (1914). P. Sheavyn, _The - Literary Profession in the Elizabethan Age_ (1909), is not very - accurate. The early history of the High Commission (1558–64) is - studied in H. Gee, _The Elizabethan Clergy and the Settlement of - Religion_ (1898). The later period awaits fuller treatment than - that in _An Account of the Courts Ecclesiastical_ by W. Stubbs - in the _Report of the Commission on Ecclesiastical Courts_ - (1883), i. 21. J. S. Burn, _The High Commission_ (1865), is - scrappy. - - For plays in particular, W. W. Greg, _List of English Plays_ - (1900), gives the title-pages, and Arber the registration - entries. Various problems are discussed by A. W. Pollard, - _Shakespeare Folios and Quartos_ (1909) and _Shakespeare’s Fight - with the Pirates_ (1917, ed. 2, 1920), and in connexion with - the Shakespearian quartos of 1619 (cf. ch. xxiii). New ground - is opened by A. W. Pollard and J. D. Wilson, _The ‘Stolne and - Surreptitious’ Shakespearian Texts_ (_T. L. S._ Jan.–Aug. 1919), - and J. D. Wilson, _The Copy for Hamlet, 1603, and the Hamlet - Transcript, 1593_ (1918). Other studies are C. Dewischeit, - _Shakespeare und die Stenographie_ (1898, _Jahrbuch_, xxxiv. - 170), B. A. P. van Dam and C. Stoffel, _William Shakespeare, - Prosody and Text_ (1900), _Chapters in English Printing, - Prosody, and Pronunciation_ (1902), P. Simpson, _Shakespearian - Punctuation_ (1911), E. M. Albright, ‘_To be Staied_’ (1915, _M. - L. A._ xxx. 451; cf. _M. L. N._, Feb. 1919), A. W. Pollard, _Ad - Imprimendum Solum_ (1919, _3 Library_, x. 57), H. R. Shipheard, - _Play-Publishing in Elizabethan Times_ (1919, _M. L. A._ xxxiv. - 580); M. A. Bayfield, _Shakespeare’s Versification_ (1920); cf. - _T. L. S._ (1919–20). - - The nature of stage-directions is considered in many works on - staging (cf. _Bibl. Note_ to ch. xviii), and in N. Delius, - _Die Bühnenweisungen in den alten Shakespeare-Ausgaben_ (1873, - _Jahrbuch_, viii. 171), R. Koppel, _Scenen-Einteilung und - Orts-Angaben in den Shakespeareschen Dramen_ (1874, _Jahrbuch_, - ix. 269), _Die unkritische Behandlung dramaturgischer Angaben - und Anordnungen in den Shakespeare-Ausgaben_ (1904, _E. S._ - xxxiv. 1). The documents printed by Arber are so fundamental as - to justify a short description. Each of his vols. i-iv gives the - text, or most of the text, of four books, lettered A-D in the - Company’s archives, interspersed with illustrative documents - from other sources; vol. v consists of indices. Another series - of books, containing minutes of the Court of Assistants from - 1603 onwards, remains unprinted (ii. 879). Book A contains the - annual accounts of the wardens from 1554 to 1596. The Company’s - year began on varying dates in the first half of July. From - 1557 to 1571 the accounts include detailed entries of the books - for which fees were received and of the fines imposed upon - members of the Company for irregularities. Thereafter they are - abstracts only, and reference is made for the details of fees - to ‘the register in the clarkes booke’ (i. 451). Unfortunately - this book is not extant for 1571–6. After the appointment of - Richard Collins in place of George Wapull as clerk in 1575, a - new ‘booke of entrances’ was bought for the clerk (i. 475). - This is Book B, which is divided into sections for records of - different character, including book entries for 1576–95, and - fines for 1576–1605. There are also some decrees and ordinances - of the Court, most of which Arber does not print, and a few - pages of miscellaneous memoranda at the beginning and end (ii. - 33–49, 884–6). Book C, bought ‘for the entrance of copies’ in - 1594–5 (i. 572), has similar memoranda (iii. 35–8, 677–98). It - continues the book entries, and these alone, for 1595–1620. Book - D continues them for 1620–45. Arber’s work stops at 1640. Eyre - prints a transcript by H. R. Plomer of the rest of D and of - Books E, F, and G, extending to 1708.] - -A historian of the stage owes so much of his material to the printed -copies of plays, with their title-pages, their prefatory epistles, and -their stage-directions, that he can hardly be dispensed from giving -some account of the process by which plays got into print. Otherwise -I should have been abundantly content to have left the subject with a -reference to the researches of others, and notably of that accomplished -bibliographer, my friend Mr. A. W. Pollard, to whom in any event the -debt of these pages must be great. The earliest attempts to control -the book-trade are of the nature of commercial restrictions, and -concern themselves with the regulation of alien craftsmanship.[513] -But when Tudor policy had to deal with expressions of political and -religious opinion, and in particular when the interlude as well as the -pamphlet, not without encouragement from Cranmer and Cromwell, became -an instrument of ecclesiastical controversy, it was not long before the -State found itself committed to the methods of a literary censorship. -We have already followed in detail the phases of the control to which -the spoken play was subjected.[514] The story of the printed play -was closely analogous; and in both cases the ultimate term of the -evolution, so far as our period is concerned, was the establishment of -the authority of the Master of the Revels. The printing and selling -of plays, however, was of course only one fragment of the general -business of book-production. Censorship was applied to many kinds of -books, and was also in practice closely bound up with the logically -distinct problem of copyright. This to the Elizabethan mind was a -principle debarring one publisher from producing and selling a book in -which another member of his trade had already a vested interest. The -conception of a copyright vested in the author as distinct from the -publisher of a book had as yet hardly emerged. - -The earliest essay in censorship in fact took the form of an extension -of the procedure, under which protection had for some time past been -given to the copyright in individual books through the issue of a -royal privilege forbidding their republication by any other than the -privileged owner or printer.[515] Three proclamations of Henry VIII -against heretical or seditious books, in 1529, 1530, and 1536, were -followed in 1538 by a fourth, which forbade the printing of any English -book except with a licence given ‘upon examination made by some of his -gracis priuie counsayle, or other suche as his highnes shall appoynte’, -and further directed that a book so licensed should not bear the words -‘Cum priuilegio regali’ without the addition of ‘ad imprimendum solum’, -and that ‘the hole copie, or els at the least theffect of his licence -and priuilege be therwith printed’.[516] The intention was apparently -to distinguish between a merely regulative privilege or licence to -print, and the older and fuller type of privilege which also conveyed -a protection of copyright. Finally, in 1546, a fifth proclamation -laid down that every ‘Englishe boke, balet or playe’ must bear the -names of the printer and author and the ‘daye of the printe’, and that -an advance copy must be placed in the hands of the local mayor two -days before publication.[517] It is not quite clear whether these -requirements were intended to replace, or merely to reinforce, that of -a licence. Henry’s proclamations lost their validity upon his death -in 1547, but the policy of licensing was continued by his successors. -Under Edward VI we get, first a Privy Council order of 1549, directing -that all English books printed or sold should be examined and allowed -by ‘M^r Secretary Peter, M^r Secretary Smith and M^r Cicill, or the -one of them’, and secondly a proclamation of 1551, requiring allowance -‘by his maiestie, or his priuie counsayl in writing signed with his -maiesties most gratious hand or the handes of sixe of his sayd priuie -counsayl’.[518] Mary in her turn, though with a different emphasis -on the kind of opinion to be suppressed, issued three proclamations -against heretical books in 1553, 1555, and 1558, and in the first of -these limited printers to books for which they had ‘her graces speciall -licence in writynge’.[519] It is noteworthy that both in 1551 and in -1553 the printing and the playing of interludes were put upon exactly -the same footing. - -Mary, however, took another step of the first importance for the -further history of publishing, by the grant on 4 May 1557 a charter of -incorporation to the London Company of Stationers.[520] This was an -old organization, traceable as far back as 1404.[521] By the sixteenth -century it had come to include the printers who manufactured, as -well as the stationers who sold, books; and many, although not all -of its members, exercised both avocations. No doubt the issue of the -charter had its origin in mixed motives. The stationers wanted the -status and the powers of economic regulation within their trade which -it conferred; the Government wanted the aid of the stationers in -establishing a more effective control over the printed promulgation of -inconvenient doctrines. This preoccupation is clearly manifested in the -preamble to the charter, with its assertion that ‘seueral seditious -and heretical books’ are ‘daily published’; and the objects of both -parties were met by a provision that ‘no person shall practise or -exercise the art or mystery of printing or stamping any book unless -the same person is, or shall be, one of the society of the foresaid -mystery of a stationer of the city aforesaid, or has for that purpose -obtained our licence’. This practically freed the associated stationers -from any danger of outside competition, and it immensely simplified -the task of the heresy hunters by enlisting the help of the Company -against the establishment of printing-presses by any but well-known -and responsible craftsmen. Registration is always half-way towards -regulation. The charter did not, however, dispense, even for the -members of the Company, with the requirement of a licence; nor did it -give the Company any specific functions in connexion with the issue of -licences, and although Elizabeth confirmed her sister’s grant on 10 -November 1559, she had already, in the course of the ecclesiastical -settlement earlier in the year, taken steps to provide for the -continuance of the old system, and specifically laid it down that -the administration of the Company was to be subordinate thereto. The -licensing authority rested ultimately upon the _Act of Supremacy_, by -which the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the ‘reformation, -order, and correction’ of all ‘errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, -offences, contempts, and enormities’ was annexed to the Crown, and the -Crown was authorized to exercise its jurisdiction through the agency of -a commission appointed under letters patent.[522] This Act received the -royal assent on 8 May 1559, together with the _Act of Uniformity_ which -established the Book of Common Prayer, and made it an offence ‘in any -interludes, plays, songs, rhymes, or by other open words’ to ‘declare -or speak anything in the derogation, depraving, or despising’ of that -book.[523] In the course of June followed a body of _Injunctions_, -intended as a code of ecclesiastical discipline to be promulgated at -a series of diocesan visitations held by commissioners under the _Act -of Supremacy_. One of these _Injunctions_ is directly concerned with -the abuses of printers of books.[524] It begins by forbidding any book -or paper to be printed without an express written licence either from -the Queen herself or from six of the Privy Council, or after perusal -from two persons being either the Archbishop of Canterbury or York, the -Bishop of London, the Chancellor of Oxford or Cambridge, or the Bishop -or Archdeacon for the place of printing. One of the two must always be -the Ordinary, and the names of the licensers are to be ‘added in the -end’ of every book. This seems sufficiently to cover the ground, but -the _Injunction_ goes on to make a special reference to ‘pamphlets, -plays and ballads’, from which anything ‘heretical, seditious, or -unseemly for Christian ears’ ought to be excluded; and for these it -prescribes a licence from ‘such her majesty’s commissioners, or three -of them, as be appointed in the city of London to hear and determine -divers causes ecclesiastical’. These commissioners are also to punish -breaches of the _Injunction_, and to take and notify an order as -to the prohibition or permission of ‘all other books of matters of -religion or policy, or governance’. An exemption is granted for books -ordinarily used in universities or schools. The Master and Wardens -of the Stationers’ Company are ‘straitly’ commanded to be obedient -to the _Injunction_. The commission here referred to was not one of -those entrusted with the diocesan visitations, but a more permanent -body sitting in London itself, which came to be known as the High -Commission. The reference to it in the _Injunction_ reads like an -afterthought, but as the principal members of this commission were -the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, there is not -so much inconsistency between the two forms of procedure laid down as -might at first sight appear. The High Commission was not in fact yet in -existence when the _Injunctions_ were issued, but it was constituted -under a patent of 19 July 1559, and was renewed from time to time by -fresh patents throughout the reign.[525] The original members, other -than the two prelates, were chiefly Privy Councillors, Masters of -Requests, and other lawyers. The size of the body was considerably -increased by later patents, and a number of divines were added. The -patent of 1559 conferred upon the commissioners a general power to -exercise the royal jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical. It does not -repeat in terms the provisions for the ‘allowing’ of books contained -in the _Injunctions_, but merely recites that ‘divers seditious books’ -have been set forth, and empowers the commissioners to inquire into -them. - -The _Injunctions_ and the Commission must be taken as embodying the -official machinery for the licensing of books up to the time of -the well-known Star Chamber order of 1586, although the continued -anxiety of the government in the matter is shown by a series of -proclamations and orders which suggest that no absolutely effective -method of suppressing undesirable publications had as yet been -attained.[526] Mr. Pollard, who regards the procedure contemplated -by the _Injunctions_ as ‘impossible’, believes that in practice the -Stationers’ Company, in ordinary cases, itself acted as a licensing -authority.[527] Certainly this is the testimony, as regards the -period 1576–86, of a note of Sir John Lambe, Dean of the Arches, in -1636, which is based wholly or in part upon information derived from -Felix Kingston, then Master of the Company.[528] Kingston added the -detail that in the case of a divinity book of importance the opinion -of theological experts was taken. Mr. Pollard expresses a doubt -whether Lambe or Kingston had much evidence before them other than -the registers of the Company which are still extant, and to these we -are in a position to turn for confirmation or qualification of their -statements.[529] Unfortunately, the ordinances or constitutions under -which the master and wardens acted from the time of the incorporation -have not been preserved, and any additions made to these by the Court -of Assistants before the Restoration have not been printed.[530] We -have some revised ordinances of 1678–82, and these help us by recording -as of ‘ancient usage’ a practice of entering all publications, other -than those under letters patent, in ‘the register-book of this -company’.[531] It is in fact this register, incorporated from 1557 to -1571 in the annual accounts of the wardens and kept from 1576 onwards -as a subsidiary book by the clerk, which furnishes our principal -material. During 1557–71 the entries for each year are collected -under a general heading, which takes various forms. In 1557–8 it is -‘The entrynge of all such copyes as be lycensed to be prynted by the -master and wardyns of the mystery of stacioners’; in 1558–9 simply -‘Lycense for pryntinge’; in 1559–60, for which year the entries are -mixed up with others, ‘Receptes for fynes, graunting of coppyes and -other thynges’; in 1560–1 ‘For takynge of fynes for coppyes’. This -formula lasts until 1565–6, when ‘The entrynge of coopyes’ takes its -place. The wording of the individual entries also varies during the -period, but generally it indicates the receipt of a money payment in -return for a license.[532] In a very few cases, by no means always -of divinity books, the licence is said to be ‘by’, or the licence or -perhaps the book itself, to be ‘authorized’ or ‘allowed’ or ‘perused’ -or ‘appointed’ by the Bishop of London; still more rarely by the -Archbishop of Canterbury or by both prelates; once by the Archbishops -of Canterbury and York; once by the Council.[533] - -Richard Collins, on his appointment as Clerk of the Company in 1575, -records that one of his duties was to enter ‘lycences for pryntinge -of copies’ and one section of his register is accordingly devoted to -this purpose.[534] It has no general heading, but the summary accounts -of the wardens up to 1596 continue to refer to the receipts as ‘for -licencinge of copies’.[535] The character of the individual entries -between 1576 and 1586 is much as in the account books. The name of -a stationer is given in the margin and is followed by some such -formula as ‘Receyved of him for his licence to prynte’ or more briefly -‘Lycenced vnto him’, with the title of the book, any supplementary -information which the clerk thought relevant, and a note of the payment -made. Occasional alternatives are ‘Allowed’, ‘Admitted’, ‘Graunted’ -or ‘Tolerated’ ‘vnto him’, of which the three first appear to have -been regarded as especially appropriate to transfers of existing -copyrights;[536] and towards the end of the period appears the more -important variant ‘Allowed vnto him for his copie’.[537] References -to external authorizers gradually become rather more frequent, -although they are still the exception and not the rule; the function -is fulfilled, not only by the bishop, the archbishop, or the Council, -but also upon occasion by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary, by -individual Privy Councillors, by the Lord Mayor, the Recorder or the -Remembrancer of the City, and by certain masters and doctors, who -may be the ministers mentioned by Felix Kingston, and who probably -held regular deputations from a proper ecclesiastical authority as -‘correctors’ to the printers.[538] It is certain that such a post was -held in 1571 by one Talbot, a servant of the Archbishop of Canterbury. -On the other hand the clerk, at first tentatively and then as a matter -of regular practice, begins to record the part taken by the master and -wardens. The first example is a very explicit entry, in which the book -is said to be ‘licensed to be printed’ by the archbishop and ‘alowed’ -by the master and a warden.[539] But the formula which becomes normal -does not dwell on any differentiation of functions, and merely states -the licence as being ‘under the hands of’ the wardens or of one of them -or the master, or of these and of some one who may be presumed to be -an external corrector. To the precise significance of ‘under the hands -of’ I must return. Increased caution with regard to dangerous books -is also borne witness to during this period by the occasional issue -of a qualified licence. In 1580 Richard Jones has to sign his name -in the register to a promise ‘to bring the whole impression’ of _The -Labyrinth of Liberty_ ‘into the Hall in case it be disliked when it -is printed’.[540] In 1583 the same stationer undertakes ‘to print of -his own perill’.[541] In 1584 it is a play which is thus brought into -question, Lyly’s _Sapho and Phao_, and Thomas Cadman gets no more than -‘yt is graunted vnto him yat yf he gett ye commedie of Sappho laufully -alowed vnto him, then none of this cumpanie shall interrupt him to -enjoye yt’. Other entries direct that lawful authority must be obtained -before printing, and in one case there is a specific reference to the -royal _Injunctions_.[542] Conditions of other kinds are also sometimes -found in entries; a book must be printed at a particular press, or the -licence is to be voided if it prove to be another man’s copy.[543] The -caution of the Stationers may have been motived by dissatisfaction -on the part of the government which finally took shape in the issue -of the Star Chamber order of 23 June 1586. This was a result of the -firmer policy towards Puritan indiscipline initiated by Whitgift and -the new High Commission which he procured on his succession to the -primacy in 1583.[544] It had two main objects. One, with which we are -not immediately concerned, was to limit the number of printers and -their presses; the other, to concentrate the censorship of all ordinary -books, including plays, in the hands of the archbishop and the bishop. -It is not clear whether the prelates were to act in their ordinary -capacity or as High Commissioners; anyhow they had the authority of -the High Commission, itself backed by the Privy Council, behind them. -The effect of the order is shown in a bustle amongst the publishers -to get on to the register a number of ballads and other trifles which -they had hitherto neglected to enter, and in a considerable increase -in the submissions of books for approval, either to the prelates -themselves, or to persons who are now clearly acting as ecclesiastical -deputies.[545] On 30 June 1588 an official list of deputies was issued -by the archbishop, and amongst these were several who had already -authorized books before and after 1586. These deputies, and other -correctors whose names appear in the register at later dates, are as a -rule traceable as episcopal chaplains, prebendaries of St. Paul’s, or -holders of London benefices.[546] Some of them were themselves members -of the High Commission. Occasionally laymen were appointed.[547] The -main work of correction now fell to these officials, but books were -still sometimes allowed by the archbishop or bishop in person, or by -the Privy Council or some member of that body. - -The reaction of the changes of 1586–88 upon the entries in the register -is on the whole one of degree rather than of kind. Occasionally the -wording suggests a differentiation between the functions of the wardens -and those of the ecclesiastical licensers, but more often the clerk -contents himself with a mere record of what ‘hands’ each book was -under.[548] Some shifting of the point of view is doubtless involved in -the fact that ‘Entered vnto him for his copie’ and ‘Allowed vnto him -for his copie’ now become the normal formulas, and by 1590–1 ‘Licenced -vnto him’ has disappeared altogether.[549] But a great number of books, -including most ballads and pamphlets and some plays, are still entered -without note of any authority other than that of the wardens, and about -1593 the proportion of cases submitted to the ecclesiastical deputies -sensibly begins to slacken, although the continuance of conditional -entries shows that some caution was exercised. An intervention of the -prelates in 1599 reversed the tendency again.[550] As regards plays -in particular, the wardens received a sharp reminder, ‘that noe -playes be printed except they be allowed by suche as haue authority’; -and although they do not seem to have interpreted this as requiring -reference to a corrector in every case, conditional entries of plays -become for a time numerous.[551] They stop altogether in 1607, when the -responsibility for play correction appears to have been taken over, -presumably under an arrangement with the prelates, by the Master of -the Revels.[552] Henceforward and to the end of Buck’s mastership, -nearly all play entries are under the hands not only of the wardens, -but of the Master or of a deputy acting on his behalf. Meanwhile, for -books other than plays, the ecclesiastical authority succeeded more -and more in establishing itself, although even up to the time of the -Commonwealth the wardens never altogether ceased to enter ballads and -such small deer on their own responsibility. - -A little more may be gleaned from the ‘Fynes for breakinge of good -orders’, which like the book entries were recorded by the wardens in -their annual accounts up to 1571 and by the clerk in his register -from 1576 to 1605.[553] But many of these were for irregularities in -apprenticeship and the like, and where a particular book was concerned, -the book is more often named than the precise offence committed in -relation to it. The fine is for printing ‘contrary to the orders of -this howse’, ‘contrary to our ordenaunces’, or merely ‘disorderly’. -Trade defects, such as ‘stechyng’ of books, are sometimes in question, -and sometimes the infringement of other men’s copies.[554] But the -character of the books concerned suggests that some at least of the -fines for printing ‘without lycense’, ‘without aucthoritie’, ‘without -alowance’, ‘without entrance’, ‘before the wardyns handes were to yt’ -were due to breaches of the regulations for censorship, and in a few -instances the information is specific.[555] The book is a ‘lewde’ book, -or ‘not tolerable’, or has already been condemned to be burnt, or the -printing is contrary to ‘her maiesties prohibicon’ or ‘the decrees -of the star chamber’.[556] More rarely a fine was accompanied by the -sequestration of the offending books, or the breaking up of a press, -or even imprisonment. In these cases the company may have been acting -under stimulus from higher powers; in dealing with a culprit in 1579, -they direct that ‘for his offence, so farre as it toucheth ye same -house only, he shall paye a fine’.[557] - -Putting together the entries and the fines, we can arrive at an -approximate notion of the position occupied by the Stationers’ Company -as an intermediary between the individual stationers and the higher -powers in Church and State. That it is only approximate and that many -points of detail remain obscure is largely due to the methods of -the clerk. Richard Collins did not realize the importance, at least -to the future historian, of set diplomatic formulas, and it is by -no means clear to what extent the variations in the phrasing of his -record correspond to variations in the facts recorded. But it is my -impression that he was in substance a careful registrar, especially as -regards the authority under which his entries were made, and that if -he did not note the presence in any case of a corrector’s ‘hand’ to -a book, it is fair evidence that such a hand was not before him. On -this assumption the register confirms the inference to be drawn from -the statements of Lambe and Kingston in 1636, that before 1586 the -provision of the _Injunctions_ for licensing by the High Commission for -London was not ordinarily operative, and that as a rule the only actual -licences issued were those of the Stationers’ Company, who used their -own discretion in submitting books about which they felt doubtful to -the bishop or the archbishop or to an authorized corrector.[558] That -books licensed by the Company without such reference were regarded as -having been technically licensed under the _Injunctions_, one would -hesitate to say. Licence is a fairly general term, and as used in the -Stationers’ Register it does not necessarily cover anything more than -a permit required by the internal ordinances of the Company itself. -Certainly its officials claimed to issue licences to its members for -other purposes than printing.[559] What Lambe and Kingston do not -tell us, and perhaps ought to have told us, is that, when the master -and wardens did call in the assistance of expert referees, it was not -to ‘ministers’ merely chosen by themselves that they applied, but -to official correctors nominated by the High Commission, or by the -archbishop or bishop on its behalf. Nor must it be supposed that no -supervision of the proceedings of the company was exercised by the High -Commission itself. We find that body writing to the Company to uphold -a patent in 1560.[560] It was upon its motion in 1566 that the Privy -Council made a Star Chamber order calling attention to irregularities -which had taken place, and directing the master and wardens to search -for the offenders.[561] And its authority, concurrent with that of the -Privy Council itself, to license books, is confirmed by a letter of -the Council to the company in 1570.[562] So much for the period before -1586. Another thing which Lambe and Kingston do not tell us, and which -the register, if it can be trusted, does, is that the effective change -introduced by the Star Chamber of that year was only one of degree and -not of kind. It is true that an increasing number of books came, after -one set-back, to be submitted to correctors; that the clerk begins to -lay emphasis in his wording upon entrance rather than upon licence; -that there are some hints that the direct responsibility of the wardens -was for a kind of ‘allowance’ distinct from and supplementary to that -of censorship. But it does not appear to be true that, then or at any -later time, they wholly refused to enter any book except after taking -cognizance of an authority beyond their own. - -In fact the register, from the very beginning, was not purely, or -perhaps even primarily, one of allowances. It had two other functions, -even more important from the point of view of the internal economy -of the Company. It was a fee-book, subsidiary to the annual accounts -of the wardens, and showing the details of sums which they had to -return in those accounts.[563] And it was a register of copyrights. -A stationer brought his copy to the wardens and paid his fee, in -order that he might be protected by an official acknowledgement of his -interest in the book against any infringement by a trade competitor. No -doubt the wardens would not, and under the ordinances of the company -might not, give this acknowledgement, unless they were satisfied that -the book was one which might lawfully be printed. But copyright was -what the stationer wanted, for after all most books were not dangerous -in the eyes even of an Elizabethan censorship, whereas there would be -little profit in publishing, if any rival were at liberty to cut in -and reprint for himself the result of a successful speculation. It is -a clear proof of this that the entrances include, not only new books, -but also those in which rights had been transferred from one stationer -to another.[564] Obviously no new allowance by a corrector would be -required in such cases. And as regards copyright and licence alike, -the entry in the register, although convenient to all concerned, was -in itself no more than registration, the formal putting upon record -of action already taken upon responsible authority. This authority -did not rest with the clerk. In a few cases, indeed, he does seem to -have entered an unimportant book at his own discretion.[565] But his -functions were really subordinate to those of the wardens, as is shown -by his practice from about 1580, of regularly citing the ‘hands’ or -signed directions of those officers, as well as of the correctors, upon -which he was acting. These ‘hands’ are not in the register, and there -is sufficient evidence that they were ordinarily endorsed upon the -manuscript or a printed copy of the book itself.[566] Exceptionally -there might be an oral direction, or a separate letter or warrant of -approval, which was probably preserved in a cupboard at the company’s -hall.[567] Here too were kept copies of prints, although not, I -think, the endorsed copies, which seem to have remained with the -stationers.[568] I take it that the procedure was somewhat as follows. -The stationer would bring his book to a warden together with the fee or -some plausible excuse for deferring payment to a later date. The warden -had to consider the questions both of property and of licence. Possibly -the title of each book was published in the hall, in order that any -other stationer who thought that he had an interest in it might make -his claim.[569] Cases of disputed interest would go for determination -to the Court of Assistants, who with the master and wardens for the -year formed the ultimate governing body of the company, and had -power in the last resort to revoke an authority to print already -granted.[570] But if no difficulty as to ownership arose, and if the -book was already endorsed as allowable by a corrector, the warden would -add his own endorsement, and it was then open to the stationer to take -the book to the clerk, show the ‘hands’, pay the fee if it was still -outstanding, and get the formalities completed by registration.[571] -If, however, the warden found no endorsement by a corrector on the -copy, then there were three courses open to him. He might take the -risk of passing an obviously harmless book on his own responsibility. -He might refuse his ‘hand’ until the stationer had got that of the -corrector. Or he might make a qualified endorsement, which the clerk -would note in the register, sanctioning publication so far as copyright -was concerned, but only upon condition that proper authority should -first be obtained. The dates on the title-pages of plays, when compared -with those of the entries, suggest that, as would indeed be natural, -the procedure was completed before publication; not necessarily before -printing, as the endorsements were sometimes on printed copies.[572] -Several cases of re-entry after a considerable interval may indicate -that copyright lapsed unless it was exercised within a reasonable time. -As a rule, a play appeared within a year or so after it was entered, -and was either printed or published by the stationer who had entered -it, or by some other to whom he is known, or may plausibly be supposed, -to have transferred his interest. Where a considerable interval exists -between the date of an entry and that of the first known print, it is -sometimes possible that an earlier print has been lost.[573] - -I do not think that it can be assumed that the absence of an entry in -the register is evidence that the book was not duly licensed, so far -as the ecclesiastical authorities were concerned. If its status was -subsequently questioned, the signed copy could itself be produced. -Certainly, when a conditional entry had been made, requiring better -authority to be obtained, the fulfilment of the condition was by -no means always, although it was sometimes, recorded. Possibly the -‘better authority’ was shown to the warden rather than the clerk. -On the other hand, it is certain that, under the ordinances of the -Company, publication without entrance exposed the stationer to a -fine, and it is therefore probable that entrance was also necessary -to secure copyright.[574] Sometimes the omission was repaired on the -occasion of a subsequent transfer of interest. So far as plays are -concerned, there seems to have been greater laxity in this respect -as time went on. Before 1586, or at any rate before 1584, there are -hardly any unentered plays, if we make the reasonable assumption -that certain prints of 1573 and 1575 appeared in the missing lists -for 1571–5.[575] Between 1584 and 1615 the number is considerable, -being over fifty, or nearly a quarter of the total number of plays -printed during that period. An examination of individual cases does -not disclose any obvious reason why some plays should be entered and -others not. The unentered plays are spread over the whole period -concerned. They come from the repertories of nearly all the theatres. -They include ‘surreptitious’ plays, which may be supposed to have been -printed without the consent of the authors or owners, but they also -include plays to which prefaces by authors or owners are prefixed. They -were issued by publishers of good standing as well as by others less -reputable; and as a rule their publishers appear to have been entering -or not entering, quite indifferently, at about the same date. To this -generalization I find an exception, in Thomas Archer, who printed -six plays without entry between 1607 and 1613 and entered none.[576] -The large number of unentered plays is rather a puzzle, and I do not -know the solution. In some cases, as we shall see, the publishers -may have preferred not to court publicity for their enterprises by -bringing them before the wardens. In others they may merely have been -unbusinesslike, or may have thought that the chances of profit hardly -justified the expenditure of sixpence on acquiring copyright. Yet many -of the unentered plays went through more than one edition, including -_Mucedorus_, a book of enduring popularity, and they do not appear to -have been particularly subject to invasion by rival publishers. I will -leave it to Mr. Pollard. - -These being the conditions, let us consider what number and what kinds -of plays got into print. It will be convenient to deal separately -with the two periods 1557–85 and 1586–1616. The operations of the -Company under their charter had hardly begun before Mary died. The -Elizabethan printing of plays opens in 1559 and for the first five -years is of a retrospective character. Half a dozen publishers, led -by John King, who died about 1561, and Thomas Colwell, who started -business in the same year, issued or entered seventeen plays. Of these -one is not extant. One is a ‘May-game’, perhaps contemporary. Five are -translations; four are Marian farces of the school of Udall, one a -_débat_ by John Heywood, and five Protestant interludes of the reigns -of Henry and Edward, roughly edited in some cases so as to adapt them -to performance under the new queen.[577] One more example of earlier -Tudor drama, _Ralph Roister Doister_, in addition to mere reprints, -appeared after 1565.[578] And with that year, after a short lull of -activity, begins the genuine Elizabethan harvest, which by 1585 had -yielded forty-two plays, of which thirty-nine are extant, although -two only in the form of fragments. On analysis, the greater number -of these, seventeen in all, fall into a group of moral interludes, -often controversial in tone, and in some cases approximating, through -the intermingling of concrete with abstract personages, on the one -hand to classical comedy, on the other to the mediaeval miracle-play. -There are also twelve translations or adaptations, including two from -Italian comedy. There is one neo-classical tragedy. And there are -nine plays which can best be classified as histories, of which seven -have a classical and two a romantic colouring.[579] It is of interest -to compare this output of the printing-press with the chronicle of -Court performances over the same years which is recorded in the Revels -Accounts.[580] Here we get, so far of course as can be judged from -a bare enumeration of titles, fourteen morals, twenty-one classical -histories, mainly shown by boys, twenty-two romantic histories, mainly -shown by men, and perhaps three farces, two plays of contemporary -realism, with one ‘antick’ play and two groups of short dramatic -episodes. It is clear that the main types are the same in both lists. -But only one of the printed plays, _Orestes_, actually appears in the -Court records, although _Damon and Pythias_, _Gorboduc_, _Sapho and -Phao_, _Campaspe_, and _The Arraignment of Paris_ were also given at -Court, and the Revels Accounts after all only cover comparatively few -years out of the whole period.[581] And there is a great discrepancy in -the proportions in which the various types are represented. The morals, -which were obsolescent at Court, are far more numerous in print than -the classical and romantic histories, which were already in enjoyment -of their full vogue upon the boards. My definite impression is that -these early printed morals, unlike the prints of later date, were in -the main not drawn from the actual repertories of companies, but were -literary products, written with a didactic purpose, and printed in the -hope that they would be bought both by readers and by schoolmasters in -search of suitable pieces for performance by their pupils. They belong, -like some similar interludes, both original and translated, of earlier -date, rather to the tradition of the humanist academic drama, than to -that of the professional, or even quasi-professional, stage. There are -many things about the prints which, although not individually decisive, -tend when taken in bulk to confirm this theory. They are ‘compiled’, -according to their title-pages; sometimes the author is declared a -‘minister’ or a ‘learned clerke’.[582] Nothing is, as a rule, said -to indicate that they have been acted.[583] They are advertised, not -only as ‘new’, ‘merry’, ‘pretty’, ‘pleasant’, ‘delectable’, ‘witty’, -‘full of mirth and pastime’, but also as ‘excellent’, ‘worthy’, -‘godly’, ‘pithy’, ‘moral’, ‘pityfull’, ‘learned’, and ‘fruitfull’, -and occasionally the precise didactic intention is more elaborately -expounded either on the title-page or in a prologue.[584] They are -furnished with analyses showing the number of actors necessary to take -all the parts, and in one case there is a significant note that the -arrangement is ‘most convenient for such as be disposed, either to -shew this comedie in priuate houses, or otherwise’.[585] They often -conclude with a generalized prayer for the Queen and the estates of -the realm, which omits any special petition for the individual lord -such as we have reason to believe the protected players used.[586] -The texts are much better than the later texts based upon acting -copies. The stage-directions read like the work of authors rather -than of book-keepers, notably in the use of ‘out’ rather than of ‘in’ -to indicate exits, and in the occasional insertion both of hints for -‘business’ and of explanatory comments aimed at a reader rather than -an actor.[587] It should be added that this type of play begins to -disappear at the point when the growing Calvinist spirit led to a sharp -breach between the ministry and the stage, and discredited even moral -play-writing amongst divines. The latest morals, of which there are -some even during the second period of play-publication, have much more -the look of rather antiquated survivals from working repertories.[588] -The ‘May-game’ of _Robin Hood_ seems to me to be of a literary origin -similar to that of the contemporary ‘morals’. - -Towards the end of the period a new element is introduced with Lyly and -Peele, who, like Edwardes before them, were not divines but secular -scholars, and presumably desired a permanent life for their literary -achievements. The publication of Lyly’s plays for Paul’s carries us -on into the period 1586–1616, and the vaunting of their performance -before the Queen is soon followed by that of other plays, beginning -with _The Troublesome Reign of John_, as publicly acted in the City -of London. During 1586–1616 two hundred and thirty-seven plays in -all were published or at least entered on the Stationers’ Register, -in addition to thirteen printed elsewhere than in London. Of many of -these, and of some of those earlier published, there were one or more -reprints. It is not until the last year of the period that the first -example of a collective edition of the plays of any author makes its -appearance. This is _The Workes of Benjamin Jonson_, which is moreover -in folio, whereas the prints of individual plays were almost invariably -in quarto.[589] A second volume of Jonson’s _Works_ was begun in 1631 -and completed in 1640. Shakespeare’s plays had to wait until 1623 -for collective treatment, Lyly’s until 1632, Marston’s until 1633, -and Beaumont and Fletcher’s until 1647 and 1679, although a partial -collection of Shakespearian plays in quarto has been shown to have -been contemplated and abandoned in 1619.[590] Of the two hundred and -thirty-seven plays proposed for publication two hundred and fourteen -are extant. Twenty-three are only known by entries in the Stationers’ -Register, and as plays were not always entered, it is conceivable that -one or two may have been published, and have passed into oblivion. Of -the two hundred and fourteen extant plays, six are translations from -the Latin, Italian, or French, and seven may reasonably be suspected of -being merely closet plays, intended for the eye of the reader alone. -The other two hundred and one may be taken to have undergone the -test of actual performance. Six were given by amateurs, at Court or -elsewhere, and eleven, of which three are Latin and eight English, are -University plays. So far as the professional companies are concerned, -the repertories which have probably been best preserved, owing to -the fact that the poets were in a position to influence publication, -are those of the boys. We have thirty-one plays which, certainly or -probably, came to the press from the Chapel and Queen’s Revels boys, -twenty-five from the Paul’s boys, and eight from the King’s Revels -boys. To the Queen’s men we may assign eleven plays, to Sussex’s three, -to Pembroke’s five, to Derby’s four, to Oxford’s one, to Strange’s or -the Admiral’s and Henry’s thirty-two, to the Chamberlain’s and King’s -thirty-four, to Worcester’s and Anne’s sixteen, to Charles’s one. -Some of these had at earlier dates been played by other companies. -Fifteen plays remain, not a very large proportion, which cannot be -safely assigned.[591] There are twenty-seven manuscript English plays -or fragments of plays or plots of plays, and twenty-one Latin ones, -mostly of a university type, which also belong to the period 1586–1616. -There are fifty-one plays which were certainly or probably produced -before 1616, but were not printed until later, many of them in the -Shakespeare and Beaumont and Fletcher folios. And there are some -twenty-two others, which exist in late prints, but may be wholly, or -more often partially, of early workmanship. The resultant total of -three hundred and seven is considerable, but there is reason to suppose -that it only represents a comparatively small fraction of the complete -crop of these thirty pullulating dramatic years. Of over two hundred -and eighty plays recorded by Henslowe as produced or commissioned by -the companies for whom he acted as banker between 1592 and 1603, we -have only some forty and perhaps revised versions of a few others.[592] -Thomas Heywood claimed in 1633 to have had ‘an entire hand, or at least -a maine finger’, in not less than two hundred and twenty plays, and -of these we can only identify or even guess at about two score, of -which several are certainly lost. That any substantial number of plays -got printed, but have failed to reach us, is improbable. From time -to time an unknown print, generally of early date, turns up in some -bibliographical backwater, but of the seventy-five titles which I have -brought together under the head of ‘Lost Plays’ some probably rest -upon misunderstandings and others represent works which were not plays -at all, while a large proportion are derived from late entries in the -Stationers’ Register by Humphrey Moseley of plays which he may have -possessed in manuscript but never actually proceeded to publish.[593] -Some of the earlier unfulfilled entries may be of similar type. An -interesting piece of evidence pointing to the practically complete -survival at any rate of seventeenth-century prints is afforded in a -catalogue of his library of plays made by Sir John Harington in or -about 1610.[594] Harington possessed 129 distinct plays, as well as -a number of duplicates. Only 9 of these were printed before 1586. He -had 14 out of 38 printed during 1588–94, and 15 out of 25 printed -during 1595–99. His absence in Ireland during 1599 probably led him -to miss several belonging to that year, and his most vigorous period -as a collector began with 1600. During 1600–10 he secured 90 out of -105; that is to say exactly six-sevenths of the complete output of -the London press. I neglect plays printed outside London in these -figures. There is only one play among the 129 which is not known to us. -Apparently it bore the title _Belinus and Brennus_. - -It is generally supposed, and I think with justice, that the acting -companies did not find it altogether to their advantage to have -their plays printed. Heywood, indeed, in the epistle to his _English -Traveller_ (1633) tells us that this was sometimes the case.[595] -Presumably the danger was not so much that readers would not become -spectators, as that other companies might buy the plays and act them; -and of this practice there are some dubious instances, although at any -rate by Caroline times it had been brought under control by the Lord -Chamberlain.[596] At any rate, we find the Admiral’s in 1600 borrowing -40_s._ ‘to geue vnto the printer, to staye the printing of Patient -Gresell’.[597] We find the King’s Revels syndicate in 1608 entering -into a formal agreement debarring its members from putting any of the -play-books jointly owned by them into print. And we find the editor -and publisher of _Troilus and Cressida_, although that had in fact -never been played, bidding his readers in 1609 ‘thanke fortune for the -scape it hath made amongst you; since by the grand possessors wills I -beleeue you should have prayd for them rather than beene prayd’. The -marked fluctuation in the output of plays in different years is capable -of explanation on the theory that, so long as the companies were -prosperous, they kept a tight hold on their ‘books’, and only let them -pass into the hands of the publishers when adversity broke them up, or -when they had some special need to raise funds. The periods of maximum -output are 1594, 1600, and 1607. In 1594 the companies were reforming -themselves after a long and disastrous spell of plague; and in -particular the Queen’s, Pembroke’s, and Sussex’s men were all ruined, -and their books were thrown in bulk upon the market.[598] It has been -suggested that the sales of 1600 may have been due to Privy Council -restrictions of that year, which limited the number of companies, and -forbade them to play for more than two days in the week.[599] But it is -very doubtful whether the limitation of days really became operative, -and many of the plays published belonged to the two companies, the -Chamberlain’s and the Admiral’s, who stood to gain by the elimination -of competitors. An alternative reason might be found in the call for -ready money involved by the building of the Globe in 1599 and the -Fortune in 1600. The main factor in 1607 was the closing of Paul’s and -the sale of the plays acted there. - -Sometimes the companies were outwitted. Needy and unscrupulous -stationers might use illegitimate means to acquire texts for which -they had not paid as a basis for ‘surreptitious’ or ‘piratical’ -prints.[600] A hired actor might be bribed to disclose his ‘part’ and -so much as he could remember of the ‘parts’ of others. Dr. Greg has -made it seem probable that the player of the Host was an agent in -furnishing the text of the _Merry Wives_.[601] A player of Voltimand -and other minor parts may have been similarly guilty as regards -_Hamlet_.[602] Long before, the printer of _Gorboduc_ had succeeded in -‘getting a copie thereof at some yongmans hand that lacked a little -money and much discretion’. Or the poet himself might be to blame. -Thomas Heywood takes credit in the epistle to _The Rape of Lucrece_ -that it had not been his custom ‘to commit my playes to the presse’, -like others who ‘have vsed a double sale of their labours, first to the -stage, and after to the presse’. Yet this had not saved his plays from -piracy, for some of them had been ‘copied only by the eare’ and issued -in a corrupt and mangled form. A quarter of a century later, in writing -a prologue for a revival of his _If You Know not Me, You Know Nobody_, -he tells us that this was one of the corrupt issues, and adds that - - Some by Stenography drew - The plot: put it in print: (scarce one word trew). - -Modern critics have sought in shorthand the source of other ‘bad’ and -probably surreptitious texts of plays, and one has gone so far as to -trace in them the peculiarities of a particular system expounded in -the _Characterie_ (1588) of Timothy Bright.[603] The whole question -of surreptitious prints has naturally been explored most closely in -connexion with the textual criticism of Shakespeare, and the latest -investigator, Mr. Pollard, has come to the conclusion that, in spite of -the general condemnation of the Folio editors, the only Shakespearian -Quartos which can reasonably be labelled as surreptitious or as -textually ‘bad’ are the First Quartos of _Romeo and Juliet_, _Henry -V_, _Merry Wives of Windsor_, _Hamlet_, and _Pericles_, although -he strongly suspects that there once existed a similar edition of -_Love’s Labour’s Lost_.[604] I have no ground for dissenting from this -judgement. - -The question whether the actors, in protecting their property from the -pirates, could look for any assistance from the official controllers -of the press is one of some difficulty. We may perhaps infer, with the -help of the conditional entries of _The Blind Beggar of Alexandria_ and -_The Spanish Tragedy_, and the special order made in the case of _Dr. -Faustus_, that before assigning a ‘copy’ to one stationer the wardens -of the Company took some steps to ascertain whether any other stationer -laid a claim to it. It does not follow that they also inquired whether -the applicant had come honestly or dishonestly by his manuscript.[605] -Mr. Pollard seems inclined to think that, although they were under no -formal obligation to intervene, they would not be likely, as men of -common sense, to encourage dishonesty.[606] If this argument stood -alone, I should not have much confidence in it. There is a Publishers’ -Association to-day, doubtless composed of men of common sense, but it -is not a body to which one would naturally commit interests which -might come into conflict with those of members of the trade. It would -be another matter, however, if the actors were in a position to bring -outside interest to bear against the pirates, through the licensers, or -through the Privy Council on whom ultimately the licensers depended. -And this in fact seems to have been the way in which a solution of -the problem was gradually arrived at. Apart altogether from plays, -there are instances upon record in which individuals, who were in a -position to command influence, successfully adopted a similar method. -We find Fulke Greville in 1586 writing to Sir Francis Walsingham, -on the information of the stationer Ponsonby, to warn him that the -publication of the _Arcadia_ was being planned, and to advise him to -get ‘made stay of that mercenary book’ by means of an application to -the Archbishop or to Dr. Cosin, ‘who have, as he says, a copy to peruse -to that end’.[607] Similarly we find Francis Bacon, in the preface to -his _Essayes_ of 1597, excusing himself for the publication on the -ground that surreptitious adventurers were at work, and ‘to labour -the staie of them had bin troublesome and subiect to interpretation’. -Evidently he had come to a compromise, of which the Stationers’ -Register retains traces in the cancellation by a court of an entry -of the _Essayes_ to Richard Serger, and a re-entry to H. Hooper, the -actual publisher, ‘under the handes of Master Francis Bacon, Master -Doctor Stanhope, Master Barlowe, and Master Warden Lawson’.[608] The -actors, too, were not wholly without influence. They had their patrons -and protectors, the Lord Chamberlain and the Lord Admiral, in the Privy -Council, and although, as Mr. Pollard points out, it certainly would -not have been good business to worry an important minister about every -single forty-shilling piracy, it may have been worth while to seek -a standing protection, analogous to the old-fashioned ‘privilege’, -against a series of such annoyances. At any rate, this is what, while -the Admiral’s contented themselves with buying off the printer of -_Patient Grissell_, the Chamberlain’s apparently attempted, although -at first with indifferent success, to secure. In 1597 John Danter, a -stationer of the worst reputation, had printed a surreptitious and -‘bad’ edition of _Romeo and Juliet_, and possibly, if Mr. Pollard’s -conjecture is right, another of _Love’s Labour’s Lost_. He had made no -entry in the Register, and it was therefore open to another publisher, -Cuthbert Burby, to issue, without breach of copyright, ‘corrected’ -editions of the same plays.[609] This he did, with suitable trumpetings -of the corrections on the title-pages, and presumably by arrangement -with the Chamberlain’s men. It was this affair which must, I think, -have led the company to apply for protection to their lord. On 22 July -1598 an entry was made in the Stationers’ Register of _The Merchant -of Venice_ for the printer James Roberts. This entry is conditional -in form, but it differs from the normal conditional entries in that -the requirement specified is not an indefinite ‘aucthoritie’ but a -‘lycence from the Right honorable the lord chamberlen’. Roberts also -entered _Cloth Breeches and Velvet Hose_ on 27 May 1600, _A Larum -for London_ on 29 May 1600, and _Troilus and Cressida_ on 7 February -1603. These also are all conditional entries but of a normal type. No -condition, however, is attached to his entry of _Hamlet_ on 26 July -1602. Now comes a significant piece of evidence, which at least shows -that in 1600, as well as in 1598, the Stationers’ Company were paying -particular attention to entries of plays coming from the repertory -of the Chamberlain’s men. The register contains, besides the formal -entries, certain spare pages upon which the clerk was accustomed to -make occasional memoranda, and amongst these memoranda we find the -following:[610] - - My lord chamberlens menns plaies Entred - viz - -[Sidenote: 27 May 1600 To Master Robertes] - - A moral of ‘clothe breches and velvet hose’ - -[Sidenote: 27 May To hym] - - Allarum to London - - 4 Augusti - As you like yt, a booke } - Henry the ffift, a booke } - Every man in his humour, a booke } to be staied - The commedie of ‘muche A doo about } - nothing’, a booke } - -There are possibly two notes here, but we may reasonably date them both -in 1600, as _Every Man In his Humour_ was entered to Cuthbert Burby and -Walter Burre on 14 August 1600 and _Much Ado about Nothing_ to Andrew -Wise and William Aspley on 23 August 1600, and these plays appeared -in 1601 and 1600 respectively. _Henry V_ was published, without entry -and in a ‘bad’ text by Thomas Millington and John Busby, also in 1600, -while _As You Like It_ remained unprinted until 1623. Many attempts -have been made to explain the story of 4 August. Mr. Fleay conjectured -that it was due to difficulties of censorship; Mr. Furness that it was -directed against James Roberts, whom he regarded on the strength of -the conditional entries as a man of ‘shifty character’.[611] But there -is no reason to read Roberts’s name into the August memorandum at all; -and I agree with Mr. Pollard that the evidence of dishonesty against -him has been exaggerated, and that the privilege which he held for -printing all play-bills for actors makes it prima facie unlikely that -his relations with the companies would be irregular.[612] On the other -hand, I hesitate to accept Mr. Pollard’s counter-theory that the four -conditional Roberts entries were of the nature of a deliberate plan -‘in the interest of the players in order to postpone their publication -till it could not injure the run of the play and to make the task of -the pirates more difficult’. One would of course suppose that any -entry, conditional or not, might serve such a purpose, if the entering -stationer was in league with the actors and deliberately reserved -publication. This is presumably what the Admiral’s men paid Cuthbert -Burby to do for _Patient Grissell_. Mr. Pollard applies the same theory -to Edward Blount’s unconditional entries of _Pericles_ and _Antony and -Cleopatra_ in 1608, and it would certainly explain the delays in the -publication of _Troilus and Cressida_ from 1603 to 1609 and of _Antony -and Cleopatra_ from 1608 to 1623, and the absence of any edition of -_Cloth Breeches and Velvet Hose_. But it does not explain why _Hamlet_, -entered by Roberts in 1602, was issued by others in the ‘bad’ text of -1603, or why _Pericles_ was issued by Henry Gosson in the ‘bad’ text -of 1609.[613] Mr. Pollard’s interpretation of the facts appears to be -influenced by the conditional character of four out of Roberts’s five -entries during 1598–1603, and I understand him to believe that the -‘further aucthoritie’ required for _Cloth Breeches and Velvet Hose_ -and _A Larum for London_ and the ‘sufficient aucthoritie’ required -for _Troilus and Cressida_ were of the same nature as the licence -from the Lord Chamberlain specifically required for _The Merchant of -Venice_.[614] It is not inconceivable that this may have been so, but -one is bound to take the Roberts conditional entries side by side with -the eight similar entries made between 1601 and 1606 for other men, -and in three at least of these (_The Dutch Courtesan_, _Sir Giles -Goosecap_, _The Fleir_) it is obvious that the authority demanded -was that of the official correctors. Of course, the correctors may -themselves have had a hint from the Lord Chamberlain to keep an eye -upon the interests of his servants, but if the eleven conditionally -entered plays of 1600–6 be looked at as a group, it will be seen that -they are all plays of either a political or a satirical character, -which might well therefore call for particular attention from the -correctors in the discharge of their ordinary functions. I have already -suggested that the normal conditional entries represent cases in which -the wardens of the Stationers’ Company, while not prepared to license -a book on their own responsibility, short-circuited as far as they -could the procedure entailed. Properly they ought to have seen the -corrector’s hand before adding their own endorsement. But if this was -not forthcoming, the applicant may have been allowed, in order to save -time, to have the purely trade formalities completed by a conditional -entry, which would be a valid protection against a rival stationer, -but would not, until the corrector’s hand was obtained, be sufficient -authority for the actual printing. No doubt the clerk should have -subsequently endorsed the entry after seeing the corrector’s hand, but -he did not always do so, although in cases of transfer the transferee -might ask for a record to be made, and in any event the owner of the -copy had the book with the ‘hand’ to it. The Lord Chamberlain’s ‘stay’ -was, I think, another matter. I suppose it to have been directed, not -to the correctors, but to the wardens, and to have taken the form of -a request not to enter any play of the Chamberlain’s men, otherwise -entitled to licence or not, without satisfying themselves that the -actors were assenting parties to the transaction. Common sense would -certainly dictate compliance with such a request, coming from such a -source. The plan seems to have worked well enough so far as _As You -Like It_, _Every Man In his Humour_, and _Much Ado about Nothing_ -were concerned, for we have no reason to doubt that the subsequent -publication of two of these plays had the assent of the Chamberlain’s -men, and the third was effectively suppressed. But somehow not only -_Hamlet_ but also _The Merry Wives of Windsor_ slipped through in -1602, and although the actors apparently came to some arrangement -with Roberts and furnished a revised text of _Hamlet_, the other play -seems to have gone completely out of their control. Moreover, it was -an obvious weakness of the method adopted, that it gave no security -against a surreptitious printer who was in a position to dispense with -an entry. Danter, after all, had published without entry in 1597. He -had had to go without copyright; but an even more audacious device was -successfully tried in 1600 with _Henry V_. This was one of the four -plays so scrupulously ‘staied’ by the Stationers’ clerk on 4 August. -Not merely, however, was the play printed in 1600 by Thomas Creede for -Thomas Millington and John Busby, but on 21 August it was entered on -the Register as transferred to Thomas Pavier amongst other ‘thinges -formerlye printed and sett ouer to’ him. I think the explanation is -that the print of 1600 was treated as merely a reprint of the old play -of _The Famous Victories of Henry V_, which was indeed to some extent -Shakespeare’s source, and of which Creede held the copyright.[615] -Similarly, it is conceivable that the same John Busby and Nathaniel -Butter forced the hands of the Chamberlain’s men into allowing the -publication of _King Lear_ in 1608 by a threat to issue it as a reprint -of _King Leir_.[616] Busby was also the enterer of _The Merry Wives_, -and he and Butter, at whose hands it was that Heywood suffered, seem to -have been the chief of the surreptitious printers after Danter’s death. - -The Chamberlain’s men would have been in a better position if their -lord had brought his influence to bear, as Sidney’s friends had done, -upon the correctors instead of the Stationers’ Company. Probably -the mistake was retrieved in 1607 when the ‘allowing’ of plays for -publication passed to the Master of the Revels, and he may even -have extended his protection to the other companies which, like the -Chamberlain’s, had now passed under royal protection. I do not suggest -that the convenience of this arrangement was the sole motive for the -change; the episcopal correctors must have got into a good deal of -hot water over the affair of _Eastward Ho!_[617] Even the Master of -the Revels did not prevent the surreptitious issue of _Pericles_ in -1609. In Caroline times we find successive Lord Chamberlains, to whom -the Master of the Revels continued to be subordinate, directing the -Stationers’ Company not to allow the repertories of the King’s men or -of Beeston’s boys to be printed, and it is implied that there were -older precedents for these protections.[618] - -A point might come at which it was really more to the advantage of the -actors to have a play published than not. The prints were useful in -the preparation of acting versions, and they saved the book-keepers -from the trouble of having to prepare manuscript copies at the demand -of stage-struck amateurs.[619] The influence of the poets again was -on the side of publication, and it is perhaps due to the greater -share which they took in the management of the boys’ companies that -so disproportionate a number of the plays preserved are of their -acting. Heywood hints that thereby the poets sold their work twice. It -is more charitable to assume that literary vanity was also a factor; -and it is with playwrights of the more scholarly type, Ben Jonson -and Marston, that a practice first emerges of printing plays at an -early date after publication, and in the full literary trappings of -dedicatory epistles and commendatory verses. Actor-playwrights, such -as Heywood himself and Dekker, followed suit; but not Shakespeare, who -had long ago dedicated his literary all to Southampton and penned no -prefaces. The characteristic Elizabethan apologies, on such grounds as -the pushfulness of publishers or the eagerness of friends to see the -immortal work in type, need not be taken at their full face value.[620] -Opportunity was afforded on publication to restore passages which had -been ‘cut’ to meet the necessities of stage-presentation, and of this, -in the Second Quarto of _Hamlet_, even Shakespeare may have availed -himself.[621] - -The conditions of printing therefore furnish us with every variety -of text, from the carefully revised and punctuated versions of -Ben Jonson’s _Works_ of 1616 to the scrappy notes, from memory or -shorthand, of an incompetent reporter. The average text lies between -these extremes, and is probably derived from a play-house ‘book’ handed -over by the actors to the printer. Mr. Pollard has dealt luminously -with the question of the nature of the ‘book’, and has disposed of the -assumption that it was normally a copy made by a ‘play-house’ scrivener -of the author’s manuscript.[622] For this assumption there is no -evidence whatever. There is, indeed, little direct evidence, one way or -other; but what there is points to the conclusion that the ‘original’ -or standard copy of a play kept in the play-house was the author’s -autograph manuscript, endorsed with the licence of the Master of the -Revels for performance, and marked by the book-keeper or for his use -with indications of cuts and the like, and with stage-directions for -exits and entrances and the disposition of properties, supplementary -to those which the author had furnished.[623] Most of the actual -manuscripts of this type which remain in existence are of Caroline, -rather than Elizabethan or Jacobean, date.[624] But we have one of _The -Second Maid’s Tragedy_, bearing Buck’s licence of 1611, and one of _Sir -Thomas More_, belonging to the last decade of the sixteenth century, -which has been submitted for licence without success, and is marked -with instructions by the Master for the excision or alteration of -obnoxious passages. It is a curious document. The draft of the original -author has been patched and interpolated with partial redrafts in a -variety of hands, amongst which, according to some palaeographers, is -to be found that of Shakespeare. One wonders that any licenser should -have been complaisant enough to consider the play at all in such a -form; and obviously the instance is a crucial one against the theory of -scrivener’s copies.[625] It may also be argued on _a priori_ grounds -that such copies would be undesirable from the company’s point of view, -both as being costly and as tending to multiply the opportunities -for ‘surreptitious’ transmission to rivals or publishers. Naturally -it was necessary to copy out individual parts for the actors, and -Alleyn’s part in _Orlando Furioso_, with the ‘cues’, or tail ends of -the speeches preceding his own, can still be seen at Dulwich.[626] From -these ‘parts’ the ‘original’ could be reconstructed or ‘assembled’ in -the event of destruction or loss.[627] Apparently the book-keeper also -made a ‘plot’ or scenario of the action, and fixed it on a peg for -his own guidance and that of the property-man in securing the smooth -progress of the play.[628] Nor could the companies very well prevent -the poets from keeping transcripts or at any rate rough copies, when -they handed over their ‘papers’, complete or in instalments, as they -drew their ‘earnests’ or payments ‘in full’.[629] It does not follow -that they always did so. We know that Daborne made fair copies for -Henslowe;[630] but the Folio editors tell us that what Shakespeare -thought ‘he vttered with that easinesse, that we haue scarse receiued -from him a blot in his papers’, and Mr. Pollard points out that there -would have been little meaning in this praise if what Shakespeare sent -in had been anything but his first drafts.[631] - -The character of the stage-directions in plays confirm the view that -many of them were printed from working play-house ‘originals’. They are -primarily directions for the stage itself; it is only incidentally that -they also serve to stimulate the reader’s imagination by indicating the -action with which the lines before him would have been accompanied in -a representation.[632] Some of them are for the individual guidance of -the actors, marginal hints as to the ‘business’ which will give point -to their speeches. These are not very numerous in play-house texts; the -‘kneeling’ and ‘kisses her’ so frequent in modern editions are merely -attempts of the editors to show how intelligently they have interpreted -the quite obvious implications of the dialogue. The more important -directions are addressed rather to the prompter and the tire-man; they -prescribe the exits and the entrances, the ordering of a procession or -a dumb-show, the use of the curtains or other structural devices, the -introduction of properties, the precise moment for the striking up of -music or sounds ‘within’. It is by no means always possible, except -where a manuscript betrays differences of handwriting, to distinguish -between what the author, often himself an actor familiar with the -possibilities of the stage, may have originally written, and what -the book-keeper may have added. Either may well use the indicative -or the imperative form, or merely an adverbial, participial, or -substantival expression.[633] But it is natural to trace the hand of -the book-keeper where the direction reduces itself to the bare name of -a property noted in the margin; even more so when it is followed by -some such phrase as ‘ready’, ‘prepared’, or ‘set out’;[634] and still -more so when the note occurs at the point when the property has to -be brought from the tire-room, and some lines before it is actually -required for use.[635] The book-keeper must be responsible, too, for -the directions into which, as not infrequently happens, the name of an -actor has been inserted in place of that of the personage whom that -actor represented.[636] On the other hand, we may perhaps safely assign -to the author directions addressed to some one else in the second -person, those which leave something to be interpreted according to -discretion, and those which contain any matter not really necessary -for stage guidance.[637] Such superfluous matter is only rarely found -in texts of pure play-house origin, although even here an author -may occasionally insert a word or two of explanation or descriptive -colouring, possibly taken from the source upon which he has been -working.[638] In the main, however, descriptive stage-directions are -characteristic of texts which, whether ultimately based upon play-house -copies or not, have undergone a process of editing by the author or -his representative, with an eye to the reader, before publication. -Some literary rehandling of this sort is traceable, for example, in the -First Folio of Shakespeare, although the hearts of the editors seem -to have failed them before they had got very far with the task.[639] -Yet another type of descriptive stage-direction presents itself in -certain ‘surreptitious’ prints, where we find the reporter eking out -his inadequately recorded text by elaborate accounts of the details of -the business which he had seen enacted before him.[640] So too William -Percy, apparently revising plays some of which had already been acted -and which he hoped to see acted again, mingles his suggestions to a -hypothetical manager with narratives in the past tense of how certain -actors had carried out their parts.[641] - -It must not be assumed that, because a play was printed from a stage -copy, the author had no chance of editing it. Probably the compositors -treated the manuscript put before them very freely, modifying, if they -did not obliterate, the individual notions of the author or scribe as -to orthography and punctuation; and the master printer, or some press -corrector in his employment, went over and ‘improved’ their work, -perhaps not always with much reference to the original ‘copy’.[642] -This process of correction continued during the printing off of the -successive sheets, with the result that different examples of the same -imprint often show the same sheet in corrected and in uncorrected -states.[643] The trend of modern criticism is in the direction of -regarding Shakespeare’s plays as printed, broadly speaking, without -any editorial assistance from him; the early quartos from play-house -manuscripts, the later quartos from the earlier quartos, the folio -partly from play-house manuscripts, partly from earlier quartos used in -the play-house instead of manuscripts, and bearing marks of adaptation -to shifting stage requirements.[644] On this theory, the aberrations -of the printing-house, even with the author’s original text before -them, have to account in the main for the unsatisfactory condition in -which, in spite of such posthumous editing, not very extensive, as was -done for the folio, even the best texts of the plays have reached us. -Whether it is sound or not--I think that it probably is--there were -other playwrights who were far from adopting Shakespeare’s attitude of -detachment from the literary fate of his works. Jonson was a careful -editor. Marston, Middleton, and Heywood all apologize for misprints in -various plays, which they say were printed without their knowledge, or -when they were urgently occupied elsewhere; and the inference must be -that in normal circumstances the responsibility would have rested with -them.[645] Marston, indeed, definitely says that he had ‘perused’ the -second edition of _The Fawn_, in order ‘to make some satisfaction for -the first faulty impression’.[646] - -The modern editions, with their uniform system of acts and scenes and -their fanciful notes of locality--‘A room in the palace’, ‘Another -room in the palace’--are again misleading in their relation to the -early prints, especially those based upon the play-house. Notes of -locality are very rare. Occasionally a definite shift from one country -or town to another is recorded;[647] and a few edited plays, such as -Ben Jonson’s, prefix, with a ‘dramatis personae’, a general indication -of ‘The scene’.[648] For the rest, the reader is left to his own -inferences, with such help as the dialogue and the presenters give him; -and the modern editors, with a post-Restoration tradition of staging -in their minds, have often inferred wrongly. Even the shoulder-notes -appended to the accurate reprints of the Malone Society, although they -do not attempt localities, err by introducing too many new scenes. -In the early prints the beginnings of scenes are rarely marked, and -the beginnings of acts are left unmarked to an extent which is rather -surprising. The practice is by no means uniform, and it is possible -to distinguish different tendencies in texts of different origin. The -Tudor interludes and the early Elizabethan plays of the more popular -type are wholly undivided, and there was probably no break in the -continuity of the performances.[649] Acts and scenes, which are the -outward form of a method of construction derived from the academic -analysis of Latin comedy and tragedy, make their appearance, with other -notes of neo-classic influence, in the farces of the school of Udall, -in the Court tragedies, in translated plays, in Lyly’s comedies, and -in a few others belonging to the same _milieu_ of scholarship.[650] -Ben Jonson and a few other later writers adopt them in printing plays -of theatrical origin.[651] But the great majority of plays belonging -to the public theatres continue to be printed without any divisions -at all, while plays from the private houses are ordinarily divided -into acts, but not into scenes, although the beginning of each act has -usually some such heading as ‘Actus Primus, Scena prima’.[652] This -distinction corresponds to the greater significance of the act-interval -in the performance of the boy companies; but, as I have pointed out -in an earlier chapter, it is difficult to suppose that the public -theatres paid no regard to act-intervals, and one cannot therefore -quite understand why neither the poets nor the book-keepers were in the -habit of showing them in the play-house ‘originals’ of plays.[653] -Had they been shown there, they would almost inevitably have got into -the prints. It is a peculiarity of the surreptitious First Quarto of -_Romeo and Juliet_, that its later sheets, which differ typographically -from the earlier ones, although they do not number either acts or -scenes, insert lines of ornament at the points at which acts and -scenes may be supposed to begin. It must be added that, so far as an -Elizabethan playwright looked upon his work as made up of scenes, his -conception of a scene was not as a rule that familiar to us upon the -modern stage. The modern scene may be defined as a piece of action -continuous in time and place between two falls of a drop-curtain. The -Elizabethans had no drop-curtain, and the drawing of an alcove curtain, -at any rate while personages remain on the stage without, does not -afford the same solution of continuity. The nearest analogy is perhaps -in such a complete clearance of the stage, generally with a shift of -locality, as enables the imagination to assume a time interval. A few -texts, generally of the seventeenth century, are divided into scenes -on this principle of clearance; and it was adopted by the editors -of the First Folio, when, in a half-hearted way, they attempted to -divide up the continuous texts of their manuscripts and quartos.[654] -But it was not the principle of the neo-classic dramatists, or of Ben -Jonson and his school. For them a scene was a section, not of action, -but of dialogue; and they started a new scene whenever a speaker, or -at any rate a speaker of importance, entered or left the stage. This -is the conception which is in the mind of Marston when he regrets, -in the preface to _The Malcontent_, that ‘scenes, invented merely to -be spoken, should be enforcively published to be read’. It is also -the conception of the French classicist drama, although the English -playwrights do not follow the French rule of _liaison_, which requires -at least one speaker from each scene to remain on into the next, and -thus secures continuity throughout each act by making a complete -clearance of the stage impossible.[655] - - - - - XXIII - - PLAYWRIGHTS - - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The abundant literature of the drama - is more satisfactorily treated in the appendices to F. E. - Schelling, _Elizabethan Drama_ (1908), and vols. v and vi (1910) - of the _Cambridge History of English Literature_, than in R. W. - Lowe, _Bibliographical Account of English Theatrical Literature_ - (1888), K. L. Bates and L. B. Godfrey, _English Drama: a Working - Basis_ (1896), or W. D. Adams, _Dictionary of the Drama_ (1904). - There is an American pamphlet on _Materials for the Study of the - English Drama, excluding Shakespeare_ (1912, Newbery Library, - Chicago), which I have not seen. Periodical lists of new books - are published in the _Modern Language Review_, the _Beiblatt_ - to _Anglia_, and the _Bulletin_ of the English Association, - and annual bibliographies by the _Modern Humanities Research - Association_ (from 1921) and in the Shakespeare _Jahrbuch_. - The bibliography by H. R. Tedder in the _Encyclopaedia - Britannica_ (11th ed.) s.v. Shakespeare, A. C. Shaw, _Index to - the Shakespeare Memorial Library_ (1900–3), and W. Jaggard, - _Shakespeare Bibliography_ (1911), on which, however, cf. C. S. - Northup in _J. G. P._ xi. 218, are also useful. - - W. W. Greg, _Notes on Dramatic Bibliographers_ (1911, _M. - S. C._ i. 324), traces from the publishers’ advertisements - of the Restoration a _catena_ of play-lists in E. Phillips, - _Theatrum Poetarum_ (1675), W. Winstanley, _Lives of the Most - Famous English Poets_ (1687), G. Langbaine, _Momus Triumphans_ - (1688) and _Account of the English Dramatick Poets_ (1691), C. - Gildon, _Lives and Characters of the English Dramatick Poets_ - (1698), W. R. Chetwood, _The British Theatre_ (1750), E. Capell, - _Notitia Dramatica_ (1783), and the various editions of the - _Biographica Dramatica_ from 1764 to 1812. More recent are J. O. - Halliwell-Phillipps, _Dictionary of Old English Plays_ (1860), - and W. C. Hazlitt, _Manual of Old English Plays_ (1892); but - all are largely superseded by W. W. Greg, _A List of English - Plays_ (1900) and _A List of Masques, Pageants, &c._ (1902). - His account of Warburton’s collection in _The Bakings of Betsy_ - (_Library_, 1911) serves as a supplement. A few plays discovered - later than 1900 appeared in an Irish sale of 1906 (cf. - _Jahrbuch_, xliii. 310) and in the Mostyn sale of 1919 (cf. t.p. - facsimiles in Sotheby’s sale catalogue). For the problems of the - early prints, the _Bibliographical Note_ to ch. xxii should be - consulted. - - I ought to add that the notices of the early prints of plays - in this and the following chapter lay no claim to minute - bibliographical erudition, and that all deficiencies in this - respect are likely to be corrected when the full results of Dr. - Greg’s researches on the subject are published. - - The fundamental works on the history of the drama are A. W. - Ward, _History of English Dramatic Literature_ (1875, 1899), F. - G. Fleay, _Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama_ (1891), - F. E. Schelling, _Elizabethan Drama_ (1908), the _Cambridge - History of English Literature_, vols. v and vi (1910), and W. - Creizenach, _Geschichte des neueren Dramas_, vols. iv, v (1909, - 1916). These and others, with the relevant periodicals, are - set out in the _General Bibliographical Note_ (vol. i); and to - them may be added F. S. Boas, _Shakspere and his Predecessors_ - (1896), B. Matthews, _The Development of the Drama_ (1904), F. - E. Schelling, _English Drama_ (1914), A. Wynne, _The Growth of - English Drama_ (1914). Less systematic collections of studies - are L. M. Griffiths, _Evenings with Shakespeare_ (1889), J. R. - Lowell, _Old English Dramatists_ (1892), A. H. Tolman, _The - Views about Hamlet_ (1904), C. Crawford, _Collectanea_ (1906–7), - A. C. Swinburne, _The Age of Shakespeare_ (1908). The older - critical work of Charles Lamb, William Hazlitt, and others - cannot be neglected, but need not be detailed here. - - Special dissertations on individual plays and playwrights - are recorded in the body of this chapter. A few of wider - scope may be roughly classified; as dealing with dramatic - structure, H. Schwab, _Das Schauspiel im Schauspiel zur Zeit - Shakespeares_ (1896), F. A. Foster, _Dumb Show in Elizabethan - Drama before 1620_ (1911, _E. S._ xliv. 8); with types of - drama, H. W. Singer, _Das bürgerliche Trauerspiel in England_ - (1891), J. Seifert, _Wit-und Science Moralitäten_ (1892), J. L. - McConaughty, _The School Drama_ (1913), E. N. S. Thompson, _The - English Moral Plays_ (1910), R. Fischer, _Zur Kunstentwickelung - der englischen Tragödie bis zu Shakespeare_ (1893), A. C. - Bradley, _Shakespearean Tragedy_ (1904), F. E. Schelling, _The - English Chronicle Play_ (1902), L. N. Chase, _The English - Heroic Play_ (1903), C. G. Child, _The Rise of the Heroic Play_ - (1904, _M. L. N._ xix), F. H. Ristine, _English Tragicomedy_ - (1910), C. R. Baskervill, _Some Evidence for Early Romantic - Plays in England_ (1916, _M. P._ xiv. 229, 467), L. M. Ellison, - _The Early Romantic Drama at the English Court_ (1917), H. - Smith, _Pastoral Influence in the English Drama_ (1897, _M. - L. A._ xii. 355). A. H. Thorndike, _The Pastoral Element in - the English Drama before 1605_ (1900, _M. L. N._ xiv. 228), J. - Laidler, _History of Pastoral Drama in England_ (1905, _E. S._ - xxxv. 193), W. W. Greg, _Pastoral Poetry and Pastoral Drama_ - (1906); with types of plot and characterization, H. Graf, - _Der Miles Gloriosus im englischen Drama_ (1891), E. Meyer, - _Machiavelli and the Elizabethan Drama_ (1897), G. B. Churchill, - _Richard the Third up to Shakespeare_ (1900), L. W. Cushman, - _The Devil and the Vice in the English Dramatic Literature - before Shakespeare_ (1900), E. Eckhardt, _Die lustige Person - im älteren englischen Drama_ (1902), F. E. Schelling, _Some - Features of the Supernatural as Represented in Plays of the - Reigns of Elizabeth and James_ (1903, _M. P._ i), H. Ankenbrand, - _Die Figur des Geistes im Drama der englischen Renaissance_ - (1906), F. G. Hubbard, _Repetition and Parallelism in the - Earlier Elizabethan Drama_ (1905, _M. L. A._ xx), E. Eckhardt, - _Die Dialekt-und Ausländertypen des älteren englischen Dramas_ - (1910–11), V. O. Freeburg, _Disguise Plots in Elizabethan Drama_ - (1915); with _Quellenforschung_ and foreign influences, E. - Koeppel, _Quellen-Studien zu den Dramen Jonson’s, Marston’s, - und Beaumont und Fletcher’s_ (1895), _Quellen-Studien zu - den Dramen Chapman’s, Massinger’s und Ford’s_ (1897), _Zur - Quellen-Kunde der Stuarts-Dramen_ (1896, _Archiv_, xcvii), - _Studien zur Geschichte der italienischen Novelle in der - englischen Litteratur des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts_ (1892), - L. L. Schücking, _Studien über die stofflichen Beziehungen - der englischen Komödie zur italienischen bis Lilly_ (1901), - A. Ott, _Die italienische Novelle im englischen Drama von - 1600_ (1904), W. Smith, _The Commedia dell’ Arte_ (1912), M. - A. Scott, _Elizabethan Translations from the Italian_ (1916), - A. L. Stiefel, _Die Nachahmung spanischer Komödien in England - unter den ersten Stuarts_ (1890), _Die Nachahmung spanischer - Komödien in England_ (1897, _Archiv_, xcix), L. Bahlsen, - _Spanische Quellen der dramatischen Litteratur besonders - Englands zu Shakespeares Zeit_ (1893, _Z. f. vergleichende - Litteraturgeschichte_, N. F. vi), A. S. W. Rosenbach, _The - Curious Impertinent in English Drama_ (1902, _M. L. N._ xvii), - J. Fitzmaurice-Kelly, _Cervantes in England_ (1905), J. W. - Cunliffe, _The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy_ - (1893), O. Ballweg, _Das klassizistische Drama zur Zeit - Shakespeares_ (1909), O. Ballmann, _Chaucers Einfluss auf das - englische Drama_ (1902, _Anglia_, xxv), R. M. Smith, _Froissart - and the English Chronicle Play_ (1915); with the interrelations - of dramatists, A. H. Thorndike, _The Influence of Beaumont and - Fletcher on Shakespeare_ (1901), E. Koeppel, _Studien über - Shakespeares Wirkung auf zeitgenössische Dramatiker_ (1905), - _Ben Jonson’s Wirkung auf zeitgenössische Dramatiker_ (1906). - - The special problem of the authorship of the so-called - _Shakespeare Apocrypha_ is dealt with in the editions thereof - described below, and by Halliwell-Phillipps (ii. 413), Ward (ii. - 209), R. Sachs, _Die Shakespeare zugeschriebenen zweifelhaften - Stücke_ (1892, _Jahrbuch_, xxvii), and A. F. Hopkinson, - _Essays on Shakespeare’s Doubtful Plays_ (1900). The analogous - question of the possible non-Shakespearian authorship of plays - or parts of plays published as his is too closely interwoven - with specifically Shakespearian literature to be handled here; - J. M. Robertson, in _Did Shakespeare Write Titus Andronicus?_ - (1905), _Shakespeare and Chapman_ (1917), _The Shakespeare - Canon_ (1922), is searching; other dissertations are cited - under the plays or playwrights concerned. The attempts to use - metrical or other ‘tests’ in the discrimination of authorship - or of the chronology of work have been predominantly applied to - Shakespeare, although Beaumont and Fletcher (_vide infra_) and - others have not been neglected. The broader discussions of E. - N. S. Thompson, _Elizabethan Dramatic Collaboration_ (1909, _E. - S._ xl. 30) and E. H. C. Oliphant, _Problems of Authorship in - Elizabethan Dramatic Literature_ (1911, _M. P._ viii, 411) are - of value. - - To the general histories of Elizabethan literature named in - the _General Bibliographical Note_ may be added _Chambers’s - Cyclopaedia of English Literature_ (1901–3), E. Gosse, _Modern - English Literature_ (1897), G. Saintsbury, _Short History of - English Literature_ (1900), A. Lang, _English Literature from - ‘Beowulf’ to Swinburne_ (1912), W. Minto, _Characteristics of - English Poets from Chaucer to Shirley_ (1874), G. Saintsbury, - _Elizabethan Literature_ (1887), E. Gosse, _The Jacobean Poets_ - (1894), T. Seccombe and J. W. Allen, _The Age of Shakespeare_ - (1903), F. E. Schelling, _English Literature during the Lifetime - of Shakespeare_ (1910); and for the international relations, G. - Saintsbury, _The Earlier Renaissance_ (1901), D. Hannay, _The - Later Renaissance_ (1898), H. J. C. Grierson, _The First Half of - the Seventeenth Century_ (1906), C. H. Herford, _The Literary - Relations of England and Germany in the Sixteenth Century_ - (1886), L. Einstein, _The Italian Renaissance in England_ - (1902), S. Lee, _The French Renaissance in England_ (1910), J. - G. Underhill, _Spanish Literature in the England of the Tudors_ - (1899). - - I append a chronological list of miscellaneous collections of - plays, covering those of more than one author. A few of minimum - importance are omitted. - - (_a_) _Shakespeare Apocrypha_ - - 1664. M^r William Shakespear’s Comedies, Histories, and - Tragedies. Published according to the true Original Copies. - The Third Impression. And unto this Impression is added seven - Playes, never before printed in Folio, viz. Pericles Prince of - Tyre. The London Prodigall. The History of Thomas L^d Cromwell. - Sir John Oldcastle Lord Cobham. The Puritan Widow. A Yorkshire - Tragedy. The Tragedy of Locrine. _For P[hilip] C[hetwinde]._ [A - second issue of the Third Folio (F_{3}) of Shakespeare. I cite - these as ‘The 7 Plays’.] - - 1685. M^r William Shakespear’s Comedies, Histories, and - Tragedies.... The Fourth Edition. _For H. Herringman, E. - Brewster, and R. Bentley._ [The Fourth Folio (F_{4}) of - Shakespeare, The 7 Plays.] - - 1709, 1714. N. Rowe, _The Works of Sh._ [The 7 Plays in vol. vi - of 1709 and vol. viii of 1714.] - - 1728, &c. A. Pope, _The Works of Sh._ [The 7 Plays in vol. ix of - 1728.] - - 1780. [E. Malone], _Supplement to the Edition of Sh.’s Plays - published in 1778 by S. Johnson and G. Steevens_. [The 7 Plays - in vol. ii.] - - 1848, 1855. W. G. Simms, _A Supplement to the Works of Sh._ (New - York). [_T. N. K._ and the 7 Plays, except _Pericles_.] - - N.D. [1851?]. H. Tyrrell, _The Doubtful Plays of Sh._ [The 7 - Plays, _T. A._, _Edward III_, _Merry Devil of Edmonton_, _Fair - Em_, _Mucedorus_, _Arden of Feversham_, _Birth of Merlin_, _T. - N. K._] - - 1852, 1887. W. Hazlitt, _The Supplementary Works of Sh._ [The 7 - Plays, _T. A._] - - 1854–74. N. Delius, _Pseudo-Shakespere’sche Dramen_. [_Edward - III_ (1854), _Arden of Feversham_ (1855), _Birth of Merlin_ - (1856), _Mucedorus_ (1874), _Fair Em_ (1874), separately.] - - 1869. M. Moltke, _Doubtful Plays of Sh._ (Tauchnitz). [_Edward - III_, _Thomas Lord Cromwell_, _Locrine_, _Yorkshire Tragedy_, - _London Prodigal_, _Birth of Merlin_.] - - 1883–8. K. Warnke und L. Proescholdt, _Pseudo-Shakespearian - Plays_. [_Fair Em_ (1883), _Merry Devil of Edmonton_ (1884), - _Edward III_ (1886), _Birth of Merlin_ (1887), _Arden of - Feversham_ (1888), separately, with _Mucedorus_ (1878) outside - the series.] - - 1891–1914. A. F. Hopkinson, _Sh.’s Doubtful Plays_ (1891–5). - _Old English Plays_ (1901–2). _Sh.’s Doubtful Works_ (1910–11). - [Under the above collective titles were issued some, but not - all, of a series of plays bearing separate dates as follows: - _Thomas Lord Cromwell_ (1891, 1899), _Yorkshire Tragedy_ (1891, - 1910), _Edward III_ (1891, 1911), _Merry Devil of Edmonton_ - (1891, 1914), _Warning for Fair Women_ (1891, 1904), _Locrine_ - (1892), _Birth of Merlin_ (1892, 1901), _London Prodigal_ - (1893), _Mucedorus_ (1893), _Sir John Oldcastle_ (1894), - _Puritan_ (1894), _T. N. K._ (1894), _Fair Em_ (1895), _Famous - Victories of Henry V_ (1896), _Contention of York and Lancaster_ - (1897), _Arden of Feversham_ (1898, 1907), _True Tragedy of - Richard III_ (1901), _Sir Thomas More_ (1902). My list may not - be complete.] - - 1908. C. F. T. Brooke, _The Sh. Apocrypha_. [The 7 Plays except - _Pericles_, _Arden of Feversham_, _Edward III_, _Mucedorus_, - _Merry Devil of Edmonton_, _Fair Em_, _T. N. K._, _Birth of - Merlin_, _Sir Thomas More_.] - - (_b_) _General Collections_ - - 1744. _A Select Collection of Old Plays._ 12 vols. (Dodsley). - [Cited as _Dodsley_^1.] - - 1750. [W. R. Chetwood], _A Select Collection of Old Plays_ - (Dublin). - - 1773. T. Hawkins, _The Origin of the English Drama_. 3 vols. - - 1779. [J. Nichols], _Six Old Plays_. 2 vols. - - 1780. _A Select Collection of Old Plays._ The Second Edition ... - by I. Reed. 12 vols. (Dodsley). [Cited as Dodsley^2.] - - 1810. [Sir W. Scott], _The Ancient British Drama_. 3 vols. - (W. Miller). [Cited as _A. B. D._] - - 1811. [Sir W. Scott], _The Modern British Drama_. 5 vols. - (W. Miller). [Cited as _M. B. D._] - - 1814–15. [C. W. Dilke], _Old English Plays_. 6 vols. [Cited - as _O. E. P._] - - 1825. _The Old English Drama._ 2 vols. (Hurst, Robinson, & Co., - and A. Constable). [Most of the plays have the separate imprint - of C. Baldwyn, 1824.] - - 1825–7. _Select Collection of Old Plays._ A new edition ... by - I. Reed, O. Gilchrist and [J. P. Collier]. 12 vols. [Cited as - Dodsley^3.] - - 1830. _The Old English Drama._ 3 vols. (Thomas White). - - 1833. J. P. Collier, _Five Old Plays_ (W. Pickering). - [Half-title has ‘Old Plays, vol. xiii’, as a supplement to - Dodsley.] - - 1841–53. _Publications of the Shakespeare Society._ [Include, - besides several plays of T. Heywood (q.v.), Dekker, Chettle, - and Haughton’s _Patient Grissell_, Munday’s _John a Kent - and John a Cumber_, Legge’s _Richardus Tertius_, Norton and - Sackville’s _Gorboduc_, Merbury’s _Marriage between Wit and - Wisdom_, and _Sir Thomas More_, _True Tragedy of Richard III_, - _1 Contention_, _True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York_, _Taming - of A Shrew_, _Timon_, by various editors. Some copies of these - plays, not including Heywood’s, were bound up in 4 vols., with - the general date 1853, as a _Supplement_ to Dodsley.] - - 1848. F. J. Child, _Four Old Plays_. - - 1851. J. P. Collier, _Five Old Plays_ (Roxburghe Club). - - 1870. J. S. Keltie, _The Works of the British Dramatists_. - - [Many of the collections enumerated above are obsolete, and I - have not usually thought it worth while to record here the plays - included in them. Lists of the contents of most of them are - given in Hazlitt; _Manual_, 267.] - - 1874–6. _A Select Collection of Old English Plays_: Fourth - Edition, now first Chronologically Arranged, Revised and - Enlarged; with the notes of all the Commentators, and New Notes, - by W. C. Hazlitt. Vols. i-ix (1874), x-xiv (1875), xv (1876). - [Cited as Dodsley, or Dodsley^4; incorporates with Collier’s - edition of Dodsley the collections of 1833, 1848, 1851, and - 1853.] - - 1875. W. C. Hazlitt, _Shakespeare’s Library_. Second Edition. - Part i, 4 vols.; Part ii, 2 vols. [Part i is based on - Collier’s _Shakespeare’s Library_ (1844). Part ii, based - on the collections of 1779 and 1841–53, adds the dramatic - sources, Warner’s _Menaechmi_, _True Tragedie of Richard - III_, Legge’s _Richardus Tertius_, _Troublesome Raigne of - John_, _Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth_, _1 Contention of - York and Lancaster_, _True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York_, - Shakespeare’s _Merry Wives of Windsor_ (Q_{1}), Whetstone’s - _Promos and Cassandra_, _King Leire_, _Timon_, _Taming of A - Shrew_.] - - 1878. R. Simpson, _The School of Shakspere_. 2 vols. [_Captain - Thomas Stukeley_, _Nobody and Somebody_, _Histriomastix_, _Jack - Drum’s Entertainment_, _Warning for Fair Women_, _Fair Em_, with - _A Larum for London_ (1872) separately printed.] - - 1882–5. A. H. Bullen, _A Collection of Old English Plays_. 4 - vols. [Cited as Bullen, _O. E. P. Maid’s Metamorphosis_, - _Noble Soldier_, _Sir Giles Goosecap_, _Wisdom of Doctor - Dodipoll_, _Charlemagne or The Distracted Emperor_, _Trial of - Chivalry_, Yarington’s _Two Lamentable Tragedies_, _Costly - Whore_, _Every Woman in her Humour_, with later plays.] - - [1885]-91. _43 Shakspere Quarto Facsimiles._ Issued under the - superintendence of F. J. Furnivall. [Photographic facsimiles - by W. Griggs and C. Praetorius, with introductions by various - editors, including, besides accepted Shakespearian plays, - _Pericles_ (Q_{1}, Q_{2}), _1 Contention_ (Q_{1}), _True Tragedy - of Richard Duke of York_ (Q_{1}), _Whole Contention_ (Q_{3}), - _Famous Victories of Henry V_ (Q_{1}), _Troublesome Raigne of - John_ (Q_{1}), _Taming of A Shrew_ (Q_{1}).] - - 1888. _Nero and other Plays_ (Mermaid Series). [_Nero_ (1624), - Porter’s _Two Angry Women of Abingdon_, Day’s _Parliament - of Bees_ and _Humour Out of Breath_, Field’s _Woman is a - Weathercock_ and _Amends for Ladies_, by various editors.] - - 1896–1905. _The Temple Dramatists._ [Cited as _T. D._ Single - plays by various editors, including, besides plays of Beaumont - and Fletcher, Dekker, Heywood, Jonson, Kyd, Marlowe, Peele, - Udall, Webster (q.v.), _Arden of Feversham_, _Edward III_, - _Merry Devil of Edmonton_, _Selimus_, _T. N. K._, _Return from - Parnassus_.] - - 1897. J. M. Manly, _Specimens of the Pre-Shakspearean Drama_. - 2 vols. issued. [Udall’s _Roister Doister_, _Gammer Gurton’s - Needle_, Preston’s _Cambyses_, Norton and Sackville’s - _Gorboduc_, Lyly’s _Campaspe_, Greene’s _James IV_, Peele’s - _David and Bethsabe_, Kyd’s _Spanish Tragedy_ in vol. ii; - earlier plays in vol. i.] - - 1897. H. A. Evans, _English Masques_ (Warwick Library). [Ten - masks by Jonson (q.v.), Daniel’s _Twelve Goddesses_, Campion’s - _Lords’ Mask_, Beaumont’s _Inner Temple Mask_, _Mask of - Flowers_, and later masks.] - - 1897–1912. _Jahrbuch der deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft_, - vols. xxxiii-xlviii. [Wilson’s _Cobbler’s Prophecy_ (1897), _1 - Richard II_ (1899), Wager’s _The Longer Thou Livest, the More - Fool Thou Art_ (1900), _The Wars of Cyrus_ (1901), Jonson’s - _E. M. I._ (1902), Lupton’s _All for Money_ (1904), Wapull’s - _The Tide Tarrieth No Man_ (1907), Lumley’s translation of - _Iphigenia_ (1910), _Caesar and Pompey_, or _Caesar’s Revenge_ - (1911, 1912), by various editors.] - - 1898. A. Brandl, _Quellen des weltlichen Dramas in England vor - Shakespeare_. Ein Ergänzungsband zu Dodsley’s Old English Plays. - (_Quellen und Forschungen_, lxxx.) [_King Darius_, _Misogonus_, - _Horestes_, Wilmot’s _Gismond of Salern_, _Common Conditions_, - and earlier plays.] - - 1902–8. _The Belles Lettres Series._ Section iii. _The English - Drama._ General Editor, G. P. Baker. [Cited as _B. L._ Plays - of Beaumont and Fletcher, Chapman, Dekker, Gascoigne, Jonson, - Webster (q.v.), in separate volumes by various editors.] - - 1902–14. _Materialien zur Kunde des älteren englischen Dramas_ - ... begründet und herausgegeben von W. Bang. 44 vols. issued. - (A. Uystpruyst, Louvain.) [Includes, with other ‘material’, text - facsimile reprints of plays, &c., of Barnes, Brewer, Daniel, - Chettle and Day, Dekker, Heywood, Jonson, Mason, Sharpham - (q.v.), with _How a Man may Choose a Good Wife from a Bad_, - _Sir Giles Goosecap_, the Latin _Victoria_ of A. Fraunce and - _Pedantius_, and translations from Seneca.] - - 1903, 1913, 1914. C. M. Gayley, _Representative English - Comedies_. 3 vols. [Plays of Udall, Lyly, Peele, Greene, Porter, - Jonson, and Dekker, with _Gammer Gurton’s Needle_, _Eastward - Ho!_, _Merry Devil of Edmonton_, and later plays, by various - editors.] - - 1905–8. J. S. Farmer, _Publications of the Early English Drama - Society_. [Modernized texts, mainly of little value, but - including a volume of _Recently Recovered Plays_, from the - quartos in the Irish sale of 1906.] - - 1907–20. _Malone Society Reprints._ 46 vols. issued. [In - progress; text-facsimile reprints of separate plays, by various - editors, under general editorship of W. W. Greg; cited as _M. S. - R._] - - 1907–14. J. S. Farmer, _The Tudor Facsimile Texts_, with a Hand - List (1914). [Photographic facsimiles, mostly by R. B. Fleming; - cited as _T. F. T._ The Hand List states that 184 vols. are - included in the collection, but I believe that some were not - actually issued before the editor’s death. Some or all of these, - with reissues of others, appear in _Old English Plays, Student’s - Facsimile Edition_; cited as _S. F. T._] - - 1908–14. _The Shakespeare Classics._ General Editor, I. - Gollancz. (_The Shakespeare Library_). [Includes Warner’s - _Menaechmi_ and _Leire_, _Taming of A Shrew_, and _Troublesome - Reign of King John_.] - - 1911. W. A. Neilson, _The Chief Elizabethan Dramatists excluding - Shakespeare_. [Plays by Lyly, Peele, Greene, Marlowe, Kyd, - Chapman, Jonson, Dekker, Marston, Heywood, Beaumont, Fletcher, - Webster, Middleton, and later writers; cited as _C. E. D._] - - 1911. R. W. Bond, _Early Plays from the Italian_. [Gascoigne’s - _Supposes_, _Bugbears_, _Misogonus_.] - - 1912. J. W. Cunliffe, _Early English Classical Tragedies_. - [Norton and Sackville’s _Gorboduc_, Gascoigne and Kinwelmersh’s - _Jocasta_, Wilmot’s _Gismond of Salerne_, Hughes’s _Misfortunes - of Arthur_.] - - 1912. _Masterpieces of the English Drama._ General Editor, F. - E. Schelling, [Cited as _M. E. D._ Plays of Marlowe, Beaumont - and Fletcher, Webster and Tourneur (q.v.), with Massinger and - Congreve, in separate volumes by various editors.] - - 1915. C. B. Wheeler, _Six Plays by Contemporaries of - Shakespeare_ (_World’s Classics_). [Dekker’s _Shoemaker’s - Holiday_, Beaumont and Fletcher’s _K. B. P._ and _Philaster_, - Webster’s _White Devil_ and _Duchess of Malfi_, Massinger’s _New - Way to Pay Old Debts_.] - - * * * * * - -[In this chapter I give under the head of each playwright (_a_) a -brief sketch of his life in relation to the stage, (_b_) a list of -contemporary and later collections of his dramatic works, (_c_) a list -of dissertations (books, pamphlets, articles in journals) bearing -generally upon his life and works. Then I take each play, mask, &c., up -to 1616 and give (_a_) the MSS. if any; (_b_) the essential parts of -the entry, if any, on the Stationers’ Register, including in brackets -the name of any licenser other than an official of the Company, and -occasionally adding a note of any transfer of copyright which seems -of exceptional interest; (_c_) the essential parts of the title-page -of the first known print; (_d_) a note of its prologues, epilogues, -epistles, and other introductory matter; (_e_) the dates and imprints -of later prints before the end of the seventeenth century with any new -matter from their t.ps. bearing on stage history; (_f_) lists of all -important 18th-20th century editions and dissertations, not of the -collective or general type already dealt with; (_g_) such notes as may -seem desirable on authorship, date, stage history and the like. Some -of these notes are little more than compilations; others contain the -results of such work as I have myself been able to do on the plays -concerned. Similarly, I have in some cases recorded, on the authority -of others, editions and dissertations which I have not personally -examined. The section devoted to each playwright concludes with lists -of work not extant and of work of which his authorship has, often -foolishly, been conjectured. I ought to make it clear that many of my -title-pages are borrowed from Dr. Greg, and that, while I have tried to -give what is useful for the history of the stage, I have no competence -in matters of minute bibliographical accuracy.] - - -WILLIAM ALABASTER (1567–1640) - -Alabaster, or Alablaster, was born at Hadleigh, Suffolk, in 1567 and -entered Trinity College, Cambridge, from Westminster in 1583. His Latin -poem _Eliseis_ is mentioned by Spenser in _Colin Clout’s Come Home -Again_ (1591). He was incorporated M.A. of Oxford in 1592, and went as -chaplain to Essex in the Cadiz expedition of 1596. On 22 Sept. 1597 -Richard Percival wrote to Sir Robert Cecil (_Hatfield MSS._ vii. 394), -‘Alabaster has made a tragedy against the Church of England’. Perhaps -this is not to be taken literally, but only refers to his conversion -to Catholicism. Chamberlain, 7, 64, records that he was ‘clapt up for -poperie’, had escaped from the Clink by 4 May 1598, but was recaptured -at Rochelle. This was about the beginning of Aug. 1599 (_Hatfield -MSS._ ix. 282). Later he was reconverted and at his death in 1640 held -the living of Therfield, Herts. He wrote on mystical theology, and a -manuscript collection of 43 sonnets, mostly unprinted, is described by -B. Dobell in _Athenaeum_ (1903), ii. 856. - - _Roxana. c. 1592_ - -[_MSS._] _T. C. C. MS._ (‘Authore Domino Alabaster’); _Camb. Univ. MS._ -Ff. ii. 9; _Lambeth MS._ 838 (‘finis Roxanae Alabastricae’). - -_S. R._ 1632, May 9 (Herbert). ‘A Tragedy in Latyn called Roxana &c.’ -_Andrew Crooke_ (Arber, iv. 277). - -1632. Roxana Tragædia olim Cantabrigiae, Acta in Col. Trin. Nunc -primum in lucem edita, summaque cum diligentia ad castigatissimum -exemplar comparata. _R. Badger for Andrew Crook._ [At end is Herbert’s -imprimatur, dated ‘1 March, 1632’.] - -1632. Roxana Tragædia a plagiarii unguibus vindicata, aucta, & agnita -ab Authore Gulielmo Alabastro. _William Jones._ [Epistle by Gulielmus -Alabaster to Sir Ralph Freeman; commendatory verses by Hugo Hollandius -and Tho. Farnabius; engraved title-page, with representation of a stage -(cf. ch. xviii, _Bibl. Note_).] - -The Epistle has ‘Ante quadraginta plus minus annos, morticinum -hoc edidi duarum hebdomadarum abortum, et unius noctis spectaculo -destinatum, non aevi integri’. The play is a Latin version of Luigi -Groto’s _La Dalida_ (1567). - - -SIR WILLIAM ALEXANDER, EARL OF STIRLING (_c._ 1568–1640). - -William Alexander of Menstrie, after an education at Glasgow and Leyden -and travel in France, Spain, and Italy, was tutor to Prince Henry -before the accession of James, and afterwards Gentleman extraordinary -of the Privy Chamber both to Henry and to Charles. He was knighted -about 1609, appointed a Master of Requests in 1614 and Secretary for -Scotland in 1626. He was created Earl of Stirling in 1633. He formed -literary friendships with Michael Drayton and William Drummond of -Hawthornden, but Jonson complained (Laing, 11) that ‘Sir W. Alexander -was not half kinde unto him, and neglected him, because a friend to -Drayton’. His four tragedies read like closet plays, and his only -connexion with the stage appears to be in some verses to Alleyn after -the foundation of Dulwich in 1619 (Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_, 178). - - _Collections_ - -_S. R._ 1604, April 30 (by order of Court). ‘A booke Called The Woorkes -of William Alexander of Menstrie Conteyninge The Monarchicke Tragedies, -Paranethis to the Prince and Aurora.’ _Edward Blunt_ (Arber, iii. 260). - -1604. The Monarchicke Tragedies. By William Alexander of Menstrie. _V. -S. for Edward Blount._ [_Croesus_ and _Darius_ (with a separate t.p.).] - -1607. The Monarchick Tragedies; Croesus, Darius, The Alexandraean, -Iulius Caesar, Newly enlarged. By William Alexander, Gentleman of the -Princes priuie Chamber. _Valentine Simmes for Ed. Blount._ [New issue, -with additions. _Julius Caesar_ has separate t.p. Commendatory verses, -signed ‘Robert Ayton’.] - -1616. The Monarchicke Tragedies. The third Edition. By S^r. W. -Alexander Knight. _William Stansby._ [_Croesus_, _Darius_, _The -Alexandraean Tragedy_, _Julius Caesar_, in revised texts, the last -three with separate t.ps.] - -1637. Recreations with the Muses. By William Earle of Sterline. _Tho. -Harper._ [_Croesus_, _Darius_, _The Alexandraean Tragedy_, _Julius -Caesar_.] - -1870–2. _Poetical Works._ 3 vols. - -1921. L. E. Kastner and H. B. Charlton, _The Poetical Works of -Sir William Alexander, Earl of Stirling_. Vol. i. The Dramatic -Works.--_Dissertations_: C. Rogers, _Memorials of the Earl of S. and -the House of A._ (1877); H. Beumelburg, _Sir W. A. Graf von S., als -dramatischer Dichter_ (1880, Halle _diss._). - - _Darius > 1603_ - -1603. _The Tragedie of Darius._ By William Alexander of Menstrie. -_Robert Waldegrave. Edinburgh._ [Verses to James VI; Epistle to -Reader; Commendatory verses by ‘Io Murray’ and ‘W. Quin’.] - -1604. _G. Elde for Edward Blount._ [Part of _Coll._ 1604, with separate -t.p.; also in later _Colls._ Two sets of verses to King at end.] - - _Croesus > 1604_ - -1604. [Part of _Coll._ 1604; also in later _Colls._ Argument; Verses to -King at end.] - - _The Alexandraean Tragedy > 1607_ - -1605? [Hazlitt, _Manual_, 7, and others cite a print of this date, -which is not confirmed by Greg, _Plays_, 1.] - -1607. (_Running Title_). The Alexandraean Tragedie. [Part of _Coll._ -1607; also in later _Colls._ Argument.] - - _Julius Caesar > 1607_ - -1607. The Tragedie of Iulius Caesar. By William Alexander, Gentleman of -the Princes priuie Chamber. _Valentine Simmes for Ed. Blount._ [Part of -_Coll._ 1607, with separate t.p.; also in later _Colls._ Argument.] - -_Edition_ in H. H. Furness, _Julius Caesar_ (1913, _New Variorum -Shakespeare_, xvii). - - -WILLIAM ALLEY (_c._ 1510–70). - -Alley’s Πτωχὸμυσεῖον. _The Poore Mans Librarie_ (1565) contains three -and a half pages of dialogue between Larymos and Phronimos, described -as from ‘a certaine interlude or plaie intituled _Aegio_. In the which -playe ij persons interlocutorie do dispute, the one alledging for the -defence of destenie and fatall necessitie, and the other confuting the -same’. P. Simpson (_9 N. Q._ iii. 205) suggests that Alley was probably -himself the author. The book consists of _praelectiones_ delivered in -1561 at St. Paul’s, of which Alley had been a Prebendary. He became -Bishop of Exeter in 1560. On his attitude to the public stage, cf. App. -C. No. viii. It is therefore odd to find the Lord Bishop’s players at -Barnstaple and Plymouth in 1560–1 (Murray, ii. 78). - - -ROBERT AMERIE (_c._ 1610). - -The deviser of the show of _Chester’s Triumph_ (1610). See ch. xxiv (C). - - -ROBERT ARMIN (> 1588–1610 <). For biography see Actors (ch. xv). - - _The Two Maids of Moreclacke. 1607–8_ (?) - -1609. The History of the two Maids of Moreclacke, With the life and -simple maner of Iohn in the Hospitall. Played by the Children of the -Kings Maiesties Reuels. Written by Robert Armin, seruant to the Kings -most excellent Maiestie. _N. O. for Thomas Archer._ [Epistle to Reader, -signed ‘Robert Armin’.] - -_Editions_ in A. B. Grosart, _Works of R. A. Actor_ (1880, _Choice -Rarities of Ancient English Poetry_, ii), 63, and J. S. Farmer (1913, -_S. F. T._). The epistle says that the play was ‘acted by the boyes of -the Reuels, which perchaunce in part was sometime acted more naturally -in the Citty, if not in the hole’, that the writer ‘would haue againe -inacted Iohn my selfe but ... I cannot do as I would’, and that he had -been ‘requested both of Court and Citty, to show him in priuate’. John -is figured in a woodcut on the title-page, which is perhaps meant for -a portrait of Armin. As a King’s man, and no boy, he can hardly have -played with the King’s Revels; perhaps we should infer that the play -was not originally written for them. All their productions seem to date -from 1607–8. - - _Doubtful Play_ - -Armin has been guessed at as the R. A. of _The Valiant Welshman_. - - -THOMAS ASHTON (_ob._ 1578). - -Ashton took his B.A. in 1559–60, and became Fellow of Trinity, -Cambridge. He was appointed Head Master of Shrewsbury School from 24 -June 1561 (G. W. Fisher, _Annals of Shrewsbury School_, 4). To the -same year a local record, Robert Owen’s _Arms of the Bailiffs_ (17th -c.), assigns ‘M^r Astons first playe upon the Passion of Christ’, -and this is confirmed by an entry in the town accounts (Owen and -Blakeway, _Hist. of Shrewsbury_, i. 353) of 20s. ‘spent upon M^r Aston -and a other gentellmane of Cambridge over pareadijs’ on 25 May 1561. -Whitsuntide plays had long been traditional at Shrewsbury (_Mediaeval -Stage_, ii. 250, 394, where the dates require correction). A local -chronicle (_Shropshire Arch. Soc. Trans._ xxxvii. 54) has ‘Elizabeth -1565 [i. e. 1566; cf. App. A], The Queen came to Coventry intending -for Salop to see M^r Astons Play, but it was ended. The Play was -performed in the Quarry, and lasted the Whitson [June 2] hollydays’. -This play is given in _Mediaeval Stage_, from local historians, as -_Julian the Apostate_, but the same chronicle assigns that to 1556. -Another chronicle (_Taylor MS._ of 16th-17th c.) records for 1568–9 -(_Shropshire Arch. Soc. Trans._ iii. 268), ‘This yeare at Whytsoontyde -[29 May] was a notable stage playe playeed in Shrosberie in a place -there callyd the quarrell which lastid all the hollydayes unto the -which cam greate number of people of noblemen and others the which -was praysed greatlye and the chyff aucter therof was one Master Astoon -beinge the head scoolemaster of the freescole there a godly and lernyd -man who tooke marvelous greate paynes therin’. Robert Owen, who calls -this Aston’s ‘great playe’ of the _Passion of Christ_, assigns it -to 1568, but it is clear from the town accounts that 1569 is right -(Fisher, 18). This is presumably the play referred to by Thomas -Churchyard (q.v.) in _The Worthiness of Wales_ (1587, ed. Spenser Soc. -85), where after describing ‘behind the walles ... a ground, newe -made Theator wise’, able to seat 10,000, and used for plays, baiting, -cockfights, and wrestling, he adds: - - At Astons Play, who had beheld this then, - Might well have seene there twentie thousand men. - -In the margin he comments, ‘Maister Aston was a good and godly -Preacher’. A ‘ludus in quarell’ is noted in 1495, and this was ‘where -the plases [? playes] have bine accustomyd to be usyd’ in 1570 -(_Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 251, 255). Ashton resigned his Mastership -about 1571 and was in the service of the Earl of Essex at Chartley in -1573. But he continued to work on the Statutes of the school, which as -settled in 1578, the year of his death, provide that ‘Everie Thursdaie -the Schollers of the first forme before they goo to plaie shall for -exercise declame and plaie one acte of a comedie’ (Fisher, 17, 23; E. -Calvert, _Shrewsbury School Register_). It is interesting to note that -among Ashton’s pupils were Sir Philip Sidney and Fulke Greville, Lord -Brooke, who entered the school together on 16 Nov. 1564. - - -JAMES ASKE (_c._ 1588). - -Author of _Elizabetha Triumphans_ (1588), an account of Elizabeth’s -visit to Tilbury. See ch. xxiv (C). - - -THOMAS ATCHELOW (_c._ 1589). - -The reference to him in Nashe’s _Menaphon_ epistle (App. C, No. xlii) -rather suggests that he may have written plays. - - -FRANCIS BACON (1561–1626). - -Bacon was son of Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper, by Anne, daughter -of Sir Anthony Cooke. He was at Trinity, Cambridge, from April 1573 -to March 1575, and entered Gray’s Inn in June 1576. He sat in the -Parliaments of 1584 and 1586, and about 1591 attached himself to the -rising fortunes of the Earl of Essex, who in 1595 gave him an estate -at Twickenham. His public employment began as a Queen’s Counsel about -1596. He was knighted on 23 July 1603, became Solicitor-General on 25 -June 1607, Attorney-General on 27 Oct. 1613, Lord Keeper on 7 March -1617, and Lord Chancellor on 7 Jan. 1618. He was created Lord Verulam -on 12 July 1618, and Viscount St. Albans on 27 Jan. 1621. Later in the -same year he was disgraced for bribery. The edition of his _Works_ -(with his _Letters and Life_) by J. Spedding, R. L. Ellis, and D. D. -Heath (1857–74) is exhaustive. Many papers of his brother Anthony -are at Lambeth, and are drawn on by T. Birch, _Memoirs of the Reign -of Elizabeth_ (1754). F. J. Burgoyne, _Facsimile of a Manuscript at -Alnwick_ (1904), reproduces the _Northumberland MS._ which contains -some of his writings, with others that may be his, and seems once to -have contained more. Apart from philosophy, his chief literary work was -_The Essayes or Counsels, Civill and Morall_, of which 10 appeared in -1597, and were increased to 38 in 1612 and 58 in 1625. Essay xxxvii, -added in 1625, is _Of Masks and Triumphs_, and, although Bacon was not -a writer for the public stage, he had a hand, as deviser or patron, in -several courtly shows. - -(i) He helped to devise dumb-shows for Thomas Hughes’s _Misfortunes -of Arthur_ (q.v.) given by Gray’s Inn at Greenwich on 28 Feb. 1588. - -(ii) The list of contents of the _Northumberland MS._ (Burgoyne, xii) -includes an item, now missing from the MS., ‘Orations at Graies Inne -Revells’, and Spedding, viii. 342, conjectures that Bacon wrote the -speeches of the six councillors delivered on 3 Jan. 1595 as part of the -_Gesta Grayorum_ (q.v.). - -(iii) Rowland Whyte (_Sydney Papers_, i. 362) describes a device on -the Queen’s day (17 Nov.), 1595, in which the speeches turned on the -Earl of Essex’s love for Elizabeth, who said that, ‘if she had thought -there had been so much said of her, she would not have been there that -night’. A draft list of tilters, of whom the challengers were led -by the Earl of Cumberland and the defendants by the Earl of Essex, -is in _Various MSS._ iv. 163, and a final one, with descriptions of -their appearance, in the _Anglorum Feriae_ of Peele (q.v.). They were -Cumberland, Knight of the Crown, Essex, Sussex, Southampton, as Sir -Bevis, Bedford, Compton, Carew, the three brothers Knollys, Dudley, -William Howard, Drury, Nowell, John Needham, Skydmore, Ratcliffe, -Reynolds, Charles Blount, Carey. The device took place partly in the -tiltyard, partly after supper. Before the entry of the tilters a page -made a speech and secured the Queen’s glove. A dialogue followed -between a Squire on one hand, and a Hermit, a Secretary, and a Soldier, -who on the entry of Essex tried to beguile him from love. A postboy -brought letters, which the Secretary gave to Essex. After supper, -the argument between the Squire and the three tempters was resumed. -Whyte adds, ‘The old man [the Hermit] was he that in Cambridg played -Giraldy; Morley played the Secretary; and he that plaid Pedantiq was -the soldior; and Toby Matthew acted the Squires part. The world makes -many untrue constructions of these speaches, comparing the Hermitt and -the Secretary to two of the Lords [Burghley and Robert Cecil?]; and the -soldier to Sir Roger Williams.’ The Cambridge reference is apparently -to _Laelia_ (q.v.) and the performers of the Hermit and Soldier were -therefore George Meriton and George Mountaine, of Queen’s. Morley might -perhaps be Thomas Morley, the musician, a Gentleman of the Chapel. - -Several speeches, apparently belonging to this device, are preserved. -Peele speaks of the balancing of Essex between war and statecraft as -indicated in the tiltyard by ‘His mute approach and action of his -mutes’, but they may have presented a written speech. - -(_a_) _Lambeth MS._ v. 118 (copied by Birch in _Sloane MS._ 4457, f. -32) has, in Bacon’s hand, a speech by the Squire in the tiltyard, and -four speeches by the Hermit, Soldier, Secretary, and Squire ‘in the -Presence’. These are printed by Birch (1763), Nichols, _Eliz._ iii. -372, and Spedding, viii. 378. - -(_b_) _Lambeth MS._ viii. 274 (copied by Birch in _Addl. MS._ 4164, f. -167) has, in Bacon’s hand, the beginning of a speech by the Secretary -to the Squire, which mentions Philautia and Erophilus, and a letter -from Philautia to the Queen. These are printed in Spedding, viii. 376. - -(_c_) The _Northumberland MS._ ff. 47–53 (Burgoyne, 55) has ‘Speeches -for my Lord of Essex at the tylt’. These deal with the attempts of -Philautia to beguile Erophilus. Four of them are identical with the -four speeches ‘in the Presence’ of (_a_); the fifth is a speech by the -Hermit in the tiltyard. They were printed by Spedding, separately, in -1870, as _A Conference of Pleasure composed for some festive occasion -about the year 1592 by Francis Bacon_; but 1592 is merely a guess which -Whyte’s letter corrects. - -(_d_) _S. P. D. Eliz._ ccliv. 67, 68, docketed ‘A Device made by the -Earl of Essex for the Entertainment of her Majesty’, has a speech -by the Squire, distinct from any in the other MSS., a speech by the -Attendant on an Indian Prince, which mentions Philautia, and a draft by -Edward Reynolds, servant to Essex, of a French speech by Philautia. The -two first of these are printed by Spedding, viii. 388, and Devereux, -_Lives of the Earls of Essex_, ii. 501. The references to Philautia are -rather against Spedding’s view that these belong to some occasion other -than that of 1595. - -Sir Henry Wotton says of Essex (_Reliquiae Wottonianae_, 21), ‘For his -Writings, they are beyond example, especially in his ... things of -delight at Court ... as may be yet seen in his Impresses and Inventions -of entertainment; and above all in his darling piece of love, and self -love’. This, for what it is worth--and Wotton was secretary to Essex -in 1595, suggests that the Earl himself, rather than Bacon, was the -author of the speeches, which in fact none of the MSS. directly ascribe -to Bacon. But it is hard to distinguish the literary productions of a -public man from those of his staff. - -(iv) The _Northumberland MS._ (Burgoyne, 65) has a speech of apology -for absence, headed ‘ffor the Earle of Sussex at y^e tilt an: 96’, -which might be Bacon’s, especially as he wrote from Gray’s Inn to the -Earl of Shrewsbury on 15 Oct. 1596, ‘to borrow a horse and armour for -some public show’ (Lodge, _App._ 79). - -(v) Beaumont (q.v.) acknowledges his encouragement of the Inner Temple -and Gray’s Inn mask on 20 Feb. 1613, for the Princess Elizabeth’s -wedding. - -(vi) He bore the expenses of the Gray’s Inn _Mask of Flowers_ (q.v.) -on 6 Jan. 1614 for the Earl of Somerset’s wedding. To this occasion -probably belongs an undated letter signed ‘Fr. Bacon’, and addressed -to an unknown lord (_M. S. C._ i. 214 from _Lansdowne MS._ 107, f. -13; Spedding, ii. 370; iv. 394), in which he expresses regret that -‘the joynt maske from the fowr Innes of Cowrt faileth’, and offers a -mask for ‘this occasion’ by a dozen gentlemen of Gray’s Inn, ‘owt of -the honor which they bear to your lordship, and my lord Chamberlayne, -to whome at theyr last maske they were so much bownde’. The last -mask would be (v) above, and the then Lord Chamberlain was Suffolk, -prospective father-in-law of Somerset, to whom the letter may be -supposed to be addressed. But it is odd that the letter is endorsed -‘M^r’ Fr. Bacon, and bound up with papers of Burghley, and it is just -possible, although not, I think, likely, that the reference may be to -some forgotten Elizabethan mask. - -(vii) A recent attempt has been made to assign to Bacon the academic -_Pedantius_ (cf. App. K). - - -JOHN BADGER (_c._ 1575). - -A contributor to the Kenilworth entertainment (cf. ch. xxiv, C). -Gascoigne calls him ‘Master Badger of Oxenforde, Maister of Arte, and -Bedle in the same Universitie’. A John Badger of Ch. Ch. took his M.A. -in 1555, and a superior bedel of divinity of the same name made his -will on 15 July 1577 (Foster, _Alumni Oxonienses_, i. 54). - - -WILLIAM BARKSTED. - -For biography, cf. ch. xv (Actors), and for his share in _The Insatiate -Countess_, s.v. Marston. - -There is no reason to regard him as the ‘William Buckstead, Comedian’, -whose name is at the end of a _Prologue to a playe to the cuntry -people_ in _Bodl. Ashm. MS._ 38 (198). - - -BARNABE BARNES (_c._ 1569–1609). - -Barnes was born in Yorkshire, the son of Richard Barnes, bishop of -Durham. He entered Brasenose College, Oxford, in 1586, but took no -degree, accompanied Essex to France in 1591, and dedicated his poems -_Parthenophil and Parthenophe_ (1593) to William Percy (q.v.). He was -a friend of Gabriel Harvey and abused by Nashe and Campion. In 1598 -he was charged with an attempt at poison, but escaped from prison -(_Athenaeum_, 1904, ii. 240). His _Poems_ were edited by A. B. Grosart -in _Occasional Issues_ (1875). Hazlitt, _Manual_, 23, states that a -manuscript of a play by him with the title _The Battle of Hexham_ was -sold with Isaac Reed’s books in 1807, but this, which some writers call -_The Battle of Evesham_, has not been traced. As Barnes was buried -at Durham in Dec. 1609, it is probable that _The Madcap_ ‘written by -Barnes’, which Herbert licensed for Prince Charles’s men on 3 May 1624, -was by another of the name. - - _The Devil’s Charter. 2 Feb. 1607_ - -_S. R._ 1607, Oct. 16 (Buck). ‘The Tragedie of Pope Alexander the Sixt -as it was played before his Maiestie.’ _John Wright_ (Arber, iii. 361). - -1607. The Divils Charter: A Tragedie Conteining the Life and Death of -Pope Alexander the sixt. As it was plaide before the Kings Maiestie, -vpon Candlemasse night last: by his Maiesties Seruants. But more -exactly reuewed, corrected and augmented since by the Author, for the -more pleasure and profit of the Reader. _G. E. for John Wright._ -[Dedication by Barnabe Barnes to Sir William Herbert and Sir William -Pope; Prologue with dumb-show and Epilogue.] - -_Extracts_ by A. B. Grosart in Barnes’s _Poems_ (1875), and editions by -_R. B. McKerrow_ (1904, _Materialien_, vi) and J. S. Farmer (1913, _S. -F. T._)--_Dissertation_: A. E. H. Swaen, G. C. Moore Smith, and R. B. -McKerrow, _Notes on the D. C. by B. B._ (1906, _M. L. R._ i. 122). - - -DAVID, LORD BARRY (1585–1610). - -David Barry was the eldest son of the ninth Viscount Buttevant, and -the ‘Lo:’ on his title-page represents a courtesy title of ‘Lord’, -or ‘Lording’ as it is given in the lawsuit of _Androwes v. Slater_, -which arose out of the interest acquired by him in 1608 in the -Whitefriars theatre (q.v.). Kirkman’s play-lists (Greg, _Masques_, -ci) and Wood, _Athenae Oxon._ ii. 655, have him as ‘Lord’ Barrey, -which did not prevent Langbaine (1691) and others from turning him -into ‘Lodowick’.--_Dissertations_: J. Q. Adams, _Lordinge (alias -Lodowick) Barry_ (1912, _M. P._ ix. 567); W. J. Lawrence, _The Mystery -of Lodowick Barry_ (1917, _University of North Carolina Studies in -Philology_, xiv. 52). - - _Ram Alley. 1607–8_ - -_S. R._ 1610, Nov. 9 (Buck). ‘A booke called, Ramme Alley, or merry -trickes. _Robert Wilson_ (Arber, iii. 448). - -1611. Ram-Alley: Or Merrie-Trickes. A Comedy Diuers times heretofore -acted. By the Children of the Kings Reuels. Written by Lo: Barrey. _G. -Eld for Robert Wilson._ [Prologue and Epilogue.] - -1636; 1639. - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^4 (1875, x) and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ ii) -and J. S. Farmer (1913, _S. F. T._). - -Fleay, i. 31, attempts to place the play at the Christmas of 1609, but -it is improbable that the King’s Revels ever played outside 1607–8. -Archer’s play-list of 1656 gives it to Massinger. There are references -(ed. Dodsley, pp. 280, 348, 369) to the baboons, which apparently -amused London about 1603–5 (cf. s.v. _Sir Giles Goosecap_), and to the -Jacobean knightings (p. 272). - - -FRANCIS BEAUMONT (_c._ 1584–1616). - -Beaumont was third son of Francis Beaumont, Justice of Common Pleas, -sprung from a gentle Leicestershire family, settled at Grace Dieu -priory in Charnwood Forest. He was born in 1584 or 1585 and had a -brother, Sir John, also known as a poet. He entered Broadgates Hall, -Oxford, in 1597, but took no degree, and the Inner Temple in 1600. In -1614 or 1615 he had a daughter by his marriage, probably recent, to -Ursula Isley of Sundridge Hall, Kent, and another daughter was born -after his death on 6 March 1616. He was buried in Westminster Abbey. - -Beaumont contributed a humorous grammar lecture (preserved in _Sloane -MS._ 1709, f. 13; cf. E. J. L. Scott in _Athenaeum_ for 27 Jan. 1894) -to some Inner Temple Christmas revels of uncertain date. This has -allusions to ‘the most plodderly plotted shew of Lady Amity’ given -‘in this ill-instructed hall the last Christmas’, and to seeing a play -at the Bankside for sixpence. His poetical career probably begins with -the anonymous _Salmacis and Hermaphroditus_ of 1602. His non-dramatic -poems, of which the most important is an epistle to Elizabeth Countess -of Rutland in 1612, appeared after his death in volumes of 1618, -1640, and 1653, which certainly ascribe to him much that is not -his. His connexion with the stage seems to have begun about 1606, -possibly through Michael Drayton, a family friend, in whose _Eglogs_ -of that year he appears as ‘sweet Palmeo’. But his first play, _The -Woman Hater_, written independently for Paul’s, shows him under the -influence of Ben Jonson, who wrote him an affectionate epigram (lv), -told Drummond in 1619 that ‘Francis Beaumont loved too much himself -and his own verses’ (Laing, 10), and according to Dryden (_Essay on -Dramatick Poesie_) ‘submitted all his writings to his censure, and, -’tis thought, used his judgment in correcting, if not contriving, all -his plots’. To Jonson’s _Volpone_ (1607) commendatory verses were -contributed both by Beaumont, whose own _Knight of the Burning Pestle_ -was produced in the same year, and by John Fletcher, whose names are -thus first combined. Jonson and Beaumont, in their turn, wrote verses -for Fletcher’s _The Faithful Shepherdess_, probably written in 1608 or -1609 and published in 1609 or 1610. About 1608 or 1609 it may also be -supposed that the famous literary collaboration began. This, although -it can only be proved to have covered some half-dozen plays, left the -two names so closely associated that when, in 1647 and 1679, the actors -and publishers issued collections of fifty-three pieces, in all or most -of which Fletcher had had, or was supposed to have had, a hand, they -described them all as ‘by Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher’, and thus -left to modern scholarship a task with which it is still grappling. -A contemporary protest by Sir Aston Cockaine pointed out the small -share of Beaumont and the large share of Massinger in the 1647 volume; -and the process of metrical analysis initiated by Fleay and Boyle -may be regarded as fairly successful in fixing the characteristics -of the very marked style of Fletcher, although it certainly raises -more questions than it solves as to the possible shares not only of -Massinger, but of Jonson, Field, Tourneur, Daborne, Middleton, Rowley, -and Shirley, as collaborators or revisers, in the plays as they have -come down to us. Since Fletcher wrote up to his death in 1625, much of -this investigation lies outside my limits, and it is fortunate that -the task of selecting the plays which may, certainly or possibly, -fall before Beaumont’s death in 1616 is one in which a fair number of -definite data are available to eke out the slippery metrical evidence. -It would seem that the collaboration began about 1608 and lasted in -full swing for about four or five years, that in it Beaumont was the -ruling spirit, and that it covered plays, not only for the Queen’s -Revels, for whom both poets had already written independently, and for -their successors the Lady Elizabeth’s, but also, and concurrently, -for the King’s. According to Dryden, two or three plays were written -‘very unsuccessfully’ before the triumph of _Philaster_, but these may -include the independent plays, of which we know that the _Knight of -the Burning Pestle_ and the _Faithful Shepherdess_ failed. The Folios -contain a copy of verses written by Beaumont to Jonson (ed. Waller, -x. 199) ‘before he and M^r. Fletcher came to _London_, with two of -the precedent Comedies then not finish’d, which deferr’d their merry -meetings at the _Mermaid_’, but this probably relates to a temporary -_villeggiatura_ and cannot be precisely dated. It is no doubt to this -period of 1608–13 that we may refer the gossip of Aubrey, i. 96, who -learnt from Sir James Hales and others that Beaumont and Fletcher -‘lived together on the Banke-Side, not far from the Play-house, both -batchelors; lay together; had one wench in the house between them, -which they did so admire; the same cloathes and cloake, &c., betweene -them’. Obviously these conditions ended when Beaumont married an -heiress about 1613, and it seems probable that from this date onwards -he ceased to be an active playwright, although he contributed a mask to -the Princess Elizabeth’s wedding at Shrovetide of that year, and his -hand can be traced, perhaps later still, in _The Scornful Lady_. At any -rate, about 1613 Fletcher was not merely writing independent plays--a -practice which, unlike Beaumont, he may never have wholly dropped--but -also looking about for other contributors. There is some converging -evidence of his collaboration about this date with Shakespeare; and -Henslowe’s correspondence (_Henslowe Papers_, 66) shows him quite -clearly as engaged on a play, possibly _The Honest Man’s Fortune_, with -no less than three others, Daborne, Field, and Massinger. It is not -probable that, from 1616 onwards, Fletcher wrote for any company but -the King’s men. Of the fifty-two plays included in the Ff., forty-four -can be shown from title-pages, actor-lists, licences by the Master -of the Revels, and a Lord Chamberlain’s order of 1641 (_M. S. C._ i. -364) to have belonged to the King’s, six by title-pages and another -Lord Chamberlain’s order (_Variorum_, iii. 159) to have belonged to -the Cockpit theatre, and two, _Wit at Several Weapons_ and _Four -Plays in One_, together with _The Faithful Friends_, which does not -appear in the Ff., cannot be assigned to any company. But some of the -King’s men’s plays and some or all of the Cockpit plays had originally -belonged to Paul’s, the Queen’s Revels, or the Lady Elizabeth’s, and -it is probable that all these formed part of the Lady Elizabeth’s -repertory in 1616, and that upon the reorganization of the company -which then took place they were divided into two groups, of which one -passed with Field to the King’s, while the other remained with his late -fellows and was ultimately left with Christopher Beeston when their -occupation of the Cockpit ended in 1625. - -I classify the plays dealt with in these notes as follows: (_a_) -Plays wholly or substantially by Beaumont--_The Woman Hater_, _The -Knight of the Burning Pestle_; (_b_) Plays of the Beaumont-Fletcher -collaboration--_Philaster_, _A Maid’s Tragedy_, _A King and No King_, -_Four Plays in One_, _Cupid’s Revenge_, _The Coxcomb_, _The Scornful -Lady_; (_c_) Plays wholly or substantially by Fletcher--_The Woman’s -Prize_, _The Faithful Shepherdess_, _Monsieur Thomas_, _Valentinian_, -_Bonduca_, _Wit Without Money_; (_d_) Plays of doubtful authorship -and, in some cases, period--_The Captain_, _The Honest Man’s -Fortune_, _The Two Noble Kinsmen_, _The Faithful Friends_, _Thierry -and Theodoret_, _Wit at Several Weapons_, _Love’s Cure_, _The Night -Walker_. Full treatment of _The Two Noble Kinsmen_, as of _Henry VIII_, -in which Fletcher certainly had a hand, is only possible in relation -to Shakespeare. I have not thought it necessary to include every play -which, or a hypothetical version of which, an unsupported conjecture, -generally from Mr. Oliphant, puts earlier than 1616. _The Queen of -Corinth_, _The Noble Gentleman_, _The Little French Lawyer_, _The Laws -of Candy_, _The Knight of Malta_, _The Fair Maid of the Inn_, _The -Chances_, _Beggar’s Bush_, _The Bloody Brother_, _Love’s Pilgrimage_, -_Nice Valour_, and _Rule a Wife and Have a Wife_ are omitted on -this principle, and I believe I might safely have extended the same -treatment to some of those in my class (_d_). - - _Collections_ - -_S. R._ 1646, Sept. 4 (Langley). ‘These severall Tragedies & Comedies -hereunder mencioned (viz^t.) ... [thirty plays named] ... by M^r. -Beamont and M^r. Flesher.’ _H. Robinson and H. Moseley_ (Eyre, i. 244). - -1660, June 29. ‘The severall Plays following, vizt.... [names] ... all -six copies written by Fra: Beamont & John Fletcher.’ _H. Robinson and -H. Moseley_ (Eyre, ii. 268). - -F_{1}, 1647. Comedies and Tragedies Written by Francis Beaumont and -Iohn Fletcher Gentlemen. Never printed before, And now published by -the Authours Originall Copies. _For H. Robinson and H. Moseley._ -[Twenty-nine plays of the 1646 entry, excluding _The Wildgoose Chase_, -and the five plays and one mask of the 1660 entry, none but the mask -previously printed; Portrait of Fletcher by W. Marshall; Epistle to -Philip Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, signed ‘John Lowin, Richard -Robinson, Eylaerd Swanston, Hugh Clearke, Stephen Hammerton, Joseph -Taylor, Robert Benfield, Thomas Pollard, William Allen, Theophilus -Bird’; Epistle to the Reader, signed ‘Ja. Shirley’; The Stationer to -the Readers, signed ‘Humphrey Moseley’ and dated ‘Feb. 14^{th} 1646’; -Thirty-seven sets of Commendatory verses, variously signed; Postscript; -cf. W. W. Greg in _4 Library_, ii. 109.] - -F_{2}, 1679. Fifty Comedies and Tragedies. Written by Francis Beaumont -and John Fletcher, Gentlemen. All in one Volume. Published by the -Authors Original Copies, the Songs to each Play being added. _J. -Macock, for John Martyn, Henry Herringman, Richard Marriot._ [The -thirty-four plays and one mask of F_{1}, with eighteen other plays, -all previously printed; Epistle by the Stationers to the Reader; Actor -Lists prefixed to many of the plays.] - -1711. The Works of B. and F. 7 vols. _Jacob Tonson._ - -_Editions_ by Theobald, Seward and Sympson (1750, 10 vols.), G. Colman -(1778, 10 vols.; 1811, 3 vols.), H. Weber (1812, 14 vols., adding _The -Faithful Friends_), G. Darley (1839, 2 vols.; 1862–6, 2 vols.), A. Dyce -(1843–6, 11 vols.; 1852, 2 vols.). - -1905–12. A. Glover and A. R. Waller. _The Works of F. B. and J. F._ 10 -vols. (_C. E. C._). [Text of F_{2}, with collations of F_{1} and Q_{q}.] - -1904–12 (in progress). A. H. Bullen, _The Works of F. B. and J. F. -Variorum Edition._ 4 vols. issued. [Text based on Dyce; editions of -separate plays by P. A. Daniel, R. W. Bond, W. W. Greg, R. B. McKerrow, -J. Masefield, M. Luce, C. Brett, R. G. Martin, E. K. Chambers.] - - _Selections_ - -1887. J. S. L. Strachey, _The Best Plays of B. and F._ 2 vols. (Mermaid -Series). [_Maid’s Tragedy_, _Philaster_, _Thierry and Theodoret_, -_K. B. P._, _King and No King_, _Bonduca_, _Faithful Shepherdess_, -_Valentinian_, and later plays.] - -1912. F. E. Schelling, _Beaumont and Fletcher_ (_M. E. D._). -[_Philaster_, _Maid’s Tragedy_, _Faithful Shepherdess_, _Bonduca_.] - -_Dissertations_: A. C. Swinburne, _B. and F._ (1875–94, _Studies in -Prose and Poetry_), _The Earlier Plays of B. and F._ (1910, _English -Review_); F. G. Fleay, _On Metrical Tests as applied to Dramatic -Poetry: Part ii, B., F., Massinger_ (1874, _N. S. S. Trans._ 51, 23*, -61*, reprinted, 1876–8, with alterations in _Shakespeare Manual_, 151), -_On the Chronology of the Plays of F. and Massinger_ (1886, _E. S._ ix. -12), and in _B. C._ (1891), i. 164; R. Boyle, _B., F., and Massinger_ -(1882–7, _E. S._ v. 74, vii. 66, viii. 39, ix. 209, x. 383), _B., F., -and Massinger_ (1886, _N. S. S. Trans._ 579), _Mr. Oliphant on B. and -F._ (1892–3, _E. S._ xvii. 171, xviii. 292), _Daborne’s Share in the -B. and F. Plays_ (1899, _E. S._ xxvi. 352); G. C. Macaulay, _F. B.: a -Critical Study_ (1883), _B. and F._ (1910, _C. H._ vi. 107); E. H. C. -Oliphant, _The Works of B. and F._ (1890–2, _E. S._ xiv. 53, xv. 321, -xvi. 180); E. Koeppel, _Quellen-Studien zu den Dramen Ben Jonson’s, -John Marston’s und B. und F.’s_ (1895, _Münchener Beiträge_, xi); C. -E. Norton, _F. B.’s Letter to Ben Jonson_ (1896, _Harvard Studies -and Notes_, v. 19); A. H. Thorndike, _The Influence of B. and F. on -Shakspere_ (1901); O. L. Hatcher, _J. F.: a Study in Dramatic Method_ -(1905); R. M. Alden, _Introduction to B.’s Plays_ (1910, _B. L._); -C. M. Gayley, _F. B.: Dramatist_ (1914); W. E. Farnham, _Colloquial -Contractions in B., F., Massinger and Shakespeare as a Test of -Authorship_ (1916, _M. L. A._ xxxi. 326). - -_Bibliographies_: A. C. Potter, _A Bibl. of B. and F._ (1890, _Harvard -Bibl. Contributions_, 39); B. Leonhardt, _Litteratur über B. und F._ -(1896, _Anglia_, xix. 36, 542). - - _The Woman Hater, c. 1606_ - -_S. R._ 1607, May 20 (Buck). ‘A booke called “The Woman Hater” as it -hath ben lately acted by the Children of Powles.’ _Eleazar Edgar and -Robert Jackson_ (Arber, iii. 349). [A note ‘Sir George Buckes hand -alsoe to it’.] - -1607. The Woman Hater. As it hath beene lately Acted by the Children of -Paules. _Sold by John Hodgets._ [Prologue in prose.] - -1607. _R. R. sold by John Hodgets._ [A reissue.] - -S. R. 1613, April 19. Transfer of Edgar’s share to John Hodgettes -(Arber, iii. 521). - -1648.... As it hath beene Acted by his Majesties Servants with great -Applause. Written by John Fletcher Gent. _For Humphrey Moseley._ - -1649. The Woman Hater, or the Hungry Courtier. A Comedy ... Written by -Francis Beamont and John Fletcher, Gent. _For Humphrey Moseley._ [A -reissue. Prologue in verse, said by Fleay, i. 177, to be Davenant’s, -and Epilogue, used also for _The Noble Gentleman_.] - -Fleay, i. 177, and Gayley, 73, put the date in the spring of 1607, -finding a reference in ‘a favourite on the sudden’ (I. iii) to the -success of Robert Carr in taking the fancy of James at the tilt of 24 -March 1607, to which Fleay adds that ‘another inundation’ (III. i) -recalls a flood of 20 Jan. 1607. Neither argument is convincing, and -it is not known that the Paul’s boys went on into 1607; they are last -heard of in July 1606. The prologue expresses the author’s intention -not to lose his ears, perhaps an allusion to Jonson’s and Chapman’s -peril after _Eastward Ho!_ in 1605. Gayley notes in II. iii what -certainly looks like a reminiscence of _Antony and Cleopatra_, IV. xiv. -51 and xv. 87, but it is no easier to be precise about the date of -_Antony and Cleopatra_ than about that of _The Woman Hater_. The play -is universally regarded as substantially Beaumont’s and the original -prologue only speaks of a single author, but Davenant in 1649 evidently -supposed it to be Fletcher’s, saying ‘full twenty yeares, he wore the -bayes’. Boyle, Oliphant, Alden, and Gayley suggest among them III. -i, ii; IV. ii; V. i, ii, v as scenes to which Fletcher or some other -collaborator may have given touches. - - _The Knight of the Burning Pestle. 1607_ - -1613. The Knight of the Burning Pestle. _For Walter Burre._ [Epistle to -Robert Keysar, signed ‘W. B.’, Induction with Prologue, Epilogue.] - -1635.... Full of Mirth and Delight. Written by Francis Beaumont and -Iohn Fletcher, Gent. As it is now Acted by Her Maiesties Servants at -the Private house in Drury Lane. _N. O. for I. S._ [Epistle to Readers, -Prologue (from Lyly’s _Sapho and Phaon_).] - -1635.... Francis Beamont.... - -_Editions_ by F. W. Moorman (1898, _T. D._), H. S. Murch (1908, _Yale -Studies_, xxxiii), R. M. Alden (1910, _B. L._), W. A. Neilson (1911, -_C. E. D._).--_Dissertations_: R. Boyle, _B. and F.’s K. B. P._ (1889, -_E. S._ xiii. 156); B. Leonhardt, _Ueber B. und F.’s K. B. P._ (1885, -_Annaberg programme_), _Die Text-Varianten von B. und F.’s K. B. P._ -(1896, _Anglia_, xix. 509). - -The Epistle tells us that the play was ‘in eight daies ... begot and -borne’, ‘exposed to the wide world, who ... utterly reiected it’, -preserved by Keysar and sent to Burre, who had ‘fostred it priuately -in my bosome these two yeares’. The play ‘hopes his father will beget -him a yonger brother’. Burre adds, ‘Perhaps it will be thought to bee -of the race of Don Quixote: we both may confidently sweare, it is his -elder aboue a yeare’. The references to the actors in the induction -as boys and the known connexion of Keysar with the Queen’s Revels -fix the company. The date is more difficult. It cannot be earlier -than 1607, since the reference to a play at the Red Bull in which the -Sophy of Persia christens a child (IV. i. 46) is to Day’s _Travels of -Three English Brothers_ of that year. With other allusions, not in -themselves conclusive, 1607 would agree well enough, notably with Ind. -8, ‘This seuen yeares there hath beene playes at this house’, for it -was just seven years in the autumn of 1607 since Evans set up plays -at the Blackfriars. The trouble is IV. i. 73, ‘Read the play of the -_Foure Prentices of London_, where they tosse their pikes so’, for this -implies that the _Four Prentices_ was not merely produced but in print, -and the earliest extant edition is of 1615. It is, however, quite -possible that the play may have been in print, even as far back as -1594 (cf. s.v. Heywood). Others put it, and with it the _K. B. P._, in -1610, in which case the production would have been at the Whitefriars, -the history of which can only be traced back two or three years and -not seven years before 1610. On the whole, I think the reference to -_Don Quixote_ in the Epistle is in favour of 1607 rather than 1610. -It is, of course, conceivable that Burre only meant to claim that the -_K. B. P._ was a year older than Thomas Shelton’s translation of _Don -Quixote_, which was entered in _S. R._ on 19 Jan. 1611 and published -in 1612. Even this brings us back to the very beginning of 1610, and -the boast would have been a fairly idle one, as Shelton states in his -preface that the translation was actually made ‘some five or six yeares -agoe’. Shelton’s editor, Mr. Fitzmaurice-Kelly, has shown that it was -based on the Brussels edition of 1607. If we put it in 1608 and the _K. -B. P._ in 1607 the year’s priority of the latter is preserved. Most -certainly the _K. B. P._ was not prior to the Spanish _Don Quixote_ of -1605. Its dependence on Cervantes is not such as necessarily to imply -that Beaumont had read the romance, but he had certainly heard of its -general drift and of the particular episodes of the inn taken for a -castle and the barber’s basin. Fleay, Boyle, Moorman, Murch, and Alden -are inclined to assign to Fletcher some or all of the scenes in which -Jasper and Luce and Humphrey take part; but Macaulay, Oliphant and -Gayley regard the play, except perhaps for a touch or two, as wholly -Beaumont’s. Certainly the Epistle suggests that the play had but one -‘father’. - - _The Faithful Shepherdess. 1608–9_ - -N.D. The Faithfull Shepherdesse. By John Fletcher. _For R. Bonian and -H. Walley._ [Commendatory verses by N. F. (‘Nath. Field’, Q_{2}), Fr. -Beaumont, Ben Jonson, G. Chapman; Dedicatory verses to Sir Walter -Aston, Sir William Skipwith, Sir Robert Townsend, all signed ‘John -Fletcher’; Epistle to Reader, signed ‘John Fletcher’.] - -_S. R._ 1628, Dec. 8. Transfer from Walley to R. Meighen (Arber, iv. -206). - -1629.... newly corrected ... _T. C. for R. Meighen_. - -1634.... Acted at Somerset House before the King and Queene on Twelfe -night last, 1633. And divers times since with great applause at the -Private House in Blacke-Friers, by his Majesties Servants.... _A. M. -for Meighen._ [Verses to Joseph Taylor, signed ‘Shakerley Marmion’, -and Prologue, both for the performance of 6 Jan. 1634.] - -1656; 1665. - -_Editions_ by F. W. Moorman (1897, _T. D._), W. W. Greg (1908, Bullen, -iii), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._). - -Jonson told Drummond in the winter of 1618–19 (Laing, 17) that -‘Flesher and Beaumont, ten yeers since, hath written the Faithfull -Shipheardesse, a Tragicomedie, well done’. This gives us the date -1608–9, which there is nothing to contradict. The undated Q_{1} may -be put in 1609 or 1610, as Skipwith died on 3 May 1610 and the short -partnership of the publishers is traceable from 22 Dec. 1608 to 14 Jan. -1610. It is, moreover, in Sir John Harington’s catalogue of his plays, -which was made up in 1609 or 1610 (cf. ch. xxii). The presence of -Field, Chapman, and Jonson amongst the verse-writers and the mentions -in Beaumont’s verses of ‘the waxlights’ and of a boy dancing between -the acts point to the Queen’s Revels as the producers. It is clear also -from the verses that the play was damned, and that Fletcher alone, in -spite of Drummond’s report, was the author. This is not doubted on -internal grounds. - - _The Woman’s Prize, or, The Tamer Tamed. 1604 <_ - -1647. The Womans Prize, or The Tamer Tam’d. A Comedy. [Part of F_{1}. -Prologue and Epilogue.] - -1679. [Part of F_{2}.] - -Fleay, i. 198, Oliphant, and Thorndike, 70, accumulate inconclusive -evidence bearing on the date, of which the most that can be said is -that an answer to _The Taming of the Shrew_ would have more point the -nearer it came to the date of the original, and that the references to -the siege of Ostend in I. iii would be topical during or not long after -that siege, which ended on 8 Sept. 1604. On the other hand, Gayley -(_R. E. C._ iii, lxvi) calls attention to possible reminiscences of -_Epicoene_ (_1609_) and _Alchemist_ (_1610_). I see no justification -for supposing that a play written in 1605 would undergo revision, -as has been suggested, in 1610–14. A revival by the King’s in 1633 -got them into some trouble with Sir Henry Herbert, who claimed the -right to purge even an old play of ‘oaths, prophaness, and ribaldrye’ -(_Variorum_, iii. 208). Possibly the play is also _The Woman is too -Hard for Him_, which the King’s took to Court on 26 Nov. 1621 (Murray, -ii. 193). But the original writing was not necessarily for this -company. There is general agreement in assigning the play to Fletcher -alone. - - _Philaster > 1610_ - -_S. R._ 1620, Jan. 10 (Taverner). ‘A Play Called Philaster.’ _Thomas -Walkley_ (Arber, iii. 662). - -1620. Phylaster, Or Loue lyes a Bleeding. Acted at the Globe by his -Maiesties Seruants. Written by Francis Baymont and Iohn Fletcher. Gent. -_For Thomas Walkley._ - -1622.... As it hath beene diuerse times Acted, at the Globe, and -Blacke-friers, by his Maiesties Seruants.... The Second Impression, -corrected, and amended. _For Thomas Walkley._ [Epistle to the Reader by -Walkley. Different text of I. i; V. iv, v.] - -1628. _A. M. for Richard Hawkins._ [Epistle by the Stationer to the -Understanding Gentry.] - -1634; 1639; 1652; N.D. [1663]; 1687. - -_Editions_ by J. S. L. Strachey (1887, _Mermaid_, i), F. S. Boas (1898, -_T. D._), P. A. Daniel (1904, _Variorum_, i), A. H. Thorndike (1906, -_B. L._), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertations_: B. -Leonhardt, _Über die Beziehungen von B. und F.’s P. zu Shakespeare’s -Hamlet und Cymbeline_ (1885, _Anglia_, viii. 424) and _Die -Text-Varianten von B. und F.’s P._ (1896, _Anglia_, xix. 34). - -The play is apparently referred to in John Davies of Hereford, _Scourge -of Folly_ (_S. R._ 8 Oct. 1610), ep. 206: - - _To the well deseruing_ M^r John Fletcher. - _Loue lies ableeding_, if it should not proue - Her vttmost art to shew why it doth loue. - Thou being the _Subiect_ (now) It raignes vpon: - Raign’st in _Arte_, _Iudgement_, and _Inuention_: - _For this I loue thee: and can doe no lesse_ - _For thine as faire, as faithfull_ Shepheardesse. - -If so, the date 1608–10 is suggested, and I do not think that it is -possible to be more precise. No trustworthy argument can be based with -Gayley, 342, on the fact that Davies’s epigram follows that praising -Ostler as ‘Roscius’ and ‘sole king of actors’; and I fear that the -view of Thorndike, 65, that 1608 is a ‘probable’ conjecture is biased -by a desire to assume priority to _Cymbeline_. There were two Court -performances in the winter of 1612–13, and Fleay, i. 189, suggests -that the versions of I. i and V. iv, v which appear in Q_{1} were -made for these. The epistle to Q_{2} describes them as ‘dangerous and -gaping wounds ... received in the first impression’. There is general -agreement that most of the play, whether Davies knew it or not, is -Beaumont’s. Most critics assign V. iii, iv and some the whole or parts -of I. i, ii, II. ii, iv, and III. ii to Fletcher. - - _The Coxcomb. 1608 < > 10_ - -1647. The Coxcomb. [Part of F_{1}. Prologue and Epilogue.] - -1679. [Part of F_{2}. ‘The Principal Actors were Nathan Field, Joseph -Taylor, Giles Gary, Emanuel Read, Rich. Allen, Hugh Atawell, Robert -Benfeild, Will Barcksted.’] - -_Dissertation_: A. S. W. Rosenbach, _The Curious Impertinent in English -Dramatic Literature_ (1902, _M. L. N._ xvii. 179). - -The play was given at Court by the Queen’s Revels on 2 or 3 Nov. -1612. It passed, doubtless, through the Lady Elizabeth’s, to whom the -actor-list probably belongs, to the King’s, who took it to Court on 5 -March 1622 (Murray, ii. 193) and again on 17 Nov. 1636 (Cunningham, -xxiv). There was thus more than one opportunity for the prologue, which -speaks of the play as having a mixed reception at first, partly because -of its length, then ‘long forgot’, and now revived and shortened. The -original date may be between the issue in 1608 of Baudouin’s French -translation of _The Curious Impertinent_ from _Don Quixote_, which in -original or translation suggested its plot, and Jonson’s _Alchemist_ -(1610), IV. vii. 39, ‘You are ... a Don Quixote. Or a Knight o’ the -curious coxcombe’. The prologue refers to ‘makers’, and there is fair -agreement in giving some or all of I. iv, vi, II. iv, III. iii, and V. -ii to Beaumont and the rest to Fletcher. Fleay, Boyle, Oliphant, and -Gayley think that there has been revision by a later writer, perhaps -Massinger or W. Rowley. - - _The Maid’s Tragedy > 1611_ - -_S. R._ 1619, April 28 (Buck). ‘A play Called The maides tragedy.’ -_Higgenbotham and Constable_ (Arber, iii. 647). - -1619. The Maides Tragedy. As it hath beene divers times Acted at the -Blacke-friers by the King’s Maiesties Seruants. _For Francis Constable._ - -1622.... Newly perused, augmented, and inlarged, This second -Impression. _For Francis Constable._ - -1630.... Written by Francis Beaumont, and Iohn Fletcher Gentlemen. The -Third Impression, Reuised and Refined. _A. M. for Richard Hawkins._ - -1638; 1641; 1650 [1660?]; 1661. - -_Editions_ by J. S. L. Strachey (1887, _Mermaid_, i), P. A. Daniel -(1904, _Variorum_, i), A. H. Thorndike (1906, _B. L._), W. A. Neilson -(1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertation_: B. Leonhardt, _Die Text-Varianten -in B. und F.’s M. T._ (1900, _Anglia_, xxiii. 14). - -The play must have been known by 31 Oct. 1611 when Buck named the -_Second Maiden’s Tragedy_ (q.v.) after it, and it was given at Court -during 1612–13. An inferior limit is not attainable and any date within -_c._ 1608–11 is possible. Gayley, 349, asks us to accept the play as -more mature than, and therefore later than, _Philaster_. Fleay, i. 192, -thinks that the mask in I. ii was added after the floods in the winter -of 1612, but you cannot bring Neptune into a mask without mention of -floods. As to authorship there is some division of opinion, especially -on II. ii and IV. iii; subject thereto, a balance of opinion gives I, -II, III, IV. ii, iv and V. iv to Beaumont, and only IV. i and V. i, ii, -iii to Fletcher. - -An episode (I. ii) consists of a mask at the wedding of Amintor and -Evadne, with an introductory dialogue between Calianax, Diagoras, who -keeps the doors, and guests desiring admission. ‘The ladies are all -placed above,’ says Diagoras, ‘save those that come in the King’s -troop.’ Calianax has an ‘office’, evidently as Chamberlain. ‘He would -run raging among them, and break a dozen wiser heads than his own in -the twinkling of an eye.’ - -The maskers are Proteus and other sea-gods; the presenters Night, -Cinthia, Neptune, Aeolus, Favonius, and other winds, who ‘rise’ or come -‘out of a rock’. There are two ‘measures’ between hymeneal songs, but -no mention of taking out ladies. - -In an earlier passage (I. i. 9) a poet says of masks, ‘They must -commend their King, and speak in praise Of the Assembly, bless the -Bride and Bridegroom, In person of some God; th’are tyed to rules Of -flattery’. - - _A King and No King. 1611_ - -_S. R._ 1618, Aug. 7 (Buck). ‘A play Called A king and noe kinge.’ -_Blount_ (Arber, iii. 631). - -1619. A King and no King. Acted at the Globe, by his Maiesties -Seruants: Written by Francis Beamount and Iohn Flecher. _For Thomas -Walkley._ [Epistle to Sir Henry Nevill, signed ‘Thomas Walkley’.] - -1625.... Acted at the Blacke-Fryars, by his Maiesties Seruants. And now -the second time Printed, according to the true Copie.... _For Thomas -Walkley._ - -1631; 1639; 1655; 1661; 1676. - -_Editions_ by R. W. Bond (1904, Bullen, i), R. M. Alden (1910, _B. -L._).--_Dissertation_: B. Leonhardt, _Die Text-Varianten von B.’s und -F.’s A K. and No K._ (1903, _Anglia_, xxvi. 313). - -This is a fixed point, both for date and authorship, in the history -of the collaboration. Herbert records (_Var._ iii. 263) that it was -‘allowed to be acted in 1611’ by Sir George Buck. It was in fact acted -at Court by the King’s on 26 Dec. 1611 and again during 1612–13. A -performance at Hampton Court on 10 Jan. 1637 is also upon record -(Cunningham, xxv). The epistle, which tells us that the publisher -received the play from Nevill, speaks of ‘the authors’ and of their -‘future labours’; rather oddly, as Beaumont was dead. There is -practical unanimity in assigning I, II, III, IV. iv, and V. ii, iv to -Beaumont and IV. i, ii, iii and V. i, iii to Fletcher. - - _Cupid’s Revenge > 1612_ - -_S. R._ 1615, April 24 (Buck). ‘A play called Cupid’s revenge.’ -_Josias Harrison_ (Arber, iii. 566). - -1615. Cupid’s Revenge. As it hath beene diuers times Acted by the -Children of her Maiesties Reuels. By Iohn Fletcher. _Thomas Creede -for Josias Harrison._ [Epistle by Printer to Reader.] - -1630.... As it was often Acted (with great applause) by the Children -of the Reuells. Written by Fran. Beaumont & Io. Fletcher. The second -edition. _For Thomas Jones._ - -1635.... The third Edition. _A. M._ - -The play was given by the Queen’s Revels at Court on 5 Jan. 1612, 1 -Jan. 1613, and either 9 Jan. or 27 Feb. 1613. It was revived by the -Lady Elizabeth’s at Court on 28 Dec. 1624, and is in the Cockpit list -of 1639. It cannot therefore be later than 1611–12, while no close -inferior limit can be fixed. Fleay, i. 187, argues that it has been -altered for Court, chiefly by turning a wicked king, queen, and prince -into a duke, duchess, and marquis. I doubt if this implies revision -as distinct from censorship, and in any case it does not, as Fleay -suggests, imply the intervention of a reviser other than the original -authors. The suggestion has led to chaos in the distribution of -authorship, since various critics have introduced Daborne, Field, and -Massinger as possible collaborators or revisers. The stationer speaks -of a single ‘author’, meaning Fletcher, but says he was ‘not acquainted -with him’. And the critics at least agree in finding both Beaumont and -Fletcher, pretty well throughout. - - _The Captain. 1609 < > 12_ - -1647. The Captain. [Part of F_{1}. Prologue and Epilogue.] - -1679. The Captain. A Comedy. [Part of F_{2}.] ‘The principal Actors -were, Richard Burbadge, Henry Condel, William Ostler, Alexander Cooke.’ - -The play was given by the King’s at Court during 1612–13, and -presumably falls between that date and the admission of Ostler to the -company in 1609. The 1679 print, by a confusion, gives the scene as -‘Venice, Spain’, but this hardly justifies the suggestion of Fleay, i. -195, that we have a version of Fletcher’s work altered for the Court -by Barnes. He had formerly conjectured collaboration between Fletcher -and Jonson (_E. S._ ix. 18). The prologue speaks of ‘the author’; -Fleay thinks that the mention of ‘twelve pence’ as the price of a seat -indicates a revival. Several critics find Massinger; Oliphant finds -Rowley; and Boyle and Oliphant find Beaumont, as did Macaulay, 196, in -1883, but apparently not in 1910 (_C. H._ vi. 137). - - _Two Noble Kinsmen. 1613_ - -_S. R._ 1634, April 8 (Herbert). ‘A Tragicomedy called the two noble -kinsmen by John Fletcher and William Shakespeare.’ _John Waterson_ -(Arber, iv. 316). - -1634. The Two Noble Kinsmen: Presented at the Black-friers by the Kings -Maiesties servants, with great applause: Written by the memorable -Worthies of their time; Mr. John Fletcher, and Mr. William Shakspeare. -Gent. _Tho. Cotes for Iohn Waterson._ [Prologue and Epilogue.] - -1679. [Part of F_{2} of Beaumont and Fletcher.] - -_Editions_ by W. W. Skeat (1875), H. Littledale (1876–85, _N. S. S._), -C. H. Herford (1897, _T. D._), J. S. Farmer (1910, _T. F. T._), and -with _Works_ of Beaumont and Fletcher, _Sh. Apocrypha_, and sometimes -_Works_ of Shakespeare.--_Dissertations_: W. Spalding, _A Letter on -Sh.’s Authorship of T. N. K._ (1833; 1876, _N. S. S._); S. Hickson, -_The Shares of Sh. and F. in T. N. K._ (1847, _Westminster Review_, -xlvii. 59; 1874, _N. S. S. Trans._ 25*, with additions by F. G. Fleay -and F. J. Furnivall); N. Delius, _Die angebliche Autorschaft des T. N. -K._ (1878, _Jahrbuch_, xiii. 16); R. Boyle, _Sh. und die beiden edlen -Vettern_ (1881, _E. S._ iv. 34), _On Massinger and T. N. K._ (1882, -_N. S. S. Trans._ 371); T. Bierfreund, _Palamon og Arcite_ (1891); -E. H. C. Oliphant (1892, _E. S._ xv. 323); B. Leuschner, _Über das -Verhältniss von T. N. K. zu Chaucer’s Knightes Tale_ (1903, _Halle -diss._); O. Petersen, _The T. N. K._ (1914, _Anglia_, xxxviii. 213); H. -D. Sykes, _The T. N. K._ (1916, _M. L. R._ xi. 136); A. H. Cruickshank, -_Massinger and T. N. K._ (1922). - -The date of _T. N. K._ is fairly well fixed to 1613 by its adaptation -of Beaumont’s wedding mask of Shrovetide in that year; there would be -a confirmation in Jonson, _Bartholomew Fair_ (1614), iv. 3, - - _Quarlous._ Well my word is out of the _Arcadia_, then: _Argalus_. - - _Win-wife._ And mine out of the play, _Palemon_; - -did not the juxtaposition of the _Arcadia_ suggest that the allusion -may be, not to the Palamon of _T. N. K._ but to the Palaemon of -Daniel’s _The Queen’s Arcadia_ (1606). In spite of the evidence of -the t.p. attempts have been made to substitute Beaumont, or, more -persistently, Massinger, for Shakespeare as Fletcher’s collaborator. -This question can only be discussed effectively in connexion with -Shakespeare. - - _The Honest Man’s Fortune. 1613_ - -[_MS._] _Dyce MS._ 9, formerly in Heber collection. - -1647. The Honest Mans Fortune. [Part of F_{1}. After play, verses ‘Upon -an Honest Mans Fortune. By M^r. John Fletcher’, beginning ‘You that can -look through Heaven, and tell the Stars’.] - -1679. The Honest Man’s Fortune. A Tragicomedie. [Part of F_{2}. ‘The -principal actors were Nathan Field, Joseph Taylor, Rob. Benfield, Will -Eglestone, Emanuel Read, Thomas Basse.’] - -_Dissertation_: K. Richter, _H. M. F. und seine Quellen_ (1905, _Halle -diss._). - -On the fly-leaf of the MS. is ‘The Honest Man’s Fortune, Plaide in -the yeare 1613’, and in another hand at the end of the text, ‘This -Play, being an olde one, and the Originall lost was reallow’d by -mee this 8 Febru. 1624. Att the intreaty of Mr. .’ The last word is -torn off, but a third hand has added ‘Taylor’. The MS. contains some -alterations, partly by the licenser, partly by the stage-manager or -prompter. The latter include the names of three actors, ‘G[eorge] -Ver[non]’, ‘J: R Cro’ and ‘G. Rick’. The ending of the last scene in -the MS. differs from that of the Ff. The endorsement is confirmed by -Herbert’s entry in his diary (_Variorum_, iii. 229), ‘For the King’s -company. An olde play called The Honest Mans Fortune, the originall -being lost, was re-allowed by mee at M^r. Taylor’s intreaty, and on -condition to give mee a booke [The Arcadia], this 8 Februa. 1624.’ The -actor-list suggests that the original performers were Lady Elizabeth’s -men, after the Queen’s Revels had joined them in March 1613. Fleay, -i. 196, suggests that this is the play by Fletcher, Field, Massinger, -and Daborne which is the subject of some of Henslowe’s correspondence -and was finally delivered on 5 Aug. 1613 (Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 65, -90). Attempts to combine this indication with stylistic evidence have -led the critics to some agreement that Fletcher is only responsible -for V and that Massinger is to be found in III, and for the rest into -a quagmire of conjecture amongst the names of Beaumont, Fletcher, -Massinger, Field, Daborne, Tourneur, and Cartwright. The appended -verses of the Ff. are not in the _Dyce MS._, but they are in _Addl. -MS._ 25707, f. 66, and _Bodl. Rawlinson Poet. MS._ 160, f. 20, where -they are ascribed to Fletcher, and in Beaumont’s _Poems_ (1653). - - _Bonduca. 1609 < > 14_ - -1647. Bonduca, A Tragedy. [Part of F_{1}.] - -1679. [Part of F_{2}. ‘The Principal Actors were Richard Burbadge, -Henry Condel, William Eglestone, Nich. Toolie, William Ostler, John -Lowin, John Underwood, Richard Robinson.’] - -_Dissertations_: B. Leonhardt, _Die Text-Varianten von B. und F.’s B._ -(1898, _Anglia_, xx. 421) and _Bonduca_ (_E. S._ xiii. 36). - -The actor-list is of the King’s men between 1609–11 or between 1613–14, -as these are the only periods during which Ecclestone and Ostler -can have played together. The authorship is generally regarded as -substantially Fletcher’s; and the occasional use of rhyme in II. i and -IV. iv hardly justifies Oliphant’s theory of an earlier version by -Beaumont, or the ascription by Fleay and Macaulay of these scenes to -Field, whose connexion with the King’s does not seem to antedate 1616. - - _Monsieur Thomas. 1610 < > 16_ - -_S. R._ 1639, Jan. 22 (Wykes). ‘A Comedy called Monsieur Thomas, by -master John Fletcher.’ _Waterson_ (Arber, iv. 451). - -1639. Monsieur Thomas. A Comedy. Acted at the Private House in Blacke -Fryers. The Author, Iohn Fletcher, Gent. _Thomas Harper for John -Waterson._ [Epistle to Charles Cotton, signed ‘Richard Brome’ and -commendatory verses by the same.] - -N.D. [_c._ 1661]. Fathers Own Son. A Comedy. Formerly Acted at the -Private House in Black Fryers; and now at the Theatre in Vere Street -by His Majesties Servants. The Author John Fletcher Gent. _For Robert -Crofts._ [Reissue with fresh t.p.] - -_Edition_ by R. G. Martin (1912, Bullen, iv).--_Dissertations_: H. -Guskar, _Fletcher’s Monsieur Thomas und seine Quellen_ (1905, _Anglia_, -xxviii. 397; xxix. 1); A. L. Stiefel, _Zur Quellenfrage von John -Fletcher’s Monsieur Thomas_ (1906, _E. S._ xxxvi. 238); O. L. Hatcher, -_The Sources of Fletcher’s Monsieur Thomas_ (1907, _Anglia_, xxx. 89). - -The title-page printed at the time of the revival by the King’s men -of the Restoration enables us to identify _Monsieur Thomas_ with the -_Father’s Own Son_ of the Cockpit repertory in 1639, and like the -other plays of the Beaumont and Fletcher series in that repertory it -was probably written by 1616, and either for the Queen’s Revels or -for the Lady Elizabeth’s. An allusion in II. iii. 104 to ‘all the -feathers in the Friars’ might indicate production at Porter’s Hall in -the Blackfriars about that year. The play cannot be earlier than its -source, Part ii (1610) of H. d’Urfé’s _Astrée_, and by 1610 the more -permanent Blackfriars house had passed to the King’s, by whom the -performances referred to on the original title-page must therefore -have been given. Perhaps the explanation is that there had been some -misunderstanding about the distribution of the Lady Elizabeth’s men’s -plays between the King’s and the Cockpit, and that a revival by the -King’s in 1639 led the Cockpit managers to get the Lord Chamberlain’s -order of 10 Aug. 1639 (_Variorum_, iii. 159) appropriating their -repertory to them. The authorship is ascribed with general assent to -Fletcher alone. - - _Valentinian. 1610 < > 14_ - -1647. The Tragedy of Valentinian. [Part of F_{1}. Epilogue.] - -1679. [Part of F_{2}. ‘The principal Actors were, Richard Burbadge, -Henry Condel, John Lowin, William Ostler, John Underwood.’] - -_Edition_ by R. G. Martin (1912, Bullen, iv). - -The actor-list is of the King’s men before the death of Ostler on 16 -Dec. 1614, and the play must fall between this date and the publication -of its source, Part ii (1610) of H. d’Urfé’s _Astrée_. There is general -agreement in assigning it to Fletcher alone. - - _Wit Without Money, c. 1614_ - -_S. R._ 1639, April 25 (Wykes). ‘These fiue playes ... Witt without -money.’ _Crooke and William Cooke_ (Arber, iv. 464). - -1639. Wit Without Money. A Comedie, As it hath beene Presented with -good Applause at the private house in Drurie Lane, by her Majesties -Servants. Written by Francis Beamount and John Flecher. Gent. _Thomas -Cotes for Andrew Crooke and William Cooke._ - -1661.... The Second Impression Corrected. _For Andrew Crooke._ - -_Edition_ by R. B. McKerrow (1905, Bullen, ii). - -Allusions to the New River opened in 1613 (IV. v. 61) and to an alleged -Sussex dragon of Aug. 1614 (II. iv. 53) suggest production not long -after the latter date. There is general agreement in assigning the play -to Fletcher alone. It passed into the Cockpit repertory and was played -there both by Queen Henrietta’s men and in 1637 by Beeston’s boys -(_Variorum_, iii. 159, 239). Probably, therefore, it was written for -the Lady Elizabeth’s. - - _The Scornful Lady. 1613 < > 17_ - -_S. R._ 1616, March 19 (Buck). ‘A plaie called The scornefull ladie -written by Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher.’ _Miles Partriche_ -(Arber, iii. 585). - -1616. The Scornful Ladie. A Comedie. As it was Acted (with great -applause) by the Children of Her Maiesties Reuels in the Blacke-Fryers. -Written by Fra. Beaumont and Io. Fletcher, Gent. _For Miles Partriche._ - -1625.... As it was now lately Acted (with great applause) by the Kings -Maiesties seruants, at the Blacke-Fryers.... _For M. P., sold by Thomas -Jones._ - -1630, 1635, 1639, 1651 (_bis_). - -_Edition_ by R. W. Bond (1904, Bullen, i). - -References to ‘talk of the Cleve wars’ (V. iii. 66) and ‘some cast -Cleve captain’ (V. iv. 54) cannot be earlier than 1609 when the wars -broke out after the death of the Duke of Cleves on 25 March, and there -can hardly have been ‘cast’ captains until some time after July 1610 -when English troops first took part. Fleay, i. 181, calls attention to -an allusion to the binding by itself of the Apocrypha (I. ii. 46) which -was discussed for the A. V. and the Douay Version, both completed in -1610; and Gayley to a reminiscence (IV. i. 341) of _Epicoene_ which, -however, was acted in 1609, not, as Gayley thinks, 1610. None of these -indications, however, are of much importance in view of another traced -by Gayley (III. ii. 17): - - I will style thee noble, nay, Don Diego; - I’ll woo thy infanta for thee. - -Don Diego Sarmiento’s negotiations for a Spanish match with Prince -Charles began on 27 May 1613. The play must therefore be 1613–16. In -any case the ‘Blackfriars’ of the title-page must be the Porter’s Hall -house of 1615–17. Even if the end of 1609 were a possible date, Murray, -i. 153, is wrong in supposing that the Revels were then at Blackfriars. -There is fair unanimity in assigning I, the whole or part of II, and V. -ii to Beaumont, and the rest to Fletcher, but Bond and Gayley suggest -that III. i, at least, might be Massinger’s. - - _Thierry and Theodoret (?)_ - -1621. The Tragedy of Thierry King of France, and his Brother Theodoret. -As it was diuerse times acted at the Blacke-Friers by the Kings -Maiesties Seruants. _For Thomas Walkley._ - -1648.... Written by John Fletcher Gent. _For Humphrey Moseley._ - -1649.... Written by Fracis Beamont and John Fletcher Gent. _For -Humphrey Moseley._ [A reissue, with Prologue and Epilogue, not written -for the play; cf. Fleay, i. 205.] - -_Dissertation_: B. Leonhardt, _Die Text-Varianten von B. und F.’s T. -and T._ (1903, _Anglia_, xxvi. 345). - -Fleay, i. 205, dates the play _c._ 1617, supposing it to be a satire -on the French Court, and the name De Vitry to be that of the slayer -of the Maréchal d’Ancre. Thorndike, 79, has little difficulty in -disposing of this theory, although it may be pointed out that the Privy -Council did in fact intervene to suppress a play about the Maréchal -in 1617 (Gildersleeve, 113); but he is less successful in attempting -to show any special plausibility in a date as early as 1607. A former -conjecture by Fleay (_E. S._ ix. 21) that III and V. i are fragments of -the anonymous _Branholt_ of the Admiral’s in 1597 may also be dismissed -with Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 188). Most critics find, in addition to -Fletcher, Massinger, as collaborator or reviser, according to the -date given to the play, and some add Field or Daborne. Oliphant and -Thorndike find Beaumont. So did Macaulay, 196, in 1883, but apparently -not in 1910 (_C. H._ vi. 138). - - _The Nightwalker or The Little Thief (?)_ - -_S. R._ 25 April 1639 (Wykes). ‘These fiue playes ... Night walters.... -_Crooke and William Cooke_ (Arber, iv. 464). - -1640. The Night-Walker, or the Little Theife. A Comedy, As it was -presented by her Majesties Servants, at the Private House in Drury -Lane. Written by John Fletcher. Gent. _Tho. Cotes for Andrew Crooke and -William Cooke._ [Epistle to William Hudson, signed ‘A. C.’.] - -1661. _For Andrew Crook._ - -Herbert licensed this as ‘a play of Fletchers corrected by Sherley’ -on 11 May 1633 and it was played at Court by Queen Henrietta’s men -on 30 Jan. 1634 (_Variorum_, iii. 236). The only justification for -placing Fletcher’s version earlier than 1616 is the suspicion that -the only plays of Beaumont or Fletcher which passed to the Cockpit -repertory were some of those written for the Queen’s Revels or the Lady -Elizabeth’s before that date. - - _Four Plays in One (?)_ - -1647. Four Plays, or Moral Representations in One. [Part of F_{1}. -Induction with 2 Prologues, The Triumph of Honour, the Triumph of Love -with Prologue, the Triumph of Death with Prologue, the Triumph of Time -with Prologue, Epilogue.] - -_Dissertation_: W. J. Lawrence, _The Date of F. P. in O._ (_T. L. S._ -11 Dec. 1919). - -This does not seem to have passed to the King’s men or the Cockpit, and -cannot be assigned to any particular company. It has been supposed to -be a boys’ play, presumably because it has much music and dancing. It -has also much pageantry in dumb-shows and so forth and stage machinery. -Conceivably it might have been written for private performance in -place of a mask. _Time_, in particular, has much the form of a mask, -with antimask. But composite plays of this type were well known on the -public stage. There is no clear indication of date. Fleay, i. 179, -suggested 1608 because _The Yorkshire Tragedy_, printed that year, is -also described in its heading as ‘one of the Four Plays in One’, but -presumably it belonged to another series. Thorndike, 85, points out -that the antimask established itself in Court masks in 1608. Gayley, -301, puts _Death_ and _Time_ in 1610, because he thinks that they fall -stylistically between _The Faithfull Shepherdess_ and _Philaster_, and -the rest in 1612, because he thinks they are Field’s and that they -cannot be before 1611, since they are not mentioned, like _Amends for -Ladies_, as forthcoming in the epistle to _Woman a Weathercock_ in that -year. This hardly bears analysis, and indeed Field is regarded as the -author of the Induction and _Honour_ only by Oliphant and Gayley and -of _Love_ only by Gayley himself. All these are generally assigned to -Beaumont, and _Death_ and _Time_ universally to Fletcher. Lawrence’s -attempt to attach the piece to the wedding festivities of 1612–13 does -not seem to me at all convincing. - - _Love’s Cure; or, The Martial Maid_ (?) - -1647. Loves Cure, or the Martial Maid. [Part of F_{1}. A Prologue at -the reviving of this Play. Epilogue.] - -1679. Loves Cure, or the Martial Maid A Comedy. [Part of F_{2}.] - -_Dissertation_: A. L. Stiefel, _Die Nachahmung spanischer Komödien in -England_ (1897, _Archiv_, xcix. 271). - -The prologue, evidently later than Fletcher’s death in 1625, clearly -assigns the authorship to Beaumont and Fletcher, although the epilogue, -of uncertain date, speaks of ‘our author’. This is the only sound -reason for thinking that the original composition was in Beaumont’s -lifetime. The internal evidence for an early date cited by Fleay, i. -180, and Thorndike, 72, becomes trivial when we eliminate what merely -fixes the historic time of the play to 1604–9, and proves nothing as to -the time of composition. On the other hand, II. ii, - - the cold Muscovite ... - That lay here lieger in the last great frost, - -points to a date later than the winter of 1621, as I cannot trace any -earlier great frost in which a Muscovite embassy can have been in -London (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, cxxiii, 11, 100; cxxiv. 40). Further, the -critics seem confident that the dominant hand in the play as it exists -is Massinger’s, and that Beaumont and Fletcher show, if at all, faintly -through his revision. The play belonged to the repertory of the King’s -men by 1641 (_M. S. C._ i. 364). - - _Wit at Several Weapons_ (?) - -1647. Wit at several weapons. A Comedy. [Part of F_{1}. The epilogue at -the reviving of this Play.] - -1679. [Part of F_{2}.] - -The history of the play is very obscure. It is neither in the Cockpit -repertory of 1639 nor in that of the King’s in 1641, and the guesses -of Fleay, i. 218, that it may be _The Devil of Dowgate or Usury Put -to Use_, licensed by Herbert for the King’s on 17 Oct. 1623, and _The -Buck is a Thief_, played at Court by the same men on 28 Dec. 1623, are -unsupported and mutually destructive. The epilogue, clearly written -after the death of Fletcher, tells us that ‘’twas well receiv’d before’ -and that Fletcher ‘had to do in’ it, and goes on to qualify this by -adding-- - - that if he but writ - An Act, or two, the whole Play rose up wit. - -The critics find varying amounts of Fletcher, with work of other -hands, which some of them venture to identify as those of Middleton -and Rowley. Oliphant, followed by Thorndike, 87, finds Beaumont, and -the latter points to allusions which are not inconsistent with, but -certainly do not prove, 1609–10, or even an earlier date. Macaulay, -196, also found Beaumont in 1883, but seems to have retired upon -Middleton and Rowley in 1910 (_C. H._ vi. 138). - - _The Faithful Friends_ (?) - -[_MS._] _Dyce MS._ 10, formerly in the Heber collection. - -_S. R._ 1660, June 29. ‘The Faithfull Friend a Comedy, by Francis -Beamont & John Fletcher’. _H. Moseley_ (Eyre, ii. 271). - -_Edition_ by A. Dyce in _Works_ (1812). - -Fleay in 1889 (_E. S._ xiii. 32) saw evidence of a date in 1614 in -certain possible allusions (I. i. 45–52, 123–6) to the Earl of Somerset -and his wedding on 26 Dec. 1613, and suggested Field and Daborne as the -authors. In 1891 (i. 81, 201) he gave the whole to Daborne, except IV. -v, which he thought of later date, and supposed it to be the subject -of Daborne’s letter of 11 March 1614 to Henslowe, which was in fact -probably _The Owl_ (Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 82). Oliphant thinks it -a revision by Massinger and Field in 1614 of a play by Beaumont and -Fletcher, perhaps as early as 1604. With this exception no critic seems -much to believe in the presence of Beaumont or Fletcher, and Boyle, -who suggests Shirley, points out that the allusion in I. i. 124 to the -relation between Philip III and the Duke of Lerma as in the past would -come more naturally after Philip’s death in 1621 or at least after -Lerma’s disgrace in 1618. The MS. is in various hands, one of which has -made corrections. Some of these seem on internal evidence to have been -due to suggestions of the censor, others to play-house exigencies. - - _Lost Play_ - -Among plays entered in S. R. by Humphrey Moseley on 29 June 1660 (Eyre, -ii. 271) is ‘The History of Madon King of Brittain, by F. Beamont’. -Madan is a character in _Locrine_, but even Moseley can hardly have -ascribed that long-printed play to Beaumont. - - _Inner Temple and Gray’s Inn Mask. 20 Feb. 1613_ - -_S. R._ 1613, Feb. 27 (Nidd). ‘A booke called the [description] of the -maske performed before the kinge by the gent. of the Myddle temple and -Lincolns Inne with the maske of Grayes Inne and the Inner Temple.’ -_George Norton_ (Arber, iii. 516). - -N.D. The Masque of the Inner Temple and Grayes Inn: Grayes Inne and -the Inner Temple, presented before his Maiestie, the Queenes Maiestie, -the Prince, Count Palatine and the Lady Elizabeth their Highnesses, in -the Banquetting-house at Whitehall on Saturday the twentieth day of -Februarie, 1612. _F. K. for George Norton._ [Epistle to Sir Francis -Bacon and the Benchers.] - -N.D. ... By Francis Beaumont, Gent. _F. K. for George Norton._ - -1647. [Part of F_{1}.] - -1653. Poems: by Francis Beaumont, Gent. [&c.] _for Laurence Blaiklock_. -[The Masque is included.] - -1653. Poems ... _for William Hope_. [A reissue.] - -1660. Poems. The golden remains of those so much admired dramatick -poets, Francis Beaumont & John Fletcher, Gent. [&c.] _for William -Hope_. [A reissue.] - -1679. [Part of F_{2}.] - -The texts of 1647–79 give a shorter description than the original -Q_{q}, and omit the epistle. - -_Edition_ in Nichols, _James_ (1828), ii. 591. - -For general notices of the wedding masks, see ch. xxiv and the account -of Campion’s _Lords’ Mask_; but it may be noted that the narrative -in the _Mercure François_ gives a very inaccurate description of -Beaumont’s work as left to us, introducing an Atlas and an Aletheia who -find no places in the text. - -The maskers, in carnation, were fifteen knights of Olympia; the -musicians twelve priests of Jove; the presenters Mercury and Iris. -There were two antimasks, Mercury’s of four Naiads, five Hyades, four -Cupids, and four Statues, ‘not of one kinde or liverie (because -that had been so much in use heretofore)’, and Iris’s of a ‘rurall -company’ consisting of a Pedant, a May Lord and Lady, a Servingman and -Chambermaid, a Country Clown or Shepherd and Country Wench, a Host -and Hostess, a He Baboon and She Baboon, and a He Fool and She Fool -‘ushering them in’. - -The locality was the Banqueting House at Whitehall. The Hall was -originally appointed, and on Shrove-Tuesday, 16 Feb., the mask came -by water from Winchester House in the royal barge, attended by many -gentlemen of the Inns in other barges. They landed at the Privy Stairs, -watched by the King and princes from the Privy Gallery, and were -conducted to the Vestry. But the actual mask was put off until 20 Feb., -in view of the press in the Hall, and then given in Banqueting House. -Beaumont’s description passes lightly over this _contretemps_, but -cf. _infra_. - -The ‘fabricke’ was a mountain, with separate ‘traverses’ discovering -its lower and its higher slopes. From the former issued the presenters -and antimasks, whose ‘measures’ were both encored by the King, but -unluckily ‘one of the Statuaes by that time was undressed’. The latter -bore the ‘maine masque’ in two pavilions before the altar of Jupiter. -The maskers descended, danced two measures, then took their ladies to -dance galliards, durets, corantoes, &c., then danced ‘their parting -measure’ and ascended. - -Phineas Pett, Master of the Shipwrights’ Company in 1613, relates -(_Archaeologia_, xii. 266) that he was - - ‘intreated by divers gentlemen of the inns of business, whereof - Sir Francis Bacon was chief, to attend the bringing of a mask - by water in the night from St. Mary Over’s to Whitehall in some - of the gallies; but the tide falling out very contrary and the - company attending the maskers very unruly, the project could not - be performed so exactly as was purposed and expected. But yet - they were safely landed at the plying stairs at Whitehall, for - which my paines the gentlemen gave me a fair recompence.’ - -Chamberlain (Birch, i. 227) says: - - ‘On Tuesday it came to Gray’s Inn and the Inner Temple’s turn to - come with their mask, whereof Sir Francis Bacon was the chief - contriver; and because the former came on horseback and in open - chariots, they made choice to come by water from Winchester - Place, in Southwark, which suited well with their device, which - was the marriage of the river of Thames to the Rhine; and their - show by water was very gallant, by reason of infinite store - of lights, very curiously set and placed, and many boats and - barges, with devices of light and lamps, with three peals of - ordnance, one at their taking water, another in the Temple - garden, and the last at their landing; which passage by water - cost them better than three hundred pounds. They were received - at the Privy Stairs, and great expectation there was that they - should every way excel their competitors that went before them; - both in device, daintiness of apparel, and, above all, in - dancing, wherein they are held excellent, and esteemed for the - properer men. But by what ill planet it fell out, I know not, - they came home as they went, without doing anything; the reason - whereof I cannot yet learn thoroughly, but only that the hall - was so full that it was not possible to avoid it, or make room - for them; besides that, most of the ladies were in the galleries - to see them land, and could not get in. - - But the worst of all was, that the King was so wearied and - sleepy, with sitting up almost two whole nights before, that he - had no edge to it. Whereupon, Sir Francis Bacon adventured to - entreat of his majesty that by this difference he would not, as - it were, bury them quick; and I hear the King should answer, - that then they must bury him quick, for he could last no longer, - but withal gave them very good words, and appointed them to come - again on Saturday. But the grace of their mask is quite gone, - when their apparel hath been already showed, and their devices - vented, so that how it will fall out God knows, for they are - much discouraged and out of countenance, and the world says it - comes to pass after the old proverb, the properer man the worse - luck.’ - -In a later letter (Birch, i. 229) Chamberlain concludes the story: - - ‘And our Gray’s Inn men and the Inner Templars were nothing - discouraged, for all the first dodge, but on Saturday last - performed their parts exceeding well and with great applause and - approbation, both from the King and all the company.’ - -In a third letter, to Winwood (iii, 435), he describes the adventures -of the mask more briefly, and adds the detail that the performance was - - ‘in the new bankquetting house, which for a kind of amends was - granted to them, though with much repining and contradiction of - their emulators.’ - -Chamberlain refers to the ‘new’ room of 1607, and not to that just put -up for the wedding. This was used for the banquet. Foscarini reports -(_V. P._ xii. 532) that: - - ‘After the ballet was over their Majesties and their Highnesses - passed into a great Hall especially built for the purpose, where - were long tables laden with comfits and thousands of mottoes. - After the King had made the round of the tables, everything was - in a moment rapaciously swept away.’ - -The records of the Inns throw light on the finance and organization -of the mask. From those of the Inner Temple (Inderwick, ii. 72, 76, -81, 92, 99) we learn that the Inn’s share of the cost was ‘not so -little as 1200^{li}’, that there were payments to Lewis Hele, Nicholas -Polhill, and Fenner, and for ‘scarlet for the marshal of the mask’, -that there was a rehearsal for the benchers at Ely House, and that -funds were raised up to 1616 by assessments of £2 and £1 and by -assigning the revenue derived from admission fees to chambers. Those -of Gray’s Inn (Fletcher, 201–8) contain an order for such things to -be bought ‘as M^r. Solicitor [Bacon] shall thinke fitt’. One Will -Gerrard was appointed Treasurer, and an assessment of from £1 to £4 -according to status was to be made for a sum equal to that raised by -the Inner Temple. There was evidently some difficulty in liquidating -the bills. In May 1613 an order was made ‘that the gent. late actors in -the maske at the court shall bring in all ther masking apparrel w^{ch} -they had of the howse charge ... or else the value therof’. In June a -further order was drafted and then stayed, calling attention to the -‘sad contempts’ of those affected by the former, ‘albeit none of them -did contribute anything to the charge’. Each suit had cost 100 marks. -The offenders were to be discommonsed. In November and again in the -following February it was found necessary to appropriate admission fees -towards the debt. - - -RICHARD BERNARD (1568–1641). - -The translator was born at Epworth, Lincolnshire, took his M.A. from -Christ’s, Cambridge, in 1598, and became incumbent successively of -Worksop, Notts., and Batcombe, Somerset. - - _Terence in English > 1598_ - -1598. Terence in English. Fabulae comici facetissimi et elegantissimi -poetae Terentii omnes Anglice factae primumque hac nova forma nunc -editae: opera ac industria R. B. in Axholmiensi insula Lincolnsherii -Epwortheatis. _John Legat, Cambridge._ [Epistle to Christopher and -other sons of Sir W. Wray and nephews of Lady Bowes and Lady St. Paul, -signed by ‘Richard Bernard’, and dated from Epworth, 30 May; Epistle to -Reader. Includes _Adelphi_, _Andria_, _Eunuchus_, _Heautontimorumenus_, -_Hecyra_, _Phormio_.] - -1607.... Secunda editio multo emendatior ... _John Legat_. - -1614, 1629, 1641. - - -WILLIAM BIRD (> 1597–1619 <). - -One of the Admiral’s men (cf. ch. xiii), who collaborated with S. -Rowley (q.v.) in _Judas_ (1601) and in additions to _Dr. Faustus_ in -1602. - - -RICHARD BOWER (?-1561). - -On his Mastership of the Chapel, cf. ch. xii. He has been supposed to -be the R. B. who wrote _Apius and Virginia_, and his hand has also been -sought in the anonymous _Clyomon and Clamydes_ and _Common Conditions_. - - -SAMUEL BRANDON (?-?). - -Beyond his play, nothing is known of him. - - _The Virtuous Octavia. 1594 < > 8_ - -_S. R._ 1598, Oct. 5. ‘A booke, intituled, The Tragicomoedye of the -vertuous Octavia, donne by Samuell Brandon.’ _Ponsonby_ (Arber, iii. -127). - -1598. The Tragicomoedi of the vertuous Octauia. Done by Samuel Brandon. -_For William Ponsonby._ [Verses to Lady Lucia Audelay; _All’autore_, -signed ‘Mia’; _Prosopopeia al libro_, signed ‘S. B.’; Argument. After -text, Epistle to Mary Thinne, signed ‘S. B.’; Argument; verse epistles -_Octavia to Antonius_ and _Antonius to Octavia_.’] - -_Editions_ by R. B. McKerrow (1909, _M. S. R._) and J. S. Farmer (1912, -_S. F. T._). - -This is in the manner of Daniel’s _Cleopatra_ (1594), and probably a -closet drama. - - -NICHOLAS BRETON (_c._ 1545–_c._ 1626). - -A poet and pamphleteer, who possibly contributed to the Elvetham -entertainment (cf. ch. xxiv, C) in 1591. - - -ANTHONY BREWER (_c._ 1607). - -Nothing is known of Brewer beyond his play, unless, as is possible, he -is the ‘Anth. Brew’ who was acting _c._ 1624 at the Cockpit (cf. F. S. -Boas, _A Seventeenth Century Theatrical Repertoire_ in _3 Library_ for -July 1917). - - _The Lovesick King. c. 1607_ - -_S. R._ 1655, June 20. ‘A booke called The Lovesick King, an English -tragicall history with the life & death of Cartis Mundy the faire Nunne -of Winchester. Written by Anthony Brewer, gent.’ _John Sweeting_ (Eyre, -i. 486). - -1655. The Lovesick King, An English Tragical History: With The Life -and Death of Cartesmunda, the fair Nun of Winchester. Written by Anth. -Brewer, Gent. _For Robert Pollard, and John Sweeting._ - -1680. The Perjured Nun. - -_Editions_ by W. R. Chetwood (1750, _S. C._) and A. E. H. Swaen (1907, -_Materialien_, xviii).--_Dissertation_: A. E. H. Swaen, _The Date of -B.’s L. K._ (1908, _M. L. R._ iv. 87). - -There are small bits of evidence, in the use of Danish names from -_Hamlet_ and other Elizabethan plays, and in a jest on ‘Mondays vein to -poetize’ (l. 548), to suggest a date of composition long before that of -publication, but a borrowing from _The Knight of the Burning Pestle_ -makes it improbable that this can be earlier than 1607. The amount -of Newcastle local colour and a special mention of ‘those Players of -Interludes that dwels at _Newcastle_’ (l. 534) led Fleay, i. 34, to -conjecture that it was acted in that town. - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -Anthony Brewer has been confused with Thomas Brewer, or perhaps with -more than one writer of that name, who wrote various works of popular -literature, and to whom yet others bearing only the initials T. B. are -credited, between 1608 and 1656. Thus _The Country Girl_, printed as -by T. B. in 1647, is ascribed in Kirkman’s play-lists of 1661 and 1671 -to Antony Brewer, but in Archer’s list of 1656 to Thomas. Oliphant -(_M. P._ viii. 422) points out that the scene is in part at Edmonton, -and thinks it a revision by Massinger of an early work by Thomas, who -published a pamphlet entitled _The Life and Death of the Merry Devil of -Edmonton_ in 1608. - - -ARTHUR BROOKE (_ob._ 1563). - -In 1562 he was admitted to the Inner Temple without fee ‘in -consideration of certain plays and shows at Christmas last set forth by -him’ (Inderwick, _Inner Temple Records_, i. 219). Possibly he refers -to one of these plays when he says in the epistle to his _Romeus and -Juliet_ (1562), ‘I saw the same argument lately set foorth on stage -with more commendation then I can looke for: (being there much better -set forth then I have or can dooe)’; but if so, he clearly was not -himself the author. - - -SAMUEL BROOKE (_c._ 1574–1631). - -Brooke was of a York family, and, like his brother Christopher, the -poet, a friend of John Donne, whose marriage he earned a prison by -celebrating in 1601. He entered Trinity, Cambridge, _c._ 1592, took -his B.A. in 1595 and his M.A. in 1598. He became chaplain to Prince -Henry, and subsequently Gresham Professor of Divinity and chaplain -successively to James and Charles. In 1629 he became Master of Trinity, -and in 1631, just before his death, Archdeacon of Coventry. - - _Adelphe. 27 Feb. 1613_ - -[_MSS._] _T. C. C. MS._ R. 3. 9. ‘Comoedia in Collegii Trin. aula bis -publice acta. Authore D^{no} D^{re} Brooke, Coll. Trin.’; _T. C. C. -MS._ R. 10. 4, with prologue dated 1662. - -The play was produced on 27 Feb. 1613 and repeated on 2 March 1613 -during the visit of Charles and the Elector Frederick to Cambridge. - - _Scyros. 3 March 1613_ - -[_MSS._] _T. C. C. MS._ R. 3. 9. ‘Fabula Pastoralis acta coram Principe -Charolo et comite Palatino mensis Martii 30 A. D. 1612. Authore D^{re} -Brooke Coll. Trin.’; _T. C. C. MSS._ R. 3. 37; R. 10. 4; R. 17. 10; O. -3. 4; _Emanuel, Cambridge, MS._ iii. i. 17; _Cambridge Univ. Libr. MS._ -Ee. v. 16. - -This also was produced during the visit of Charles and Frederick to -Cambridge. As pointed out by Greg, _Pastoral_, 251, the ‘Martii 30’ of -the MSS. is an error for ‘Martii 3^o’. The play is a version of the -_Filli di Sciro_ (1607) of G. Bonarelli della Rovere. - - _Melanthe. 10 March 1615_ - -1615, March 27. Melanthe Fabula pastoralis acta cum Jacobus, Magnae -Brit. Franc. & Hiberniae Rex, Cantabrigiam suam nuper inviseret, -ibidemque Musarum atque eius animi gratia dies quinque commoraretur. -Egerunt Alumni Coll. San. et Individuae Trinitatis. Cantabrigiae. -_Cantrellus Legge._ - -The ascription to Brooke is due to the _Dering MS._ (_Gent. Mag._ -1756, p. 223). Chamberlain (Birch, i. 304) says that the play was -‘excellently well written, and as well acted’. - - -WILLIAM BROWNE (1591–1643?). - -Browne was born at Tavistock, educated at the Grammar School there and -at Exeter College, Oxford, and entered the Inner Temple from Clifford’s -Inn in Nov. 1611. He is known as a poet, especially by _Britannia’s -Pastorals_ (1613, 1616), but beyond his mask has no connexion with the -stage. In later life he was of the household of the Herberts at Wilton. - - _Ulysses and Circe. 13 Jan. 1615_ - -[_MSS._] (_a_) Emmanuel College, Cambridge, with title, ‘The Inner -Temple Masque. Presented by the gentlemen there. Jan. 13, 1614.’ -[Epistle to Inner Temple, signed ‘W. Browne’.] - -(_b_) Collection of H. Chandos Pole-Gell, Hopton Hall, Wirksworth (in -1894). - -_Editions_ with Browne’s _Works_ by T. Davies (1772), W. C. Hazlitt -(1868), and G. Goodwin (1894). - -The maskers, in green and white, were Knights; the first antimaskers, -with an ‘antic measure’, two Actaeons, two Midases, two Lycaons, two -Baboons, and Grillus; the second antimaskers, ‘to a softer tune’, four -Maids of Circe and three Nereids; the musicians Sirens, Echoes, a -Woodman, and others; the presenters Triton, Circe, and Ulysses. - -The locality was the hall of the Inner Temple. Towards the lower end -was discovered a sea-cliff. The drawing of a traverse discovered a -wood, in which later two gates flew open, disclosing the maskers asleep -in an arbour at the end of a glade. Awaked by a charm, they danced -their first and second measures, took out ladies for ‘the old measures, -galliards, corantoes, the brawls, etc.’, and danced their last measure. - -The Inner Temple records (Inderwick, ii. 99) mention an order of 21 -April 1616 for recompense to the chief cook on account of damage to -his room in the cloister when it and its chimney were broken down at -Christmas twelvemonth ‘by such as climbed up at the windows of the hall -to see the mask’. - - -SIR GEORGE BUCK (_ob._ 1623). - -He was Master of the Revels (cf. ch. iii). For a very doubtful -ascription to him, on manuscript authority alleged by Collier, of the -dumb-shows to _Locrine_, cf. ch. xxiv. - - -JAMES CALFHILL (1530?-1570). - -Calfhill was an Eton and King’s College, Cambridge, man, who migrated -to Oxford and became Student of Christ Church in 1548 and Canon in -1560. He was in Orders and was Rector of West Horsley when Elizabeth -was there in 1559. After various preferments, he was nominated Bishop -of Worcester in 1570, but died before consecration. - -On 6 July 1564 Walter Haddon wrote to Abp. Parker (_Parker -Correspondence_, 218) deprecating the tone of a sermon by Calfhill -before the Queen, and said ‘Nunquam in illo loco quisquam minus -satisfecit, quod maiorem ex eo dolorem omnibus attulit, quoniam admodum -est illis artibus instructus quas illius theatri celebritas postulat’. -No play by Calfhill is extant, but his Latin tragedy of _Progne_ was -given before Elizabeth at Christ Church on 5 Sept. 1566 (cf. ch. iv), -and appears from Bereblock’s synopsis to have been based on an earlier -Latin _Progne_ (1558) by Gregorio Corraro. - - -THOMAS CAMPION (1567–1620). - -Thomas, son of John Campion, a Chancery clerk of Herts. extraction, -was born on 12 Feb. 1567, educated at Peterhouse, Cambridge, where he -took no degree, and admitted on 27 April 1586 to Gray’s Inn, where -he took part as Hidaspis and Melancholy in the comedy of 16 Jan. -1588 (cf. ch. vii). He left the law, and probably served in Essex’s -expedition of 1591 to France. He first appeared as a poet, anonymously, -in the appendix to Sidney’s _Astrophel and Stella_ (1591), and has -left several books of songs written as airs for music, often of -his own composition, as well as a collection of Latin epigrams and -_Observations in the Art of English Poesie_ (1602). I do not know -whether he can be the ‘Campnies’ who performed at the Gray’s Inn mask -of Shrovetide 1595 at Court (cf. s.v. _Gesta Grayorum_), but one of the -two hymns in that mask, _A Hymn in Praise of Neptune_ is assigned to -him by Francis Davison, _Poetical Rhapsody_ (1602), sig. K 8, and it is -possible that the second hymn, beginning ‘Shadows before the shining -sun do vanish’, which Davison does not himself appear to claim, may -also be his. By 1607 he had taken the degree of M.D., probably abroad, -and he practised as a physician. Through Sir Thomas Monson he was -entangled, although in no very blameworthy capacity, in the Somerset -scandals of 1613–15. On 1 March 1620 he died, probably of the plague, -naming as his legatee Philip Rosseter, with whom he had written _A -Booke of Airs_ in 1601. - -Campion is not traceable as a writer for the stage, although his -connexion with Monson and Rosseter would have made it not surprising -to find him concerned with the Queen’s Revels syndicate of 1610. But -his contribution to the _Gesta Grayorum_ foreshadowed his place, -second only to Jonson’s, who wrote a _Discourse of Poesie_ (Laing, -1), now lost, against him, in the mask-poetry of the Jacobean period. -In addition to his acknowledged masks he may also be responsible for -part or all of the Gray’s Inn _Mountebanks Mask_ of 1618, printed by -Nichols, _Eliz._ iii. 320, as a second part of the _Gesta Grayorum_, -and by Bullen, _Marston_, iii. 417, although the ascription to Marston -is extremely improbable. - - _Collections_ - -1828. J. Nichols. _Progresses [&c.] of James the First_, ii. 105, 554, -630, 707. [The four masks.] - -1889. A. H. Bullen, _Works of T. C._ [English and Latin.] - -1903. A. H. Bullen, _Works of T. C._ [English only.] - -1907. P. Vivian, _Poetical Works (in English) of T. C._ (_Muses’ -Library_). - -1909. P. Vivian, _C.’s Works_. - -_Dissertation._--T. MacDonagh, _T. C. and the Art of English Poetry_ -(1913). - - _Lord Hay’s Mask. 6 Jan. 1607_ - -_S. R._ 1607, Jan. 26 (Gwyn). ‘A booke called the discription of A -maske presented before the Kings maiestie at Whitehall on Twelf-night -last in honour of the Lord Haies and his bryde Daughter and heire to -the right honorable the Lord Denny, their mariage havinge ben at Court -the same day solemnised.’ _John Browne_ (Arber, iii. 337). - -1607. The discription of a Maske, Presented before the Kinges Maiestie -at White-Hall, on Twelfth Night last, in honour of the Lord Hayes, -and his Bride, Daughter and Heire to the Honourable the Lord Dennye, -their Marriage hauing been the same Day at Court solemnized. To this -by occasion other small Poems are adioyned. Inuented and set forth by -Thomas Campion Doctor of Phisicke. _John Windet for John Browne._ -[Engraving of the maskers’ habit; Verses to James, Lord De Walden and -Lord and Lady Hay.] - -The maskers, in carnation and silver, concealed at first in a ‘false -habit’ of green leaves and silver, were nine Knights of Apollo; the -torchbearers the nine Hours of Night; the presenters Flora, Zephyrus, -Night, and Hesperus; the musicians Sylvans, who, as the mask was -predominantly musical, were aided by consorts of instruments and voices -above the scene and on either side of the hall. - -The locality was the ‘great hall’ at Whitehall. At the upper end were -the cloth and chair of state, with ‘scaffolds and seats on either side -continued to the screen’. Eighteen feet from the screen was a stage, -which stood three feet higher than the ‘dancing-place’ in front of -it, and was enclosed by a ‘double veil’ or vertically divided curtain -representing clouds. The Bower of Flora stood on the right and the -House of Night on the left at the ends of the screen, and between them -a grove, behind which, under the window, rose hills with a Tree of -Diana. In the grove were nine golden trees which performed the first -dance, and then, at the touch of Night’s wand, were drawn down by an -engine under the stage, and cleft to reveal the maskers. After two -more ‘new’ dances, they took out the ladies for ‘measures’. Then they -danced ‘their lighter dances as corantoes, levaltas and galliards’; -then a fourth ‘new’ dance; and then ‘putting off their vizards and -helmets, made a low honour to the King, and attended his Majesty to the -banqueting place’. - -The mask was given, presumably by friends of the bridegroom, in honour -of the wedding of James Lord Hay and Honora, daughter of Lord Denny. -The maskers were Lord Walden, Sir Thomas Howard, Sir Henry Carey, Sir -Richard Preston, Sir John Ashley, Sir Thomas Jarret, Sir John Digby, -Sir Thomas Badger, and Mr. Goringe. One air for a song and one for a -song and dance were made by Campion, two for dances by Mr. Lupo, and -one for a dance by Mr. Thomas Giles. - -Few contemporary references to the mask exist. It is probably that -described in a letter, which I have not seen, from Lady Pembroke to -Lord Shrewsbury, calendared among other _Talbot MSS._ of 1607 in Lodge, -App. 121. No ambassadors were invited--‘_Dieu merci_’--says the French -ambassador, and Anne, declaring herself ill, stayed away (La Boderie, -ii. 12, 30). Expenditure on preparing the hall appears in the accounts -of the Treasurer of the Chamber and the Office of Works (Reyher, 520). - - _The Lords’ Mask. 14 Feb. 1613_ - -1613. _For John Budge._ [Annexed to _Caversham Entertainment_ (q.v.).] - -This was for the wedding of Elizabeth. The men maskers, in cloth of -silver, were eight transformed Stars, the women, also in silver, -eight transformed Statues; the torchbearers sixteen Fiery Spirits; the -antimaskers six men and six women Frantics; the presenters Orpheus, -Mania, Entheus, Prometheus, and Sibylla. - -The locality was the Banqueting House at Whitehall. The lower part of -the scene, when discovered, represented a wood, with the thicket of -Orpheus on the right and the cave of Mania on the left. After the ‘mad -measure’ of the antimask, the upper part of the scene was discovered -‘by the fall of a curtain’. Here, amidst clouds, were eight Stars which -danced, vanishing to give place to the eight men maskers in the House -of Prometheus. The torchbearers emerged below, and danced. The maskers -descended on a cloud, behind which the lower part of the scene was -turned to a façade with four Statues in niches. These and then a second -four were transformed to women. Then the maskers gave their ‘first new -entering dance’ and their second dance, and took out the bridal pair -and others, ‘men women, and women men’. The scene again changed to a -prospective of porticoes leading to Sibylla’s trophy, an obelisk of -Fame. A ‘song and dance triumphant’ followed, and finally the maskers’ -‘last new dance’ concluded all ‘at their going out’. - -This was a mask of lords and ladies, at the cost of the Exchequer. -The only names on record are those of the Earls of Montgomery and -Salisbury, Lord Hay, and Ann Dudley (_vide infra_). Campion notes -the ‘extraordinary industry and skill’ of Inigo Jones in ‘the whole -invention’, and particularly his ‘neat artifice’ in contriving the -‘motion’ of the Stars. - -The wedding masks were naturally of special interest to the Court -gossips. Chamberlain wrote to Winwood (iii. 421) on 9 Jan.: ‘It is -said the Lords and Ladyes about the court have appointed a maske upon -their own charge; but I hear there is order given for £1500 to provide -one upon the King’s cost, and a £1000 for fireworks. The Inns of Court -are likewise dealt with for two masks against that time, and mean to -furnish themselves for the service.’ On 29 Jan. he added (iii. 429), -‘Great preparations here are of braverie, masks and fireworks against -the marriage.’ On 14 Jan. one G. F. Biondi informed Carleton (_S. P. -D. Jac. I_, lxxii. 12) that the Earls of Montgomery and Salisbury and -Lord Hay were practising for the wedding mask. On 20 Jan. Sir Charles -Montagu wrote to Sir Edward Montagu (_H. M. C. Buccleugh MSS._ i. 239): -‘Here is not any news stirring, only much preparations at this wedding -for masks, whereof shall be three, one of eight lords and eight ladies, -whereof my cousin Ann Dudley one, and two from the Inner Courts, who -they say will lay it on.’ - -The Lords’ mask is certainly less prominent than those of the Inns of -Court (_vide sub_ Beaumont and Chapman) in the actual descriptions -of the wedding. All three are recorded in Stowe, _Annales_, 916, in -_Wilbraham’s Journal_ (_Camden Misc._ x), 110, in reports of the -Venetian ambassador (_V. P._ xii. 499, 532), and in the contemporary -printed accounts of the whole ceremonies (cf. ch. xxiv). These do not -add much to the printed descriptions of the mask-writers, on which, -indeed, they are largely based. The fullest unofficial account was -given by Chamberlain to Alice and Dudley Carleton in three letters -(Birch, i. 224, 229; _S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxii. 30, 31, 48). On 18 Feb. -he wrote: ‘That night [of the wedding] was the Lords’ mask, whereof I -hear no great commendation, save only for riches, their devices being -long and tedious, and more like a play than a mask.’ This criticism he -repeated in a letter to Winwood (iii. 435). To Alice Carleton he added, -after describing the bravery of the Inns of Court: ‘All this time -there was a course taken, and so notified, that no lady or gentlewoman -should be admitted to any of these sights with a vardingale, which was -to gain the more room, and I hope may serve to make them quite left -off in time. And yet there were more scaffolds, and more provision -made for room than ever I saw, both in the hall and banqueting room, -besides a new room built to dine and dance in.’ On 25 February, when -all was over, he reported: ‘Our revels and triumphs within doors -gave great contentment, being both dainty and curious in devices and -sumptuous in show, specially the inns of court, whose two masks stood -them in better than £4000, besides the gallantry and expense of private -gentlemen that were but _ante ambul[at]ores_ and went only to accompany -them.... The next night [21 Feb.] the King invited the maskers, with -their assistants, to the number of forty, to a solemn supper in the -new marriage room, where they were well treated and much graced -with kissing her majesty’s hand, and every one having a particular -_accoglienza_ from him. The King husbanded this matter so well that -this feast was not at his own cost, but he and his company won it upon -a wager of running at the ring, of the prince and his nine followers, -who paid £30 a man. The King, queen, prince, Palatine and Lady -Elizabeth sat at table by themselves, and the great lords and ladies, -with the maskers, above four score in all, sat at another long table, -so that there was no room for them that made the feast, but they were -fain to be lookers on, which the young Lady Rich took no great pleasure -in, to see her husband, who was one that paid, not so much as drink for -his money. The ambassadors that were at this wedding and shows were the -French, Venetian, Count Henry [of Nassau] and Caron for the States. -The Spaniard was or would be sick, and the archduke’s ambassador being -invited for the second day, made a sullen excuse; and those that were -present were not altogether so well pleased but that I hear every one -had some punctilio of disgust.’ John Finett, in a letter of 22 Feb. to -Carleton (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxii. 32), says the mask of the Lords -was ‘rich and ingenious’ and those of the Inns ‘much commended’. His -letter is largely taken up with the ambassadorial troubles to which -Chamberlain refers. Later he dealt with these in _Philoxenis_ (1656), -1 (cf. Sullivan, 79). The chief marfeast was the archiducal ambassador -Boiscot, who resented an invitation to the second or third day, while -in the diplomatic absence through sickness of the Spaniard the Venetian -ambassador was asked with the French for the first day. Finett was -charged with various plausible explanations. James did not think it -his business to decide questions of precedence. It was customary to -group Venice and France. The Venetian had brought an extraordinary -message of congratulation from his State, and had put his retinue into -royal liveries at great expense. The wedding was a continuing feast, -and all its days equally glorious. In fact, whether at Christmas or -Shrovetide, the last day was in some ways the most honourable, and it -had originally been planned to have the Lords’ mask on Shrove-Tuesday. -But Boiscot could not be persuaded to accept his invitation. The -ambassadors who did attend were troublesome, at supper, rather than at -the mask. The French ambassador ‘made an offer to precede the prince’. -His wife nearly left because she was placed below, instead of above, -the Viscountesses. The Venetian claimed a chair instead of a stool, -and a place above the carver, but in vain. His rebuff did not prevent -him from speaking well of the Lords’ mask, which he called ‘very -beautiful’, specially noting the three changes of scene. - -Several financial documents relating to the mask are preserved (Reyher, -508, 522; Devon, 158, 164; Collier, i. 364; Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 43; -_Archaeologia_, xxvi. 380). In _Abstract_ 14 the charges are given as -£400, but the total charges must have been much higher. Chamberlain -(_vide supra_) spoke of £1,500 as assigned to them. A list of personal -fees, paid through Meredith Morgan, alone (Reyher, 509) amounts to £411 -6_s._ 8_d._ Campion had £66 13_s._ 4_d._, Jones £50, the dancers Jerome -Herne, Bochan, Thomas Giles and Confess £30 or £40 each, the musicians -John Cooper, Robert Johnson, and Thomas Lupo £10 or £20 each. One -Steven Thomas had £15, ‘he that played to y^e boyes’ £6 13_s._ 4_d._, -and ‘2 that played to y^e Antick Maske’ £11; while fees of £1 each went -to 42 musicians, 12 mad folks, 5 speakers, 10 of the King’s violins and -3 grooms of the chamber. The supervision of ‘emptions and provisions’ -was entrusted to the Lord Chamberlain and the Master of the Horse. - - _The Caversham Entertainment. 27–8 April 1613_ - -1613. A Relation of the late royall Entertainment giuen by the Right -Honorable the Lord Knowles, at Cawsome-House neere Redding: to our -most Gracious Queene, Queene Anne, in her Progresse toward the Bathe, -vpon the seuen and eight and twentie dayes of Aprill. 1613. Whereunto -is annexed the Description, Speeches and Songs of the Lords Maske, -presented in the Banquetting-house on the Marriage night of the High -and Mightie, Count Palatine, and the Royally descended the Ladie -Elizabeth. Written by Thomas Campion. _For John Budge._ - -On arrival were speeches, a song, and a dance by a Cynic, a Traveller, -two Keepers, and two Robin Hood men at the park gate; then speeches in -the lower garden by a Gardener, and a song by his man and boy; then a -concealed song in the upper garden. - -After supper was a mask in the hall by eight ‘noble and princely -personages’ in green with vizards, accompanied by eight pages as -torchbearers, and presented by the Cynic, Traveller, Gardener, and -their ‘crew’, and Sylvanus. The maskers gave a ‘new dance’; then took -out the ladies, among whom Anne ‘vouchsafed to make herself the head -of their revels, and graciously to adorn the place with her personal -dancing’; ‘much of the night being thus spent with variety of dances, -the masquers made a conclusion with a second new dance’. - -On departure were a speech and song by the Gardeners, and presents of a -bag of linen, apron, and mantle by three country maids. - -Chamberlain wrote of this entertainment to Winwood (iii. 454) on 6 May, -‘The King brought her on her way to Hampton Court; her next move was -to Windsor, then to Causham, a house of the Lord Knolles not far from -Reading, where she was entertained with Revells, and a gallant mask -performed by the Lord Chamberlain’s four sons, the Earl of Dorset, the -Lord North, Sir Henry Rich, and Sir Henry Carie, and at her parting -presented with a dainty coverled or quilt, a rich carrquenet, and a -curious cabinet, to the value in all of 1500^l.’ He seems to have sent -a similar account in an unprinted letter of 29 April to Carleton (_S. -P. D. Jac. I_, lxxii. 120). The four sons of Lord Chamberlain Suffolk -who appear in other masks are Theophilus Lord Walden, Sir Thomas, Sir -Henry, and Sir Charles Howard. - - _Lord Somerset’s Mask [Squires]. 26 Dec. 1613_ - -1614. The Description of a Maske: Presented in the Banqueting roome at -Whitehall, on Saint Stephens night last, At the Mariage of the Right -Honourable the Earle of Somerset: And the right noble the Lady Frances -Howard. Written by Thomas Campion. Whereunto are annexed diuers choyse -Ayres composed for this Maske that may be sung with a single voyce to -the Lute or Base-Viall. _E. A. for Laurence Lisle._ - -The maskers were twelve Disenchanted Knights; the first antimaskers -four Enchanters and Enchantresses, four Winds, four Elements, and four -Parts of the Earth; the second antimaskers twelve Skippers in red and -white; the presenters four Squires and three Destinies; the musicians -Eternity, Harmony, and a chorus of nine. - -The locality was the banqueting room at Whitehall, of which the upper -part, ‘where the state is placed’, and the sides were ‘theatred’ with -pillars and scaffolds. At the lower end was a triumphal arch, ‘which -enclosed the whole works’ and behind it the scene, from which a curtain -was drawn. Above was a clouded sky; beneath a sea bounded by two -promontories bearing pillars of gold, and in front ‘a pair of stairs -made exceeding curiously in form of a scallop shell’, between two -gardens with seats for the maskers. After the first antimask, danced -‘in a strange kind of confusion’, the Destinies brought the Queen a -golden tree, whence she plucked a bough to disenchant the Knights, -who then appeared, six from a cloud, six from the golden pillars. -The scene changed, and ‘London with the Thames is very artificially -presented’. The maskers gave the first and second dance, and then -danced with the ladies, ‘wherein spending as much time as they held -fitting, they returned to the seats provided for them’. Barges then -brought the second antimask. After the maskers’ last dance, the Squires -complimented the royalties and bridal pair. - -This was a wedding mask, by lords and gentlemen. The maskers were -the Duke of Lennox, the Earls of Pembroke, Dorset, Salisbury, and -Montgomery, the Lords Walden, Scroope, North, and Hay, Sir Thomas, Sir -Henry, and Sir Charles Howard. The ‘workmanship’ was undertaken by ‘M. -Constantine’ [Servi], ‘but he being too much of himself, and no way to -be drawn to impart his intentions, failed so far in the assurance he -gave that the main invention, even at the last cast, was of force drawn -into a far narrower compass than was from the beginning intended’. One -song was by Nicholas Lanier; three were by [Giovanni] Coprario and -were sung by John Allen and Lanier. G. F. Biondi informed Carleton -on 24 Nov. (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxv. 25) of the ‘costly ballets’ -preparing for Somerset’s wedding. On 25 Nov. Chamberlain wrote to -Carleton (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxv. 28; Birch, i. 278): ‘All the talk -is now of masking and feasting at these towardly marriages, whereof -the one is appointed on St. Stephen’s day, in Christmas, the other for -Twelfthtide. The King bears the charge of the first, all saving the -apparel, and no doubt the queen will do as much on her side, which must -be a mask of maids, if they may be found.... The maskers, besides the -lord chamberlain’s four sons, are named to be the Earls of Rutland, -Pembroke, Montgomery, Dorset, Salisbury, the Lords Chandos, North, -Compton, and Hay; Edward Sackville, that killed the Lord Bruce, was in -the list, but was put out again; and I marvel he would offer himself, -knowing how little gracious he is, and that he hath been assaulted once -or twice since his return.’ The Queen’s entertainment, which did not -prove to be a mask, was Daniel’s _Hymen’s Triumph_. The actual list of -performers in the mask of 26 Dec. was somewhat differently made up. On -18 Nov. Lord Suffolk had sent invitations through Sir Thomas Lake to -the Earl of Rutland and Lord Willoughby d’Eresby (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, -lxxv. 15; Reyher, 505), but apparently neither accepted. He also wrote -to Lake on 8 Dec. (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxv. 37) hoping that Sackville -might be allowed to take part, not in the mask, but in the tilt (as -in fact he did), at his cousin’s wedding. On 30 Dec. Chamberlain sent -Alice Carleton an accurate list of the actual maskers (_S. P. D. Jac. -I_, lxxv. 53; Birch, i. 285), with the comment, ‘I hear little or no -commendation of the mask made by the lords that night, either for -device or dancing, only it was rich and costly’. The ‘great bravery’ -and masks at the wedding are briefly recorded by Gawdy, 175, and a -list of the festivities is given by Howes in Stowe, _Annales_ (1615), -928. He records five in all: ‘A gallant maske of Lords’ [Campion’s] on -26 Dec., the wedding night, ‘a maske of the princes gentlemen’ on 29 -Dec. and 3 Jan. [Jonson’s _Irish Mask_], ‘2 seuerall pleasant maskes’ -at Merchant Taylors on 4 Jan. [including Middleton’s lost _Mask of -Cupid_], and a Gray’s Inn mask on 6 Jan. [_Flowers_]. - -The ambassadorial complications of the year are described by Finett, -12 (cf. Sullivan, 84). Spain had been in the background at the -royal wedding of the previous year, and as there was a new Spanish -ambassador (Sarmiento) this was made an excuse for asking him with -the archiducal ambassador on 26 Dec. and the French and Venetian -ambassadors on 6 Jan. By way of compensation these were also asked to -the Roxburghe-Drummond wedding on 2 Feb. They received purely formal -invitations to the Somerset wedding, and returned excuses for staying -away. The agents of Florence and Savoy were asked, and when they raised -the question of precedence were told that they were not ambassadors and -might scramble for places. - -I am not quite clear whether the costs of this mask, as well as of -Jonson’s _Irish Mask_, fell on the Exchequer. Chamberlain’s notice of -25 Nov. (_vide supra_) is not conclusive. Reyher, 523, assigns most -of the financial documents to the _Irish Mask_, but an account of the -Works for an arch and pilasters to the Lords’ mask; and the payment to -Meredith Morgan in Sept. 1614 (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxvii. 92), which he -does not cite, appears from the Calendar to be for more than one mask. -The _Irish Mask_ needed no costly scenery. - -J[ohn] B[ruce], (_Camden Misc._ v), describes a late eighteenth or -early nineteenth century forgery, of unknown origin, purporting to -describe one of the masks at the Somerset wedding and other events. The -details used belong partly to 1613–14 and partly to 1614–15. - - -ELIZABETH, LADY CARY (1586–1639). - - _Mariam. 1602 < > 5._ - -I have omitted a notice of this closet play, printed in 1613, by a -slip, and can only add to the edition (_M. S. C._) of 1914 that Lady -Cary was married in 1602 (Chamberlain, 199), not 1600. She wrote an -earlier play on a Syracusan theme. - - -SIR ROBERT CECIL, EARL OF SALISBURY (1563–1612). - -But few details of the numerous royal entertainments given by Sir -William Cecil, Lord Burghley, and his sons Sir Thomas Cecil, Lord -Burghley and afterwards Earl of Exeter, and Sir Robert Cecil, Earl of -Salisbury, are upon record. It is, on the whole, convenient to note -here, rather than in ch. xxiv, those which have a literary element. -Robert Cecil contributed to that of 1594, and possibly to others. - - i. _Theobalds Entertainment of 1571 (William Lord Burghley)._ - -Elizabeth was presented with verses and a picture of the newly-finished -house on 21 Sept. 1571 (Haynes-Murdin, ii. 772). - - ii. _Theobalds Entertainment of 1591 (William Lord Burghley)._ - -Elizabeth came for 10–20 May 1591, and knighted Robert Cecil. - -(_a_) Strype, _Annals_, iv. 108, and Nichols, _Eliz._ iii. 75, print -a mock charter, dated 10 May 1591, and addressed by Lord Chancellor -Hatton, in the Queen’s name, ‘To the disconsolate and retired spryte, -the Heremite of Tybole’, in which he is called upon to return to the -world. - -(_b_) Collier, i. 276, followed by Bullen, _Peele_, ii. 305, prints -from a MS. in the collection of Frederic Ouvry a Hermit’s speech, -subscribed with the initials G. P. and said by Collier to be in Peele’s -hand. This is a petition to the Queen for a writ to cause the founder -of the hermit’s cell to restore it. This founder has himself occupied -it for two years and a few months since the death of his wife, and has -obliged the hermit to govern his house. Numerous personal allusions -make it clear that the ‘founder’ is Burghley, and as Lady Burghley died -4 April 1589, the date should be in 1591. - -(_c_) Bullen, _Peele_, ii. 309, following Dyce, prints two speeches by -a Gardener and a Mole Catcher, communicated by Collier to Dyce from -another MS. The ascription to Peele is conjectural, and R. W. Bond, -_Lyly_, i. 417, claims them, also by conjecture, for Lyly. However this -may be, they are addressed to the Queen, who has reigned thirty-three -years, and introduce the gift of a jewel in a box. Elizabeth had not -reigned full thirty-three years in May 1591, but perhaps near enough. -That Theobalds was the locality is indicated by a reference to Pymms -at Edmonton, a Cecil property 6 miles from Theobalds, as occupied -by ‘the youngest son of this honourable old man’. One is bound to -mistrust manuscripts communicated by Collier, but there is evidence -that Burghley retired to ‘Colling’s Lodge’ near Theobalds in grief at -his wife’s death in 1589, and also that in 1591, when he failed to -establish Robert Cecil as Secretary, he made a diplomatic pretence of -giving up public life (Hume, _The Great Lord Burghley_, 439, 446). - - iii. _Theobalds Entertainment of 1594 (William Lord Burghley)_. - -The Hermit was brought into play again when Elizabeth next visited -Theobalds, in 1594 (13–23 June). He delivered an Oration, in which he -recalled the recovery of his cell at her last coming, and expressed -a fear that ‘my young master’ might wish to use it. No doubt the -alternative was that Robert Cecil should become Secretary. The oration, -‘penned by Sir Robert Cecill’, is printed by Nichols, _Eliz._ iii. 241, -from _Bodl. Rawlinson MS. D_ 692 (_Bodl._ 13464), f. 106. - - iv. _Wimbledon Entertainment of 1599 (Thomas Lord Burghley)_. - -A visit of 27–30 July 1599 is the probable occasion for an address of -welcome, not mimetic in character, by a porter, John Joye, preserved in -_Bodl. Tanner MS._ 306, f. 266, and endorsed ‘The queenes entertainment -att Wimbledon 99’. - - v. _Cecil House Entertainment of 1602 (Sir Robert Cecil)._ - -Elizabeth dined with Cecil on 6 Dec. 1602. - -(_a_) Manningham, 99, records, ‘Sundry devises; at hir entraunce, -three women, a maid, a widdowe, and a wife, each commending their owne -states, but the Virgin preferred; an other, on attired in habit of a -Turke desyrous to see hir Majestie, but as a straunger without hope of -such grace, in regard of the retired manner of hir Lord, complained; -answere made, howe gracious hir Majestie in admitting to presence, and -howe able to discourse in anie language; whiche the Turke admired, -and, admitted, presents hir with a riche mantle.’ Chamberlain, 169, -adds, ‘You like the Lord Kepers devises so ill, that I cared not to get -Mr. Secretaries that were not much better, saving a pretty dialogue -of John Davies ’twixt a Maide, a widow, and a wife.’ _A Contention -Betwixt a Wife, a Widdow, and a Maide_ was registered on 2 Apr. 1604 -(Arber iii. 258), appeared with the initials I. D. in Francis Davison’s -_Poetical Rhapsody_ (ed. 2, 1608) and is reprinted by Grosart in the -_Poems_ of Sir John Davies (q.v.) from the ed. of 1621, where it is -ascribed to ‘Sir I. D.’. - -(_b_) Nichols, _Eliz._ iii. 76, prints from _Harl. MS._ 286, f. 248, -‘A Conference betweene a Gent. Huisher and a Poet, before the Queene, -at M^r. Secretaryes House. By John Davies.’ He assigns it to 1591, but -Cecil was not then Secretary, and it probably belongs to 1602. - -(_c_) _Hatfield MSS_. xii. 568 has verses endorsed ‘1602’ and beginning -‘Now we have present made, To Cynthya, Phebe, Flora’. - - vi. _Theobalds Entertainment of 1606 (Earl of Salisbury)._ - -See s.v. Jonson; also the mask described by Harington (ch. v). - - vii. _Theobalds Entertainment of 1607 (Earl of Salisbury)._ - -See s.v. Jonson. - - -GEORGE CHAPMAN (_c._ 1560–1634). - -Chapman was born in 1559 or 1560 near Hitchin in Hertfordshire. -Anthony Wood believed him to have been at Oxford, and possibly also at -Cambridge, but neither residence can be verified. It is conjectured -that residence at Hitchin and soldiering in the Low Countries may have -helped to fill the long period before his first appearance as a writer, -unless indeed the isolated translation _Fedele and Fortunio_ (1584) -is his, with _The Shadow of Night_ (1594). This shows him a member of -the philosophical circle of which the centre was Thomas Harriot. The -suggestion of W. Minto that he was the ‘rival poet’ of Shakespeare’s -_Sonnets_ is elaborated by Acheson, who believes that Shakespeare drew -him as Holophernes and as Thersites, and accepted by Robertson; it -would be more plausible if any relation between the Earl of Southampton -and Chapman, earlier than a stray dedication shared with many others -in 1609, could be established. By 1596, and possibly earlier, Chapman -was in Henslowe’s pay as a writer for the Admiral’s. His plays, -which proved popular, included, besides the extant _Blind Beggar of -Alexandria_ and _Humorous Day’s Mirth_, five others, of which some and -perhaps all have vanished. These were _The Isle of a Woman_, afterwards -called _The Fount of New Fashions_ (May–Oct. 1598), _The World Runs -on Wheels_, afterwards called _All Fools but the Fool_ (Jan.–July -1599), _Four Kings_ (Oct. 1598–Jan. 1599), a ‘tragedy of Bengemens -plotte’ (Oct.–Jan. 1598; cf. s.v. Jonson) and a pastoral tragedy (July -1599). His reputation both for tragedy and for comedy was established -when Meres wrote his _Palladis Tamia_ in 1598. During 1599 Chapman -disappears from Henslowe’s diary, and in 1600 or soon after began his -series of plays for the Chapel, afterwards Queen’s Revels, children. -This lasted until 1608, when his first indiscretion of _Eastward Ho!_ -(1605), in reply to which he was caricatured as Bellamont in Dekker -and Webster’s _Northward Ho!_, was followed by a second in _Byron_. -He now probably dropped his connexion with the stage, at any rate for -many years. After completing Marlowe’s _Hero and Leander_ in 1598, he -had begun his series of Homeric translations, and these Prince Henry, -to whom he had been appointed sewer in ordinary at the beginning of -James’s reign, now bade him pursue, with the promise of £300, to which -on his death-bed in 1612 he added another of a life-pension. These -James failed to redeem, and Chapman also lost his place as sewer. His -correspondence contains complaints of poverty, probably of this or a -later date, and indications of an attempt, with funds supplied by a -brother, to mend his fortunes by marriage with a widow. He found a new -patron in the Earl of Somerset, wrote one of the masks for the wedding -of the Princess Elizabeth in 1613, and went on with Homer, completing -his task in 1624. He lived until 12 May 1634, and his tomb by Inigo -Jones still stands at St. Giles-in-the-Fields. In his later years he -seems to have touched up some of his dramatic work and possibly to have -lent a hand to the younger dramatist Shirley. Jonson told Drummond in -1619 that ‘next himself, only Fletcher and Chapman could make a mask’, -and that ‘Chapman and Fletcher were loved of him’ (Laing, 4, 12), and -some of Jonson’s extant letters appear to confirm the kindly relations -which these phrases suggest. But a fragment of invective against Jonson -left by Chapman on his death-bed suggests that they did not endure for -ever. - - _Collections_ - -1873. [R. H. Shepherd.] _The Comedies and Tragedies of George Chapman._ -3 vols. (_Pearson reprints_). [Omits _Eastward Ho!_] - -1874–5. R. H. Shepherd. _The Works of George Chapman._ 3 vols. [With -Swinburne’s essay. Includes _The Second Maiden’s Tragedy_ and _Two Wise -Men and All the Rest Fools_.] - -1895. W. L. Phelps. _The Best Plays of George Chapman_ (_Mermaid -Series_). [_All Fools_, the two _Bussy_ and the two _Byron_ plays.] - -1910–14. T. M. Parrott. _The Plays and Poems of George Chapman._ 3 -vols. [Includes _Sir Giles Goosecap_, _The Ball_, _Alphonsus Emperor of -Germany_, and _Revenge for Honour_. The _Poems_ not yet issued.] - -_Dissertations_: F. Bodenstedt, _C. in seinem Verhältniss zu -Shakespeare_ (1865, _Jahrbuch_, i. 300); A. C. Swinburne, _G. C.: A -Critical Essay_ (1875); E. Koeppel, _Quellen-Studien zu den Dramen G. -C.’s, &c._ (1897, _Quellen und Forschungen_, lxxxii); B. Dobell, _Newly -discovered Documents of the Elizabethan and Jacobean Periods_ (1901, -_Ath._ i. 369, 403, 433, 465); A. Acheson, _Shakespeare and the Rival -Poet_ (1903); E. E. Stoll, _On the Dates of some of C.’s Plays_ (1905, -_M. L. N._ xx. 206); T. M. Parrott, _Notes on the Text of C.’s Plays_ -(1907, _Anglia_, xxx. 349, 501); F. L. Schoell, _Chapman as a Comic -Writer_ (1911, _Paris diss._, unprinted, but used by Parrott); J. M. -Robertson, _Shakespeare and C._ (1917). - - PLAYS - - _The Blind Beggar of Alexandria. 1596_ - -_S. R._ 1598, Aug. 15. ‘A booke intituled The blynde begger of -Alexandrya, vppon Condicon thatt yt belonge to noe other man.’ _William -Jones_ (Arber, iii. 124). - -1598. The Blinde begger of Alexandria, most pleasantly discoursing his -variable humours in disguised shapes full of conceite and pleasure. -As it hath beene sundry times publickly acted in London, by the right -honorable the Earle of Nottingham, Lord high Admirall his seruantes. By -George Chapman: Gentleman. _For William Jones._ - -The play was produced by the Admiral’s on 12 Feb. 1596; properties -were bought for a revival in May and June 1601. P. A. Daniel shows in -_Academy_ (1888), ii. 224, that five of the six passages under the head -of _Irus_ in _Edward Pudsey’s Notebook_, taken in error by R. Savage, -_Stratford upon Avon Notebooks_, i. 7 (1888) to be from an unknown play -of Shakespeare, appear with slight variants in the 1598 text. This, -which is very short, probably represents a ‘cut’ stage copy. Pudsey is -traceable as an actor (cf. ch. xv) in 1626. - - _An Humorous Day’s Mirth. 1597_ - -1599. A pleasant Comedy entituled: An Numerous dayes Myrth. As it hath -beene sundrie times publikely acted by the right honourable the Earle -of Nottingham Lord high Admirall his seruants. By G. C. _Valentine -Syms_. - -The 1598 inventories of the Admiral’s (Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 115, -119) include Verone’s son’s hose and Labesha’s cloak, which justifies -Fleay, i. 55, in identifying the play with the comedy of _Humours_ -produced by that company on 1 May 1597. It is doubtless also the play -of which John Chamberlain wrote to Dudley Carleton (Chamberlain, 4) on -11 June 1597, ‘We have here a new play of humors in very great request, -and I was drawne along to it by the common applause, but my opinion of -it is (as the fellow saide of the shearing of hogges), that there was a -great crie for so litle wolle.’ - - _The Gentleman Usher. 1602_ (?) - -[_MS._] For an unverified MS. cf. s.v. _Monsieur D’Olive._ - -_S. R._ 1605, Nov. 26 (Harsnett). ‘A book called Vincentio and -Margaret.’ _Valentine Syms_ (iii. 305). - -1606. The Gentleman Usher. By George Chapman. _V. S. for Thomas Thorpe._ - -_Edition_ by T. M. Parrott (1907, _B. L._).--_Dissertation_: O. Cohn, -_Zu den Quellen von C.’s G. U._ (1912, _Frankfort Festschrift_, 229). - -There is no indication of a company, but the use of a mask and songs -confirm the general probability that the play was written for the -Chapel or Revels. It was later than _Sir Giles Goosecap_ (q.v.), to -the title-rôle of which II. i. 81 alludes, but of this also the date -is uncertain. Parrott’s ‘1602’ is plausible enough, but 1604 is also -possible. - - _All Fools. 1604_ (?) - -1605. Al Fooles A Comedy, Presented at the Black Fryers, And lately -before his Maiestie. Written by George Chapman. _For Thomas Thorpe._ -[Prologue and Epilogue. The copies show many textual variations.] - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{2, 3} (1780–1827) and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. -D._ ii) and T. M. Parrott (1907, _B. L._).--_Dissertation_: M. Stier, -_C.’s All Fools mit Berücksichtigung seiner Quellen_ (1904, _Halle -diss._). - -The Court performance was on 1 Jan. 1605 (cf. App. B), and the play -was therefore probably on the Blackfriars stage in 1604. There is a -reminiscence of Ophelia’s flowers in II. i. 232, and the prologue seems -to criticize the _Poetomachia_. - - Who can show cause why th’ ancient comic vein - Of Eupolis and Cratinus (now reviv’d - Subject to personal application) - Should be exploded by some bitter spleens. - -But in Jan.–July 1599 Henslowe paid Chapman £8 10_s._ on behalf of -the Admiral’s for _The World Runs on Wheels_. The last entry is for -‘his boocke called the world Rones a whelles & now all foolles but the -foolle’. This seems to me, more clearly than to Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. -203), to indicate a single play and a changed title. I am less certain, -however, that he is right in adopting the view of Fleay, i. 59, that -it was an earlier version of the Blackfriars play. It may be so, and -the date of ‘the seventeenth of November, fifteen hundred and so forth’ -used for a deed in IV. i. 331 lends some confirmation. But the change -of company raises a doubt, and there is no ‘fool’ in _All Fools_. An -alternative conjecture is that the Admiral’s reverted to the original -title for their play, leaving a modification of the amended one -available for Chapman in 1604. Collier (Dodsley^3) printed a dedicatory -sonnet to Sir Thomas Walsingham. This exists only in a single copy, in -which it has been printed on an inserted leaf. T. J. Wise (_Ath._ 1908, -i. 788) and Parrott, ii. 726, show clearly that it is a forgery. - - _Monsieur D’Olive. 1604_ - -[_MS._] See _infra_. - -1606. Monsieur D’Olive. A Comedie, as it was sundrie times acted by her -Majesties children at the Blacke-Friers. By George Chapman. _T. C. for -William Holmes_. - -_Edition_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ iii). - -The title-page suggests a Revels rather than a Chapel play, and Fleay, -i. 59, Stoll, and Parrott all arrive at 1604 for the date, which is -rendered probable by allusions to the Jacobean knights (I. i. 263; -IV. ii. 77), to the calling in of monopolies (I. i. 284), to the -preparation of costly embassies (IV. ii. 114), and perhaps to the royal -dislike of tobacco (II. ii. 164). There is a reminiscence of _Hamlet_, -III. ii. 393, in II. ii. 91: - - our great men - Like to a mass of clouds that now seem like - An elephant, and straightways like an ox, - And then a mouse. - -On the inadequate ground that woman’s ‘will’ is mentioned in II. i. -89, Fleay regarded the play as a revision of one written by Chapman -for the Admiral’s in 1598 under the title of _The Will of a Woman_. -But Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 194) interprets Henslowe’s entry ‘the iylle -of a woman’ as _The Isle of Women_. The 1598 play seems to have been -renamed _The Fount of New Fashions_. Hazlitt, _Manual_, 89, 94, says -part Heber’s sale included MSS. both of _The Fount of New Fashions_, -and of _The Gentleman Usher_ under the title of _The Will of a Woman_, -but Greg could not find these in the sale catalogue. - - _Bussy D’Ambois. 1604_ - -_S. R._ 1607, June 3 (Buck). ‘The tragedie of Busye D’Amboise. Made by -George Chapman.’ _William Aspley_ (Arber, iii. 350). - -1607. Bussy D’Ambois. A Tragedie: As it hath been often presented at -Paules. _For William Aspley._ - -1608. _For William Aspley._ [Another issue.] - -1641. As it hath been often Acted with great Applause. Being much -corrected and amended by the Author before his death. _A. N. for -Robert Lunne._ [Prologue and Epilogue.] - -1646. _T. W. for Robert Lunne._ [Another issue.] - -1657.... the Author, George Chapman, Gent. Before his death. _For -Joshua Kirton._ [Another issue.] - -_Editions_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ iii), F. S. Boas (1905, _B. -L._), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertation_: T. M. Parrott, -_The Date of C.’s B. d’A._ (1908, _M. L. R._ iii. 126). - -The play was acted by Paul’s, who disappear in 1606. It has been -suggested that it dates in some form from 1598 or earlier, because Pero -is a female character, and an Admiral’s inventory of 1598 (_Henslowe -Papers_, 120) has ‘Perowes sewt, which W^m Sley were’. As Sly had -been a Chamberlain’s man since 1594, this must have been a relic of -some obsolete play. But the impossible theory seems to have left a -trace on the suggestion of Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 198) that Chapman may -have worked on the basis of the series of plays on _The Civil Wars -of France_ written by Dekker (q.v.) and others for the Admiral’s at -a later date in 1598 than that of the inventories. From one of these -plays, however, might come the reminiscence of a ‘trusty Damboys’ -in _Satiromastix_ (1601), IV. i. 174. For _Bussy_ itself a jest on -‘leap-year’ (I. ii. 82) points to either 1600 or 1604, and allusions -to Elizabeth as an ‘old queen’ (I. ii. 12), to a ‘knight of the new -edition’ (I. ii. 124), with which may be compared Day, _Isle of Gulls_ -(1606), i. 3, ‘gentlemen ... of the best and last edition, of the Dukes -own making’, and to a ‘new denizened lord’ (I. ii. 173) point to 1604 -rather than 1600. The play was revived by the King’s men and played at -Court on 7 April 1634 (_Variorum_, iii. 237), and to this date probably -belongs the prologue in the edition of 1641. Here the actors declare -that the piece, which evidently others had ventured to play, was - - known, - And still believed in Court to be our own. - -They add that - - Field is gone, - Whose action first did give it name, - -and that his successor (perhaps Taylor) is prevented by his grey beard -from taking the young hero, which therefore falls to a ‘third man’ who -has been liked as Richard. Gayton, _Festivous Notes on Don Quixote_ -(1654), 25, tells us that Eliard Swanston played Bussy; doubtless -he is the third man. The revision of the text, incorporated in the -1641 edition, may obviously date either from this or for some earlier -revival. It is not necessary to assume that the performances by Field -referred to in the prologue were earlier than 1616, when he joined the -King’s. Parrott, however, makes it plausible that they might have been -for the Queen’s Revels at Whitefriars in 1609–12, about the time when -the _Revenge_ was played by the same company. If so, the Revels must -have acquired _Bussy_ after the Paul’s performances ended in 1606. It -is, of course, quite possible that they were only recovering a play -originally written for them, and carried by Kirkham to Paul’s in 1605. - - _Eastward Ho! 1605_ - -With Jonson and Marston. - -_S. R._ 1605, Sept. 4 (Wilson). ‘A Comedie called Eastward Ho:’ -_William Aspley and Thomas Thorp_ (Arber, iii. 300). - -1605. Eastward Hoe. As It was playd in the Black-friers. By The -Children of her Maiesties Reuels. Made by Geo: Chapman. Ben Ionson. -Ioh: Marston. _For William Aspley._ [Prologue and Epilogue. Two issues -(_a_) and (_b_). Of (_a_) only signatures E_{3} and E_{4} exist, -inserted between signatures E_{2} and E_{3} of a complete copy of (_b_) -in the Dyce collection; neither Greg, _Masques_, cxxii, nor Parrott, -_Comedies_, 862, is quite accurate here.] - -1605. _For William Aspley._ [Another edition, reset.] - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1, 2, 3} (1744–1825), by W. R. Chetwood in -_Memoirs of Ben Jonson_ (1756), W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ ii), -F. E. Schelling (1903, _B. L._), J. W. Cunliffe (1913, _R. E. C._ -ii), J. S. Farmer (1914, _S. F. T._); and with Marston’s _Works_ -(q.v.).--_Dissertations_: C. Edmonds, _The Original of the Hero in the -Comedy of E. H._ (_Athenaeum_, 13 Oct. 1883); H. D. Curtis, _Source of -the Petronel-Winifred Plot in E. H._ (1907, _M. P._ v. 105). - -Jonson told Drummond in 1619 (Laing, 20): ‘He was dilated by Sir James -Murray to the King, for writing something against the Scots, in a -play Eastward Hoe, and voluntarly imprissoned himself with Chapman -and Marston, who had written it amongst them. The report was, that -they should then [have] had their ears cut and noses. After their -delivery, he banqueted all his friends; there was Camden, Selden, and -others; at the midst of the feast his old Mother dranke to him, and -shew him a paper which she had (if the sentence had taken execution) to -have mixed in the prisson among his drinke, which was full of lustie -strong poison, and that she was no churle, she told, she minded first -to have drunk of it herself.’ The _Hatfield MSS._ contain a letter -(i) from Jonson (Cunningham, _Jonson_, i. xlix), endorsed ‘1605’, to -the Earl of Salisbury, created 4 May 1605. Another copy is in the -MS. described by B. Dobell, with ten other letters, of which Dobell, -followed by Schelling, prints three by Jonson, (ii) to an unnamed -lord, probably Suffolk, (iii) to an unnamed earl, (iv) to an unnamed -‘excellentest of Ladies’, and three by Chapman, (v) to the King, (vi) -to Lord Chamberlain Suffolk, (vii) to an unnamed lord, probably also -Suffolk. These, with four others by Chapman not printed, have no dates, -but all, with (i), seem to refer to the same joint imprisonment of -the two poets. In (i) Jonson says that he and Chapman are in prison -‘unexamined and unheard’. The cause is a play of which ‘no man can -justly complain’, for since his ‘first error’ and its ‘bondage’ [1597] -Jonson has ‘attempered my style’ and his books have never ‘given -offence to a nation, to a public order or state, or to any person of -honour or authority’. The other letters add a few facts. In (v) Chapman -says that the ‘chief offences are but two clawses, and both of them -not our owne’; in (vi) that ‘our unhappie booke was presented without -your Lordshippes allowance’; and in (vii) that they are grateful -for an expected pardon of which they have heard from Lord Aubigny. -Castelain, _Jonson_, 901, doubts whether this correspondence refers -to _Eastward Ho!_, chiefly because there is no mention of Marston, -and after hesitating over _Sejanus_, suggests _Sir Giles Goosecap_ -(q.v.), which is not worth consideration. Jonson was in trouble for -_Sejanus_ (q.v.), but on grounds not touched on in these letters, and -Chapman was not concerned. I feel no doubt that the imprisonment was -that for _Eastward Ho!_ Probably Drummond was wrong about Marston, who -escaped. His ‘absence’ is noted in the t.p. of Q_{2} of _The Fawn_ -(1606), and chaffed by A. Nixon, _The Black Year_ (1606): ‘Others ... -arraign other mens works ... when their own are sacrificed in Paul’s -Churchyard, for bringing in the Dutch Courtesan to corrupt English -conditions and sent away westward for carping both at court, city, and -country.’ Evidently Jonson and Chapman, justly or not, put the blame -of the obnoxious clauses upon him, and renewed acrimony against Jonson -may be traced in his Epistles of 1606. I am inclined to think that it -was the publication of the play in the autumn of 1605, rather than its -presentation on the stage, that brought the poets into trouble. This -would account for the suppression of a passage reflecting upon the -Scots (III. iii. 40–7) which appeared in the first issue of Q_{1} (cf. -Parrott, ii. 862). Other quips at the intruding nation, at James’s -liberal knightings, and even at his northern accent (I. ii. 50, 98; II. -iii. 83; IV. i. 179) appear to have escaped censure. Nor was the play -as a whole banned. It passed to the Lady Elizabeth’s, who revived it in -1613 (_Henslowe Papers_, 71) and gave it at Court on 25 Jan. 1614 (cf. -App. B). There seems to be an allusion to Suffolk’s intervention in -Chapman’s gratulatory verses to _Sejanus_ (1605): - - Most Noble Suffolke, who by Nature Noble, - And judgement vertuous, cannot fall by Fortune, - Who when our Hearde, came not to drink, but trouble - The Muses waters, did a Wall importune, - (Midst of assaults) about their sacred River. - -The imprisonment was over by Nov. 1605, when Jonson (q.v.) was employed -about the Gunpowder plot. I put it and the correspondence in Oct. or -Nov. The play may have been staged at any time between that and the -staging of Dekker and Webster’s _Westward Hoe_, late in 1604, to which -its prologue refers. Several attempts have been made to divide up the -play. Fleay, ii. 81, gives Marston I. i-II. i, Chapman II. ii-IV. i, -Jonson IV. ii-V. iv. Parrott gives Marston I. i-II. ii, IV. ii, V. i, -Chapman II. iii-IV. i, Jonson the prologue and V. ii-v. Cunliffe gives -Marston I, III. iii and V. i, the rest to Chapman, and nothing to -Jonson but plotting and supervision. All make III. iii a Chapman scene, -so that, if Chapman spoke the truth, Marston must have interpolated the -obnoxious clauses. - - _May Day. c. 1609_ - -1611. May Day. A witty Comedie, diuers times acted at the Blacke -Fryers. Written by George Chapman. _For John Browne._ - -_Edition_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ iv).--_Dissertation_: A. L. -Stiefel, _G. C. und das italienische Drama_ (1899, _Jahrbuch_, xxxv. -180). - -The _chorus iuvenum_ with which the play opens fixes it to the -occupancy of the Blackfriars by the Chapel and Revels in 1600–9. -Parrott suggests 1602 on the ground of reminiscences of 1599–1601 -plays, of which the most important is a quotation in IV. i. 18 of -Marston’s _2 Antonio and Mellida_ (1599), V. ii. 20. But the force of -this argument is weakened by the admission of a clear imitation in I. -i. 378 _sqq._ of ch. v. of Dekker’s _Gull’s Hornbook_ (1609), which -it seems to me a little arbitrary to explain by a revision. The other -reasons given by Fleay, i. 57, for a date _c._ 1601 are fantastic. So -is his suggestion that the play is founded on the anonymous _Disguises_ -produced by the Admiral’s on 2 Oct. 1595, which, as pointed out by Greg -(_Henslowe_, ii. 177), rests merely on the fact that the title would be -appropriate. - - _The Widow’s Tears. 1603 < > 9_ - -_S. R._ 1612, Apr. 17. _John Browne_ [see _The Revenge of Bussy -D’Ambois_]. - -1612. The Widdowes Teares. A Comedie. As it was often presented in the -blacke and white Friers. Written by Geor: Chap. _For John Browne._ -[Epistle to Jo. Reed of Mitton, Gloucestershire, signed ‘Geo. Chapman’.] - -_Edition_ in Dodsley^{1, 2, 3} (1744–1827). - -The play was given at Court on 27 Feb. 1613, but the reference on the -title-page to Blackfriars shows that it was originally produced by -the Chapel or Revels not later than 1609 and probably before _Byron_ -(1608). Wallace, ii. 115, identifies it with the Chapel play seen by -the Duke of Stettin in 1602 (cf. ch. xii), but Gerschow’s description -in no way, except for the presence of a widow, fits the plot. The -reference to the ‘number of strange knights abroad’ (iv. 1. 28) and -perhaps also that to the crying down of monopolies (I. i. 125) are -Jacobean, rather than Elizabethan (cf. _M. d’Olive_). Fleay, i. 61, -and Parrott think that the satire of justice in the last act shows -resentment at Chapman’s treatment in connexion with _Eastward Ho!_, and -suggest 1605. It would be equally sound to argue that this is just the -date when Chapman would have been most careful to avoid criticism of -this kind. The Epistle says, ‘This poor comedy (of many desired to see -printed) I thought not utterly unworthy that affectionate design in me’. - - _Charles, Duke of Byron. 1608_ - -_S. R._ 1608, June 5 (Buck). ‘A booke called The Conspiracy and -Tragedie of Charles Duke of Byronn written by Georg Chapman.’ _Thomas -Thorp_ (Arber, iii. 380). - -1608. The Conspiracie, And Tragedie of Charles Duke of Byron, Marshall -of France. Acted lately in two playes, at the Black-Friers. Written by -George Chapman. _G. Eld for Thomas Thorpe._ [Epistle to Sir Thomas and -Thomas Walsingham, signed ‘George Chapman’, and Prologue. Half-title to -Part II, ‘The Tragedie of Charles Duke of Byron. By George Chapman.’] - -1625.... at the Blacke-Friers, and other publique Stages.... _N. O. for -Thomas Thorpe._ [Separate t.p. to Part II.] - -_Dissertation_: T. M. Parrott, _The Text of C.’s Byron_ (1908, _M. L. -R._ iv. 40). - -There can be no doubt (cf. vol. ii, p. 53) that this is the play -denounced by the French ambassador, Antoine Lefèvre de la Boderie, in -the following letter to Pierre Brulart de Puisieux, Marquis de Sillery, -on 8 April 1608 (printed by J. J. Jusserand in _M. L. R._ vi. 203, from -_Bibl. Nat. MS. Fr._ 15984): - - ‘Environ la micaresme ces certains comédiens à qui j’avois - fait deffendre de jouer l’histoire du feu mareschal de Biron, - voyant toutte la cour dehors, ne laissèrent de le faire, et non - seulement cela, mais y introduisirent la Royne et Madame de - Verneuil, la première traitant celle-cy fort mal de paroles, - et luy donnant un soufflet. En ayant eu advis de-là à quelques - jours, aussi-tost je m’en allay trouver le Comte de Salsbury - et luy fis plainte de ce que non seulement ces compaignons-là - contrevenoient à la deffense qui leur avoit esté faicte, mais - y adjoustoient des choses non seulement plus importantes, mais - qui n’avoient que faire avec le mareschal de Biron, et au partir - de-là estoient toutes faulses, dont en vérité il se montra - fort courroucé. Et dès l’heure mesme envoya pour les prendre. - Toutteffois il ne s’en trouva que trois, qui aussi-tost furent - menez en la prison où ilz sont encore; mais le principal qui - est le compositeur eschapa. Un jour ou deux devant, ilz avoient - dépêché leur Roy, sa mine d’Escosse et tous ses Favorits d’une - estrange sorte; [_in cipher_ car apres luy avoir fait dépiter - le ciel sur le vol d’un oyseau, et faict battre un gentilhomme - pour avoir rompu ses chiens, ilz le dépeignoient ivre pour le - moins une fois le jour. Ce qu’ayant sçu, je pensay qu’il seroit - assez en colère contre lesdits commédiens, sans que je l’y - misse davantage, et qu’il valoit mieux référer leur châtiment - à l’irrévérence qu’ilz lui avoient portée, qu’à ce qu’ilz - pourroient avoir dit desdites Dames], et pour ce, je me résolus - de n’en plus parler, mais considérer ce qu’ilz firent. Quand - ledit Sieur Roy a esté icy, il a tesmoigné estre extrèmement - irrité contre ces maraults-là, et a commandé qu’ilz soient - chastiez et surtout qu’on eust à faire diligence de trouver le - compositeur. Mesme il a fait deffense que l’on n’eust plus à - jouer de Comédies dedans Londres, pour lever laquelle deffense - quatre autres compagnies qui y sont encore, offrent desja - cent mille francs, lesquels pourront bien leur en redonner la - permission; mais pour le moins sera-ce à condition qu’ilz ne - représenteront plus aucune histoire moderne ni ne parleront des - choses du temps à peine de la vie. Si j’eusse creu qu’il y eust - eu de la suggestion en ce qu’avoient dit lesdits comédiens, j’en - eusse fait du bruit davantage; mais ayant tout subjet d’estimer - le contraire, j’ay pensay que le meilleur estoit de ne point le - remuer davantage, et laisser audit Roy la vengeance de son fait - mesme. Touttefois si vous jugez de-là, Monsieur; que je n’y aye - fait assez, il est encore temps.’ - -In _M. L. Review_, iv. 158, I reprinted a less good text from -_Ambassades de M. De La Boderie_ (1750), iii. 196. The letter is -often dated 1605 and ascribed to De La Boderie’s predecessor, M. de -Beaumont, on the strength of a summary in F. L. G. von Raumer, _History -of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries_, ii. 219. The text has -been ruthlessly censored; in particular the peccant scene has been -cut out of Act II of Part ii, and most of Act IV of Part i, dealing -with Byron’s visit to England, has been suppressed or altered. The -Epistle offers ‘these poor dismembered poems’, and they are probably -the subject of two undated and unsigned letters printed by Dobell in -_Ath._ (1901), i. 433. The first, to one Mr. Crane, secretary to the -Duke of Lennox, inquires whether the writer can leave a ‘shelter’ to -which ‘the austeritie of this offended time’ has sent him. The other -is by ‘the poor subject of your office’ and evidently addressed to the -Master of the Revels, and complains of his strictness in revising for -the press what the Council had passed for presentment. Worcester’s men -had an anonymous play of _Byron_ (_Burone_ or _Berowne_) in 1602, and -Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 231) thinks that to this Chapman’s may have borne -some relation. But Chapman’s source was Grimeston, _General Inventorie -of the History of France_ (1607). - - _The Revenge of Bussy D’Ambois. c. 1610_ - -_S. R._ 1612, Apr. 17 (Buck). ‘Twoo play bookes, th’ one called, The -revenge of Bussy D’Amboys, beinge a tragedy, thother called, The -wydowes teares, beinge a Comedy, bothe written by George Chapman.’ -_Browne_ (Arber, iii. 481). [Only a 6_d._ fee charged for the two.] - -1613. The Revenge of Bussy D’Ambois. A Tragedie. As it hath beene often -presented at the priuate Play-house in the White-Fryers. Written by -George Chapman, Gentleman. _T. S., sold by Iohn Helme._ [Epistle to Sir -Thomas Howard, signed ‘Geo. Chapman’.] - -_Edition_ by F. S. Boas (1905, _B. L._). - -Boas has shown that Chapman used Grimeston, _General Inventorie of -the History of France_ (1607). Probably the play was written for the -Queen’s Revels to accompany _Bussy_. But whether it was first produced -at Whitefriars in 1609–12, or at Blackfriars in 1608–9, can hardly -be settled. The title-page and the probability that the _Byron_ -affair would render it judicious to defer further plays by Chapman -rather point to the Whitefriars. The Epistle commends the play because -‘Howsoever therefore in the scenical presentation it might meet with -some maligners, yet considering even therein it passed with approbation -of more worthy judgments’. - - _Chabot Admiral of France, c. 1613_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1638, Oct. 24 (Wykes). ‘A Booke called Phillip Chalbott -Admirall of France and the Ball. By James Shirley. vj^d.’ _Crooke and -William Cooke_ (Arber, iv. 441). - -1639. The Tragedie of Chabot Admirall of France. As it was presented by -her Majesties Servants, at the private House in Drury Lane. Written by -George Chapman, and James Shirly. _Tho. Cotes for Andrew Crooke and -William Cooke._ - -_Edition_ by E. Lehman (1906, _Pennsylvania Univ. Publ._). - -The play was licensed by Herbert as Shirley’s on 29 April 1635 -(_Variorum_, iii. 232). But critics agree in finding much of Chapman -in it, and suppose Shirley to have been a reviser rather than a -collaborator. Parrott regards I. i, II. iii, and V. ii as substantially -Chapman; II. i and III. i as substantially Shirley; and the rest -as Chapman revised. He suggests that Chapman’s version was for the -Queen’s Revels _c._ 1613. Fleay, ii. 241, put it in 1604, but it cannot -be earlier than the 1611 edition of its source, E. Pasquier, _Les -Recherches de la France_. - - _Caesar and Pompey, c. 1613_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1631, May 18 (Herbert). ‘A Playe called Caesar and Pompey by -George Chapman.’ _Harper_ (Arber, iv. 253). - -1631. The Warres of Pompey and Caesar. Out of whose euents is euicted -this Proposition. Only a iust man is a freeman. By G. C. _Thomas -Harper, sold by Godfrey Emondson, and Thomas Alchorne._ [Epistle to the -Earl of Middlesex, signed ‘Geo. Chapman’.] - -1631.... Caesar and Pompey: A Roman Tragedy, declaring their Warres.... -By George Chapman. _Thomas Harper_ [&c.]. [Another issue.] - -1653.... As it was Acted at the Black Fryers.... [Another issue.] - -Chapman says that the play was written ‘long since’ and ‘never touched -at the stage’. Various dates have been conjectured; the last, Parrott’s -1612–13, ‘based upon somewhat intangible evidence of style and rhythm’ -will do as well as another. Parrott is puzzled by the 1653 title-page -and thinks that, in spite of the Epistle, the play was acted. Might it -not have been acted by the King’s after the original publication in -1631? Plays on Caesar were so common that it is not worth pursuing the -suggestion of Fleay, i. 65, that fragments of the Admiral’s anonymous -_Caesar and Pompey_ of 1594–5 may survive here. - - _Doubtful and Lost Plays_ - -Chapman’s lost plays for the Admiral’s men of 1598–9 have already been -noted. Two plays, ‘The Fatall Love, a French Tragedy’, and ‘A Tragedy -of a Yorkshire Gentlewoman and her sonne’, were entered as his in the -_S. R._ by Humphrey Moseley on 29 June 1660 (Eyre, ii. 271). They -appear, without Chapman’s name, in Warburton’s list of burnt plays -(W. W. Greg in _3 Library_, ii. 231). The improbable ascriptions to -Chapman of _The Ball_ (1639) and _Revenge for Honour_ (1654) on their -t.ps. and of _Two Wise Men and All the Rest Fools_ (1619) by Kirkman -in 1661 do not inspire confidence in this late entry, and even if they -were Chapman’s, the plays were not necessarily of our period. But it -has been suggested that _Fatal Love_ may be the anonymous _Charlemagne_ -(q.v.). J. M. Robertson assigns to Chapman _A Lover’s Complaint_, -accepts the conjecture of Minto and Acheson that he was the ‘rival -poet’ of Shakespeare’s _Sonnets_, believes him to be criticized in the -Holophernes of _L. L. L._ and regards him as the second hand of _Timon -of Athens_, and with varying degrees of assurance as Shakespeare’s -predecessor, collaborator or reviser, in _Per._, _T. C._, _Tp._, -_Ham._, _Cymb._, _J. C._, _T. of S._, _Hen. VI_, _Hen. V_, _C. of E._, -_2 Gent._, _All’s Well_, _M. W._, _K. J._, _Hen. VIII_. These are -issues which cannot be discussed here. The records do not suggest any -association between Chapman and the Chamberlain’s or King’s men, except -possibly in Caroline days. - -For other ascriptions to Chapman, see in ch. xxiv, _Alphonsus_, _Fedele -and Fortunio_, _Sir Giles Goosecap_, _Histriomastix_, and _Second -Maiden’s Tragedy_. - - MASK - - _Middle Temple and Lincoln’s Inn Mask. 15 Feb. 1613_ - -_S. R._ 1613, 27 Feb. (Nidd). ‘A booke called the [description] of -the maske performed before the kinge by the gent. of the Myddle temple -and Lincolns Inne with the maske of Grayes Inne and the Inner Temple.’ -_George Norton_ (Arber, iii. 516). - -N.D. The Memorable Maske of the two Honorable Houses or Inns of Court; -the Middle Temple, and Lyncolnes Inne. As it was performed before -the King, at White-Hall on Shroue Munday at night; being the 15. of -February 1613. At the princely Celebration of the most Royall Nuptialls -of the Palsgraue, and his thrice gratious Princesse Elizabeth, &c. -With a description of their whole show; in the manner of their march -on horse-backe to the Court from the Maister of the Rolls his house: -with all their right Noble consorts, and most showfull attendants. -Inuented, and fashioned, with the ground, and speciall structure -of the whole worke, By our Kingdomes most Artfull and Ingenious -Architect Innigo Iones. Supplied, Aplied, Digested, and Written, By -Geo. Chapman. _G. Eld for George Norton._ [Epistle by Chapman to Sir -Edward Philips, Master of the Rolls, naming him and Sir Henry Hobart, -the Attorney-General, as furtherers of the mask; after text, _A Hymne -to Hymen_. R. B. McKerrow, _Bibl. Evidence_ (_Bibl. Soc. Trans._ xii. -267), shows the priority of this edition. Parts of the description are -separated from the speeches to which they belong, with an explanation -that Chapman was ‘prevented by the unexpected haste of the printer, -which he never let me know, and never sending me a proofe till he had -past their speeches, I had no reason to imagine hee could have been so -forward’.] - -N.D. _F. K. for George Norton._ - -_Edition_ in Nichols, _James_ (1828), ii. 566. - -The maskers, in cloth of silver embroidered with gold, olive-coloured -vizards, and feathers on their heads, were Princes of Virginia; the -torchbearers also Virginians; the musicians Phoebades or Priests of -Virginia; the antimaskers a ‘mocke-maske’ of Baboons; the presenters -Plutus, Capriccio a Man of Wit, Honour, Eunomia her Priest, and Phemis -her Herald. - -The locality was the Hall at Whitehall, whither the maskers rode -from the house of the Master of the Rolls, with their musicians -and presenters in chariots, Moors to attend their horses, and a -large escort of gentlemen and halberdiers. They dismounted in the -tiltyard, where the King and lords beheld them from a gallery. The -scene represented a high rock, which cracked to emit Capriccio, and -had the Temple of Honour on one side, and a hollow tree, ‘the bare -receptacle of the baboonerie’, on the other. After ‘the presentment’ -and the ‘anticke’ dance of the ‘ante-maske’, the top of the rock -opened to disclose the maskers and torchbearers in a mine of gold -under the setting sun. They descended by steps within the rock. First -the torchbearers ‘performed another ante-maske, dancing with torches -lighted at both ends’. Then the maskers danced two dances, followed by -others with the ladies, and finally a ‘dance, that brought them off’ to -the Temple of Honour. - -For general notices of the wedding masks, see ch. xxiv and the account -of Campion’s Lords’ mask. The German _Beschreibung_ (1613) gives a -long abstract of Chapman’s (extract in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxix. 172), but -this is clearly paraphrased from the author’s own description. It was -perhaps natural for Sir Edward Philips to write to Carleton on 25 Feb. -(_S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxii. 46) that this particular mask was ‘praised -above all others’. But Chamberlain is no less laudatory (Birch, i. 226): - - ‘On Monday night, was the Middle Temple and Lincoln’s Inn mask - prepared in the hall at court, whereas the Lords’ was in the - banqueting room. It went from the Rolls, all up Fleet Street - and the Strand, and made such a gallant and glorious show, - that it is highly commended. They had forty gentlemen of best - choice out of both houses, and the twelve maskers, with their - torchbearers and pages, rode likewise upon horses exceedingly - well trapped and furnished, besides a dozen little boys, dressed - like baboons, that served for an antimask, and, they say, - performed it exceedingly well when they came to it; and three - open chariots, drawn with four horses apiece, that carried their - musicians and other personages that had parts to speak. All - which, together with their trumpeters and other attendants, were - so well set out, that it is generally held for the best show - that hath been seen many a day. The King stood in the gallery - to behold them, and made them ride about the Tilt-yard, and - then they were received into St. James’ Park, and so out, all - along the galleries, into the hall, where themselves and their - devices, which they say were excellent, made such a glittering - show, that the King and all the company were exceedingly - pleased, and especially with their dancing, which was beyond all - that hath been seen yet. The King made the masters [? maskers] - kiss his hand on parting, and gave them many thanks, saying, he - never saw so many proper men together, and himself accompanied - them at the banquet, and took care it should be well ordered, - and speaks much of them behind their backs, and strokes the - Master of the Rolls and Dick Martin, who were chief doers and - undertakers.’ - -Chamberlain wrote more briefly, but with equal commendation, to Winwood -(iii. 435), while the Venetian ambassador reported that the mask was -danced ‘with such finish that it left nothing to be desired’ (_V. -P._ xii. 532). - -The mask is but briefly noticed in the published records of the Middle -Temple (Hopwood, 40, 42); more fully in those of Lincoln’s Inn (Walker, -ii. 150–6, 163, 170, 198, 255, 271). The Inn’s share of the cost was -£1,086 8_s._ 11_d._ and presumably that of the Middle Temple as much. A -levy was made of from £1 10_s._ to £4, according to status, and some of -the benchers and others advanced funds. A dispute about the repayment -of an advance by Lord Chief Justice Richardson was still unsettled in -1634. An account of Christopher Brooke as ‘Expenditour for the maske’ -includes £100 to Inigo Jones for works for the hall and street, £45 to -Robert Johnson for music and songs, £2 to Richard Ansell, matlayer, £1 -to the King’s Ushers of the Hall, and payments for a pair of stockings -and other apparel to ‘Heminge’s boy’, and for the services of John -and Robert Dowland, Philip Rosseter and Thomas Ford as musicians. The -attitude of the young lawyer may be illustrated from a letter of Sir -S. Radcliffe on 1 Feb. (_Letters_, 78), although I do not know his -Inn: ‘I have taken up 30^s of James Singleton, which or y^e greater -part thereof is to be paid toward y^e great mask at y^e marriage at -Shrovetide. It is a duty for y^e honour of our Inn, and unto which I -could not refuse to contribute with any credit.’ - -A letter by Chapman, partly printed by B. Dobell in _Ath._ (1901), i. -466, is a complaint to an unnamed paymaster about his reward for a mask -given in the royal presence at a date later than Prince Henry’s death. -While others of his faculty got 100 marks or £50, he is ‘put with -taylors and shoomakers, and such snipperados, to be paid by a bill of -particulars’. Dobell does not seem to think that this was the wedding -mask, but I see no clear reason why it should not have been. - - -HENRY CHEKE (_c._ 1561). - -If the translator, as stated in _D. N. B._, was Henry the son of Sir -John Cheke and was born _c._ 1548, he must have been a precocious -scholar. - - _Free Will > 1561_ - -_S. R._ 1561, May 11. ‘ij. bokes, the one called ... and the other of -Frewill.’ _John Tysdayle_ (Arber, i. 156). - -N.D. A certayne Tragedie wrytten fyrst in Italian, by F. N. B. -entituled, Freewyl, and translated into Englishe, by Henry Cheeke. -_John Tisdale._ [Epistles to Lady Cheyne, signed H. C., and to the -Reader. Cheyne arms on v^o of t.p.] - -The translation is from the _Tragedia del Libero Arbitrio_ (1546) of -Francesco Nigri de Bassano. It is presumably distinct from that which -Sir Thomas Hoby in his _Travaile and Life_ (_Camden Misc._ x. 63) says -he made at Augsburg in Aug.–Nov. 1550, and dedicated to the Marquis of -Northampton. - - -HENRY CHETTLE (_c._ 1560–> 1607). - -Chettle was apprenticed, as the son of Robert Chettle of London, dyer, -to Thomas East, printer, on 29 Sept. 1577, and took up the freedom -of the Stationers’ Company on 6 Oct. 1584. During 1589–91 he was in -partnership as a printer with John Danter and William Hoskins. The -partnership was then dissolved, and Chettle’s imprint is not found -on any book of later date (McKerrow, _Dictionary_, 68, 84, 144). But -evidently his connexion with the press and with Danter continued, -for in 1596 Nashe inserted into _Have With You to Saffron Walden_ -(_Works_, iii. 131) a letter from him offering to set up the book and -signed ‘Your old Compositer, Henry Chettle’. Nashe’s _Strange News_ -(1592) and _Terrors of the Night_ (1594) had come, like _Have With -You to Saffron Walden_ itself, from Danter’s press. The object of -the letter was to defend Nashe against a charge in Gabriel Harvey’s -_Pierce’s Supererogation_ (1593) of having abused Chettle. He had in -fact in _Pierce Penilesse_ (1592) called _Greenes Groats-worth of Wit_ -‘a scald triuial lying pamphlet’, and none of his doing. And of the -_Groats-worth_ Chettle had acted as editor, as he himself explains -in the Epistle to his _Kind Hearts Dream_ (cf. App. C, No. xlix), in -which, however, he exculpates Nashe from any share in the book. By -1595 he was married and had lost a daughter Mary, who was buried at -St. John’s, Windsor (E. Ashmole, _Antiquities of Berkshire_, iii. 75). -By 1598 he had taken to writing for the stage, and in his _Palladis -Tamia_ of that year Meres includes him in ‘the best for Comedy amongst -vs’. Of all Henslowe’s band of needy writers for the Admiral’s and -Worcester’s from 1598 to 1603, he was the most prolific and one of the -neediest. Of the forty-eight plays in which he had a hand during this -period, no more than five, or possibly six, survive. His personal loans -from Henslowe were numerous and often very small. Some were on account -of the Admiral’s; others on a private account noted in the margin of -Henslowe’s diary. On 16 Sept. 1598 he owed the Admiral’s £8 9_s._ -in balance, ‘al his boockes & recknynges payd’. In Nov. 1598 he had -loans ‘for to areste one with Lord Lester’. In Jan. 1599 he was in the -Marshalsea, and in May borrowed to avoid arrest by one Ingrome. On 25 -Mar. 1602 he was driven, apparently in view of a payment of £3, to seal -a bond to write for the Admiral’s. This did not prevent him from also -writing for Worcester’s in the autumn. More than once his manuscript -had to be redeemed from pawn (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 250). His -_England’s Mourning Garment_, a eulogy of Elizabeth, is reprinted in -C. M. Ingleby, _Shakespere Allusion-Books_, Part i (_N. S. S._ 1874), -77. Herein he speaks of himself as ‘courting it now and than’, when he -was ‘yong, almost thirtie yeeres agoe’, and calls on a number of poets -under fanciful names to sing the dead queen’s praise. They are Daniel, -Warner, Chapman (Coryn), Jonson (our English Horace), Shakespeare -(Melicert), Drayton (Coridon), Lodge (Musidore), Dekker (Antihorace), -Marston (Moelibee), and Petowe (?). Chettle was therefore alive in -1603, but he is spoken of as dead in Dekker’s _Knight’s Conjuring_ -(1607). - - PLAYS - - _The Downfall of Robert Earl of Huntingdon. 1598_ - - _The Death of Robert Earl of Huntingdon. 1598_ - -For Chettle’s relation to these two plays, see s.v. Munday. - - _Patient Grissel. 1600_ - -With Dekker (q.v.) and Haughton. - - _1 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green. 1600_ - -With Day (q.v.). - - _Sir Thomas Wyatt. 1602_ - -With Dekker (q.v.), Heywood, Smith, and Webster, as _Lady Jane, or The -Overthrow of Rebels_, but whether anything of Chettle’s survives in the -extant text is doubtful. - - _Hoffman_ or _A Revenge for a Father. 1602 <_ - -_S. R._ 1630, Feb. 26 (Herbert). ‘A play called Hoffman the Revengfull -ffather.’ _John Grove_ (Arber, iv. 229). - -1631. The Tragedy of Hoffman or A Reuenge for a Father, As it hath bin -diuers times acted with great applause, at the Phenix in Druery-lane. -_I. N. for Hugh Perry._ [Epistle to Richard Kiluert, signed ‘Hvgh -Perry’.] - -_Editions_ by H. B. L[eonard] (1852), R. Ackermann (1894), and J. S. -Farmer (1913, _S. F. T._).--_Dissertations_: N. Delius, _C.’s H. und -Shakespeare’s Hamlet_ (1874, _Jahrbuch_, ix. 166); A. H. Thorndike, -_The Relations of Hamlet to Contemporary Revenge Plays_ (1902, _M. L. -A._ xvii. 125). - -Henslowe paid Chettle, on behalf of the Admiral’s, £1 in earnest of -‘a Danyshe tragedy’ on 7 July 1602, and 5_s._ in part payment for a -tragedy of ‘Howghman’ on 29 Dec. It seems natural to take the latter, -and perhaps also the former, entry as relating to this play, although -it does not bear Chettle’s name on the title-page. But its completion -was presumably later than the termination of Henslowe’s record in 1603. -Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 226) rightly repudiates the suggestion of Fleay, -i. 70, 291, that we are justified in regarding _Hoffman_ the unnamed -tragedy of Chettle and Heywood in Jan. 1603, for which a blank can of -course afford no evidence. But ‘the Prince of the burning crowne’ is -referred to in Kempe’s _Nine Daies Wonder_, 22, not as a ‘play’, but as -a suggested theme for a ballad writer. - - _Doubtful and Lost Plays_ - -Chettle’s hand has been suggested in the anonymous _Trial of Chivalry_ -(_vide infra_) and _The Weakest Goeth to the Wall_. - -The following is a complete list of the plays, wholly or partly by -Chettle, recorded in Henslowe’s diary. - - (_a_) _Plays for the Admiral’s, 1598–1603_ - -(i), (ii) _1, 2 Robin Hood._ - -With Munday (q.v.), Feb.–Mar. and Nov. 1598. - -(iii) _The Famous Wars of Henry I and the Prince of Wales._ - -With Dekker (q.v.) and Drayton, Mar. 1598. - -(iv), (v) _1, 2 Earl Godwin and His Three Sons._ - -With Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson, March-June 1598. - -(vi) _Pierce of Exton._ - -With Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson, April 1598, but apparently not -finished. - -(vii), (viii) _1, 2 Black Bateman of the North._ - -With Wilson, and for Part 1, Dekker and Drayton, May–July 1598. - -(ix) _The Funeral of Richard Cœur-de-Lion._ - -With Drayton, Munday, and Wilson, June 1598. - -(x) _A Woman’s Tragedy._ - -July 1598, but apparently unfinished. - -(xi) _Hot Anger Soon Cold._ - -With Jonson and Porter, Aug. 1598. - -(xii) _Chance Medley._ - -By Chettle or Dekker, Drayton, Munday, and Wilson, Aug. 1598. - -(xiii) _Catiline’s Conspiracy._ - -With Wilson, Aug. 1598, but apparently not finished. - -(xiv) _Vayvode._ - -Apparently an old play revised by Chettle, Aug. 1598. - -(xv) _2 Brute._ - -Sept.–Oct. 1598. - -(xvi) _’Tis no Deceit to Deceive the Deceiver._ - -Nov. 1598, but apparently not finished. - -(xvii) _Polyphemus, or Troy’s Revenge._ - -Feb. 1599. - -(xviii) _The Spencers._ - -With Porter, March 1599. - -(xix) _Troilus and Cressida._ - -With Dekker (q.v.), April 1599. - -(xx) _Agamemnon, or Orestes Furious._ - -With Dekker, May 1599. - -(xxi) _The Stepmother’s Tragedy._ - -With Dekker, Aug.–Oct. 1599. - -(xxii) _Robert II or The Scot’s Tragedy._ - -With Dekker, Jonson, and possibly Marston (q.v.), Sept. 1599. - -(xxiii) _Patient Grissell._ - -With Dekker (q.v.) and Haughton, Oct.–Dec. 1599. - -(xxiv) _The Orphan’s Tragedy._ - -Nov. 1599–Sept. 1601, but apparently not finished, unless Greg rightly -traces it in Yarington’s _Two Lamentable Tragedies_ (q.v.). - -(xxv) _The Arcadian Virgin._ - -With Haughton, Dec. 1599, but apparently not finished. - -(xxvi) _Damon and Pythias._ - -Feb.–May 1600. - -(xxvii) _The Seven Wise Masters._ - -With Day, Dekker, and Haughton, March 1600. - -(xxviii) _The Golden Ass_, or _Cupid and Psyche_. - -With Day and Dekker, April-May 1600; on possible borrowings from this, -cf. s.v. Heywood, _Pleasant Dialogues and Dramas_. - -(xxix) _The Wooing of Death._ - -May 1600, but apparently not finished. - -(xxx) _1 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green._ - -With Day (q.v.), May 1600. - -(xxxi) _All Is Not Gold That Glisters._ - -March-April 1601. - -(xxxii) _King Sebastian of Portingale._ - -With Dekker, April-May 1601. - -(xxxiii), (xxxiv) _1, 2 Cardinal Wolsey._ - -Apparently Chettle wrote a play on _The Life of Cardinal Wolsey_ in -June–Aug. 1601, to which was afterwards prefixed a play on _The Rising -of Cardinal Wolsey_, by Chettle, Drayton, Munday, and Smith, written in -Aug.–Nov. 1601 (cf. Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 218). Chettle was ‘mendynge’ -_The Life_ in May–June 1602, and on 25 July Richard Hadsor wrote to Sir -R. Cecil of the attainder of the Earl of Kildare’s grandfather ‘by the -policy of Cardinal Wolsey, as it is set forth and played now upon the -stage in London’ (_Hatfield MSS._ xii. 248). - -(xxxv) _Too Good To Be True._ - -With Hathway and Smith, Nov. 1601–Jan. 1602; the alternative title ‘or -Northern Man’ in one of Henslowe’s entries is a forgery by Collier (cf. -Greg, _Henslowe_, i. xliii). - -(xxxvi) _Friar Rush and the Proud Women of Antwerp._ - -Written by Day and Haughton in 1601 and mended by Chettle in Jan. 1602. - -(xxxvii) _Love Parts Friendship._ - -With Smith, May 1602; identified by Bullen with the anonymous _Trial of -Chivalry_ (q.v.). - -(xxxviii) _Tobias._ - -May–June 1602. - -(xxxix) _Hoffman._ - -July–Dec. 1602, but apparently not finished. _Vide supra._ - -(xl) _Felmelanco._ - -With Robensone (q.v.), Sept. 1602. - -(xli), (xlii) _1, 2 The London Florentine._ - -Part 1 with Heywood, Dec. 1602–Jan. 1603; one payment had been made to -Chettle for Part 2 before the diary entries stopped. - -(xliii) [Unnamed play]. - -‘for a prologe & a epyloge for the corte’, 29 Dec. 1602. - - (_b_) _Plays for Worcester’s, 1602–3_ - -(xliv) [Unnamed play. Collier’s _Robin Goodfellow_ is forged]. - -A tragedy, Aug. 1602, but perhaps not finished, unless identical, as -suggested by Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 229), with the anonymous _Byron_. - -(xlv) _1 Lady Jane_, or _The Overthrow of Rebels_. - -With Dekker (q.v.), Heywood, Smith, and Webster, Oct. 1602. - -(xlvi) _Christmas Comes but Once a Year._ - -With Dekker, Heywood, and Webster, Nov. 1602. - -(xlvii) [Unnamed play. Collier’s _Like Quits Like_ is forged]. - -With Heywood, Jan. 1603, but apparently not finished, or possibly -identical, as suggested by Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 235), with (xlviii). - -(xlviii) _Shore._ - -With Day, May 1603, but not finished before the diary ended. - - -THOMAS CHURCHYARD (1520?-1604). - -The best account of Churchyard is that by H. W. Adnitt in _Shropshire -Arch. Soc. Trans._ iii (1880), 1, with a bibliography of his numerous -poems. For his share in the devices of the Bristol entertainment -(_1574_) and the Suffolk and Norfolk progress (_1578_), of both of -which he published descriptions, cf. ch. xxiv. He was also engaged -by the Shrewsbury corporation to prepare a show for an expected but -abandoned royal visit in 1575 (_Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 255). His _A -Handful of Gladsome Verses given to the Queenes Maiesty at Woodstocke -this Prograce_ (1592) is reprinted in H. Huth and W. C. Hazlitt, -_Fugitive Tracts_ (1875), i. It is not mimetic. His own account of -his work in _Churchyard’s Challenge_ (1593) suggests that he took a -considerable part in Elizabethan pageantry. He says that he wrote: - - ‘The deuises of warre and a play at Awsterley. Her Highnes being - at Sir Thomas Greshams’, - -and - - ‘The deuises and speeches that men and boyes shewed within many - prograces’. - -And amongst ‘Workes ... gotten from me of some such noble friends as I -am loath to offend’ he includes: - - ‘A book of a sumptuous shew in Shrouetide, by Sir Walter Rawley, - Sir Robart Carey, M. Chidley, and M. Arthur Gorge, in which book - was the whole seruice of my L. of Lester mencioned that he and - his traine did in Flaunders, and the gentlemen Pencioners proued - to be a great peece of honor to the Court: all which book was in - as good verse as euer I made: an honorable knight, dwelling in - the Black-Friers, can witness the same, because I read it vnto - him.’ - -The natural date for this ‘shew’ is Shrovetide 1587. I do not know why -Nichols, _Eliz._ ii. 279, dates the Osterley device 1579. Elizabeth was -often there, but I find no evidence of a visit in 1579. Lowndes speaks -of the work as in print, but I doubt whether he has any authority -beyond Churchyard’s own notice, which does not prove publication. - - -ANTHONY CHUTE (_ob. c._ 1595). - -Nashe in his _Have With You to Saffron Walden_ (1596, _Works_, iii. -107), attacking Chute as a friend of Gabriel Harvey, says, ‘he hath -kneaded and daub’d vp a Commedie, called The transformation of the -King of _Trinidadoes_ two Daughters, Madame _Panachaea_ and the Nymphe -_Tobacco_; and, to approue his Heraldrie, scutchend out the honorable -Armes of the smoakie Societie’. I hesitate to take this literally. - - -GEORGE CLIFFORD (1558–1605). - -George Clifford was born 8 Aug. 1558, succeeded as third Earl of -Cumberland 8 Jan. 1570, and died 30 Oct. 1605. A recent biography -is G. C. Williamson, _George, Third Earl of Cumberland_ (1920). He -married Margaret Russell, daughter of Francis, second Earl of Bedford, -on 24 June 1577. His daughter, Anne Clifford, who left an interesting -autobiography, married firstly Richard, third Earl of Dorset, and -secondly Philip, fourth Earl of Pembroke. Cumberland was prominent in -Elizabethan naval adventure and shone in the tilt. He is recorded as -appearing on 17 Nov. 1587 (Gawdy, 25) and 26 Aug. 1588 (_Sp. P._ iv. -419). On 17 Nov. 1590 he succeeded Sir Henry Lee (q.v.) as Knight of -the Crown. Thereafter he was the regular challenger for the Queen’s -Day tilt, often with the assistance of the Earl of Essex. On 17 Nov. -1592 they came together armed into the privy chamber, and issued a -challenge to maintain against all comers on the following 26 Feb. ‘that -ther M. is most worthyest and most fayrest Amadis de Gaule’ (Gawdy, -67). Cumberland’s tiltyard speeches, as Knight of Pendragon Castle, in -1591 (misdated 1592) and 1593 are printed by Williamson, 108, 121, from -manuscripts at Appleby Castle. - -His appearance as Knight of the Crown on 17 Nov. 1595 is noted in -Peele’s (q.v.) _Anglorum Feriae_. In F. Davison’s _Poetical Rhapsody_ -(1602, ed. Bullen, ii. 128) is an ode _Of Cynthia_, with the note ‘This -Song was sung before her sacred Maiestie at a shew on horse-backe, -wherwith the right Honorable the Earle of Cumberland presented her -Highnesse on Maie day last’. This is reprinted by R. W. Bond (_Lyly_, -i. 414) with alternative ascriptions to Lyly and to Sir John Davies. -But Cumberland himself wrote verses. I do not know why Bullen and -Bond assume that the show was on 1 May 1600. The _Cumberland MSS._ -at Bolton, Yorkshire, once contained a prose speech, now lost, in -the character of a melancholy knight, headed ‘A Copie of my Lord of -Combrlandes Speeche to y^e Queene, upon y^e 17 day of November, 1600’. -This was printed by T. D. Whitaker, _History of Craven_ (1805, ed. -Morant, 1878, p. 355), and reprinted by Nichols, _Eliz._ iii. 522, and -by Bond, _Lyly_, i. 415, with a conjectural attribution to Lyly. In -1601 Cumberland conveyed to Sir John Davies a suggestion from Sir R. -Cecil that he should write a ‘speech for introduction of the barriers’ -(_Hatfield MSS._ xi. 544), and in letters of 1602 he promised Cecil to -appear at the tilt on Queen’s Day, but later tried to excuse himself -on the ground that a damaged arm would not let him carry a staff -(_Hatfield MSS._ xii. 438, 459, 574). Anne Clifford records ‘speeches -and delicate presents’ at Grafton when James and Anne visited the Earl -there on 27 June 1603 (Wiffen, ii. 71). - - -JO. COOKE (_c._ 1612). - -Beyond his play, practically nothing is known of Cooke. It is not even -clear whether ‘Jo.’ stands for John, or for Joshua; the latter is -suggested by the manuscript ascription on a copy of the anonymous _How -a Man may Choose a Good Wife from a Bad_ (q.v.). Can Cooke be identical -with the I. Cocke who contributed to Stephens’s _Characters_ in 1615 -(cf. App. C, No. lx)? Collier, iii. 408, conjectures that he was a -brother John named, probably as dead, in the will (3 Jan. 1614) of -Alexander Cooke the actor (cf. ch. xv). There is an entry in S. R. on -22 May 1604 of a lost ‘Fyftie epigrams written by J. Cooke Gent’, and a -‘I. Cooke’ wrote commendatory verses to Drayton’s _Legend of Cromwell_ -(1607). - - _Greenes Tu Quoque or The City Gallant. 1611_ - -1614. Greene’s Tu quoque, or, The Cittie Gallant. As it hath beene -diuers times acted by the Queenes Maiesties Seruants. Written by Io. -Cooke, Gent. _For John Trundle._ [Epistle to the Reader, signed ‘Thomas -Heywood’, and a couplet ‘Upon the Death of Thomas Greene’, signed ‘W. -R.’] - -1622. _For Thomas Dewe._ - -N.D. _M. Flesher._ - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–4} (1744–1875) and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. -D._ ii) and J. S. Farmer (1913, _S. F. T._). - -Heywood writes ‘to gratulate the love and memory of my worthy friend -the author, and my entirely beloved fellow the actor’, both of whom -were evidently dead. Satire of Coryat’s _Crudities_ gives a date -between its publication in 1611 and the performances of the play by the -Queen’s men at Court on 27 Dec. 1611 and 2 Feb. 1612 (cf. App. B). In -Aug. 1612 died Thomas Greene, who had evidently played Bubble at the -Red Bull (ed. Dodsley, p. 240): - - _Geraldine._ Why, then, we’ll go to the Red Bull: they say - Green’s a good clown. - - _Bubble._ Green! Green’s an ass. - - _Scattergood._ Wherefore do you say so? - - _Bubble._ Indeed I ha’ no reason; for they say he is as - like me as ever he can look. - -Chetwood’s assertion of a 1599 print is negligible. The Queen of -Bohemia’s men revived the play at Court on 6 Jan. 1625 (_Variorum_, -iii. 228). - - -AQUILA CRUSO (_c._ 1610). - -Author of the academic _Euribates Pseudomagus_ (cf. App. K). - - -ROBERT DABORNE (?-1628). - -Daborne claimed to be of ‘generous’ descent, and it has been -conjectured that he belonged to a family at Guildford, Surrey. Nothing -is known of him until he appears with Rosseter and others as a patentee -for the Queen’s Revels in 1610. Presumably he wrote for this company, -and when they amalgamated with the Lady Elizabeth’s in 1613 came into -relations with Henslowe, who acted as paymaster for the combination. -The Dulwich collection contains between thirty and forty letters, -bonds, and receipts bearing upon these relations. A few are undated; -the rest extend from 17 April 1613 to 4 July 1615. Most of them were -printed by Malone (_Variorum_, iii. 336), Collier (_Alleyn Papers_, -56), and Swaen (_Anglia_, xx. 155), and all, with a stray fragment from -_Egerton MS._ 2623, f. 24, are in Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 65, 126. -There and in _Henslowe_, ii. 141, Dr. Greg attempts an arrangement -of them and of the plays to which they relate, which seems to me -substantially sound. They show Daborne, during the twelve months from -April 1613, to which they mainly belong, writing regularly for the Lady -Elizabeth’s, but prepared at any moment to sell a play to the King’s -if he can get a better bargain. Lawsuits and general poverty made him -constantly desirous of obtaining small advances from Henslowe, and on -one occasion he was in the Clink. In the course of the year he was at -work on at least five plays (_vide infra_), alone or in co-operation -now with Tourneur, now with Field, Massinger, and Fletcher. Modern -conjectures have assigned him some share in plays of the Beaumont -and Fletcher series which there is no external evidence to connect -with his name. However this may be, it is clear that, unless his -activity in 1613–14 was abnormal, he must have written much of which -we know nothing. He is still traceable in connexion with the stage up -to 1616, giving a joint bond with Massinger in Aug. 1615, receiving -an acquittance of debts through his wife Francisce from Henslowe on -his death-bed in Jan. 1616 (_Henslowe_, ii. 20), and witnessing the -agreement between Alleyn and Meade and Prince Charles’s men on the -following 20 March. But he must have taken orders by 1618, when he -published a sermon, and he became Chancellor of Waterford in 1619, -Prebendary of Lismore in 1620, and Dean of Lismore in 1621. On 23 March -1628 he ‘died amphibious by the ministry’ according to _The Time Poets_ -(_Choice Drollery_, 1656, sig. B). - - _Collection_ - -1898–9. A. E. H. Swaen in _Anglia_, xx. 153; xxi. 373. - -_Dissertation_: R. Boyle, _D.’s Share in the Beaumont and Fletcher -Plays_ (1899, _E. S._ xxvi. 352). - - _A Christian Turned Turk. 1609 < > 12_ - -_S. R._ 1612, Feb. 1 (Buck). ‘A booke called A Christian turned Turke, -or the tragicall lyffes and deathes of the 2 famous pyrates Ward and -Danseker, as it hath bene publiquely acted written by Robert Daborn -gent.’ _William Barrenger_ (Arber, iii. 476). - -1612. A Christian turn’d Turke: or, The Tragicall Liues and Deaths -of the two Famous Pyrates, Ward and Dansiker. As it hath beene -publickly Acted. Written by Robert Daborn, Gentleman. _For William -Barrenger._ [Epistle by Daborne to the Reader, Prologue and -Epilogue.] - -This may, as Fleay, i. 83, says, be a Queen’s Revels play, but he gives -no definite proof, and if it is the ‘unwilling error’ apologized for in -the epilogue to _Mucedorus_ (1610), it is more likely to proceed from -the King’s men. It appears to be indebted to pamphlets on the career -of its heroes, printed in 1609. The Epistle explains the publishing -of ‘this oppressed and much martird Tragedy, not that I promise to my -selfe any reputation hereby, or affect to see my name in Print, vsherd -with new praises, for feare the Reader should call in question their -iudgements that giue applause in the action; for had this wind moued -me, I had preuented others shame in subscribing some of my former -labors, or let them gone out in the diuels name alone; which since -impudence will not suffer, I am content they passe together; it is then -to publish my innocence concerning the wrong of worthy personages, -together with doing some right to the much-suffering Actors that hath -caused my name to cast it selfe in the common rack of censure’. I do -not know why the play should have been ‘martir’d’, but incidentally -Daborne seems to be claiming a share in Dekker’s _If It be not Good, -the Devil is in It_ (1612). - - _The Poor Man’s Comfort, c. 1617_ (?) - -[_MS._] _Egerton MS._ 1994, f. 268. - -[Scribal signature ‘By P. Massam’ at end.] - -_S. R._ 1655, June 20. ‘A booke called The Poore Mans comfort, a -Tragicomedie written by Robert Dawborne, M^r of Arts.’ _John Sweeting_ -(Eyre, i. 486). - -1655. The Poor-Mans Comfort. A Tragi-Comedy, As it was diuers times -Acted at the Cockpit in Drury Lane with great applause. Written by -Robert Dauborne Master of Arts. _For Rob: Pollard and John Sweeting._ -[Prologue, signed ‘Per E. M.’] - -The stage-direction to l. 186 is ‘Enter 2 Lords, Sands, Ellis’. Perhaps -we have here the names of two actors, Ellis Worth, who was with Anne’s -men at the Cockpit in 1617–19, and Gregory Sanderson, who joined -the same company before May, 1619. But there is also a James Sands, -traceable as a boy of the King’s in 1605. The performances named on the -title-page are not necessarily the original ones and the play may have -been produced by the Queen’s at the Red Bull, but 1617 is as likely a -date as another, and when a courtier says of a poor man’s suit (l. 877) -that it is ‘some suit from porters hall, belike not worth begging’, -there may conceivably be an allusion to attempts to preserve the -Porter’s Hall theatre from destruction in the latter year. In any case, -Daborne is not likely to have written the play after he took orders. - - _Doubtful and Lost Plays_ - -The Henslowe correspondence appears to show Daborne as engaged between -17 April 1613 and 2 April 1614 on the following plays: - -(_a_) _Machiavel and the Devil_ (17 April-_c._ 25 June 1613), possibly, -according to Fleay and Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 152, based on the old -_Machiavel_ revived by Strange’s men in 1592. - -(_b_) _The Arraignment of London_, probably identical with _The Bellman -of London_ (5 June–9 Dec. 1613), with Cyril Tourneur, possibly, as -Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 75, suggests, based on Dekker’s tract, _The -Bellman of London_ (1608). - -(_c_) An unnamed play with Field, Massinger, and Fletcher, the subject -of undated correspondence (_Henslowe Papers_, 65 and possibly 70, 84) -and possibly also of dated letters of July 1613 (_H. P._ 74). - -(_d_) _The Owl_ (9 Dec. 1613–28 March 1614). A comedy of this name -is in Archer’s list of 1656, but Greg, _Masques_, xcv, thinks that -Jonson’s _Mask of Owls_ may be meant. - -(_e_) _The She Saint_ (2 April 1614). - -Daborne has been suggested as a contributor to the _Cupid’s Revenge_, -_Faithful Friends_, _Honest Man’s Fortune_, _Thierry and Theodoret_, -and later plays of the Beaumont (q.v.) and Fletcher series, and -attempts have been made to identify more than one of these with (_c_) -above. - - -SAMUEL DANIEL (_c._ 1563–1619). - -Daniel was born in Somerset, probably near Taunton, about 1563. His -father is said to have been John Daniel, a musician; he certainly had -a brother John, of the same profession. In 1579 he entered Magdalen -Hall, Oxford, but took no degree. He visited France about January 1585 -and sent an account of political affairs from the Rue St. Jacques to -Walsingham in the following March (_S. P. F._ xix. 388). His first -work was a translation of the _Imprese_ of Paulus Jovius (1585). In -1586 he served Sir Edward Stafford, the English ambassador in Paris, -and as a young man visited Italy. He was domesticated at Wilton, and -under the patronage of Mary, Lady Pembroke, wrote his sonnets to Delia, -the publication of which, partial in 1591 and complete in 1592, gave -him a considerable reputation as a poet. The attempt of Fleay, i. 86, -to identify Delia with Elizabeth Carey, daughter of Sir George Carey, -afterwards Lord Hunsdon, breaks down. Nashe in _The Terrors of the -Night_ (1594, ed. McKerrow, i. 342) calls her a ‘second Delia’, and -obviously the first was not, as Fleay suggests, Queen Elizabeth, but -the heroine of the sonnets. Delia dwelt on an Avon, but the fact that -in 1602 Lord Hunsdon took the waters at Bath does not give him a seat -on the Avon there. Lady Pembroke’s _Octavia_ (q.v.) inspired Daniel’s -book-drama _Cleopatra_ (1594). Other poems, notably _The History of -the Civil Wars_ (1595), followed. Tradition makes Daniel poet laureate -after Spenser’s death in 1599. There was probably no such post, but it -is clear from verses prefixed to a single copy (B.M.C. 21, 2, 17) of -the _Works_ of 1601, which are clearly addressed to Elizabeth, and not, -as Grosart, i. 2, says, Anne, that he had some allowance at Court: - - I, who by that most blessed hand sustain’d, - In quietnes, do eate the bread of rest. - (Grosart, i. 9.) - -Possibly, however, this grant was a little later than 1599. Daniel -acted as tutor to Anne Clifford, daughter of the Earl of Cumberland, -at Skipton Castle, probably by 1599, when he published his _Poetical -Essays_, which include an _Epistle_ to Lady Cumberland. It might have -been either Herbert or Clifford influence which brought him into favour -with Lady Bedford and led to his selection as poet for the first -Queen’s mask at the Christmas of 1603. No doubt this preference aroused -jealousies, and to about this date one may reasonably assign Jonson’s -verse-letter to Lady Rutland (_The Forest_, xii) in which he speaks of -his devotion to Lady Bedford: - - though she have a better verser got, - (Or Poet, in the court-account), than I, - And who doth me, though I not him envy. - -In 1619 Jonson told Drummond that he had answered Daniel’s _Defence -of Ryme_ (?1603), that ‘Samuel Daniel was a good honest man, had no -children; but no poet’, and that ‘Daniel was at jealousies with him’ -(Laing, 1, 2, 10). All this suggests to me a rivalry at the Jacobean, -rather than the Elizabethan Court, and I concur in the criticisms of -Small, 181, upon the elaborate attempts of Fleay, i. 84, 359, to trace -attacks on Daniel in Jonson’s earlier comedies. Fleay makes Daniel -Fastidious Brisk in _Every Man Out of his Humour_, Hedon in _Cynthia’s -Revels_, and alternatively Hermogenes Tigellius and Tibullus in _The -Poetaster_, as well as Emulo in the _Patient Grissel_ of Dekker and -others. In most of these equations he is followed by others, notably -Penniman, who adds (_Poetaster_, xxxvii) Matheo in _Every Man In his -Humour_ and Gullio in the anonymous _1 Return from Parnassus_. For -all this the only basis is that Brisk, Matheo, and Gullio imitate or -parody Daniel’s poetry. What other poetry, then, would affected young -men at the end of the sixteenth century be likely to imitate? Some -indirect literary criticism on Daniel may be implied, but this does -not constitute the imitators portraits of Daniel. Fleay’s further -identifications of Daniel with Littlewit in _Bartholomew Fair_ and -Dacus in the _Epigrams_ of Sir John Davies are equally unsatisfactory. -To return to biography. In 1604 Daniel, for the first time so far as -is known, became connected with the stage, through his appointment as -licenser for the Queen’s Revels by their patent of 4 Feb. Collier, _New -Facts_, 47, prints, as preserved at Bridgewater House, two undated -letters from Daniel to Sir Thomas Egerton. One, intended to suggest -that Shakespeare was a rival candidate for the post in the Queen’s -Revels, is a forgery, and this makes it impossible to attach much -credit to the other, in which the writer mentions the ‘preferment -of my brother’ and that he himself has ‘bene constrayned to live -with children’. Moreover, the manuscript was not forthcoming in 1861 -(Ingleby, 247, 307). Daniel evidently took a part in the management of -the Revels company; the indiscretion of his _Philotas_ did not prevent -him from acting as payee for their plays of 1604–5. But his connexion -with them probably ceased when _Eastward Ho!_ led, later in 1605, to -the withdrawal of Anne’s patronage. The irrepressible Mr. Fleay (i. -110) thinks that they then satirized him as Damoetas in Day’s _Isle -of Gulls_ (1606). Daniel wrote one more mask and two pastorals, all -for Court performances. By 1607 he was Groom of Anne’s Privy Chamber, -and by 1613 Gentleman Extraordinary of the same Chamber. In 1615 his -brother John obtained through his influence a patent for the Children -of the Queen’s Chamber of Bristol (cf. ch. xii). He is said to have had -a wife Justina, who was probably the sister of John Florio, whom he -called ‘brother’ in 1611. The suggestion of Bolton Corney (_3 N. Q._ -viii. 4, 40, 52) that this only meant fellow servant of the Queen is -not plausible; this relation would have been expressed by ‘fellow’. He -had a house in Old Street, but kept up his Somerset connexion, and was -buried at Beckington, where he had a farm named Ridge, in Oct. 1619. - - _Collections_ - -1599. The Poeticall Essayes of Sam. Danyel. Newly corrected and -augmented. _P. Short for Simon Waterson._ [Includes _Cleopatra_.] - -1601. The Works of Samuel Daniel Newly Augmented. _For Simon Waterson._ -[_Cleopatra._] - -1602. [Reissue of 1601 with fresh t.p.] - -1605. Certaine Small Poems Lately Printed: with the Tragedie of -Philotas. Written by Samuel Daniel. _G. Eld for Simon Waterson._ -[_Cleopatra_, _Philotas_.] - -1607. Certain Small Workes Heretofore Divulged by Samuel Daniel one of -the Groomes of the Queenes Maiesties priuie Chamber, and now againe by -him corrected and augmented. _I. W. for Simon Waterson._ [Two issues. -_Cleopatra_, _Philotas_, _The Queen’s Arcadia_.] - -1611. Certain Small Workes.... _I. L. for Simon Waterson._ [Two issues. -_Cleopatra_, _Philotas_, _The Queen’s Arcadia_.] - -1623. The Whole Workes of Samuel Daniel Esquire in Poetrie. _Nicholas -Okes for Simon Waterson._ [_Cleopatra_, _Philotas_, _The Queen’s -Arcadia_, _Hymen’s Triumph_, _The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses_. This -was edited by John Daniel.] - -1635. Drammaticke Poems, written by Samuel Danniell Esquire, one of the -Groomes of the most Honorable Privie Chamber to Queene Anne. _T. Cotes -for John Waterson._ [Reissue of 1623 with fresh t.p.] - -1718. _For R. G. Gosling, W. Mears, J. Browne._ - -1885–96. The Complete Works in Verse and Prose of Samuel Daniel. Edited -by A. B. Grosart. 5 vols. [Vol. iii (1885) contains the plays and -masks.] - - PLAYS - - _Cleopatra > 1593_ - -_S. R._ 1593, Oct. 19. ‘A booke intituled The Tragedye of Cleopatra.’ -_Symond Waterson_ (Arber, ii. 638). - -1594. Delia and Rosamond augmented. Cleopatra. By Samuel Daniel. _James -Roberts and Edward Allde for Simon Waterson._ [Two editions. Verse -Epistle to Lady Pembroke.] - -1595. _James Roberts and Edward Allde for Simon Waterson._ - -1598. _Peter Short for Simon Waterson._ - -Also in _Colls._ 1599–1635. - -_Edition_ by M. Lederer (1911, _Materialien_, xxxi). - -The play is in the classical manner, with choruses. The Epistle speaks -of the play as motived by Lady Pembroke’s ‘well grac’d _Antony_’; -the Apology to _Philotas_ shows that it was not acted. In 1607 it -is described as ‘newly altered’, and is in fact largely rewritten, -perhaps under the stimulus of the production of Shakespeare’s _Antony -and Cleopatra_. The 1607 text is repeated in 1611, and the Epistle to -Lady Pembroke is rewritten. But the text of 1623 is the earlier version -again. - - _Philotas. 1604_ - -_S. R._ 1604, Nov. 29 (Pasfield). ‘A Booke called the tragedie of -Philotus wrytten by Samuel Daniell.’ _Waterson and Edward Blunt_ -(Arber, iii. 277). - -1605. [Part of _Coll._ 1605. Verse Epistle to Prince Henry, signed -‘Sam. Dan.’; Apology.] - -1607. The Tragedie of Philotas. By Sam. Daniel. _Melch. Bradwood for -Edward Blount._ [Shortened version of Epistle to Henry.] - -Also in _Colls._ 1607–35. - -The play is in the classical manner, with choruses. From the Apology, -motived by ‘the wrong application and misconceiving’ of it, I extract: - - ‘Above eight yeares since [1596], meeting with my deare friend - D. Lateware, (whose memory I reverence) in his Lords Chamber - and mine, I told him the purpose I had for _Philotas_: who - sayd that himselfe had written the same argument, and caused - it to be presented in St. John’s Colledge in Oxford; where - as I after heard, it was worthily and with great applause - performed.... And living in the Country, about foure yeares - since, and neere halfe a yeare before the late Tragedy of ours - (whereunto this is now most ignorantly resembled) unfortunately - fell out heere in England [Sept., 1600], I began the same, - and wrote three Acts thereof,--as many to whom I then shewed - it can witnesse,--purposing to have had it presented in Bath - by certaine Gentlemens sonnes, as a private recreation for - the Christmas, before the Shrovetide of that unhappy disorder - [Feb. 1601]. But by reason of some occasion then falling out, - and being called upon by my Printer for a new impression of my - workes, with some additions to the Civill Warres, I intermitted - this other subject. Which now lying by mee, and driven by - necessity to make use of my pen, and the Stage to bee the - mouth of my lines, which before were never heard to speake - but in silence, I thought the representing so true a History, - in the ancient forme of a Tragedy, could not but have had - an unreproveable passage with the time, and the better sort - of men; seeing with what idle fictions, and grosse follies, - the Stage at this day abused mens recreations.... And for any - resemblance, that thorough the ignorance of the History may be - applied to the late Earle of Essex, it can hold in no proportion - but only in his weaknesses, which I would wish all that love - his memory not to revive. And for mine owne part, having beene - perticularly beholding to his bounty, I would to God his errors - and disobedience to his Sovereigne might be so deepe buried - underneath the earth, and in so low a tombe from his other - parts, that hee might never be remembered among the examples - of disloyalty in this Kingdome, or paraleld with Forreine - Conspirators.’ - -The Apology is fixed by its own data to the autumn of 1604, and the -performance was pretty clearly by the Queen’s Revels in the same year. -Daniel was called before the Privy Council on account of the play, and -used the name of the Earl of Devonshire in his defence. The earl was -displeased and a letter of excuse from Daniel is extant (Grosart, i. -xxii, from _S. P. D. Jac. I, 1603–10_, p. 18) in which, after asserting -that he had satisfied Lord Cranborne [Robert Cecil], he says: - - ‘First I tolde the Lordes I had written 3 Acts of this tragedie - the Christmas before my L. of Essex troubles, as diuers in the - cittie could witnes. I saide the maister of the Revells had - pervsed it. I said I had read some parte of it to your honour, - and this I said having none els of powre to grace mee now in - Corte & hoping that you out of your knowledg of bookes, or - fauour of letters & mee, might answere that there is nothing - in it disagreeing nor any thing, as I protest there is not, - but out of the vniuersall notions of ambition and envie, the - perpetuall argumentes of books or tragedies. I did not say you - incouraged me vnto the presenting of it; yf I should I had beene - a villayne, for that when I shewd it to your honour I was not - resolud to haue had it acted, nor should it haue bene had not my - necessities ouermaistred mee.’ - - _The Queen’s Arcadia. 1605_ - -_S. R._ 1605, Nov. 26 (Pasfield). ‘A book called The Quenes Arcadia. -Presented by the university of Oxon in Christchurch.’ _Waterson_ -(Arber, iii. 305). - -1606. The Queenes Arcadia. A Pastorall Trage-comedie presented to -her Maiestie and her Ladies, by the Vniuersitie of Oxford in Christs -Church, In August last. _G. Eld for Simon Waterson._ [Dedicatory verses -to the Queen.] - -See _Collections_. - -The performance was by Christ Church men on 30 Aug. 1605 during the -royal visit to Oxford (cf. ch. iv). The original title appears to have -been _Arcadia Reformed_. Chamberlain told Winwood (ii. 140) that the -other plays were dull, but Daniel’s ‘made amends for all; being indeed -very excelent, and some parts exactly acted’. - - _Hymen’s Triumph. 1614_ - -[_MS._] _Drummond MS._ in Edinburgh Univ. Library. [Sonnet to Lady -Roxborough, signed ‘Samuel Danyel’. The manuscript given to the library -by William Drummond of Hawthornden, a kinsman of Lady Roxborough, in -1627, is fully described by W. W. Greg in _M. L. Q._ vi. 59. It is -partly holograph, and represents an earlier state of the text than -the quarto of 1615. A letter of 1621 from Drummond to Sir Robert Ker, -afterwards Earl of Ancrum, amongst the _Lothian MSS._ (_Hist. MSS._ i. -116), expresses an intention of printing what appears to have been the -same manuscript.] - -_S. R._ 1615, Jan. 13 (Buck). ‘A play called Hymens triumphes.’ -_Francis Constable_ (iii. 561), [The clerk first wrote ‘Hymens -pastoralls’.] - -1615. Hymens Triumph. A Pastorall Tragicomaedie. Presented at the -Queenes Court in the Strand at her Maiesties magnificent intertainement -of the Kings most excellent Maiestie, being at the Nuptials of the Lord -Roxborough. By Samuel Daniel. _For Francis Constable._ [Dedicatory -verses to the Queen, signed ‘Sam. Daniel’, and Prologue.] - -See _Collections_. - -Robert Ker, Lord Roxborough, was married to Jean Drummond, daughter -of Patrick, third Lord Drummond, and long a lady of Anne’s household. -The wedding was originally fixed for 6 Jan. 1614, and the Queen meant -to celebrate it with ‘a masque of maids, if they may be found’ (Birch, -i. 279). It was, however, put off until Candlemas, doubtless to avoid -competition with Somerset’s wedding, and appears from the dedication -also to have served for a house-warming, to which Anne invited James -on the completion of some alterations to Somerset House. Finett -(_Philoxenis_, 16), who describes the complications caused by an -invitation to the French ambassador, gives the date as 2 Feb., which is -in itself the more probable; but John Chamberlain gives 3 Feb., unless -there is an error in the dating of the two letters to Carleton, cited -by Greg from _Addl. MS._ 4173, ff. 368, 371, as of 3 and 10 Feb. In -the first he writes, ‘This day the Lord of Roxburgh marries M^{rs}. -Jane Drummond at Somerset House, whither the King is invited to lie -this night; & shall be entertained with shews & devices, specially a -Pastoral, that shall be represented in a little square paved Court’; -and in the second, ‘This day sevennight the Lord of Roxburgh married -M^{rs}. Jane Drummond at Somerset House or Queen’s Court (as it must -now be called). The King tarried there till Saturday after dinner. The -Entertainment was great, & cost the Queen, as she says, above 3000£. -The Pastoral made by Samuel Daniel was solemn & dull; but perhaps -better to be read than represented.’ Gawdy, 175, also mentions the -‘pastoral’. There is nothing to show who were the performers. - - _Doubtful Play_ - -Daniel has been suggested as the author of the anonymous _Maid’s -Metamorphosis_. - - MASKS - - _The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses. 8 Jan. 1604_ - -1604. The true discription of a Royall Masque. Presented at Hampton -Court, vpon Sunday night, being the eight of Ianuary, 1604. And -Personated by the Queenes most Excellent Majestie, attended by Eleuen -Ladies of Honour. _Edward Allde._ - -1604. The Vision of the 12. Goddesses, presented in a Maske the 8 of -Ianuary, at Hampton Court: By the Queenes most Excellent Maiestie, and -her Ladies. _T. C. for Simon Waterson._ [A preface to Lucy, Countess -of Bedford, is signed by Daniel, who states that the publication was -motived by ‘the unmannerly presumption of an indiscreet Printer, who -without warrant hath divulged the late shewe ... and the same very -disorderly set forth’. Lady Bedford had ‘preferred’ Daniel to the Queen -‘in this imployment’.] - -See _Collections_. - -_Editions_ by Nichols, _James_, i. 305 (1828), E. Law (1880), and H. A. -Evans (1897, _English Masques_). - -The maskers, in various colours and with appropriate emblems, were -twelve Goddesses, and were attended by torchbearers (cf. Carleton, -_infra_); the presenters, ‘for the introducing this show’, Night, -Sleep, Iris, Sibylla, and the Graces; the cornets, Satyrs. - -The locality was the Hall at Hampton Court. At the lower end was a -mountain, from which the maskers descended, and in which the cornets -played; at the upper end the cave of Sleep and, on the left (Carleton), -a temple of Peace, in the cupola of which was ‘the consort music’, -while viols and lutes were ‘on one side of the hall’. - -The maskers presented their emblems, which Sibylla laid upon the altar -of the temple. They danced ‘their own measures’, then took out the -lords for ‘certain measures, galliards, and corantoes’, and after a -‘short departing dance’ reascended the mountain. - -This was a Queen’s mask, danced, according to manuscript notes in a -copy of the Allde edition (B.M. 161, a. 41) thought by Mr. Law to -be ‘in a hand very like Lord Worcester’s’ (_vide infra_), and -possibly identical with the ‘original MS. of this mask’ from which the -same names are given in Collier, i. 347, by the Queen (Pallas), the -Countesses of Suffolk (Juno), Hertford (Diana), Bedford (Vesta), Derby -(Proserpine), and Nottingham (Concordia), and the Ladies Rich (Venus), -Hatton (Macaria), Walsingham (Astraea), Susan Vere (Flora), Dorothy -Hastings (Ceres), and Elizabeth Howard (Tethys). - -Anticipations of masks at Court during the winter of 1603–4 are to -be found in letters to Lord Shrewsbury from Arabella Stuart on 18 -Dec. (Bradley, ii. 193), ‘The Queene intendeth to make a Mask this -Christmas, to which end my Lady of Suffolk and my Lady Walsingham hath -warrants to take of the late Queenes best apparell out of the Tower at -theyr discretion. Certain Noblemen (whom I may not yet name to you, -because some of them have made me of theyr counsell) intend another. -Certain gentlemen of good sort another’; from Cecil on 23 Dec. (Lodge, -iii. 81), ‘masks and much more’; and from Sir Thomas Edmondes on 23 -Dec. (Lodge, iii. 83): - - ‘Both the King’s and Queen’s Majesty have a humour to have some - masks this Christmas time, and therefore, for that purpose, both - the young lords and chief gentlemen of one part, and the Queen - and her ladies of the other part, do severally undertake the - accomplishment and furnishing thereof; and, because there is - use of invention therein, special choice is made of Mr. Sanford - to direct the order and course for the ladies’; - -also in the letters of Carleton to Chamberlain on 27 Nov. (Birch, i. -24; _Hardwicke Papers_, i. 383), ‘many plays and shows are bespoken, to -give entertainment to our ambassadors’, and 22 Dec. (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, -v. 20; Law, 9): - - ‘We shall have a merry Christmas at Hampton Court, for both - male and female maskes are all ready bespoken, whereof the Duke - [of Lennox] is _rector chori_ of th’ one side and the La: - Bedford of the other.’ - -I suppose Mr. Sanford to be Henry Sanford, who, like Daniel, had been -of the Wilton household (cf. Aubrey, i. 311) and may well have lent him -his aid. - -The masks of lords on 1 Jan. and of Scots on 6 Jan. are not preserved. -The latter is perhaps most memorable because Ben Jonson and his friend -Sir John Roe were thrust out from it by the Lord Chamberlain (cf. ch. -vi). Arabella Stuart briefly told Shrewsbury on 10 Jan. that there were -three masks (Bradley, ii. 199). _Wilbraham’s Journal_ (_Camden -Misc._ x), 66, records: - - ‘manie plaies and daunces with swordes: one mask by English - and Scottish lords: another by the Queen’s Maiestie and eleven - more ladies of her chamber presenting giftes as goddesses. - These maskes, especialli the laste, costes 2000 or 3000^l, the - aparells: rare musick, fine songes: and in jewels most riche - 20000^l, the lest to my judgment: and her Maiestie 100,000^l. - After Christmas was running at the ring by the King and 8 or - 9 lordes for the honour of those goddesses and then they all - feasted together privatelie.’ - -But the fullest description was given by Carleton to Chamberlain on 15 -Jan. (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, vi. 21, printed by Law, 33, 45; Sullivan, 192). - - ‘On New yeares night we had a play of Robin goode-fellow - and a maske brought in by a magicien of China. There was a - heaven built at the lower end of the hall, owt of which our - magicien came downe and after he had made a long sleepy speech - to the King of the nature of the cuntry from whence he came - comparing it with owrs for strength and plenty, he sayde he had - broughte in cloudes certain Indian and China Knights to see - the magnificency of this court. And theruppon a trauers was - drawne and the maskers seen sitting in a voulty place with theyr - torchbearers and other lights which was no vnpleasing spectacle. - The maskers were brought in by two boyes and two musitiens who - began with a song and whilst that went forward they presented - themselves to the King. The first gave the King an Impresa in - a shield with a sonet in a paper to exprese his deuice and - presented a jewell of 40,000£ valew which the King is to buy of - Peter Van Lore, but that is more than euery man knew and it made - a faire shew to the French Ambassadors eye whose master would - have bin well pleased with such a maskers present but not at - that prise. The rest in theyr order deliuered theyr scutchins - with letters and there was no great stay at any of them saue - only at one who was putt to the interpretacion of his deuise. It - was a faire horse colt in a faire greene field which he meant - to be a colt of Busephalus race and had this virtu of his sire - that none could mount him but one as great at lest as Alexander. - The King made himself merry with threatening to send this colt - to the stable and he could not breake loose till he promised to - dance as well as Bankes his horse. The first measure was full - of changes and seemed confused but was well gone through with - all, and for the ordinary measures they tooke out the Queen, - the ladies of Derby, Harford, Suffolke, Bedford, Susan Vere, - Suthwell th’ elder and Rich. In the corantoes they ran over - some other of the young ladies, and so ended as they began with - a song; and that done, the magicien dissolved his enchantment, - and made the maskers appear in theyr likenes to be th’ Erle of - Pembroke, the Duke, Mons^r. d’Aubigny, yong Somerset, Philip - Harbert the young Bucephal, James Hayes, Richard Preston, - and Sir Henry Godier. Theyr attire was rich but somewhat too - heavy and cumbersome for dancers which putt them besides ther - galliardes. They had loose robes of crimsen sattin embrodered - with gold and bordered with brood siluer laces, dublets and - bases of cloth of siluer; buskins, swordes and hatts alike and - in theyr hats ech of them an Indian bird for a fether with - some jewells. The twelfe-day the French Ambassador was feasted - publikely; and at night there was a play in the Queens presence - with a masquerado of certaine Scotchmen who came in with a sword - dance not vnlike a matachin, and performed it clenly.... The - Sunday following was the great day of the Queenes maske.’ - -This Carleton describes at length; I only note points which supplement -Daniel’s description. - - ‘The Hale was so much lessened by the workes that were in it, - so as none could be admitted but men of apparance, the one end - was made into a rock and in several places the waightes placed; - in attire like savages. Through the midst from the top came a - winding stayre of breadth for three to march; and so descended - the maskers by three and three; which being all seene on the - stayres at once was the best presentacion I have at any time - seene. Theyre attire was alike, loose mantles and petticotes but - of different colors, the stuffs embrodered sattins and cloth - of gold and silver, for which they were beholding to Queen - Elizabeth’s wardrobe.... Only Pallas had a trick by herself for - her clothes were not so much below the knee, but that we might - see a woman had both feete and legs which I never knew before.’ - -He describes the torchbearers as pages in white satin loose gowns, -although Daniel says they were ‘in the like several colours’ to the -maskers. The temple was ‘on the left side of the hall towards the upper -end’. For the ‘common measures’ the lords taken out were Pembroke, -Lennox, Suffolk, Henry Howard, Southampton, Devonshire, Sidney, -Nottingham, Monteagle, Northumberland, Knollys, and Worcester. - - ‘For galliardes and corantoes they went by discretion, and the - yong Prince was tost from hand to hand like a tennis bal. The - Lady Bedford and Lady Susan tooke owt the two ambassadors; and - they bestirred themselfe very liuely: speceally the Spaniard for - the Spanish galliard shewed himself a lusty old reueller.... But - of all for goode grace and goode footmanship Pallas bare the - bell away.’ - -The dancers unmasked about midnight, and then came a banquet in the -presence-chamber, ‘which was dispatched with the accustomed confusion’. - -Carleton also mentions the trouble between the Spanish and French -ambassadors, which is also referred to in a letter of O. Renzo to G. -A. Frederico (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, vi. 37; cf. Sullivan, 195), and is -the subject of several dispatches by and to the Comte de Beaumont -(_King’s MSS._ cxxiv, ff. 328, 359^v, 363, 373, 381, 383^v, 389; cf. -Reyher, 519, Sullivan, 193–5). was the object of the Court not to -invite both ambassadors together, as this would entail an awkward -decision as to precedence. Beaumont was asked first, to the mask on 1 -Jan. He hesitated to accept, expressing a fear that it was intended to -ask De Taxis to the Queen’s mask on Twelfth Night, ‘dernier jour des -festes de Noël selon la facon d’Angleterre et le plus honnorable de -tout pour la cérémonie qui s’y obserue de tout temps publiquement’. -After some negotiation he extracted a promise from James that, if the -Spaniard was present at all, it would be in a private capacity, and he -then dropped the point, and accepted his own invitation, threatening to -kill De Taxis in the presence if he dared to dispute precedence with -him. On 5 Jan. he learnt that Anne had refused to dance if De Taxis was -not present, and that the promise would be broken. He protested, and -his protest was met by an invitation for the Twelfth Night to which he -had attached such importance. But the Queen’s mask was put off until -8 Jan., a Scottish mask substituted on 6 Jan., and on 8 Jan. De Taxis -was present, revelling it in red, while Anne paid him the compliment of -wearing a red favour on her costume. - -Reyher, 519, cites references to the Queen’s mask in the accounts of -the Treasurer of the Chamber and of the Office of Works. E. Law (_Hist. -of Hampton Court_, ii. 10) gives, presumably from one of these, ‘making -readie the lower ende with certain roomes of the hall at Hampton Court -for the Queenes Maiestie and ladies against their mask by the space of -three dayes’. - -Allde’s edition must have been quickly printed. On 2 Feb. Lord -Worcester wrote to Lord Shrewsbury (Lodge, iii. 87): ‘Whereas your -Lordship saith you were never particularly advertised of the mask, I -have been at sixpence charge with you to send you the book, which will -inform you better than I can, having noted the names of the ladies -applied to each goddess; and for the other, I would likewise have sent -you the ballet, if I could have got it for money, but these books, as -I hear, are all called in, and in truth I will not take upon me to set -that down which wiser than myself do not understand.’ - - _Tethys’ Festival. 5 June 1610_ - -1610. Tethys Festiual: or the Queenes Wake. Celebrated at Whitehall, -the fifth day of June 1610. Deuised by Samuel Daniel, one of the -Groomes of her Maiesties most Honourable priuie Chamber. _For John -Budge._ [Annexed with separate title-page to _The Creation of Henry -Prince of Wales_ (q.v.). A Preface to the Reader criticizes, though not -by name, Ben Jonson’s descriptions of his masks.] - -_Edition_ in Nichols, _James_ (1828), ii. 346. - -The maskers, in sky-blue and cloth of silver, were Tethys and thirteen -Nymphs of as many English Rivers; the antimaskers, in light robes -adorned with flowers, eight Naiads; the presenters Zephyrus and two -Tritons, whom with the Naiads Daniel calls ‘the Ante-maske or first -shew’, and Mercury. Torchbearers were dispensed with, for ‘they would -have pestered the roome, which the season would not well permit’. - -The locality was probably the Banqueting Room at Whitehall. The scene -was supplemented by a Tree of Victory on a mount to the right of ‘the -state’. A ‘travers’ representing a cloud served for a curtain, and was -drawn to discover, within a framework borne on pilasters, in front -of which stood Neptune and Nereus on pedestals, a haven, whence the -‘Ante-maske’ issued. They presented on behalf of Tethys a trident to -the King, and a sword and scarf to Henry, and the Naiads danced round -Zephyrus. The scene was then changed, under cover of three circles of -moving lights and glasses, to show five niches, of which the central -one represented a throne for Tethys, with Thames at her feet, and the -others four caverns, each containing three Nymphs. - -The maskers marched to the Tree of Victory, at which they offered their -flowers, and under which Tethys reposed between the dances. Of these -they gave two; then took out the Lords for ‘measures, corantos, and -galliardes’; and then gave their ‘retyring daunce’. Apparently as an -innovation, ‘to avoid the confusion which usually attendeth the desolve -of these shewes’, the presenters stayed the dissolve, and Mercury sent -the Duke of York and six young noblemen to conduct the Queen and ladies -back ‘in their owne forme’. - -This was a Queen’s mask, and Daniel notes ‘that there were none of -inferior sort mixed among these great personages of state and honour -(as usually there have been); but all was performed by themselves -with a due reservation of their dignity. The maskers were the -Queen (Tethys), the Lady Elizabeth (Thames), Lady Arabella Stuart -(Trent), the Countesses of Arundel (Arun), Derby (Darwent), Essex -(Lee), Dorset (Air), and Montgomery (Severn), Viscountess Haddington -(Rother), and the Ladies Elizabeth Gray (Medway), Elizabeth Guilford -(Dulesse), Katherine Petre (Olwy), Winter (Wye), and Windsor (Usk). -The antimaskers were ‘eight little Ladies’. The Duke of York played -Zephyrus, and two gentlemen ‘of good worth and respect’ the Tritons. -‘The artificiall part’, says Daniel, ‘only speakes Master Inago Jones.’ - -On 13 Jan. 1610 Chamberlain wrote to Winwood (iii. 117, misdated -‘February’) that ‘the Queen would likewise have a mask against -Candlemas or Shrovetide’. Doubtless it was deferred to the Creation, -for which on 24 May the same writer (Winwood, iii. 175) mentions Anne -as preparing and practising a mask. Winwood’s papers (iii. 179) also -contain a description, unsigned, but believed by their editor to be -written by John Finett, as follows: - - ‘The next day was graced with a most glorious Maske, which - was double. In the first, came first in the little Duke of - Yorke between two great Sea Slaves, the cheefest of Neptune’s - servants, attended upon by twelve [eight] little Ladies, all - of them the daughters of Earls or Barons. By one of these - men a speech was made unto the King and Prince, expressing - the conceipt of the maske; by the other a sword worth 20,000 - crowns at the least was put into the Duke of York’s hands, - who presented the same unto the Prince his brother from the - first of those ladies which were to follow in the next maske. - This done, the Duke returned into his former place in midst - of the stage, and the little ladies performed their dance to - the amazement of all the beholders, considering the tenderness - of their years and the many intricate changes of the dance; - which was so disposed, that which way soever the changes went - the little Duke was still found to be in the midst of these - little dancers. These light skirmishers having done their - _devoir_, in came the Princesses; first the Queen, next the - Lady Elizabeth’s Grace, then the Lady Arbella, the Countesses - of Arundell, Derby, Essex, Dorset, and Montgomery, the Lady - Hadington, the Lady Elizabeth Grey, the Lady Windsor, the Lady - Katherine Peter, the Lady Elizabeth Guilford, and the Lady Mary - [Anne] Wintour. By that time these had done, it was high time - to go to bed, for it was within half an hour of the sun’s, not - setting, but rising. Howbeit, a farther time was to be spent in - viewing and scrambling at one of the most magnificent banquets - that I have seen. The ambassadors of Spaine, of Venice, and of - the Low Countries were present at this and all the rest of these - glorious sights, and in truth so they were.’ - -Brief notices in Stowe’s _Annales_ (902, paged 907 in error) and in -letters by Carleton to Sir Thomas Edmondes (Birch, i. 114) and by -John Noies to his wife (_Hist. MSS. Various Colls._ iii. 261) add -nothing to Finett’s account. There were no very serious ambassadorial -complications, as the death of Henri IV put an invitation to the -French ambassador out of the question (cf. Sullivan, 59). Correr notes -with satisfaction that, as ambassador from Venice, he had as good -a box as that of the Spanish ambassador, while, to please Spanish -susceptibilities, that of the Dutch ambassador was less good (_V. P._ -xi. 507). - -The mask was ‘excessively costly’ (_V. P._ xii. 86). Several financial -documents relating to it are on record (Reyher, 507, 521; Devon, 105, -127; Sullivan, 219, 221; _S. P. D. Jac. I_, liii. 4, 74; lix. 12), -including a warrant of 4 March, which recites the Queen’s pleasure that -the Lord Chamberlain and Master of the Horse ‘shall take some paines -to look into the emptions and provisions of all things necessarie’, -another of 25 May for an imprest to Inigo Jones, an embroiderer’s -bill for £55, and a silkman’s for £1,071 5_s._, with an endorsement -by Lord Knyvet, referring the prices to the Privy Council, and -counter-signatures by the Lord Chamberlain and the Master of the Horse. -In this case the dresses of the maskers seem to have been provided -for them. An allusion in a letter of Donne to Sir Henry Goodyere -(_Letters_, i. 240) makes a sportive suggestion for a source of revenue -‘if Mr. Inago Jones be not satisfied for his last masque (because I -hear say it cannot come to much)’. - - -JOHN DAVIDSON (1549?-1603). - -A Regent of St. Leonard’s College, St. Andrew’s, and afterwards -minister of Liberton and a bitter satirist on behalf of the extreme -Kirk party in Scotland. - - _The Siege of Edinburgh Castle. 1571_ - -James Melville writes s.a. 1571: ‘This yeir in the monethe of July, -Mr. Jhone Davidsone an of our Regents maid a play at the mariage of -Mr. Jhone Coluin, quhilk I saw playit in Mr. Knox presence, wherin, -according to Mr. Knox doctrine, the castell of Edinbruche was besiged, -takin, and the Captan, with an or two with him, hangit in effigie.’[656] - -This was in intelligent anticipation of events. Edinburgh Castle was -held by Kirkcaldy of Grange for Mary in 1571. On 28 May 1573 it was -taken by the English on behalf of the party of James VI, and Kirkcaldy -was hanged. - -Melville also records plays at the ‘Bachelor Act’ of 1573 at St. -Andrews. - - -SIR JOHN DAVIES (1569–1626). - -Davies was a Winchester and Queen’s College, Oxford, man, who -entered the Middle Temple on 3 Feb. 1588, served successively as -Solicitor-General (1603–6) and Attorney-General (1606–19) in Ireland, -and was Speaker of the Irish Parliament in 1613. His principal poems -are _Orchestra_ (1594) and _Nosce Teipsum_ (1599). He was invited by -the Earl of Cumberland (q.v.) to write verses for ‘barriers’ in 1601, -and contributed to the entertainments of Elizabeth by Sir Thomas -Egerton (cf. ch. xxiv) and Sir Robert Cecil (q.v.) in 1602. - - _Collections_ - -_Works_ by A. B. Grosart (1869–76, _Fuller Worthies Library_. -3 vols.). - -_Poems_ by A. B. Grosart (1876, _Early English Poets_. 2 -vols.). - -_Dissertation_: M. Seemann, _Sir J. D., sein Leben und seine Werke_ -(1913, _Wiener Beiträge_, xli). - - -R. DAVIES (_c._ 1610). - -Contributor to _Chester’s Triumph_ (cf. ch. xxiv, C). - - -FRANCIS DAVISON (_c._ 1575–_c._ 1619). - -He was son of William Davison, Secretary of State, and compiler of _A -Poetical Rapsody_ (1602), of which the best edition is that of A. H. -Bullen (1890–1). He entered Gray’s Inn in 1593: for his contribution to -the Gray’s Inn mask of 1595, see s.v. ANON. _Gesta Grayorum_. - - -JOHN DAY (_c._ 1574–_c._ 1640). - -Day was described as son of Walter Dey, husbandman, of Cawston, -Norfolk, when at the age of eighteen he became a sizar of Gonville -and Caius, Cambridge, on 24 Oct. 1592; on 4 May 1593 he was expelled -for stealing a book (Venn, _Caius_, i. 146). He next appears in -Henslowe’s diary, first as selling an old play for the Admiral’s in -July 1598, and then as writing busily for that company in 1599–1603 -and for Worcester’s in 1602–3. Most of this work was in collaboration, -occasionally with Dekker, frequently with Chettle, Hathway, Haughton, -or Smith. From this period little or nothing survives except _The Blind -Beggar of Bethnal Green_. Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 126, doubts whether -an acrostic on Thomas Downton signed ‘John Daye’, contributed by J. -F. Herbert to _Sh. Soc. Papers_, i. 19, and now at Dulwich, is to be -ascribed to the dramatist. Day’s independent plays, written about -1604–8, and his _Parliament of Bees_ are of finer literary quality -than this early record would suggest. But Ben Jonson classed him to -Drummond in 1619 amongst the ‘rogues’ and ‘base fellows’ who were ‘not -of the number of the faithfull, i.e. Poets’ (Laing, 4, 11). He must -have lived long, as John Tatham, who included an elegy on him as his -‘loving friend’ in his _Fancies Theater_ (1640), was then only about -twenty-eight. He appears to have been still writing plays in 1623, but -there is no trace of any substantial body of work after 1608. Fleay, i. -115, suggests from the tone of his manuscript pamphlet _Peregrinatio -Scholastica_ that he took orders. - - _Collection_ - -1881. A. H. Bullen, _The Works of John Day_. - - _The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green. 1600_ - -_S. R._ 1657, Sept. 14. ‘A booke called The pleasant history of the -blind beggar of Bednall Greene, declaring his life and death &c.’ -_Francis Grove_ (Eyre, ii. 145). - -1659. The Blind Beggar of Bednal-Green, with The merry humor of Tom -Strowd the Norfolk Yeoman, as it was divers times publickly acted by -the Princes Servants. Written by John Day. _For R. Pollard and Tho. -Dring._ - -_Editions_ by W. Bang (1902, _Materialien_, i) and J. S. -Farmer (1914, _S. F. T._). - -The Prince’s men of the title are probably the later Prince Charles’s -(1631–41), but these were the ultimate successors of Prince Henry’s, -formerly the Admiral’s, who produced, between May 1600 and Sept. 1601, -three parts of a play called indifferently by Henslowe _The Blind -Beggar of Bethnal Green_ and _Thomas Strowd_. Payments were made for -the first part to Day and Chettle and for the other two to Day and -Haughton. On the assumption that the extant play is Part i, Bullen, -_Introd._ 8 and Fleay, i. 107, make divergent suggestions as to the -division of responsibility between Day and Chettle. At l. 2177 is the -s.d. ‘Enter Captain Westford, Sill Clark’; probably the performance in -which this actor took part was a Caroline one. - - _Law Tricks, or Who Would Have Thought It. 1604_ - -_S. R._ 1608, March 28 (Buck). ‘A booke called A most wytty and merry -conceited comedie called who would a thought it or Lawetrykes.’ -_Richard Moore_ (Arber, iii. 372). - -1608. Law-Trickes or, who would have Thought it. As it hath bene diuers -times Acted by the Children of the Reuels. Written by John Day. _For -Richard More._ [Epistle by the Book to the Reader; Epilogue.] - -The name given to the company suggests that the play was on the stage -in 1605–6. But I think the original production must have been in 1604, -as the dispute between Westminster and Winchester for ‘terms’, in which -Winchester is said to have been successful, ‘on Saint Lukes day, coming -shalbe a twelue-month’ (ed. Bullen, p. 61) can only refer to the term -held at Winchester in 1603. An inundation in July is also mentioned (p. -61), and Stowe, _Annales_ (1615), 844, has a corresponding record for -1604, but gives the day as 3 Aug. - - _The Isle of Gulls. 1606_ - -1606. The Ile of Guls. As it hath been often playd in the blacke -Fryars, by the Children of the Reuels. Written by Iohn Day. _Sold by -John Hodgets._ [Induction and Prologue.] - -1606. _For John Trundle, sold by John Hodgets._ - -1633. _For William Sheares._ - -The play is thus referred to by Sir Edward Hoby in a letter of 7 March -1606 to Sir Thomas Edmondes (Birch, i. 59): ‘At this time (_c._ 15 -Feb.) was much speech of a play in the Black Friars, where, in the -“Isle of Gulls”, from the highest to the lowest, all men’s parts were -acted of two divers nations: as I understand sundry were committed to -Bridewell.’ A passage in iv. 4 (Bullen, p. 91), probably written with -_Eastward Ho!_ in mind, refers to the ‘libelling’ ascribed to poets by -‘some Dor’ and ‘false informers’; and the Induction defends the play -itself against the charge that a ‘great mans life’ is ‘charactred’ -in Damoetas. Nevertheless, Damoetas, the royal favourite, ‘a little -hillock made great with others ruines’ (p. 13) inevitably suggests -Sir Robert Carr, and Fleay, i. 109, points out that the ‘Duke’ and -‘Duchess’ of the dramatis personae have been substituted for a ‘King’ -and ‘Queen’. It may not be possible now to verify all the men whose -‘parts’ were acted; evidently the Arcadians and Lacedaemonians stand -for the two ‘nations’ of English and Scotch. I do not see any ground -for Fleay’s attempt to treat the play, not as a political, but as -a literary satire, identifying Damoetas with Daniel, and tracing -allusions to Jonson, Marston, and Chapman in the Induction. Hoby’s -indication of date is confirmed by references to the ‘Eastward, -Westward or Northward hoe’ (p. 3; cf. s.vv. Chapman, Dekker), to the -quartering for treason on 30 Jan. 1606 (pp. 3, 51), and conceivably to -Jonson’s _Volpone_ of 1605 or early 1606 (p. 88, ‘you wil ha my humor -brought ath stage for a vserer’). - - _The Travels of Three English Brothers. 1607_ - -_S. R._ 1607, June 29 (Buck). ‘A playe called the trauailles of the -Three Englishe brothers as yt was played at the Curten.’ _John Wright_ -(Arber, iii. 354). - -1607. The Travailes of The three English Brothers. - - Sir Thomas } - Sir Anthony } Shirley. - Mr. Robert } - -As it is now play’d by her Maiesties Seruants. _For John Wright._ -[Epistle to the Family of the Sherleys, signed ‘Iohn Day, William -Rowley, George Wilkins’, Prologue and Epilogue.] - -The source was a pamphlet on the Sherleys by A. Nixon (S. R. 8 June -1607) and the play seems to have been still on the stage when it -was printed. Some suggestions as to the division of authorship are -in Fleay, ii. 277, Bullen, _Introd._ 19, and C. W. Stork, _William -Rowley_, 57. A scene at Venice (Bullen, p. 55) introduces Will Kempe, -who mentions Vennar’s _England’s Joy_ (1602), and prepares to play an -‘extemporall merriment’ with an Italian Harlaken. He has come from -England with a boy. The Epilogue refers to ‘some that fill up this -round circumference’. - - _Humour out of Breath. 1607–8_ - -_S. R._ 1608, April 12 (Buck). ‘A booke called Humour out of breathe.’ -_John Helme_ (Arber, iii. 374). - -1608. Humour out of breath. A Comedie Diuers times latelie acted, By -the Children Of The Kings Reuells. Written by Iohn Day. _For John -Helme._ [Epistle to Signior Nobody, signed ‘Iohn Daye’.] - -_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1860), A. Symons in _Nero and Other -Plays_ (1888, _Mermaid Series_). - -The date must be taken as 1607–8, since the King’s Revels are not -traceable before 1607. Fleay, i. 111, notes a reference in iii. 4 to -the ‘great frost’ of that Christmas. The Epistle speaks of the play -as ‘sufficiently featur’d too, had it been all of one man’s getting’, -which may be a hint of divided authorship. - - _The Parliament of Bees. 1608 < > 16_ - -[_MS._] _Lansdowne MS._ 725, with title. ‘An olde manuscript conteyning -the Parliament of Bees, found in a Hollow Tree in a garden at Hibla, in -a Strange Languadge, And now faithfully Translated into Easie English -Verse by John Daye, Cantabridg.’ [Epistles to William Augustine, signed -‘John Day, Cant.’ and to the Reader, signed ‘Jo: Daye’.] - -_S. R._ 1641, March 23 (Hansley). ‘A booke called The Parliam^t of -Bees, &c., by John Day.’ _Will Ley_ (Eyre, i. 17). - -1641. The Parliament of Bees, With their proper Characters. Or A -Bee-hive furnisht with twelve Honycombes, as Pleasant as Profitable. -Being an Allegoricall description of the actions of good and bad men -in these our daies. By John Daye, Sometimes Student of Caius Colledge -in Cambridge. _For William Lee._ [Epistle to George Butler, signed -‘John Day’, The Author’s Commission to his Bees, similarly signed, and -The Book to the Reader. The text varies considerably from that of the -manuscript.] - -_Edition_ by A. Symons in _Nero and Other Plays_ (1888, _Mermaid -Series_). - -This is neither a play nor a mask, but a set of twelve short -‘Characters’ or ‘Colloquies’ in dialogue. The existence of an edition -of 1607 is asserted in Gildon’s abridgement (1699) of Langbaine, but -cannot be verified, and is most improbable, since the manuscript -Epistle refers to an earlier work already dedicated by Day, as ‘an -unknowing venturer’, to Augustine, and this must surely be the -allegorical treatise _Peregrinatio Scholastica_ printed by Bullen -(_Introd._ 35) from _Sloane MS._ 3150 with an Epistle by Day to William -Austin, who may reasonably be identified with Augustine. But the -_Peregrinatio_, although Day’s first venture in dedication, was not a -very early work, for Day admits that ‘I boast not that gaudie spring -of credit and youthfull florish of opinion as some other filde in the -same rancke with me’. Moreover, it describes (p. 50) an ‘ante-maske’, -and this term, so far as we know, first came into use about 1608 (cf. -ch. vi). The _Bees_ therefore must be later still. On the other hand, -it can hardly be later than about 1616, when died Philip Henslowe, whom -it is impossible to resist seeing with Fleay, i. 115, in the Fenerator -or Usuring Bee (p. 63). Like Henslowe he is a ‘broaker’ and ‘takes up’ -clothes; and - - Most of the timber that his state repairs, - He hew’s out o’ the bones of foundred players: - They feed on Poets braines, he eats their breath. - -Now of the twelve Characters of the _Bees_, five (2, 3, 7, 8, 9) are -reproduced, in many parts verbatim, subject to an alteration of names, -in _The Wonder of a Kingdom_, printed as Dekker’s (q.v.) in 1636, -but probably identical with _Come See a Wonder_, licensed by Herbert -as Day’s in 1623. Two others (4, 5) are similarly reproduced in _The -Noble Soldier_, printed in 1634 under the initials ‘S. R.’, probably -indicating Samuel Rowley, but possibly also containing work by Dekker. -The precise relation of Day to these plays is indeterminate, but the -scenes more obviously ‘belong’ to the _Bees_ than to the plays, and if -the _Bees_ was written but not printed in 1608–16, the chances are that -Day used it as a quarry of material when he was called upon to work, -as reviser or collaborator, on the plays. Meanwhile, Austin, if he -was the Southwark and Lincoln’s Inn writer of that name (_D. N. B._), -died in 1634, and when the _Bees_ was ultimately printed in 1641 a new -dedicatee had to be found. - - _Lost and Doubtful Plays_ - -For the Admiral’s, 1598–1603. - -Day appears to have sold the company an old play _1 The Conquest -of Brute_ in July 1598, and to have subsequently written or -collaborated in the following plays: - -1599–1600: _Cox of Collumpton_, with Haughton; _Thomas Merry_, or -_Beech’s Tragedy_, with Haughton; _The Seven Wise Masters_, with -Chettle, Dekker, and Haughton; _Cupid and Psyche_, with Chettle and -Dekker; _1 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_, with Chettle; and the -unfinished _Spanish Moor’s Tragedy_, with Dekker and Haughton. - -1600–1: _2 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_, with Haughton; _Six Yeomen -of the West_, with Haughton. - -1601–2: _The Conquest of the West Indies_, with Haughton and Smith; -_3 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_, with Haughton; _Friar Rush and -The Proud Woman of Antwerp_, with Chettle and Haughton; _The Bristol -Tragedy_; and the unfinished _2 Tom Dough_, with Haughton. - -1602–3: _Merry as May Be_, with Hathway and Smith; _The Boss of -Billingsgate_, with Hathway and another. - - -For Worcester’s men. - -1602–3: _1 and 2 The Black Dog of Newgate_, with Hathway, Smith, and -another; _The Unfortunate General_, with Hathway, Smith, and a third; -and the unfinished _Shore_, with Chettle. - -Of the above only _The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ and a note -of _Cox of Collumpton_ (cf. ch. xiii, s.v. Admiral’s) survive; for -speculations as to others see Heywood, _Pleasant Dialogues and Dramas_ -(_Cupid and Psyche_), Marlowe, _Lust’s Dominion_ (_Spanish Moor’s -Tragedy_), Yarington, _Two Lamentable Tragedies_ (_Thomas Merry_), -and the anonymous _Edward IV_ (_Shore_) and _Fair Maid of Bristol_ -(_Bristow Tragedy_). - -Henslowe’s correspondence (_Henslowe Papers_, 56, 127) contains notes -from Day and others about some of the Admiral’s plays and a few lines -which may be from _The Conquest of the Indies_. - -Day’s _Mad Pranks of Merry Mall of the Bankside_ (S. R. 7 Aug. 1610) -was probably a pamphlet (cf. Dekker, _The Roaring Girl_). Bullen, -_Introd._ 11, thinks the _Guy Earl of Warwick_ (1661), printed as -‘by B. J.’, too bad to be Day and Dekker’s _Life and Death of Guy of -Warwick_ (S. R. 15 Jan. 1620). On 30 July 1623 Herbert licensed a -_Bellman of Paris_ by Day and Dekker for the Prince’s (Herbert, 24). -_The Maiden’s Holiday_ by Marlowe (q.v.) and Day (S. R. 8 April 1654) -appears in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (_3 Library_, ii. 231) as -Marlowe’s. - -For other ascriptions to Day see _The Maid’s Metamorphosis_ and -_Parnassus_ in ch. xxiv. - - -THOMAS DEKKER (_c._ 1572–_c._ 1632). - -Thomas Dekker was of London origin, but though the name occurs in -Southwark, Cripplegate, and Bishopsgate records, neither his parentage -nor his marriage, if he was married, can be definitely traced. He -was not unlettered, but nothing is known of his education, and the -conjecture that he trailed a pike in the Netherlands is merely based -on his acquaintance with war and with Dutch. The Epistle to his -_English Villanies_, with its reference to ‘my three score years’, -first appeared in the edition of 1632; he was therefore born about -1572. He first emerges, in Henslowe’s diary, as a playwright for -the Admiral’s in 1598, and may very well have been working for them -during 1594–8, a period for which Henslowe records plays only and -not authors. The further conjecture of Fleay, i. 119, that this -employment went as far back as 1588–91 is hazardous, and in fact led -Fleay to put his birth-date as far back as 1567. It was based on the -fact that the German repertories of 1620 and 1626 contain traces of -his work, and on Fleay’s erroneous belief (cf. ch. xiv) that all the -plays in these repertories were taken to Germany by Robert Browne as -early as 1592. But it is smiled upon by Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 256) -as regards _The Virgin Martyr_ alone. Between 1598 and 1602 Dekker -wrote busily, and as a rule in collaboration, first for the Admiral’s -at the Rose and Fortune, and afterwards for Worcester’s at the Rose. -He had a hand in some forty-four plays, of which, in anything like -their original form, only half a dozen survive. _Satiromastix_, -written for the Chamberlain’s men and the Paul’s boys in 1601, shows -that his activities were not limited to the Henslowe companies. -This intervention in the _Poetomachia_ led Jonson to portray him -as Demetrius Fannius ‘the dresser of plays’ in _The Poetaster_; -that he is also Thersites in _Troilus and Cressida_ is a not very -plausible conjecture. Long after, in 1619, Jonson classed him among -the ‘rogues’ (Laing, 4). In 1604, however, he shared with Jonson the -responsibility for the London devices at James’s coronation entry. -About this time began his career as a writer of popular pamphlets, in -which he proved the most effective successor of Thomas Nashe. These, -and in particular _The Gull’s Hornbook_ (1609), are full of touches -drawn from his experience as a dramatist. Nor did he wholly desert the -stage, collaborating with Middleton for the Prince’s and with Webster -for Paul’s, and writing also, apparently alone, for the Queen’s. In -1612 he devised the Lord Mayor’s pageant. In 1613 he fell upon evil -days. He had always been impecunious, and Henslowe (i. 83, 101, 161) -had lent him money to discharge him from the Counter in 1598 and from -an arrest by the Chamberlain’s in 1599. Now he fell into the King’s -Bench for debt, and apparently lay there until 1619. The relationship -of his later work to that of Ford, Massinger, Day, and others, lies -rather beyond the scope of this inquiry, but in view of the persistent -attempts to find early elements in all his plays, I have made my list -comprehensive. He is not traceable after 1632, and is probably the -Thomas Decker, householder, buried at St. James’s, Clerkenwell, on 25 -Aug. 1632. A Clerkenwell recusant of this name is recorded in 1626 and -1628 (_Middlesex County Records_, iii. 12, 19). - - _Collections_ - -1873. [R. H. Shepherd], _The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker_. 4 vols. -(_Pearson Reprints_). [Contains 15 plays and 4 Entertainments.] - -1884–6. A. B. Grosart, _The Non-Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker_. 5 -vols. (Huth Library). [Contains nearly all the pamphlets, with _Patient -Grissell_. A better edition of _The Gull’s Hornbook_ is that by R. B. -McKerrow (1904); a chapter is in App. H.] - -1887. E. Rhys, _Thomas Dekker_ (_Mermaid Series_). [Contains _The -Shoemaker’s Holiday_, _1, 2 The Honest Whore_, _Old Fortunatus_, _The -Witch of Edmonton_.] - -_Dissertations_: M. L. Hunt, _Thomas Dekker: A Study_ (1911, _Columbia -Studies in English_); W. Bang, _Dekker-Studien_ (1900, _E. S._ xxviii. -208); F. E. Pierce, _The Collaboration of Webster with Dekker_ (1909, -_Yale Studies_, xxxvii) and _The Collaboration of Dekker and Ford_ -(1912, _Anglia_, xxxvi, 141, 289); E. E. Stoll, _John Webster_ (1905), -ch. ii, and _The Influence of Jonson on Dekker_ (1906, _M. L. N._ xxi. -20); R. Brooke, _John Webster and the Elizabethan Drama_ (1916); F. P. -Wilson, _Three Notes on Thomas Dekker_ (1920, _M. L. R._ xv. 82). - - PLAYS - - _Old Fortunatus. 1599_ - -_S. R._ 1600, Feb. 20. ‘A commedie called old Fortunatus in his newe -lyuerie.’ _William Aspley_ (Arber, iii. 156). - -1600. The Pleasant Comedie of Old Fortunatus. As it was plaied before -the Queenes Maiestie this Christmas, by the Right Honourable the Earle -of Nottingham, Lord high Admirall of England his Seruants. _S. S. for -William Aspley_. [Prologue at Court, another Prologue, and Epilogue -at Court; signed at end Tho. Dekker.] - -_Editions_ by Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ iii), H. Scherer (1901, -_Münchener Beiträge_, xxi), O. Smeaton (1904, _T. D._). - -The Admiral’s revived, from 3 Feb. to 26 May 1596, ‘the 1 parte of -Forteunatus’. Nothing is heard of a second part, but during 9–30 Nov. -1599 Dekker received £6 on account of the Admiral’s for ‘the hole -history of Fortunatus’, followed on 1 Dec. by £1 for altering the book -and on 12 Dec. £2 ‘for the eande of Fortewnatus for the corte’. The -company were at Court on 27 Dec. 1599 and 1 Jan. 1600. _The Shoemaker’s -Holiday_ was played on 1 Jan.; _Fortunatus_ therefore on 27 Dec. The -Prologue (l. 21) makes it ‘a iust yeere’ since the speaker saw the -Queen, presumably on 27 Dec. 1598. The S. R. entry suggests that the -1599 play was a revision of the 1596 one. Probably Dekker boiled the -old two parts down into one play; the juncture may, as suggested by -Fleay, i. 126, and Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 179), come about l. 1315. -The Court additions clearly include, besides the Prologue and the -Epilogue with its reference to Elizabeth’s forty-second regnal year -(1599–1600), the compliment of ll. 2799–834 at the ‘eande’ of the play. -The ‘small circumference’ of the theatrical prologue was doubtless -the Rose. Dekker may or may not have been the original author of the -two-part play; probably he was not, if Fleay is right in assigning -it to _c._ 1590 on the strength of the allusions to the Marprelate -controversy left in the 1600 text, e.g. l. 59. I should not wonder if -Greene, who called his son Fortunatus, were the original author. A -Fortunatus play is traceable in German repertories of 1608 and 1626 -and an extant version in the collection of 1620 owes something to -Dekker’s (Herz, 97; cf. P. Harms, _Die deutschen Fortunatus-Dramen_ -in _Theatergeschichtliche Forschungen_, v). But Dekker’s own source, -directly or indirectly, was a German folk-tale, which had been -dramatized by Hans Sachs as early as 1553. - - _The Shoemaker’s Holiday. 1599_ - -_S. R._ 1610, April 19. Transfer from Simmes to J. Wright of ‘A booke -called the shoomakers holyday or the gentle crafte’ subject to an -agreement for Simmes to ‘haue the workmanshipp of the printinge thereof -for the vse of the sayd John Wrighte duringe his lyfe, yf he haue a -printinge house of his owne’ (Arber, iii. 431). - -1600. The Shomakers Holiday. Or The Gentle Craft. With the humorous -life of Simon Eyre, shoomaker, and Lord Maior of London. As it was -acted before the Queenes most excellent Maiestie on New yeares day at -night last, by the right honourable the Earle of Notingham, Lord high -Admirall of England, his seruants. _Valentine Simmes_. [Epistle to -Professors of the Gentle Craft and Prologue before the Queen.] - -1610, 1618, 1624, 1631, 1657. - -_Editions_ by E. Fritsche (1862), K. Warnke and E. Proescholdt (1886), -W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._), and A. F. Lange (1914, _R. E. C._ -iii). - -Henslowe advanced £3 ‘to bye a boocke called the gentle Craft of Thomas -Dickers’ on 15 July 1599. Probably the hiatus in the Diary conceals -other payments for the play, and there is nothing in the form of the -entry to justify the suspicions of Fleay, i. 124, that it was not new -and was not by Dekker himself. Moreover, the source was a prose tract -of _The Gentle Craft_ by T. D[eloney], published in 1598. The Admiral’s -were at Court on 1 Jan. 1600, but not on 1 Jan. 1601. A writer signing -himself Dramaticus, in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 110, describes a copy in -which a contemporary hand has written the names ‘T. Dekker, R. Wilson’ -at the end of the Epistle, together with the names of the actors in the -margin of the text. A few of these are not otherwise traceable in the -Admiral’s. Fleay and Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 203) unite in condemning -this communication as an obvious forgery; but I rather wish they had -given their reasons. - - _Patient Grissell. 1600_ - - _With_ Chettle and Haughton. - -_S. R._ 1600, March 28. ‘The Plaie of Patient Grissell.’ _Cuthbert -Burby_ (Arber, iii. 158). - -1603. The Pleasant Comodie of Patient Grissill. As it hath beene -sundrie times lately plaid by the right honorable the Earle of -Nottingham (Lord high Admirall) his seruants. _For Henry Rocket._ - -_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1841, _Sh. Soc._), A. B. Grosart (1886, -_Dekker_, v. 109), G. Hübsch (1893, _Erlanger Beiträge_, xv), J. S. -Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._).--_Dissertations_ by A. E. H. Swaen in -_E. S._ xxii. 451, Fr. v. Westenholz, _Die Griseldis-Sage in der -Literaturgeschichte_ (1888). - -Henslowe paid £10 10_s._ to Dekker, Chettle, and Haughton for the -play between 16 Oct. and 29 Dec. 1599, also £1 for Grissell’s gown -on 26 Jan. 1600 and £2 ‘to staye the printing’ on 18 March 1600. The -text refers to ‘wonders of 1599’ (l. 2220) and to ‘this yeare’ as -‘leap yeare’ (l. 157). The production was doubtless _c._ Feb.–March -1600. Fleay, i. 271, attempts to divide the work amongst the three -contributors; cf. Hunt, 60. I see nothing to commend the theory of -W. Bang (_E. S._ xxviii. 208) that the play was written by Chettle -_c._ 1590–4 and revised with Dekker, Haughton, and Jonson. No doubt -the dandy’s duel, in which clothes alone suffer, of Emulo-Sir Owen -resembles that of Brisk-Luculento in _Every Man Out of his Humour_, -but this may be due to a common origin in fact (cf. Fleay, i. 361; -Penniman, _War_, 70; Small, 43). Fleay, followed by Penniman, -identifies Emulo with Samuel Daniel, but Small, 42, 184, satisfactorily -disposes of this suggestion. There seems no reason to regard _Patient -Grissell_ as part of the _Poetomachia_. A ‘Comoedia von der Crysella’ -is in the German repertory of 1626; the theme had, however, already -been dealt with in a play of _Griseldis_ by Hans Sachs (Herz, 66, 78). - - _Satiromastix. 1601_ - - _With_ Marston? - -_S. R._ 1601, Nov. 11. ‘Vppon condicon that yt be lycensed to be -printed, A booke called the vntrussinge of the humorous poetes by -Thomas Decker.’ _John Barnes_ (Arber, iii. 195). - -1602. Satiromastix. Or The vntrussing of the Humorous Poet. As it hath -bin presented publikely, by the Right Honorable, the Lord Chamberlaine -his Seruants; and priuately, by the Children of Paules. By Thomas -Dekker. _For Edward White._ [Epistle to the World, note _Ad Lectorem_ -of _errata_, and Epilogue. Scherer, xiv, distinguishes two editions, -but T. M. Parrott’s review in _M. L. R._ vi. 398 regards these as only -variant states of one edition.] - -_Editions_ by T. Hawkins (1773, _O. E. D._ iii), H. Scherer (1907, -_Materialien_, xx), J. H. Penniman (1913, _B. L._). - -The Epistle refers to the _Poetomachia_ between ‘Horace’ and ‘a band -of leane-witted Poetasters’, and on the place of _Satiromastix_ -in this fray there is little to be added to Small, 119. Jonson is -satirized as Horace. Asinius Bubo is some unknown satellite of his, -probably the same who appears as Simplicius Faber in Marston’s _What -You Will_ (q.v.). Crispinus, Demetrius, and Tucca are taken over from -Jonson’s _Poetaster_ (q.v.). The satirical matter is engrafted on to -a play with a tragic plot and comic sub-plot, both wholly unconcerned -with the _Poetomachia_. Jonson must have known that the attack was -in preparation, when he made Tucca abuse Histrio for threatening to -‘play’ him, and Histrio say that he had hired Demetrius [Dekker] ‘to -abuse Horace, and bring him in, in a play’ (_Poetaster_, III. iv. -212, 339). But obviously Dekker cannot have done much of his satire -until he had seen _Poetaster_, to many details of which it retorts. -It is perhaps rather fantastic to hold that, as he chaffs Jonson for -the boast that he wrote _Poetaster_ in fifteen weeks (_Satiromastix_, -641), he must himself have taken less. In any case a date of production -between that of _Poetaster_ in the spring of 1601 and the S. R. entry -on 11 Nov. 1601 is indicated. The argument of Scherer, x, for a date -about Christmas 1601, and therefore after the S. R. entry, is rebutted -by Parrott. It is generally held that Marston helped Dekker with the -play, in spite of the single name on the title-page. No doubt Tucca -in _Poetaster_, III. iv. 352, suggests to Histrio that Crispinus -shall help Demetrius, and the plural is used in _Satiromastix_ -(_Epistle_, 12, and _Epilogue_, 2700) and in Jonson’s own _Apologetical -Dialogue_ to _Poetaster_ (l. 141) of the ‘poetasters’ who were -Jonson’s ‘untrussers’. Small, 122, finds Marston in the plot and -characterization, but not in the style. - - _Sir Thomas Wyatt. 1602_ - - _With_ Webster, and possibly Chettle, Heywood, and Smith. - -1607. The Famous History of Sir Thomas Wyat. With the Coronation of -Queen Mary, and the coming in of King Philip. As it was plaied by the -Queens Maiesties Seruants. Written by Thomas Dickers and Iohn Webster. -_E. A. for Thomas Archer._ - -1612. _For Thomas Archer._ - -_Editions_ by J. Blew (1876), and J. S. Farmer (1914, _S. F. T._) and -with _Works_ of Webster (q.v.). - -Henslowe, on behalf of Worcester’s men, paid Chettle, Dekker, Heywood, -Smith, and Webster, for _1 Lady Jane_ in Oct. 1602. He then bought -properties for _The Overthrow of Rebels_, almost certainly the same -play, and began to pay Dekker for a _2 Lady Jane_, which apparently -remained unfinished, at any rate at the time. One or both of these -plays, or possibly only the shares of Dekker and Webster in one or both -of them, may reasonably be taken to survive in _Sir Thomas Wyatt_. -Stoll, 49, thinks the play, as we have it, is practically Dekker’s and -that there is ‘no one thing’ that can be claimed ‘with any degree of -assurance’ for Webster. But this is not the general view. Fleay, ii. -269, followed in the main by Hunt, 76, gives Webster scc. i-ix, Greg -(_Henslowe_, ii. 233) scc. i-x and xvi (with hesitation as to iii-v), -Pierce, after a careful application of a number of ‘tests’ bearing both -on style and on matter, scc. ii, v, vi, x, xiv, xvi; but he thinks that -some or all of these were retouched by Dekker. Brooke inclines to trace -Webster in scc. ii, xvi, Heywood in scc. vi, x, and a good deal of -Dekker. Hunt thinks the planning due to Chettle. - - _The Honest Whore. 1604, c. 1605_ - - _With_ Middleton. - -_S. R._ 1604, Nov. 9 (Pasfield). ‘A Booke called The humors of the -patient man, The longinge wyfe and the honest whore.’ _Thomas Man the -younger_ (Arber, iii. 275). - -1608, April 29 (Buck). ‘A booke called the second parte of the -conuerted Courtisan or honest Whore.’ _Thomas Man Junior_ (Arber, -iii. 376). [No fee entered.] - -1630, June 29 (Herbert). ‘The second parte of the Honest Hoore by -Thomas Dekker.’ _Butter_ (Arber, iv. 238). - -1604. The Honest Whore, With, The Humours of the Patient Man, and the -Longing Wife. Tho: Dekker. _V. S. for John Hodgets._ [Part i.] - -1605, 1615, 1616, N.D. [All Part i.] - -1630. The Second Part of the Honest Whore, With the Humors of the -Patient Man, the Impatient Wife: the Honest Whore, perswaded by strong -Arguments to turne Curtizan againe: her braue refuting those Arguments. -And lastly, the Comicall Passages of an Italian Bridewell, where the -Scaene ends. Written by Thomas Dekker. _Elizabeth Allde for Nathaniel -Butter._ [Part ii.] - -1635. The Honest Whore, With, The Humours of the Patient Man, and the -Longing Wife, Written by Thomas Dekker, As it hath beene Acted by her -Maiesties Servants with great Applause. _N. Okes, sold by Richard -Collins._ [Part i.] - -_Editions_ by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ i) and W. A. Neilson -(1911, _C. E. D._). - -Henslowe made a payment to Dekker and Middleton for ‘the pasyent man -& the onest hore’ between 1 Jan. and 14 March 1604, on account of the -Prince’s men, and the mention of Towne in a stage-direction to Part i -(ed. Pearson, ii. 78) shows that it was in fact acted by this company. -Fleay, i. 132, and Hunt, 94, cite some allusions in Part ii suggesting -a date soon after that of Part i, and this would be consistent with -Henslowian methods. There is more difference of opinion about the -partition of the work. Of Part i Fleay gives scc. i, iii, and xiii-xv -alone to Dekker, and Hunt finds the influence of Middleton in the theme -and plot of both Parts. Bullen, however (_Middleton_, i. xxv), thinks -Middleton’s share ‘inconsiderable’, giving him only I. v and III. i, -with a hand in II. i and in a few comic scenes of Part ii. Ward, ii. -462, holds a similar view. - - _Westward Ho! 1604_ - - _With_ Webster. - -_S. R._ 1605, March 2. ‘A commodie called westward Hoe presented by the -Children of Paules provided yat he get further authoritie before yt -be printed.’ _Henry Rocket_ (Arber, iii. 283). [Entry crossed out and -marked ‘vacat’.] - -1607. Westward Hoe. As it hath beene diuers times Acted by the -Children of Paules. Written by Tho: Decker, and Iohn Webster. _Sold by -John Hodgets._ - -_Editions_ with _Works_ of Webster (q.v.). - -The allusions cited by Fleay, ii. 269, Stoll, 14, Hunt, 101, agree -with a date of production at the end of 1604. Fleay assigns Acts I-III -and a part of IV. ii to Webster; the rest of Acts IV, V to Dekker. But -Stoll, 79, thinks that Webster only had ‘some slight, undetermined part -in the more colourless and stereotyped portions ... under the shaping -and guiding hand of Dekker’, and Pierce, 131, after an elaborate -application of tests, can only give him all or most of I. i and III. -iii and a small part of I. ii and III. ii. Brooke finds traces of -Webster in I. i and III. iii and Dekker in II. i, ii and V. iii, and -has some useful criticism of the ‘tests’ employed by Pierce. - - _Northward Ho! 1605_ - - _With_ Webster. - -_S. R._ 1607, Aug. 6 (Buck). ‘A booke Called Northward Ho.’ _George -Elde_ (Arber, iii. 358). - -1607. North-Ward Hoe. Sundry times Acted by the Children of Paules. By -Thomas Decker, and Iohn Webster. _G. Eld._ - -_Editions_ by J. S. Farmer (1914, _S. F. T._) and in _Works_ of Webster -(q.v.). - -The play is a reply to _Eastward Ho!_ which was itself a reply to -_Westward Ho!_ and was on the stage before May 1605, and it is referred -to with the other two plays in Day’s _Isle of Gulls_, which was on -the stage in Feb. 1606. This pretty well fixes its date to the end -of 1605. I do not think that Stoll, 16, is justified in his argument -for a date later than Jan. 1606, since, even if the comparison of the -life of a gallant to a squib is a borrowing from Marston’s _Fawn_, it -seems probable that the _Fawn_ itself was originally written by 1604, -although possibly touched up early in 1606. Fleay, ii. 270, identifies -Bellamont with Chapman, one of the authors of _Eastward Ho!_ and Stoll, -65, argues in support of this. It is plausible, but does not carry with -it Fleay’s identification of Jenkins with Drayton. Fleay gives Webster -I. ii, II. i, III. i, and IV. i, but Stoll finds as little of him as in -_Westward Ho!_ and Pierce, 131, only gives him all or most of I. i, II. -ii, and the beginning of v and a small part of III. i. Brooke traces -Webster in I. i and III. i and Dekker in IV. i. - - _The Whore of Babylon 1605 < > 7_ - -_S. R._ 1607, April 20 (Buck). ‘A booke called the Whore of Babilon.’ -_Nathanael Butter and John Trundell_ (Arber, iii. 347). - -1607. The Whore of Babylon. As it was Acted by the Princes Seruants. -Written by Thomas Dekker. _For N. Butter._ [Epistle to the Reader and -Prologue.] - -Fleay, i. 133, and Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 210) regard the play as a -revision of _Truth’s Supplication to Candlelight_, for which Henslowe, -on behalf of the Admiral’s, was paying Dekker in Jan. 1600 and buying -a robe for Time in April 1600. Truth and Time, but not Candlelight, -are characters in the play, which deals with Catholic intrigues -against Elizabeth, represented as Titania, and her suitors. I do not -feel sure that it would have been allowed to be staged in Elizabeth’s -lifetime. In any case it must have been revised _c._ 1605–7, in view of -the references, not only to the death of Essex (ed. Pearson, p. 246) -and the reign of James (p. 234), but to the _Isle of Gulls_ of 1605 -(p. 214). The Cockpit, alluded to (p. 214) as a place where follies -are shown in apes, is of course that in the palace, where Henry saw -plays. The Epistle and Prologue have clear references to a production -in ‘Fortune’s dial’ and the ‘square’ of the Fortune, and the former -criticizes players; but hardly proves the definite breach with the -Prince’s suggested by Fleay and Greg. - - _The Roaring Girl. c. 1610_ - - _With_ Middleton. - -1611. The Roaring Girle. Or Moll Cut-Purse, As it hath lately beene -Acted on the Fortune-stage by the Prince his Players. Written by T. -Middleton and T. Dekkar. _For Thomas Archer._ [Epistle to the Comic -Play-Readers, signed ‘Thomas Middleton’, Prologue and Epilogue.] - -_Editions_ by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ ii), A. H. Bullen (1885, -_Middleton_, iv. 1), and J. S. Farmer (1914, _S. F. T._). - -Fleay, i, 132, thinks the play written about 1604–5, but not produced -until 1610. This is fantastic and Bullen points out that Mary Frith, -the heroine, born not earlier than _c._ 1584–5, had hardly won her -notoriety by 1604. By 1610 she certainly had, and the ‘foule’ book of -her ‘base trickes’ referred to in the Epilogue was probably John Day’s -_Mad Pranks of Merry Mall of the Bankside_, entered on S. R. 7 Aug. -1610, but not extant. The Epilogue also tells the audience that, if -they are dissatisfied, - - The Roring Girle her selfe some few dayes hence, - Shall on this Stage, give larger recompence. - -I think this can only refer to a contemplated personal appearance -of Mary Frith on the stage; it has been interpreted as referring to -another forthcoming play. Moll Cutpurse appears in Field’s _Amends for -Ladies_, but this was not a Fortune play. Bullen (_Middleton_, i. xxxv) -regards the play as an example of collaboration, and gives Dekker I. -II. ii, and V; Middleton, with occasional hesitation, the rest. Fleay, -i. 132, only gives Middleton II. ii, IV. i, V. ii. - - _If It be not Good, the Devil is in It. 1610 < > 12_ - -1612. If It Be Not Good, the Diuel is in it. A New Play, As it hath bin -lately Acted, with great applause, by the Queenes Maiesties Seruants: -At the Red Bull. Written by Thomas Dekker. _For I. T. sold by Edward -Marchant._ [Epistle to the Queen’s men signed Tho: Dekker, Prologue, -and Epilogue. The running title is ‘If this be not a good Play, the -Diuell is in it’.] - -The Epistle tells us that after ‘Fortune’ (the Admiral’s) had ‘set her -foote vpon’ the play, the Queen’s had ‘raised it up ... the Frontispice -onely a little more garnished’. Fleay, i. 133, attempts to fix the -play to 1610, but hardly proves more than that it cannot be earlier -than 14 May 1610, as the murder on that day of Henri IV is referred to -(ed. Pearson, p. 354). The Epistle also refers to a coming new play by -Dekker’s ‘worthy friend’, perhaps Webster (q.v.). In the opening scene -the devil Lurchall is addressed as Grumball, which suggests the actor -Armin (cf. ch. xv). Daborne (q.v.) in the Epistle to his _Christian -Turned Turk_ seems to claim a share in this play. - - _Match Me in London_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1630, 8 Nov. (Herbert). ‘A Play called Mach mee in London by -Thomas Decker.’ _Seile_ (Arber, iv. 242). - -1631. A Tragi-Comedy: Called, Match mee in London. As it hath beene -often presented; First, at the Bull in St. Iohns-street; And lately, -at the Priuate-House in Drury Lane, called the Phoenix. Written by -Tho: Dekker. _B. Alsop and T. Fawcet for H. Seile._ [Epistle to -Lodowick Carlell signed ‘Tho: Dekker’.] - -Herbert’s diary contains the entry on 21 Aug. 1623, ‘For the L. -Elizabeth’s servants of the Cockpit. An old play called Match me in -London which had been formerly allowed by Sir G. Bucke.’ On this, some -rather slight evidence from allusions, and a general theory that Dekker -did not write plays during his imprisonment of 1613–19, Fleay, i. 134, -puts the original production by Queen Anne’s men _c._ 1611 and Hunt, -160, in 1612–13. As there are some allusions to cards and the game of -maw, Fleay thinks the play a revision of _The Set at Maw_ produced -by the Admiral’s on 15 Dec. 1594. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 172) points -out the weakness of the evidence, but finds some possible traces of -revision in the text. - - _The Virgin Martyr. c. 1620_ - - _With_ Massinger. - -_S. R._ 1621, 7 Dec. (Buck). ‘A Tragedy called The Virgin Martir.’ -_Thomas Jones_ (Arber, iv. 62). - -1622. The Virgin Martir, A Tragedie, as it hath bin divers times -publickely Acted with great Applause, By the seruants of his Maiesties -Reuels. Written by Phillip Messenger and Thomas Deker. _B. A. for -Thomas Jones._ - -1631, 1651, 1661. - -The play is said to have been ‘reformed’ and licensed by Buck for the -Red Bull on 6 Oct. 1620 (Herbert, 29). An additional scene, licensed -on 7 July 1624 (_Var._ i. 424), did not find its way into print. -Fleay, i. 135, 212, asserts that the 1620 play was a refashioning by -Massinger of a play by Dekker for the Queen’s about 1611, itself a -recast of _Diocletian_, produced by the Admiral’s on 16 Nov. 1594, -but ‘dating from 1591 at the latest’. He considers II. i, iii, III. -iii, and IV. ii of the 1620 version to be still Dekker’s. Ward, iii. -12, and Hunt, 156, give most of the play to Dekker. But all these -views are impressionistic, and there is no special reason to suppose -that Massinger revised, rather than collaborated with, Dekker, or to -assume a version of _c._ 1611. As for an earlier version still, Fleay’s -evidence is trivial. In any case 1591 is out of the question, as -Henslowe marked the _Diocletian_ of 1594 ‘n.e.’ Nor does he say it was -by Dekker. A play on Dorothea the Martyr had made its way into Germany -by 1626, but later German repertories disclose that there was also -a distinct play on Diocletian (Herz, 66, 103; Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. -172). Greg, however, finds parts of _The Virgin Martyr_, ‘presumably -Dekker’s’, to be ‘undoubtedly early’. Oliphant (_E. S._ xvi. 191) -makes the alternative suggestion that _Diocletian_ was the basis of -Fletcher’s _Prophetess_, in which he believes the latter part of IV. i -and V. i to be by an older hand, which he cannot identify. All this is -very indefinite. - - _The Witch of Edmonton. 1621_ - - _With_ Ford and W. Rowley. - -_S. R._ 1658, May 21. ‘A booke called The witch of Edmonton, a -Tragicomedy by Will: Rowley, &c.’ _Edward Blackmore_ (Eyre, ii. 178). - -1658. The Witch of Edmonton, A known true Story. Composed into a -Tragi-Comedy By divers well-esteemed Poets; William Rowley, Thomas -Dekker, John Ford, &c. Acted by the Princes Servants; often at the -Cock-Pit in Drury Lane, once at Court, with singular Applause. Never -printed till now. _J. Cottrel for Edward Blackmore._ [Prologue signed -‘Master Bird’.] - -_Editions_ with _Works_ of John Ford, by H. Weber (1811), W. Gifford -(1827), H. Coleridge (1840, 1848, 1851), A. Dyce (1869), A. H. Bullen -(1895). - -I include this for the sake of completeness, but it is based upon a -pamphlet published in 1621 and was played at Court by the Prince’s men -on 29 Dec. 1621 (Murray, ii. 193). It is generally regarded as written -in collaboration. Views as to its division amongst the writers are -summarized by Hunt, 178, and Pierce (_Anglia_, xxxvi. 289). The latter -finds Dekker in nearly all the scenes, Ford in four, Rowley perhaps in -five. - - _The Wonder of a Kingdom. 1623_ - - _Possibly with_ Day. - -_S. R._ 1631, May 16 (Herbert). ‘A Comedy called The Wonder of a -Kingdome by Thomas Decker.’ _John Jackman_ (Arber, iv. 253). - -1636, Feb. 24. ‘Vnder the hands of Sir Henry Herbert and Master -Kingston Warden (dated the 7th of May 1631) a Play called The Wonder of -a Kingdome by Thomas Decker.’ _Nicholas Vavasour_ (Arber, iv. 355). - -1636. The Wonder of a Kingdome. Written by Thomas Dekker. _Robert -Raworth for Nicholas Vavasour._ - -Herbert’s diary for 18 Sept. 1623 has the entry: ‘For a company of -strangers. A new comedy called Come see a wonder, written by John -Daye. It was acted at the Red Bull and licensed without my hand to -it because they were none of the 4 companies.’ As _The Wonder of a -Kingdom_ contains scenes which are obviously from Day’s _Parliament of -Bees_ (_1608–16_) it is possible either to adopt the simple theory of -a collaboration between Day and Dekker in 1623, or to hold with Fleay, -i. 136, and Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 174, that Day’s ‘new’ play of 1623 -was a revision of an earlier one by Dekker. The mention of cards in the -closing lines seems an inadequate ground for Fleay’s further theory, -apparently approved by Greg, that the original play was _The Mack_, -produced by the Admiral’s on 21 Feb. 1595. - - _The Sun’s Darling. 1624_ - - _With_ Ford. - -1656. The Sun’s-Darling: A Moral Masque: As it hath been often -presented at Whitehall, by their Majesties Servants; and after at the -Cockpit in Drury Lane, with great Applause. Written by John Foard and -Tho. Decker Gent. _J. Bell for Andrew Penneycuicke._ - -1657. Reissue with same imprint. - -1657. Reissue with same imprint.... ‘As it hath been often presented by -their Majesties Servants; at the Cockpit in Drury Lane’.... - -_Editions_ with _Works_ of John Ford, by H. Weber (1811), W. -Gifford (1827), H. Coleridge (1840, 1848, 1851), A. Dyce (1869), A. H. -Bullen (1895). - -The play was licensed by Herbert for the Lady Elizabeth’s at the -Cockpit on 3 March 1624 (Chalmers, _S. A._ 217; Herbert, 27) and -included in a list of Cockpit plays in 1639 (_Variorum_, iii. 159). -Fleay, i. 232, Ward, ii. 470, and Pierce (_Anglia_, xxxvi. 141) regard -it as a revision by Ford of earlier work by Dekker, and the latter -regards the last page of Act I, Acts II and III, and the prose of Acts -IV and V as substantially Dekker’s. It is perhaps a step from this -to the theory of Fleay and Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 190) that the play -represents the _Phaethon_, which Dekker wrote for the Admiral’s in -Jan. 1598 and afterwards altered for a Court performance at Christmas -1600. There are allusions to ‘humours’ and to ‘pampered jades of Asia’ -(ed. Pearson, pp. 316, 318) which look early, but Phaethon is not a -character, nor is the story his. A priest of the Sun appears in Act I: -I am surprised that Fleay did not identify him, though he is not mad, -with the ‘mad priest of the sun’ referred to in Greene’s (q.v.) Epistle -to _Perimedes_. The play is not a ‘masque’ in the ordinary sense. - - _The Noble Soldier > 1631_ - - _With_ Day and S. Rowley? - -_S. R._ 1631, May 16 (Herbert). ‘A Tragedy called The noble Spanish -Souldier by Thomas Deckar.’ _John Jackman_ (Arber, iv. 253). - -1633, Dec. 9. ‘Entred for his Copy vnder the handes of Sir Henry -Herbert and Master Kingston warden _Anno Domini_ 1631. a Tragedy called -_The Noble Spanish soldior_ written by master Decker.’ _Nicholas -Vavasour_ (Arber, iv. 310). - -1634. The Noble Souldier, Or, A Contract Broken, justly reveng’d. A -Tragedy. Written by S. R. _For Nicholas Vavasour._ - -_Editions_ by A. H. Bullen (1882, _O. E. P._ i) and J. S. Farmer (1913, -_S. F. T._). - -The printer tells us that the author was dead in 1634. - -The initials may indicate Samuel Rowley of the Admiral’s and Prince -Henry’s. Bullen and Hunt, 187, think that Dekker revised work by -Rowley. But probably Day also contributed, for II. i, ii; III. ii; -IV. i; V. i, ii, and parts of I. ii and V. iv are drawn like scenes -in _The Wonder of a Kingdom_ from his _Parliament of Bees_ (1608–16). -Fleay, i. 128, identifies the play with _The Spanish Fig_ for which -Henslowe made a payment on behalf of the Admiral’s in Jan. 1602. This -Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 220) thinks ‘plausible’, regarding the play as -‘certainly an old play of about 1600, presumably by Dekker and Rowley -with later additions by Day’. He notes that the King is not, as Fleay -alleged, poisoned with a Spanish fig, but a Spanish fig is mentioned, -‘and it is quite possible that such may have been the mode of poisoning -in the original piece’. Henslowe does not name the payee for _The -Spanish Fig_, and it was apparently not finished at the time. - - _Lost and Doubtful Plays_ - -It will be convenient to set out all the certain or conjectured work by -Dekker mentioned in Henslowe’s Diary. - - (a) _Conjectural anonymous Work before 1598_ - -(i) _Philipo and Hippolito._ - -Produced as a new play by the Admiral’s on 9 July 1594. The ascription -to Dekker, confident in Fleay, i. 213, and regarded as possible -by Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 165), appears to be due to the entry of a -_Philenzo and Hypollita_ by Massinger, who revised other early work of -Dekker, in the S. R. on 29 June 1660, to the entry of a _Philenzo and -Hipolito_ by Massinger in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (_3 Library_, -ii. 231), and to the appearance of a _Julio and Hyppolita_ in the -German collection of 1620. A copy of Massinger’s play is said (Collier, -_Henslowe_, xxxi) to be amongst the _Conway MSS._ - -(ii) _The Jew of Venice._ - -Entered as a play by Dekker in the S. R. on 9 Sept. 1653 (_3 Library_, -ii. 241). It has been suggested (Fleay, i. 121, and _Sh._ 30, 197; Greg -in _Henslowe_, ii. 170) that it was the source of a German play printed -from a Vienna MS. by Meissner, 131 (cf. Herz, 84). In this a personage -disguises himself as a French doctor, which leads to the conjectural -identification of its English original both with _The Venetian Comedy_ -produced by the Admiral’s on 27 Aug. 1594 and with _The French Doctor_ -performed by the same men on 19 Oct. 1594 and later dates and bought by -them from Alleyn in 1602. The weakest point in all this guesswork is -the appearance of common themes in the German play and in _The Merchant -of Venice_, which Fleay explains to his own satisfaction by the -assumption that Shakespeare based _The Merchant of Venice_ on Dekker’s -work. - -(iii) _Dr. Faustus._ - -Revived by the Admiral’s on 30 Sept. 1594. On the possibility that the -1604 text contains comic scenes written by Dekker for this revival, cf. -s.v. Marlowe. - -(iv) _Diocletian._ - -Produced by the Admiral’s, 16 Nov. 1599; cf. s.v. _The Virgin Martyr_ -(_supra_). - -(v) _The Set at Maw._ - -Produced by the Admiral’s on 14 Dec. 1594; cf. s.v. _Match Me in -London_ (_supra_). - -(vi) _Antony and Valia._ - -Revived by the Admiral’s, 4 Jan. 1595, and ascribed by Fleay, i. 213, -with some encouragement from Greg in _Henslowe_, ii. 174, to Dekker, on -the ground of entries in the S. R. on 29 June 1660 and in Warburton’s -list of burnt plays (_3 Library_, ii. 231) of an _Antonio and Vallia_ -by Massinger, who revised other early work by Dekker. - -(vii) _The Mack._ - -Produced by the Admiral’s on 21 Feb. 1595; cf. s.v. _The Wonder of a -Kingdom_ (_supra_). - -(viii) _1 Fortunatus._ - -Revived by the Admiral’s on 3 Feb. 1596; cf. s.v. _Old Fortunatus_ -(_supra_). - -(ix) _Stukeley._ - -Produced by the Admiral’s on 11 Dec. 1596. On Fleay’s ascription to -Dekker, cf. s.v. _Captain Thomas Stukeley_ (Anon.). - -(x) _Prologue to Tamberlaine._ - -This rests on a forged entry in Henslowe’s Diary for 20 Dec. 1597; cf. -s.v. Marlowe. - - (b) _Work for Admiral’s, 1598–1602_ - -(i) _Phaethon._ - -Payments in Jan. 1598 and for alterations for the Court in Dec. 1600; -cf. s.v. _The Sun’s Darling_ (_supra_). - -(ii) _The Triplicity or Triangle of Cuckolds._ - -Payment in March 1598. - -(iii) _The Wars of Henry I or The Welshman’s Prize._ - -Payment, with Chettle and Drayton, March 1598. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. -192) speculates on possible relations of the plays to others on a -Welshman and on Henry I. - -(iv) _1 Earl Godwin._ - -Payment, with Chettle, Drayton, and Wilson, March 1598. - -(v) _Pierce of Exton._ - -Payment, with Chettle, Drayton, and Wilson, April 1598. Apparently the -play was not finished. - -(vi) _1 Black Bateman of the North._ - -Payments, with Chettle, Drayton, and Wilson, May 1598. - -(vii) _2 Earl Godwin._ - -Payments, with Chettle, Drayton, and Wilson, May–June 1598. - -(viii) _The Madman’s Morris._ - -Payments, with Drayton and Wilson, July 1598. - -(ix) _Hannibal and Hermes._ - -Payments, with Drayton and Wilson, July 1598. - -(x) _2 Hannibal and Hermes._ - -Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 195) gives this name to (xiii). - -(xi) _Pierce of Winchester._ - -Payments, with Drayton and Wilson, July–Aug. 1598. - -(xii) _Chance Medley._ - -Payments to Dekker (or Chettle), with Munday, Drayton, and Wilson, Aug. -1598. - -(xiii) _Worse Afeared than Hurt._ - -Payments, with Drayton, Aug.–Sept. 1598. - -(xiv) _1 Civil Wars of France._ - -Payment, with Drayton, Sept. 1598. - -(xv) _Connan Prince of Cornwall._ - -Payments, with Drayton, Oct. 1598. - -(xvi) _2 Civil Wars of France._ - -Payment, with Drayton, Nov. 1598. - -(xvii) _3 Civil Wars of France._ - -Payments, with Drayton, Nov.–Dec. 1598. - -(xviii) _Introduction to Civil Wars of France._ - -Payments, Jan. 1599. - -(xix) _Troilus and Cressida._ - -Payments, with Chettle, April 1599. A fragmentary ‘plot’ (cf. ch. xxiv) -may belong to this play. - -(xx) _Agamemnon or Orestes Furious._ - -Payments, with Chettle, May 1599. - -(xxi) _The Gentle Craft._ - -Payment, July 1599; cf. _The Shoemaker’s Holiday_ (_supra_). - -(xxii) _The Stepmother’s Tragedy._ - -Payments, with Chettle, Aug.–Oct. 1599. - -(xxiii) _Bear a Brain._ - -Payment, Aug. 1599; cf. s.vv. _The Shoemaker’s Holiday_ (_supra_) and -_Look About You_ (Anon.). - -(xxiv) _Page of Plymouth._ - -Payments, with Jonson, Aug.–Sept. 1599. - -(xxv) _Robert II or The Scot’s Tragedy._ - -Payments, with Chettle, Jonson, ‘& other Jentellman’ (? Marston, q.v.), -Sept. 1599. - -(xxvi) _Patient Grissell._ - -Payments, with Chettle and Haughton, Oct.–Dec. 1599; cf. _supra_. - -(xxvii) _Fortunatus._ - -Payments, Nov.–Dec. 1599; cf. s.v. _Old Fortunatus_ (_supra_). - -(xxviii) _Truth’s Supplication to Candlelight._ - -Payments, Jan. 1600. Apparently the play was not finished; cf. s.v. -_The Whore of Babylon_ (_supra_). - -(xxix) _The Spanish Moor’s Tragedy._ - -Payment, with Day and Haughton, Feb. 1600. Apparently the play was not -finished; cf. s.v. _Lust’s Dominion_ (Marlowe). - -(xxx) _The Seven Wise Masters._ - -Payments, with Chettle, Day, and Haughton, March 1600. - -(xxxi) _The Golden Ass_ or _Cupid and Psyche_. - -Payments, with Chettle and Day, April-May 1600; on borrowings from -this, cf. s.v. Heywood, _Pleasant Dialogues and Dramas_. - -(xxxii) _1 Fair Constance of Rome._ - -Payments, with Drayton, Hathway, Munday, and Wilson (q.v.), June 1600. - -(xxxiii) _[1] Fortune’s Tennis._ - -Payment, Sept. 1600. A fragmentary plot (cf. ch. xxiv) is perhaps less -likely to belong to this than to Munday’s _Set at Tennis_. - -(xxxiv) _King Sebastian of Portugal._ - -Payments, with Chettle, April-May 1601. - -(xxxv) _The Spanish Fig._ - -Payment, Jan. 1602. The payee is unnamed; cf. _The Noble Soldier_ -(_supra_). - -(xxxvi) Prologue and Epilogue to _Pontius Pilate_. - -Payment, Jan. 1602. - -(xxxvii) Alterations to _Tasso’s Melancholy_. - -Payments, Jan.–Dec. 1602. - -(xxxviii) _Jephthah_. - -Payments, with Munday, May 1602. - -(xxxix) _Caesar’s Fall, or The Two Shapes_. - -Payments, with Drayton, Middleton, Munday, and Webster, May 1602. - - (c) _Work for Worcester’s, 1602_ - -(i) _A Medicine for a Curst Wife._ - -Payments, July–Sept. 1602. The play was begun for the Admiral’s and -transferred to Worcester’s. - -(ii) _Additions to Sir John Oldcastle._ - -Payments, Aug.–Sept. 1602; cf. s.v. Drayton. - -(iii) _1 Lady Jane_, or _The Overthrow of Rebels_. - -Payments, with Chettle, Heywood, Smith, and Webster, Oct. 1602; cf. -s.v. _Sir Thomas Wyatt_ (_supra_). - -(iv) _2 Lady Jane._ - -Payment, Oct. 1602. Apparently the play was not finished; cf. s.v. -_Sir Thomas Wyatt_ (_supra_). - -(v) _Christmas Comes but Once a Year._ - -Payments, with Chettle, Heywood, and Webster, Nov. 1602. - - (d) _Work for Prince’s, 1604_ - -_The Patient Man and the Honest Whore._ - -Payments, with Middleton, Jan.–March 1602; cf. s.v. _The Honest Whore_ -(_supra_). - -The following plays are assigned to Dekker in S. R. but are now lost: - -_The Life and Death of Guy of Warwick_, with Day (S. R. 15 Jan. -1620). - -_Gustavus King of Swethland_ (S. R. 29 June 1660). - -_The Tale of Ioconda and Astolso_, a Comedy (S. R. 29 June 1660). - -The two latter are also in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (_3 -Library_, ii. 231). - -The following are assigned to Dekker in Herbert’s licence entries: - -A French Tragedy of _The Bellman of Paris_, by Dekker and Day, for -the Prince’s, on 30 July 1623. - -_The Fairy Knight_, by Dekker and Ford, for the Prince’s, on 11 June -1624. - -_The Bristow Merchant_, by Dekker and Ford, for the Palsgrave’s, on 22 -Oct. 1624. - -Fleay, i. 232, seems to have nothing but the names to go upon in -suggesting identifications of the two latter with the _Huon of -Bordeaux_, revived by Sussex’s on 28 Dec. 1593, and Day’s _Bristol -Tragedy_ (q.v.) respectively. - -For other ascriptions to Dekker see _Capt. T. Stukeley_, _Charlemagne_, -_London Prodigal_, _Sir Thomas More_, _The Weakest Goeth to the Wall_ -in ch. xxiv. He has also been conjectured to be the author of the songs -in the 1632 edition of Lyly’s plays. - - ENTERTAINMENTS - - _Coronation Entertainment. 1604_ - -See ch. xxiv, C. - - _Troia Nova Triumphans. 29 Oct. 1612_ - -_S. R._ 1612, Oct. 21. ‘To be prynted when yt is further Aucthorised, A -Booke called Troia Nova triumphans. London triumphinge. or the solemne -receauinge of Sir John Swynerton knight into the citye at his Retourne -from Westminster after the taking his oathe written by Thomas Decker.’ -_Nicholas Okes_ (Arber, iii. 500). - -1612. Troia-Noua Triumphans. London Triumphing, or, The Solemne, -Magnificent, and Memorable Receiuing of that worthy Gentleman, Sir Iohn -Swinerton Knight, into the Citty of London, after his Returne from -taking the Oath of Maioralty at Westminster, on the Morrow next after -Simon and Iudes day, being the 29. of October, 1612. All the Showes, -Pageants, Chariots of Triumph, with other Deuices (both on the Water -and Land) here fully expressed. By Thomas Dekker. _Nicholas Okes, sold -by John Wright._ - -_Edition_ in Fairholt (1844), ii. 7. - -The opening of the description refers to ‘our best-to-be-beloved -friends, the noblest strangers’. John Chamberlain (Birch, i. 202) says -that the Palsgrave was present and Henry kept away by his illness, -that the show was ‘somewhat extraordinary’ and the water procession -wrecked by ‘great winds’. At Paul’s Chain the Mayor was met by the -‘first triumph’, a sea-chariot, bearing Neptune and Luna, with a -ship of wine. Neptune made a speech. At Paul’s Churchyard came ‘the -second land-triumph’, the throne or chariot of Virtue, drawn by four -horses on which sat Time, Mercury, Desire, and Industry. Virtue made -a speech, and both pageants preceded the Mayor down Cheapside. At the -little Conduit in Cheapside was the Castle of Envy, between whom and -Virtue there was a dialogue, followed by fireworks from the castle. At -the Cross in Cheapside was another ‘triumph’, the House of Fame, with -representations of famous Merchant Tailors, ‘a perticular roome being -reserved for one that represents the person of Henry, the now Prince -of Wales’. After a speech by Fame, the pageant joined the procession, -and from it was heard a song on the way to the Guildhall. On the way -to Paul’s after dinner, Virtue and Envy were again beheld, and at the -Mayor’s door a speech was made by Justice. - - -THOMAS DELONEY (_c._ 1543–_c._ 1600). - -A ballad writer and pamphleteer, who wrote a ballad on the visit to -Tilbury in 1588. See ch. xxiv, C. - - -ROBERT DEVEREUX, EARL OF ESSEX (1566–1601). - -It is possible that Essex, who sometimes dabbled in literature, had -himself a hand in the device of _Love and Self-Love_, with which -he entertained Elizabeth on 17 Nov. 1595, and of which some of the -speeches are generally credited to Bacon (q.v.). - - -WILLIAM DODD (_c._ 1597–1602). - -A Scholar and Fellow of St. John’s, Cambridge, and a conjectured author -of _Parnassus_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - -MICHAEL DRAYTON (_c._ 1563–1631). - -Drayton was born at Hartshill in Warwickshire, and brought up in the -household of Sir Henry Goodyere of Polesworth, whose daughter Anne, -afterwards Lady Rainsford, is the Idea of his pastorals and sonnets. -With _The Harmony of the Church_ (1591) began a life-long series of -ambitious poems, in all the characteristic Elizabethan manners, for -which Drayton found many patrons, notably Lucy Lady Bedford, Sir Walter -Aston of Tixall, Prince Henry and Prince Charles, and Edward Earl of -Dorset. The guerdons of his pen were not sufficient to keep him from -having recourse to the stage. Meres classed him in 1598 among the -‘best for tragedy’, and Henslowe’s diary shows him a busy writer for -the Admiral’s men, almost invariably in collaboration with Dekker and -others, from Dec. 1597 to Jan. 1599, and a more occasional one from -Oct. 1599 to May 1602. At a later date he may possibly have written for -Queen Anne’s men, since commendatory verses by T. Greene are prefixed -to his _Poems_ of 1605. In 1608 he belonged to the King’s Revels -syndicate at Whitefriars. No later connexion with the stage can be -traced, and he took no steps to print his plays with his other works. -His Elegy to Henry Reynolds of _Poets and Poesie_ (C. Brett, _Drayton’s -Minor Poems_, 108) does honour to Marlowe, Shakespeare, Jonson, and -Beaumont, and tradition makes him a partaker in the drinking-bout that -led to Shakespeare’s end. Jonson wrote commendatory verses for him in -1627, but in 1619 had told Drummond (Laing, 10) that ‘Drayton feared -him; and he esteemed not of him’. The irresponsible Fleay, i. 361; -ii. 271, 323, identifies him with Luculento of _E. M. O._, Captain -Jenkins of Dekker and Webster’s _Northward Ho!_, and the eponym of the -anonymous _Sir Giles Goosecap_; Small, 98, with the Decius criticized -in the anonymous _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_, who may also be Dekker. - -The collections of Drayton’s _Poems_ do not include his -plays.--_Dissertations_: O. Elton, _M. D._ (1895, _Spenser Soc._, -1905); L. Whitaker, _M. D. as a Dramatist_ (1903, _M. L. A._ xviii. -378). - - _Sir John Oldcastle. 1599_ - - _With_ Hathaway, Munday, and Wilson. - -_S. R._ 1600, Aug. 11 (Vicars). ‘The first parte of the history of the -life of Sir John Oldcastell lord Cobham. Item the second and last parte -of the history of Sir John Oldcastell lord Cobham with his martyrdom,’ -_Thomas Pavier_ (Arber, iii. 169). - -1600. The first part Of the true and honorable historie, of the life of -Sir John Oldcastle, the good Lord Cobham. As it hath been lately acted -by the right honorable the Earle of Notingham Lord high Admirall of -England his seruants. _V. S. for Thomas Pavier._ [Prologue.] - -1600.... Written by William Shakespeare. _For T. P._ [Probably a -forgery of later date than that given in the imprint; cf. p. 479.] - -1664. In Third Folio Shakespeare. - -1685. In Fourth Folio Shakespeare. - -_Editions_ in collections of the Shakespeare _Apocrypha_, and by W. -Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ i), P. Simpson (1908, _M. S. R._), J. S. Farmer -(1911, _T. F. T._). - -Henslowe advanced £10 to the Admiral’s as payment to Munday, Drayton, -Wilson, and Hathway for the first part of ‘the lyfe of S^r Jhon -Ouldcasstell’ and in earnest for the second part on 16 Oct. 1599, -and an additional 10_s._ for the poets ‘at the playnge of S^r John -Oldcastell the ferste tyme as a gefte’ between 1 and 8 Nov. 1599. -Drayton had £4 for the second part between 19 and 26 Dec. 1599, and -properties were being bought for it in March 1600. It is not preserved. -By Aug. 1602 the play had been transferred to Worcester’s men. More -properties were bought, doubtless for a revival, and Dekker had £2 -10_s._ for ‘new a dicyons’. Fleay, ii. 116, attempts to disentangle the -work of the collaborators. Clearly the play was an answer to _Henry -IV_, in which Sir John Falstaff was originally Sir John Oldcastle, and -this is made clear in the prologue: - - It is no pampered glutton we present, - Nor aged Councellour to youthfull sinne. - - _Doubtful and Lost Plays_ - -For ascriptions see _Edward IV_, _London Prodigal_, _Merry Devil of -Edmonton_, _Sir T. More_, and _Thomas Lord Cromwell_ in ch. xxiv. - -The complete series of his work for the Admiral’s during 1597–1602 is -as follows: - -(i) _Mother Redcap._ - -Payments, with Munday, Dec. 1597–Jan. 1598. - -(ii) _The Welshman’s Prize, or The Famous Wars of Henry I and the -Prince of Wales._ - -Payments, with Chettle and Dekker, March 1598. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. -192) thinks that the play may have had some relation to Davenport’s -_Henry I_ of 1624 entered as by Shakespeare and Davenport in S. R. on 9 -Sept. 1653. - -(iii) _1 Earl Godwin and his Three Sons._ - -Payments, with Chettle, Dekker, and Wilson, March 1598. - -(iv) _2 Earl Godwin and his Three Sons._ - -Payments, with Chettle, Dekker, and Wilson, May to June 1598. - -(v) _Pierce of Exton._ - -Payment of £2, with Chettle, Dekker, and Wilson, April 1598; but -apparently not finished. - -(vi) _1 Black Bateman of the North._ - -Payments, with Chettle, Dekker, and Wilson, May 1598. - -(vii) _Funeral of Richard Cœur-de-lion._ - -Payments, with Chettle, Munday, and Wilson, June 1598. - -(viii) _The Madman’s Morris._ - -Payments, with Dekker and Wilson, July 1598. - -(ix) _Hannibal and Hermes._ - -Payments, with Dekker and Wilson, July 1598. - -(x) _Pierce of Winchester._ - -Payments, with Dekker and Wilson, July–Aug. 1598. - -(xi) _Chance Medley._ - -Payments, with Chettle or Dekker, Munday, and Wilson, Aug. 1598. - -(xii) _Worse Afeared than Hurt._ - -Payments, with Dekker, Aug.–Sept. 1598. - -(xiii-xv) _1, 2, 3 The Civil Wars of France._ - -Payments, with Dekker, Sept.–Dec. 1598. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 198) -suggests some relation with Chapman’s _Bussy D’Ambois_ (q.v.). - -(xvi) _Connan Prince of Cornwall._ - -Payments, with Dekker, Oct. 1598. - -(xvii) _William Longsword._ - -Apparently Drayton’s only unaided play and unfinished. His autograph -receipt for a payment in Jan. 1599 is in Henslowe, i. 59. - -[There is now a break in Drayton’s dramatic activities, but not in his -relations with Henslowe, for whom he acted as a witness on 8 July 1599. -On 9 Aug. 1598 he had stood security for the delivery of a play by -Munday (Henslowe, i. 60, 93).] - -(xviii-xix) _1, 2 Sir John Oldcastle._ - -See above. - -(xx) _Owen Tudor._ - -Payments, with Hathway, Munday, and Wilson, Jan. 1600; but apparently -not finished. - -(xxi) _1 Fair Constance of Rome._ - -Payments, with Dekker, Hathway, Munday, and Wilson (q.v.), June 1600. - -(xxii) _The Rising of Cardinal Wolsey._ - -Payments, with Chettle (q.v.), Munday, and Smith, Aug.–Nov. 1601. - -(xxiii) _Caesar’s Fall, or The Two Shapes._ - -Payments, with Dekker, Middleton, Munday, and Webster, May 1602. - - -GILBERT DUGDALE (_c._ 1604). - -Author of _Time Triumphant_, an account of the entry and coronation of -James I (cf. ch. xxiv, C). - - -JOHN DUTTON (_c._ 1598–1602). - -Perhaps only a ‘ghost-name’, but conceivably the author of _Parnassus_ -(cf. ch. xxiv). - - -JOHN DYMMOCKE (_c._ 1601). - -Possibly the translator of _Pastor Fido_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - -RICHARD EDES (1555–1604). - -Edes, or Eedes, entered Christ Church, Oxford, from Westminster in -1571, took his B.A. in 1574, his M.A. in 1578, and was University -Proctor in 1583. He took orders, became Chaplain to the Queen, and was -appointed Canon of Christ Church in 1586 and Dean of Worcester in 1597. -Some of his verse, both in English and Latin, has survived, and Meres -includes him in 1598 amongst ‘our best for Tragedie’. The Epilogue, -in Latin prose, of a play called _Caesar Interfectus_, which was both -written and spoken by him, is given by F. Peck in _A Collection of -Curious Historical Pieces_, appended to his _Memoirs of Cromwell_ -(1740), and by Boas, 163, from _Bodl. MS. Top. Oxon._ e. 5, f. 359. A -later hand has added the date 1582, from which Boas infers that _Caesar -Interfectus_, of which Edes was probably the author, was one of three -tragedies recorded in the Christ Church accounts for Feb.–March 1582. -Edes appears to have written or contributed to Sir Henry Lee’s (q.v.) -Woodstock Entertainment of 1592. - - -RICHARD EDWARDES (_c._ 1523–1566). - -Edwardes was a Somersetshire man. He entered Corpus Christi College, -Oxford, on 11 May 1540, and became Senior Student of Christ Church in -1547. Before the end of Edward’s reign he was seeking his fortune at -Court and had a fee or annuity of £6 13_s._ 4_d._ (Stopes, _Hunnis_, -147). He must not be identified with the George Edwardes of Chapel -lists, _c._ 1553 (ibid. 23; _Shakespeare’s Environment_, 238; Rimbault, -x), but was of the Chapel by 1 Jan. 1557 (Nichols, _Eliz._ i. xxxv; -_Illustrations_, App. 14), when he made a New Year’s gift of ‘certeigne -verses’, and was confirmed in office by an Elizabethan patent of 27 -May 1560. He succeeded Bower as Master of the Children, receiving his -patent of appointment on 27 Oct. 1561 and a commission to take up -children on 4 Dec. 1561 (Wallace, i. 106; ii. 65; cf. ch. xii). Barnabe -Googe in his _Eglogs, Epytaphes and Sonettes_ (15 March 1563) puts his -‘doyngs’ above those of Plautus and Terence. In addition to plays at -Court, he took his boys on 2 Feb. 1565 and 2 Feb. 1566 to Lincoln’s Inn -(cf. ch. vii), of which he had become a member on 25 Nov. 1564 (_L. I. -Admission Register_, i. 72). He appeared at Court as a ‘post’ on behalf -of the challengers for a tilt in Nov. 1565 (cf. ch. iv). In 1566 he -helped in the entertainment of Elizabeth at Oxford, and on Oct. 31 of -that year he died. His reputation as poet and dramatist is testified -to in verses by Barnabe Googe, George Turberville, Thomas Twine, and -others and proved enduring. The author [Richard Puttenham?] of _The -Arte of English Poesie_ (1589) couples him with the Earl of Oxford as -deserving the highest price for comedy and enterlude, and Francis Meres -in his _Palladis Tamia_ (1598) includes him amongst those ‘best for -comedy’. Several of his poems are in _The Paradise of Dainty Devices_ -(1576). Warton, iv. 218, says that William Collins (the poet) had a -volume of prose stories printed in 1570, ‘sett forth by maister Richard -Edwardes mayster of her maiesties revels’. One of these contained -a version of the jest used in the _Induction_ of _The Taming of the -Shrew_ (q.v.). There is nothing else to connect Edwardes with the -Revels office, and probably ‘revels’ in Warton’s account is a mistake -for ‘children’ or ‘chapel’. - -_Dissertations_: W. Y. Durand, _Notes on R. E._ (1902, _J. G. P._ iv. -348), _Some Errors concerning R. E._ (1908, _M. L. N._ xxiii. 129). - - _Damon and Pythias. 1565_ - -_S. R._ 1567–8. ‘A boke intituled ye tragecall comodye of Damonde and -Pethyas.’ _Rycharde Jonnes_ (Arber, i. 354). - -Warton, iv. 214, describes an edition, not now known, as printed by -William How in Fleet Street. The Tragical comedie of Damon and Pythias, -newly imprinted as the same was playde before the queenes maiestie by -the children of her grace’s chapple. Made by Mayster Edwards, then -being master of the children. _William How._ [Only known through -the description of Warton, iv. 214.] - -1571. The excellent Comedie of two the moste faithfullest Freendes, -Damon and Pithias. Newly Imprinted, as the same was shewed before the -Queenes Maiestie, by the Children of her Graces Chappell, except the -Prologue that is somewhat altered for the proper vse of them that -hereafter shall haue occasion to plaie it, either in Priuate, or open -Audience. Made by Maister Edwards, then beynge Maister of the Children. -_Richard Jones._ - -1582. _Richard Jones._ - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^4, iv (1874), and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ -i) and J. S. Farmer (1908, _T. F. T._).--_Dissertation_: W. Y. Durand, -_A Local Hit in E.’s D. and P._ (_M. L. N._ xxii. 236). - -The play is not divided into acts or scenes; the characters include -Carisophus a parasite, and Grim the Collier. The prologue [not that -used at Court] warns the audience that they will be ‘frustrate quite -of toying plays’ and that the author’s muse that ‘masked in delight’ -and to some ‘seemed too much in young desires to range’ will leave such -sports and write a ‘tragical comedy ... mixed with mirth and care’. -Edwardes adds (cf. App. C, No. ix): - - Wherein, talking of courtly toys, we do protest this flat, - We talk of Dionysius court, we mean no court but that. - -A song at the end wishes Elizabeth joy and describes her as ‘void of -all sickness, in most perfect health’. Durand uses this reference to -date the play in the early months of 1565, since a letter of De Silva -(_Sp. P._ i. 400) records that Elizabeth had a feverish cold since -8 Dec. 1564, but was better by 2 Jan. 1565. He identifies the play -with the ‘Edwardes tragedy’ of the Revels Accounts for 1564–5 (cf. -App. B), and points out that there is an entry in those accounts for -‘rugge bumbayst and cottone for hosse’, and that in _Damon and Pythias_ -(Dodsley, iv. 71) the boys have stuffed breeches with ‘seven ells of -rug’ to one hose. A proclamation of 6 May 1562 (_Procl._ 562) had -forbidden the use of more than a yard and three-quarters of stuff in -the ‘stockes’ of hose, and an enforcing proclamation (_Procl._ 619) was -required on 12 Feb. 1566. Boas, 157, notes a revival at Merton in 1568. - -Fleay, 60, thinks that the play contains attacks on the Paul’s boys -in return for satire of Edwardes as Ralph Roister in Ulpian Fulwell’s -_Like Will to Like_ (q.v.). - - _Lost Play_ - - _Palamon and Arcite. 1566_ - -This play was acted in two parts on 2 and 4 Sept. 1566, before -Elizabeth in the Hall of Christ Church, Oxford (cf. ch. iv). The first -night was made memorable by the fall of part of the staircase wall, -by which three persons were killed. The Queen was sorry, but the play -went on. She gave Edwardes great thanks for his pains. The play was -in English. Several contemporary writers assign it to Edwardes, and -Nicholas Robinson adds that he and other Christ Church men translated -it out of Latin, and that he remained two months in Oxford working at -it. Bereblock gives a long analysis of the action, which shows that, -even if there is no error as to the intervening Latin version, the -original source was clearly Chaucer’s _Knight’s Tale_. W. Y. Durand, -_Journ. Germ. Phil._ iv. 356, argues that Edwardes’s play was not a -source of _Two Noble Kinsmen_, on the ground of the divergence between -that and Bereblock’s summary. - -There is no evidence of any edition of the play, although Plummer, xxi, -says that it ‘has been several times printed’. - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -Fleay, ii. 295, assigns to Edwardes _Godly Queen Hester_, a play of -which he had only seen a few lines, and which W. W. Greg, in his -edition in _Materialien_, v, has shown with great probability to date -from about 1525–9. His hand has also been sought in R. B.’s _Apius and -Virginia_ and in _Misogonus_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - -ELIZABETH (1533–1603). - -H. H. E. Craster (_E. H. R._ xxix. 722) includes in a list of -Elizabeth’s English translations a chorus from Act II of the -pseudo-Senecan _Hercules Oetaeus_, extant in _Bodl. MS. e Museo_, 55, -f. 48, and printed in H. Walpole, _Royal and Noble Authors_ (ed. Park, -1806), i. 102. It probably dates later than 1561. But he can find no -evidence for a Latin version of a play of Euripides referred to by -Walpole, i. 85. - - -RICHARD FARRANT (?-1580). - -Farrant’s career as Master of the Children of Windsor and Deputy Master -of the Children of the Chapel and founder of the first Blackfriars -theatre has been described in chh. xii and xvii. It is not improbable -that he wrote plays for the boys, and W. J. Lawrence, _The Earliest -Private Theatre Play_ (_T. L. S._, 11 Aug. 1921), thinks that one of -these was _Wars of Cyrus_ (cf. ch. xxiv), probably based on W. Barker’s -translation (1567) of Xenophon’s _Cyropaedia_, and that the song of -Panthea ascribed to Farrant in a Christ Church manuscript (cf. vol. -ii, p. 63) has dropped out from the extant text of this. Farrant’s -song, ‘O Jove from stately throne’, mentioning Altages, may be from -another play. I think that _Wars of Cyrus_, as it stands, is clearly -post-_Tamburlaine_, and although there are indications of lost songs -at ll. 985, 1628, there is none pointing to a lament of Panthea. But -conceivably the play was based on one by Farrant. - - -GEORGE FEREBE (_c._ 1573–1613 <) - -A musician and Vicar of Bishop’s Cannings, Wilts. - - _The Shepherd’s Song. 1613_ - -_S. R._ 1613, June 16. ‘A thinge called The Shepeherdes songe before -Queene Anne in 4. partes complete Musical vpon the playnes of Salisbury -&c.’ _Walter Dight_ (Arber, iii. 526). - -Aubrey, i. 251, says ‘when queen Anne came to Bathe, her way lay to -traverse the famous Wensdyke, which runnes through his parish. He -made severall of his neighbours good musitians, to play with him in -consort, and to sing. Against her majesties comeing, he made a pleasant -pastorall, and gave her an entertaynment with his fellow songsters -in shepherds’ weeds and bagpipes, he himself like an old bard. After -that wind musique was over, they sang their pastorall eglogues -(which I have, to insert into Liber B).’ Wood’s similar account in -_Fasti_ (1815), i. 270, is probably based on Aubrey’s. He dates the -entertainment June 11 (cf. ch. iv. and App. A, s. ann. 1613), and gives -the opening of the song as - - Shine, O thou sacred Shepherds Star, - On silly shepherd swaines. - -Aubrey has a shorter notice in another manuscript and adds, ‘He gave -another entertaynment in Cote-field to King James, with carters -singing, with whipps in their hands; and afterwards, a footeball play’. - - -GEORGE FERRERS (_c._ 1500–79). - -A Lincoln’s Inn lawyer, son of Thomas Ferrers of St. Albans, who -was Page of the Chamber to Henry VIII, and acted as Lord of Misrule -to Edward VI at the Christmases of 1551–2 and 1552–3 (_Mediaeval -Stage_, i. 405; Feuillerat, _Edw. and M._ 56, 77, 90). He sat in -Parliaments of both Mary and Elizabeth, and wrote some of the poems -in _The Mirror for Magistrates_ (1559–78). He contributed verses to -the Kenilworth entertainment of 1575, must then have been a very old -man, and died in 1579. Puttenham says of Edward VI’s time, ‘Maister -_Edward Ferrys_ ... wrate for the most part to the stage, in Tragedie -and sometimes in Comedie or Enterlude’, and again, ‘For Tragedie, the -Lord of Buckhurst & Maister _Edward Ferrys_, for such doings as I -haue sene of theirs, do deserue the hyest price’; and is followed by -Meres, who places ‘Master Edward Ferris, the author of the _Mirror for -Magistrates_’ amongst ‘our best for Tragedie’ (cf. App. C, Nos. xli, -lii). Obviously George Ferrers is meant, but Anthony Wood hunted out an -Edward Ferrers, belonging to another family, of Baddesley Clinton, in -Warwickshire, and took him for the dramatist. He died in 1564 and had a -son Henry, amongst whose papers were found verses belonging to certain -entertainments, mostly of the early ‘nineties, which an indiscreet -editor thereupon ascribed to George Ferrers (cf. s.v. Sir H. Lee). - - -NATHAN FIELD (1587–?). - -For life _vide supra_ Actors (ch. xv). - - _A Woman is a Weathercock. 1609_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1611, Nov. 23 (Buck). ‘A booke called, A woman is a -weather-cocke, beinge a Comedye.’ _John Budge_ (Arber, iii. 471). - -1612. A Woman is a Weather-cocke. A New Comedy, As it was acted before -the King in White-Hall. And diuers times Priuately at the White-Friers, -By the Children of her Maiesties Reuels. Written by Nat: Field. _For -John Budge._ [Epistles to Any Woman that hath been no Weathercock and -to the Reader, both signed ‘N. F.’, and Commendatory verses ‘To his -loved son, Nat. Field, and his Weathercock Woman’, signed ‘George -Chapman’.] - -_Editions_ in _O. E. D._ (1830, ii), by J. P. Collier (1833, _Five Old -Plays_), in Dodsley^4 (1875, xi), and by A. W. Verity in _Nero and -Other Plays_ (1888, _Mermaid Series_). - -This must, I suppose, have been one of the five plays given at Court -by the Children of the Whitefriars in the winter of 1609–10. Fleay, i. -185, notes that I. ii refers to the Cleve wars, which began in 1609. -The Revels children were not at Court in 1610–11. In his verses to _The -Faithful Shepherdess_ (1609–10) Field hopes for his ‘muse in swathing -clouts’, to ‘perfect such a work as’ Fletcher’s. The first Epistle -promises that when his next play is printed, any woman ‘shall see what -amends I have made to her and all the sex’; the second ends, ‘If thou -hast anything to say to me, thou know’st where to hear of me for a year -or two, and no more, I assure thee’, as if Field did not mean to spend -his life as a player. - - _Amends for Ladies. > 1611_ - -1618. Amends for Ladies. A Comedie. As it was acted at the -Blacke-Fryers, both by the Princes Seruants, and the Lady Elizabeths. -By Nat. Field. _G. Eld for Math. Walbancke._ - -1639.... With the merry prankes of Moll Cut-Purse: Or, the humour of -roaring A Comedy full of honest mirth and wit.... _Io. Okes for Math. -Walbancke._ - -_Editions_, with _A W. is a W._ (q.v.). - -The title-page points to performances in Porter’s Hall (_c._ 1615–16) -by the combined companies of the Prince and Princess; but the Epistle -to _A W. is a W._ (q.v.) makes it clear that the play was at least -planned, and probably written, by the end of 1611. Collier, iii. 434, -and Fleay, i. 201, confirm this from an allusion to the play in A. -Stafford’s _Admonition to a Discontented Romanist_, appended to his -_Niobe Dissolved into a Nilus_ (S. R. 10 Oct. 1611). Fleay is less -happy in fixing an inferior limit of date by the publication of the -version of the _Curious Impertinent_ story in Shelton’s _Don Quixote_ -(1612), since that story was certainly available in Baudouin’s French -translation as early as 1608. The introduction of Moll Cutpurse -suggests rivalry with Dekker and Middleton’s _Roaring Girl_ (also _c._ -1610–11) at the Fortune, which theatre is chaffed in ii. 1 and iii. 4. - - _Later Play_ - -_The Fatal Dowry_ (1632), a King’s men’s play, assigned on the -title-page to P. M. and N. F., probably dates from 1616–19. C. Beck, -_Philip Massinger, The Fatall Dowry, Einleitung zu einer neuen Ausgabe_ -(1906, _Erlangen diss._), assigns the prose of II. ii and IV. i to -Field. There is an edition by C. L. Lockert (1918). - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -Attempts have been made to trace Field’s hand in _Bonduca_, _Cupid’s -Revenge_, _Faithful Friends_, _Honest Man’s Fortune_, _Thierry and -Theodoret_, and _Four Plays in One_, all belonging to the Beaumont -(q.v.) and Fletcher series, and in _Charlemagne_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - -JOHN FLETCHER (1579–1625). - -Fletcher was born in Dec. 1579 at Rye, Sussex, the living of his father -Richard Fletcher, who became Bishop of Bristol, Worcester, and in 1594 -London. His cousins, Giles and Phineas, are known as poets. He seems -too young for the John Fletcher of London who entered Corpus Christi, -Cambridge, in 1591. After his father’s death in 1596, nothing is heard -of him until his emergence as a dramatist, and of this the date cannot -be precisely fixed. Davenant says that ‘full twenty yeares, he wore -the bayes’, which would give 1605, but this is in a prologue to _The -Woman Hater_, which Davenant apparently thought Fletcher’s, although -it is Beaumont’s; and Oliphant’s attempt to find his hand, on metrical -grounds, in _Captain Thomas Stukeley_ (1605) rests only on one not -very conclusive scene. But he had almost certainly written for the -Queen’s Revels before the beginning, about 1608, of his collaboration -with Beaumont, under whom his later career is outlined. It is possible -that he is the John Fletcher who married Joan Herring on 3 Nov. 1612 -at St. Saviour’s, Southwark, and had a son John about Feb. 1620 in St. -Bartholomew’s the Great (Dyce, i. lxxiii), and if so one may put the -fact with Aubrey’s gossip (cf. s.v. Beaumont), and with Oldwit’s speech -in Shadwell’s _Bury-Fair_ (1689): ‘I knew Fletcher, my friend Fletcher, -and his maid Joan; well, I shall never forget him: I have supped with -him at his house on the Bankside; he loved a fat loin of pork of all -things in the world; and Joan his maid had her beer-glass of sack; -and we all kissed her, i’ faith, and were as merry as passed.’ I have -sometimes wondered whether Jonson is chaffing Beaumont and Fletcher -in _Bartholomew Fair_ (1614), V. iii, iv, as Damon and Pythias, ‘two -faithfull friends o’ the Bankside’, that ‘have both but one drabbe’, -and enter with a gammon of bacon under their cloaks. I do not think -this can refer to Francis Bacon. Fletcher died in Aug. 1625 and was -buried in St. Saviour’s (_Athenaeum_, 1886, ii. 252). - -For Plays _vide_ s.v. Beaumont, and for the ascribed lost play of -_Cardenio_, s.v. Shakespeare. - - -PHINEAS FLETCHER (1582–1650). - -Phineas Fletcher, son of Giles, a diplomatist and poet, brother of -Giles, a poet, and first cousin of John (q.v.), was baptized at -Cranbrook, Kent, on 8 April 1582. From Eton he passed to King’s -College, Cambridge, where he took his B.A. in 1604, his M.A. in 1608, -and became a Fellow in 1611. He was Chaplain to Sir Henry Willoughby of -Risley from 1616 to 1621, and thereafter Rector of Hilgay, Norfolk, to -his death in 1650. He wrote much Spenserian poetry, but his dramatic -work was purely academic. In addition to _Sicelides_, he may have -written an English comedy, for which a payment was made to him by -King’s about Easter 1607 (Boas, i. xx). - - _Collections_ - -1869. A. B. Grosart, _The Poems of P. F._ 4 vols. (_Fuller Worthies -Library_). - -1908–9. F. S. Boas, _The Poetical Works of Giles Fletcher and P. F._ 2 -vols. (_Cambridge English Classics_). - - _Sicelides. 1615_ - -[_MSS._] _Bodl. Rawl. Poet. MS._ 214. - -_Addl. MS. 4453._ ‘Sicelides: a Piscatorie made by Phinees Fletcher and -acted in Kings Colledge in Cambridge.’ [A shorter version than that of -Q. and the _Rawl. MS._] - -_S. R._ 1631, April 25 (Herbert). ‘A play called Scicelides, acted -at Cambridge.’ _William Sheeres_ (Arber, iv. 251). - -1631. Sicelides A Piscatory, As it hath been Acted in Kings Colledge, -in Cambridge. _I. N. for William Sheares._ [Prologue and Epilogue.] - -A reference (III. iv) to the shoes hung up by Thomas Coryat in -Odcombe church indicates a date of composition not earlier than 1612. -The play was intended for performance before James at Cambridge, but -was actually given before the University after his visit, on 13 March -1615 (cf. ch. iv). - - -FRANCIS FLOWER (_c._ 1588). - -A Gray’s Inn lawyer, one of the devisers of dumb-shows and directors -for the _Misfortunes of Arthur_ of Thomas Hughes (q.v.) in 1588, for -which he also wrote two choruses. - - -JOHN FORD (1586–1639 <). - -Ford’s dramatic career, including whatever share he may have had -with Dekker (q.v.) in _Sun’s Darling_ and _Witch of Edmonton_, falls -substantially outside my period. But amongst plays entered as his by -Humphrey Moseley on 29 June 1660 (Eyre, ii. 271) are: - - ‘An ill begining has A good end, and a bad begining may have a - good end, a Comedy.’ - - ‘The London Merchant, a Comedy.’ - -These ascriptions recur in Warburton’s list of lost plays (_3 Library_, -ii. 231), where the first play has the title ‘A good beginning may -have A good end’. It is possible, therefore, that Ford either wrote or -revised the play of ‘A badd beginininge makes a good endinge’, which -was performed by the King’s men at Court during 1612–13 (cf. App. B). -One may suspect the _London Merchant_ to be a mistake for the _Bristow -Merchant_ of Ford and Dekker (q.v.) in 1624. The offer of the title in -_K. B. P._ ind. 11 hardly proves that there was really a play of _The -London Merchant_. Ford’s _Honor Triumphant: or The Peeres Challenge, -by Armes defensible at Tilt, Turney, and Barriers_ (1606; ed. _Sh. -Soc._ 1843) is a thesis motived by the jousts in honour of Christian of -Denmark (cf. ch. iv). It has an Epistle to the Countesses of Pembroke -and Montgomery, and contains four arguments in defence of amorous -propositions addressed respectively to the Duke of Lennox and the Earls -of Arundel, Pembroke, and Montgomery. - - -EDWARD FORSETT (_c._ 1553–_c._ 1630). - -A political writer (_D. N. B._) and probable author of the academic -_Pedantius_ (cf. App. K). - - -ABRAHAM FRAUNCE (_c._ 1558–1633 <). - -Fraunce was a native of Shrewsbury, and passed from the school of -that place, where he obtained the friendship of Philip Sidney, to -St. John’s, Cambridge, in 1576. He took his B.A. in 1580, played in -Legge’s academic _Richardus Tertius_ and in _Hymenaeus_ (Boas, 394), -which he may conceivably have written (cf. App. K), became Fellow of -the college in 1581, and took his M.A. in 1583. He became a Gray’s Inn -man, dedicated various treatises on logic and experiments in English -hexameters to members of the Sidney and Herbert families during -1583–92, and appears to have obtained through their influence some -office under the Presidency of Wales. He dropped almost entirely out of -letters, but seems to have been still alive in 1633. - - _Latin Play_ - - _Victoria. 1580 < > 3_ - -[_MS._] In possession of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley at Penshurst, headed -‘Victoria’. [Lines ‘Philippo Sidneio’, signed ‘Abrahamus Fransus’. -Prologue.] - -_Edition_ by G. C. Moore Smith (1906, _Materialien_, xiv). - -The play is an adaptation of _Il Fedele_ (1575) by Luigi Pasqualigo, -which is also the foundation of the anonymous _Two Italian Gentlemen_ -(q.v.). As Sidney was knighted on 13 Jan. 1583, the play was probably -written, perhaps for performance at St. John’s, Cambridge, before that -date and after Fraunce took his B.A. in 1580. - - _Translation_ - - _Phillis and Amyntas. 1591_ - -_S. R._ 1591, Feb. 9 (Bp. of London). ‘A book intituled The Countesse -of Pembrookes Ivye churche, and Emanuel.’ _William Ponsonby_ (Arber, -ii. 575). - -1591. The Countesse of Pembrokes Yuychurch. Containing the affectionate -life, and vnfortunate death of Phillis and Amyntas: That in a -Pastorall; This in a Funerall; both in English Hexameters. By Abraham -Fraunce. _Thomas Orwin for William Ponsonby._ - -_Dissertation_: E. Köppel, _Die englischen Tasso-Übersetzungen des 16. -Jahrhunderts_ (1889, _Anglia_, xi). - -This consists of a slightly altered translation of the _Aminta_ (1573) -of Torquato Tasso, followed by a reprint of Fraunce’s English version -(1587) of Thomas Watson’s _Amyntas_ (1585), which is not a play, but a -collection of Latin eclogues. There is nothing to show that Fraunce’s -version of _Aminta_ was ever acted. - - -WILLIAM FULBECK (1560–1603?). - -He entered Gray’s Inn in 1584, contributed two speeches to the -_Misfortunes of Arthur_ of Thomas Hughes (q.v.) in 1588, and wrote -various legal and historical books. - - -ULPIAN FULWELL (_c._ 1568). - -Fulwell was born in Somersetshire and educated at St. Mary’s -Hall, Oxford. On 14 April 1577 he was of the parish of Naunton, -Gloucestershire, and married Mary Whorewood of Lapworth, -Warwickshire.[657] - - _Like Will to Like. c. 1568_ - -_S. R._ 1568–9. ‘A play lyke Wyll to lyke quod the Devell to the -Collyer.’ _John Alde_ (Arber, i. 379). - -1568. An Enterlude Intituled Like wil to like quod the Deuel to the -Colier, very godly and ful of pleasant mirth.... Made by Vlpian -Fulwell. _John Allde._ - -1587. _Edward Allde._ - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^4, iii (1874), and by J. S. Farmer (1909, _T. F. -T._). - -A non-controversial moral. The characters, allegorical and typical, -are arranged for five actors, and include Ralph Roister, and ‘Nicholas -Newfangle the Vice’, who ‘rideth away upon the Devil’s back’ (Dodsley, -iii. 357). There is a prayer for the Queen at the end. - -This might be _The Collier_ played at Court in 1576. Fleay, 60; i. -235, puts it in 1561–3, assigns it to the Paul’s boys, and suggests -that Richard Edwardes (q.v.) is satirized as Ralph Roister. Greg -(_Henslowe_, ii. 228) suggests that Fulwell’s may be the play revived -by Pembroke’s at the Rose on 28 Oct. 1600 as ‘the [devell] licke vnto -licke’. - - -WILLIAM GAGER (> 1560–1621). - -Gager entered Christ Church, Oxford, from Westminster in 1574, and took -his B.A. in 1577, his M.A. in 1580, and his D.C.L. in 1589. In 1606 he -became Chancellor of the diocese of Ely. He had a high reputation for -his Latin verses, many of which are contained in _Exequiae D. Philippi -Sidnaei_ (1587) and other University volumes. A large collection -in _Addl. MS._ 22583 includes lines to George Peele (q.v.). Meres -in 1598 counts him as one of ‘the best for comedy amongst vs’. His -correspondence with John Rainolds affords a summary of the controversy -on the ethics of the stage in its academic aspect. - - _Latin Plays_ - - _Meleager. Feb. 1582_ - -1592. Meleager. Tragoedia noua. Bis publice acta in aede Christi -Oxoniae. _Oxoniae. Joseph Barnes._ [Epistle to Earl of Essex, ‘ex -aede Christi Oxoniae, Calendis Ianuarij MDXCII. Gulielmus Gagerus’; -Commendatory verses by Richard Edes, Alberico Gentili, and I. -C[ase?]; Epistle _Ad lectorem Academicum_; _Prologus ad academicos_; -_Argumentum_; _Prologus ad illustrissimos Penbrochiae ac Lecestriae -Comites_. At end, _Epilogus ad Academicos_; _Epilogus ad clarissimos -Comites Penbrochiensem ac Lecestrensem_; _Panniculus Hippolyto ... -assutus_ (_vide infra_); _Apollo_ προλογίζει _ad serenissimam Reginam -Elizabetham 1592_; _Prologus in Bellum Grammaticale ad eandem sacram -Maiestatem_; _Epilogus in eandem Comoediam ad Eandem_.] - -The dedication says ‘Annus iam pene vndecimus agitur ... ex quo -Meleager primum, octauus ex quo iterum in Scenam venit’, and adds that -Pembroke, Leicester, and Sidney were present on the second occasion. -_Meleager_ is ‘primogenitus meus’. The first production was doubtless -one of those recorded in the Christ Church accounts in Feb. 1582 (Boas, -162), and the second during Leicester’s visit as Chancellor in Jan. -1585 (Boas, 192). - - _Dido. 12 June 1583_ - -[_MSS._] _Christ Church, Oxford, MS_. [complete text]. - -_Addl. MS._ 22583. [Acts II, III only, with Prologue, Argument, and -Epilogue.] - -_Edition_ of B.M. fragment by A. Dyce (1850, _Marlowe’s Works_). -_Abstract_ from _Ch. Ch. MS._ in Boas, 183. - -The play was produced before Alasco at Christ Church on 12 June 1583. -It is unlikely that it influenced Marlowe’s play. - - _Ulysses Redux. 6 Feb. 1592_ - -1592. Vlysses Redux Tragoedia Nova. In Aede Christi Oxoniae Publice -Academicis Recitata, Octavo Idus Februarii. 1591. _Oxoniae. Joseph -Barnes._ [_Prologus ad Academicos_; Epistle to Lord Buckhurst, ‘ex -aede Christi Oxoniae sexto Idus Maij, 1592 ... Gulielmus Gagerus’; -Commendatory verses by Thomas Holland, Alberico Gentili, Richard Edes, -Henry Bust, Matthew Gwinne, Richard Late-warr, Francis Sidney, John -Hoschines (Hoskins), William Ballowe, James Weston; Verses _Ad Zoilum_; -Epistle _Ad Criticum_. At end, _Prologus in Rivales Comoediam_; -_Prologus in Hippolytum Senecae Tragoediam_; _Epilogus in eundem_; -_Momus_; _Epilogus Responsiuus_.] - -The play was produced on Sunday, 6 Feb. 1592, and an indiscreet -invitation to John Rainolds opened the flood-gates of controversy upon -Gager’s head (cf. vol. i, p. 251 and App. C, No. 1). Gager’s _Rivales_ -was revived on 7 Feb. and the pseudo-Senecan _Hippolytus_, with Gager’s -_Panniculus_, on 8 Feb. followed by a speech in the character of Momus -as a carper at plays, and a reply to Momus by way of Epilogue. The -latter was printed in an enlarged form given to it during the course of -the controversy (Boas, 197, 234, with dates which disregard leap-year). - - _Additions to Hippolytus. 8 Feb. 1592_ - -1592. Panniculus Hippolyto Senecae assutus, 1591. [Appended to -_Meleager_; for Gager’s prologue, &c., cf. s.v. _Ulysses Redux_.] - -These consist of two scenes, one of the nature of an opening, the other -an insertion between Act I and Act II, written for a performance of the -play at Christ Church on 8 Feb. 1592. - - _Oedipus_ - -_Addl. MS._ 22583, f. 31, includes with other poems by Gager five -scenes from a tragedy on _Oedipus_, of which nothing more is known. - - _Lost Play_ - - _Rivales. 11 June 1583_ - -This comedy was produced before Alasco at Christ Church, on 11 June -1583. It is assigned to Gager by A. Wood, _Annals_, ii. 216, and -referred to as his in the controversy with Rainolds (Boas, 181), who -speaks of it as ‘the vnprinted Comedie’, and criticizes its ‘filth’. -It contained scenes of country wooing, drunken sailors, a _miles -gloriosus_, a _blanda lena_. The prologue to _Dido_ says of it: - - Hesterna Mopsum scena ridiculum dedit. - -It was revived at Christ Church on 7 Feb. 1592 (Boas, 197) and again at -the same place before Elizabeth on 26 Sept. 1592, when, according to a -Cambridge critic, it was ‘but meanely performed’. Presumably it is the -prologue for this revival which is printed with _Ulysses Redux_ (q.v.). - - -BERNARD GARTER (_c._ 1578). - -A London citizen, whose few and mainly non-dramatic writings were -produced from 1565 to 1579. For his description of the Norwich -entertainment (_1578_), cf. ch. xxiv. - - -THOMAS GARTER (_c._ 1569). - -He may conceivably be identical with Bernard Garter, since Thomas and -Bernard are respectively given from different sources (cf. _D. N. B._) -as the name of the father of Bernard Garter of Brigstocke, Northants, -whose son was alive in 1634. - - _Susanna, c. 1569_ - -_S. R._ 1568–9. ‘Ye playe of Susanna.’ _Thomas Colwell_ (Arber, i. 383). - -1578? - -No copy is known, but S. Jones, _Biographica Dramatica_ (1812), iii. -310, says: ‘Susanna. By Thomas Garter 4^{to} 1578. The running title of -this play is, _The Commody of the moste vertuous and godlye Susanna_.’ -According to Greg, _Masques_, cxxiii, the original authority for the -statement is a manuscript note by Thomas Coxeter (_ob._ 1747) in a copy -of G. Jacob’s _Lives of the Dramatic Poets_ (1719–20). ‘Susanna’ is in -Rogers and Ley’s list, and an interlude ‘Susanna’s Tears’ in Archer’s -and Kirkman’s. - - -GEORGE GASCOIGNE (_c._ 1535–77). - -George Gascoigne was son of Sir John Gascoigne of Cardington, -Bedfordshire. He was probably born between 1530 and 1535, and was -educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and Gray’s Inn. He misspent -his youth as a dissipated hanger-on at Court, under the patronage of -Arthur, Lord Grey of Wilton and others, and won some reputation as -a versifier. About 1566 he married Elizabeth Breton of Walthamstow, -widow of a London merchant, and mother of Nicholas Breton, the poet. -From March 1573 to Oct. 1574 he served as a volunteer under William of -Orange in the Netherlands. In 1575 he was assisting in preparing shows -before Elizabeth at Kenilworth and Woodstock. It is possible that he -was again in the Netherlands and present at the sack of Antwerp in -1576. On 7 Oct. 1577 he died at Stamford. - - _Collections_ - -N.D. [1573] A Hundreth sundrie Flowres bounde up in one small -Poesie.... _For Richard Smith._ [Datable by a prefatory epistle of 20 -Jan. 1573, signed ‘H. W.’ and a reference in Gascoigne’s own epistle of -31 Jan. 1575 to Q_{2}. Includes _Jocasta_, _Supposes_, and the Mask.] - -1575. The Posies of George Gascoigne Esquire. Corrected, perfected, and -augmented by the Authour. _H. Bynneman for Richard Smith._ [A second -issue, _For Richard Smith_.] - -1587. The whole workes of George Gascoigne Esquyre: Newlye compyled -into one Volume.... _Abel Jeffes._ [Adds the _Princely Pleasures_. A -second issue, ‘The pleasauntest workes....’] - -1869–70. W. C. Hazlitt, _The Complete Poems of George Gascoigne_. 2 -vols. (_Roxburghe Library_). [Adds _Glass of Government_ and _Hemetes_.] - -1907–10. J. W. Cunliffe, _The Complete Works of George Gascoigne_. 2 -vols. (_C. E. C._). - -_Dissertation_: F. E. Schelling, _The Life and Writings of George -Gascoigne_ (1893, _Pennsylvania Univ. Publ._). - - _Jocasta. 1566_ - - _With_ Francis Kinwelmershe. - -[_MS._] _B.M. Addl. MS._ 34063, formerly the property of Roger, second -Lord North, whose name and the motto ‘Durum Pati [15]68’ are on the -title. - -1573. Iocasta: A Tragedie written in Greke by Euripides, translated -and digested into Acte by George Gascoyne, and Francis Kinwelmershe -of Grayes Inne, and there by them presented. 1566. _Henry Bynneman -for Richard Smith._ [Part of _Collection_, 1573; also in 1575, 1587. -Argument; Epilogue ‘Done by Chr. Yeluerton’.] - -_Editions_ by F. J. Child (1848, _Four Old Plays_) and J. W. Cunliffe -(1906, _B. L._, and 1912, _E. E. C. T._).--_Dissertation_: M. T. W. -Foerster, _Gascoigne’s J. a Translation from the Italian_ (1904, _M. -P._ ii. 147). - -A blank-verse translation of Lodovico Dolce’s _Giocasta_ (1549), -itself a paraphrase or adaptation of the _Phoenissae_ of Euripides -(Creizenach, ii. 408). After Acts I and IV appears ‘Done by F. -Kinwelmarshe’ and after II, III, V ‘Done by G. Gascoigne’. Before each -act is a description of a dumb-show and of its accompanying music. - - _Supposes. 1566_ - -1573. Supposes: A Comedie written in the Italian tongue by Ariosto, -and Englished by George Gascoyne of Grayes Inne Esquire, and there -presented. [Part of _Collection_, 1573; also in 1575 (with addition of -‘1566’ to title) and 1587. Prologue.] - -_Editions_ by T. Hawkins (1773, _O. E. D._ iii), J. W. Cunliffe (1906, -_B. L._), and R. W. Bond (1911, _E. P. I._). - -A prose translation of Ludovico Ariosto’s _I Suppositi_ (1509). There -was probably a revival at Trinity, Oxford, on 8 Jan. 1582, when Richard -Madox records, ‘We supt at y^e presidents lodging and after had y^e -supposes handeled in y^e haul indifferently’ (Boas, 161). - - _The Glass of Government. c. 1575_ - -1575. The Glasse of Governement. A tragicall Comedie so entituled, -bycause therein are handled aswell the rewardes for Vertues, as also -the punishment for Vices. Done by George Gascoigne Esquier. 1575. Seen -and allowed, according to the order appointed in the Queenes Maiesties -Injunctions. _For C. Barker._ [Colophon] _H. M. for Christopher -Barker._ [Epistle to Sir Owen Hopton, by ‘G. Gascoigne’, dated 26 Apr. -1575; Commendatory verses by B. C.; Argument; Prologue; Epilogue. A -reissue has a variant colophon (_Henry Middleton_) and Errata.] - -_Edition_ by J. S. Farmer (1914, _S. F._).--_Dissertation_: C. H. -Herford, _G.’s G. of G._ (_E. S._ ix. 201). - -This, perhaps only a closet drama, is an adaptation of the ‘Christian -Terence’ (cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 216), with which Gascoigne may -have become familiar in Holland during 1573–4. The prologue (cf. App. -C, No. xiv) warns that the play is not a mere ‘worthie jest’, and that - - Who list laye out some pence in such a marte, - Bellsavage fayre were fittest for his purse. - - MASK - - _Montague Mask. 1572_ - -1573. A Devise of a Maske for the right honourable Viscount Mountacute. -[Part of _Collection_, 1573; also in 1575, 1587.] - -Anthony and Elizabeth Browne, children of Anthony, first Viscount -Montague, married Mary and Robert, children of Sir William Dormer of -Eythorpe, Bucks., in 1572 (cf. ch. v). - - ENTERTAINMENTS - -See s.v. Lee, _Woodstock Entertainment_ (_1575_) and ch. xxiv, s.v. -_Kenilworth Entertainment_ (_1575_). - - -THOMAS GOFFE (1591–1629). - -_Selimus_ and the _Second Maiden’s Tragedy_ have been ascribed to -him, but as regards the first absurdly, and as regards the second not -plausibly, since he only took his B.A. degree in 1613. His known plays -are later in date than 1616. - - -ARTHUR GOLDING (1536–1605 <). - -Arthur was son of John Golding of Belchamp St. Paul, Essex, and -brother-in-law of John, 16th Earl of Oxford. He was a friend of Sidney -and known to Elizabethan statesmen of puritanical leanings. Almost his -only original work was a _Discourse upon the Earthquake_ (1580), but -he was a voluminous translator of theological and classical works, -including Ovid’s _Metamorphoses_ (1565, 1567). Beza’s tragedy was -written when he was Professor at Lausanne in 1550 (Creizenach, ii. 456). - - _Abraham’s Sacrifice. 1575_ - -1577. A Tragedie of Abrahams Sacrifice, Written in french, by Theodore -Beza, and translated into Inglish by A. G. Finished at Powles Belchamp -in Essex, the xj of August, 1575. _Thomas Vautrollier._ [Woodcuts, -which do not suggest a scenic representation.] - -_Edition_ by M. W. Wallace (1907, _Toronto Philological Series_). - - -HENRY GOLDINGHAM (_c._ 1575). - -A contributor to the Kenilworth and Norwich entertainments (cf. ch. -xxiv, C) and writer of _The Garden Plot_ (1825, _Roxburghe Club_). -Gawdy, 13, mentions ‘a yonge gentleman touard my L. of Leycester called -Mr. Goldingam’, as concerned _c._ 1587 in a street brawl. - - -WILLIAM GOLDINGHAM (_c._ 1567). - -Author of the academic _Herodes_ (cf. App. K). - - -HENRY GOLDWELL (_c._ 1581). - -Describer of _The Fortress of Perfect Beauty_ (cf. ch. xxiv, C). - - -STEPHEN GOSSON (1554–1624). - -Gosson was born in Kent during 1554, was at Corpus Christi, Oxford, -1572 to 1576, then came to London, where he obtained some reputation -as playwright and poet. Meres in _Palladis Tamia_ (1598) commends his -pastorals, which are lost. Lodge speaks of him also as a ‘player’.[658] -In 1579 he forsook the stage, became a tutor in the country and -published _The School of Abuse_ (App. C, No. xxii). This he dedicated -to Sidney, but ‘was for his labour scorned’. He was answered the same -year in a lost pamphlet called _Strange News out of Afric_ and also -by Lodge (q.v.), and rejoined with _A Short Apology of the School of -Abuse_ (App. C, No. xxiv). The players revived his plays to spite -him and on 23 Feb. 1582 produced _The Play of Plays and Pastimes_ to -confute him. In the same year he produced his final contribution to -the controversy in _Plays Confuted in Five Actions_ (App. C, No. xxx). -In 1591 Gosson became Rector of Great Wigborough, Essex, and in 1595 -published the anonymous pamphlet _Pleasant Quips for Upstart Newfangled -Gentlewomen_. In 1600 he became Rector of St. Botolph’s, Bishopsgate. -In 1616 and 1617 he wrote to Alleyn (q.v.) as his ‘very loving and -ancient friend’.[659] He died 13 Feb. 1624. - -Gosson claims to have written both tragedies and comedies,[660] but -no play of his is extant. He names three of them. Of _Catiline’s -Conspiracies_ he says that it was ‘usually brought into the Theater -and that ‘because it is known to be a pig of mine own sow, I will -speak the less of it; only giving you to understand, that the whole -mark which I shot at in that work was to show the reward of traitors -in Catiline, and the necessary government of learned men in the person -of Cicero, which foresees every danger that is likely to happen and -forestalls it continually ere it take effect’.[661] Lodge disparages -the originality of this play and compares it unfavourably with Wilson’s -_Short and Sweet_[662] (q.v.). Of two other plays Gosson says: ‘Since -my publishing the _School of Abuse_ two plays of my making were brought -to the stage; the one was a cast of Italian devices, called, The Comedy -of _Captain Mario_; the other a Moral, _Praise at Parting_. These they -very impudently affirm to be written by me since I had set out my -invective against them. I can not deny they were both mine, but they -were both penned two years at the least before I forsook them, as by -their own friends I am able to prove.’[663] It is conceivable that -Gosson may be the translator of _Fedele and Fortunio_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - -ROBERT GREENE (1558–92). - -Robert Greene was baptized at Norwich on 11 July 1558. He entered St. -John’s College, Cambridge, as a sizar in 1575 and took his B.A. in -1578 and his M.A. by 1583, when he was residing in Clare Hall. The -addition of an Oxford degree in July 1588 enabled him to describe -himself as _Academiae Utriusque Magister in Artibus_. He has been -identified with a Robert Greene who was Vicar of Tollesbury, Essex, -in 1584–5, but there is no real evidence that he took orders. The -earlier part of his career may be gathered from his autobiographic -pamphlet, _The Repentance of Robert Greene_ (1592), eked out by the -portraits, also evidently in a measure autobiographic, of Francesco -in _Never Too Late_ (1590) and of Roberto in _Green’s Groats-worth -of Wit bought with a Million of Repentance_ (1592). It seems that he -travelled in youth and learnt much wickedness; then married and lived -for a while with his wife and had a child by her. During this period -he began his series of euphuistic love-romances. About 1586, however, -he deserted his wife, and lived a dissolute life in London with the -sister of Cutting Ball, a thief who ended his days at Tyburn, as his -mistress. By her he had a base-born son, Fortunatus. He does not seem -to have been long in London before he ‘had wholly betaken me to the -penning of plays which was my continual exercise’.[664] His adoption -of his profession seems to be described in _The Groats-worth of Wit_. -Roberto meets a player, goes with him, and soon becomes ‘famozed -for an arch-plaimaking poet’.[665] Similarly, in _Never Too Late_, -Francesco ‘fell in amongst a company of players, who persuaded him to -try his wit in writing of comedies, tragedies, or pastorals, and if he -could perform anything worthy of the stage, then they would largely -reward him for his pains’. Hereupon Francesco ‘writ a comedy, which so -generally pleased the audience that happy were those actors in short -time, that could get any of his works, he grew so exquisite in that -faculty’.[666] Greene’s early dramatic efforts seem to have brought -him into rivalry with Marlowe (q.v.). In the preface to _Perimedes the -Blacksmith_ (S. R. 29 March 1588) he writes: ‘I keep my old course to -palter up something in prose, using mine old poesie still, Omne tulit -punctum, although lately two Gentlemen Poets made two mad men of Rome -beat it out of their paper bucklers: and had it in derision for that I -could not make my verses jet upon the stage in tragical buskins, every -word filling the mouth like the faburden of Bo-Bell, daring God out -of heaven with that Atheist _Tamburlan_, or blaspheming with the mad -priest of the Sun.... Such mad and scoffing poets that have poetical -spirits, as bred of Merlin’s race, if there be any in England that set -the end of scholarism in an English blank-verse, I think either it is -the humour of a novice that tickles them with self-love, or too much -frequenting the hot-house (to use the German proverb) hath sweat out -all the greatest part of their wits.... I but answer in print what -they have offered on the stage.’[667] The references here to Marlowe -are unmistakable. His fellow ‘gentleman poet’ is unknown; but the -‘mad priest of the Sun’ suggests the play of ‘the lyfe and deathe of -Heliogabilus’, entered on S. R. to John Danter on 19 June 1594, but now -lost.[668] In 1589 Greene published his _Menaphon_ (S. R. 23 Aug.), -in which he further alluded to Marlowe as the teller of ‘a Canterbury -tale; some prophetical full-mouth that as he were a Cobler’s eldest -son, would by the last tell where anothers shoe wrings’.[669] Doron, -in the same story, appears to parody a passage in the anonymous play -of _The Taming of A Shrew_, which is further alluded to in a prefatory -epistle _To the Gentlemen Students of Both Universities_ contributed to -Greene’s book by Thomas Nashe. Herein Nashe, while praising Peele and -his _Arraignment of Paris_, satirizes Marlowe, Kyd, and particularly -the players (cf. App. C, No. xlii). To _Menaphon_ are also prefixed -lines by Thomas Brabine which tells the ‘wits’ that ‘strive to thunder -from a stage-man’s throat’ how the novel is beyond them. ‘Players, -avaunt!’[670] In the following year, 1590, Greene continued the attack -on the players in the autobiographic romance, already referred to, -of _Never Too Late_ (cf. App. C, No. xliii). In 1590 Greene, whose -publications had hitherto been mainly toys of love and romance, began -a series of moral pamphlets, full of professions of repentance and -denunciations of villainy. To these belong, as well as _Never Too -Late_, _Greene’s Mourning Garment_ (1590) and _Greene’s Farewell -to Folly_ (1591). A preface to the latter contains some satirical -references to the anonymous play of _Fair Em_ (cf. ch. xxiv.) One R. W. -retorted upon Greene in a pamphlet called _Martine Mar-Sextus_ (S. R. 8 -Nov. 1591), in which he abuses lascivious authors who finally ‘put on a -mourning garment and cry Farewell’.[671] Similarly, Greene’s exposures -of ‘cony-catching’ or ‘sharping’ provoked the following passage in -the _Defence of Cony-catching_ (S. R. 21 April 1592) by one Cuthbert -Conycatcher: ‘What if I should prove you a cony-catcher, Master R. G., -would it not make you blush at the matter?... Ask the Queen’s players -if you sold them not Orlando Furioso for twenty nobles, and when they -were in the country sold the same play to the Lord Admiral’s men for -as many more.... I hear, when this was objected, that you made this -excuse; that there was no more faith to be held with players than with -them that valued faith at the price of a feather; for as they were -comedians to act, so the actions of their lives were camelion-like; -that they were uncertain, variable, time-pleasers, men that measured -honesty by profit, and that regarded their authors not by desert but -by necessity of time.’[672] It is probable that the change in the tone -of Greene’s writings did not correspond to any very thorough-going -reformation of life. There is nothing to show that Greene had any share -in the Martinist controversy. But he became involved in one of the -personal animosities to which it led. Richard Harvey, the brother of -Gabriel, in his _Lamb of God_ (S. R. 23 Oct. 1589), while attacking -Lyly as Paphatchet, had ‘mistermed all our other poets and writers -about London, piperly make-plaies and make-bates. Hence Greene, beeing -chiefe agent for the companie [i.e. the London poets] (for hee writ -more than foure other, how well I will not say: but _sat citò, si -sat benè_) tooke occasion to canuaze him a little.’[673] Apparently -he called the Harveys, in his _A Quip for an Upstart Courtier_ (S. -R. 21 July 1592, cf. App. C, No. xlvii), the sons of a ropemaker, -which is what they were.[674] In August Greene partook freely of -Rhenish wine and pickled herrings at a supper with Nashe and one Will -Monox, and fell into a surfeit. On 3 September he died in a squalid -lodging, after writing a touching letter to his deserted wife, and -begging his landlady, Mrs. Isam, to lay a wreath of bays upon him. -These details are recorded by Gabriel Harvey, who visited the place -and wrote an account of his enemy’s end in a letter to a friend, which -he published in his _Four Letters and Certain Sonnets: especially -Touching Robert Greene, and Other Parties by him Abused_ (S. R. 4 -Dec. 1592).[675] This brought Nashe upon him in the _Strange News of -the Intercepting of Certain Letters_[676] (S. R. 12 Jan. 1593) and -began a controversy between the two which lasted for several years. In -_Pierce’s Supererogation_ (27 Apr. 1593) Harvey spoke of ‘Nash, the ape -of Greene, Greene the ape of Euphues, Euphues the ape of Envy’, and -declared that Nashe ‘shamefully and odiously misuseth every friend or -acquaintance as he hath served ... Greene, Marlowe, Chettle, and whom -not?’[677] In _Have With You to Saffron Walden_ (1596), Nashe defends -himself against these accusations. ‘I never abusd Marloe, Greene, -Chettle in my life.... He girds me with imitating of Greene.... I -scorne it ... hee subscribing to me in anything but plotting Plaies, -wherein he was his crafts master.’[678] The alleged abuse of Marlowe, -Greene, and Chettle belongs to the history of another pamphlet. This is -_Green’s Groats-worth of Wit, Bought with a Million of Repentance_ (S. -R. 20 Sept. 1592, ‘upon the peril of Henry Chettle’[679]). According -to the title-page, it was ‘written before his death and published at -his dying request’. To this is appended the famous address _To those -Gentlemen, his Quondam Acquaintance, that spend their wits in making -Plays_.[680] The reference here to Shakespeare is undeniable. Of the -three playwrights warned, the first and third are almost certainly -Marlowe and Peele; the third may be Lodge, but on the whole is far more -likely to be Nashe (q.v.). It appears, however, that Nashe himself was -supposed to have had a hand in the authorship. Chettle did his best -to take the responsibility off Nashe’s shoulders in the preface to -his _Kind-Hart’s Dream_ (S. R. 8 Dec. 1592; cf. App. C, No. xlix). In -the epistle prefixed to the second edition of _Pierce Penniless his -Supplication to the Devil_ (_Works_, i. 154), written early in 1593, -Nashe denies the charge for himself and calls _The Groats-worth_ ‘a -scald trivial lying pamphlet’; and it is perhaps to this that Harvey -refers as abuse of Greene, Marlowe, and Chettle, although it is not -clear how Marlowe comes in. There is an echo of Greene’s hit at the -‘upstart crow, beautified with our feathers’ in the lines of R. B., -_Greene’s Funerals_ (1594, ed. McKerrow, 1911, p. 81): - - Greene, gaue the ground, to all that wrote upon him. - Nay more the men, that so eclipst his fame: - Purloynde his plumes, can they deny the same? - -It should be added that the theory that Greene himself was actor as -well as playwright rests on a misinterpretation of a phrase of Harvey’s -and is inconsistent with the invariable tone of his references to the -profession. - - _Collections_ - -1831. A. Dyce, _The Dramatic Works of R. G._ 2 vols. - -1861, &c. A. Dyce, _The Dramatic and Poetical Works of R. G. and George -Peele_. - -1881–6. A. B. Grosart, _The Complete Works in Prose and Verse of R. G._ -15 vols. (_Huth Library_). - -1905. J. C. Collins, _The Plays and Poems of R. G._ 2 vols. - -1909. T. H. Dickinson, _The Plays of R. G._ (_Mermaid Series_). - -_Dissertations_: W. Bernhardi, _R. G.’s Leben und Schriften_ (1874); -J. M. Brown, _An Early Rival of Shakespeare_ (1877); N. Storojenko, -_R. G.: His Life and Works_ (1878, tr. E. A. B. Hodgetts, in Grosart, -i); R. Simpson, _Account of R. G., his Life and Works, and his Attacks -on Shakspere_, in _School of Sh._ (1878), ii; C. H. Herford, _G.’s -Romances and Shakespeare_ (1888, _N. S. S. Trans._ 181); K. Knauth, -_Ueber die Metrik R. G.’s_ (1890, Halle diss.); H. Conrad, _R. G. als -Dramatiker_ (1894, _Jahrbuch_, xxix. 210); W. Creizenach, _G. über -Shakespeare_ (1898, _Wiener Festschrift_); G. E. Woodberry, _G.’s Place -in Comedy_, and C. M. Gayley, _R. G., His Life and the Order of his -Plays_ (1903, _R. E. C._ i); K. Ehrke, _R. G.’s Dramen_ (1904); S. L. -Wolff, _R. G. and the Italian Renaissance_ (1907, _E. S._ xxxvii. 321); -F. Brie, _Lyly und G._ (1910, _E. S._ xlii. 217); J. C. Jordan, _R. G._ -(1915). - - _Alphonsus. c. 1587_ - -1599. The Comicall Historie of Alphonsus King of Aragon. As it hath -bene sundrie times Acted. Made by R. G. _Thomas Creede_. - -There is general agreement that, on grounds of style, this should be -the earliest of Greene’s extant plays. In IV. 1444 is an allusion to -‘mighty Tamberlaine’, and the play reads throughout like an attempt to -emulate the success of Marlowe’s play of 1587 (?). In IV. i Mahomet -speaks out of a brazen head. The play may therefore be alluded to in -the ‘Mahomet’s poo [pow]’ of Peele’s (q.v.) _Farewell_ of April 1589, -although Peele may have intended his own lost play of _The Turkish -Mahomet and Hiren the Fair Greek_. There is no reference in _Alphonsus_ -to the Armada of 1588. On the whole, the winter of 1587 appears the -most likely date for it, and if so, it is possibly the play whose ill -success is recorded by Greene in the preface to _Perimedes_ (1588). -The Admiral’s revived a _Mahomet_ on 16 Aug. 1594, inventoried ‘owld -Mahemetes head’ in 1598, and revived the play again in Aug. 1601, -buying the book from Alleyn, who might have brought it from Strange’s, -or bought it from the Queen’s (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 167; _Henslowe -Papers_, 116). Collins dates _Alphonsus_ in 1591, on a theory, -inconsistent with the biographical indications of the pamphlets, -that Greene’s play-writing did not begin much before that year. A -‘Tragicomoedia von einem Königk in Arragona’ played at Dresden in 1626 -might be either this play or _Mucedorus_ (Herz, 66, 78). - - _A Looking Glass for London and England. c. 1590_ - - _With_ Lodge. - -_S. R._ 1594, March 5. ‘A booke intituled the lookinge glasse for -London by Thomas Lodg and Robert Greene gent.’ _Thomas Creede_ (Arber, -ii. 645). - -1594. A Looking Glasse for London and England. Made by Thomas Lodge -Gentleman, and Robert Greene. In Artibus Magister. _Thomas Creede, sold -by William Barley._ - -1598. _Thomas Creede, sold by William Barley._ - -1602. _Thomas Creede, for Thomas Pavier._ - -1617. _Bernard Alsop._ - -_Edition_ by J. S. Farmer (1914, _S. F. T._). - -The facts of Lodge’s (q.v.) life leave 1588, before the Canaries -voyage, or 1589–91, between that voyage and Cavendish’s expedition, -as possible dates for the play. In favour of the former is Lodge’s -expressed intention in 1589 to give up ‘penny-knave’s delight’. On -the other hand, the subject is closely related to that of Greene’s -moral pamphlets, the series of which begins in 1590, and the fall of -Nineveh is referred to in _The Mourning Garment_ of that year. Fleay, -ii. 54, and Collins, i. 137, accept 1590 as the date of the play. -Gayley, 405, puts it in 1587, largely on the impossible notion that -its ‘priest of the sun’ (IV. iii. 1540) is that referred to in the -_Perimedes_ preface, but partly also from the absence of any reference -to the Armada. It is possible that ‘pleasing Alcon’ in Spenser’s _Colin -Clout’s Come Home Again_ (1591) may refer to Lodge as the author of -the character Alcon in this play. _The Looking Glass_ was revived by -Strange’s men on 8 March 1592. The clown is sometimes called Adam in -the course of the dialogue (ll. 1235 sqq., 1589 sqq., 2120 sqq.), and -a comparison with _James IV_ suggests that the original performer was -John Adams of the Queen’s men, from whom Henslowe may have acquired -the play. Fleay, ii. 54, and Gayley, 405, make attempts to distinguish -Greene’s share from Lodge’s, but do not support their results by -arguments. Crawford, _England’s Parnassus_, xxxii, 441, does not regard -Allot’s ascription of the passages he borrowed to Greene and Lodge -respectively as trustworthy. Unnamed English actors played a ‘comedia -auss dem propheten Jona’ at Nördlingen in 1605 (Herz, 78). - - _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_, _c. 1589_ - -_S. R._ 1594, May 14. ‘A booke entituled the Historye of ffryer Bacon -and ffryer Boungaye.’ _Adam Islip_ (Arber, ii. 649). [Against this and -other plays entered on the same day, Adam Islip’s name is crossed out -and Edward White’s substituted.] - -1594. The Honorable Historie of frier Bacon, and frier Bongay. As it -was plaid by her Maiesties seruants. Made by Robert Greene Maister of -Arts. _For Edward White._ [Malone dated one of his copies of the 1630 -edition ‘1599’ in error; cf. Gayley, 430.] - -1630.... As it was lately plaid by the Prince Palatine his Seruants.... -_Elizabeth Allde_. [The t.p. has a woodcut representing Act II, sc. -iii.] - -1655. _Jean Bell._ - -_Editions_ by A. W. Ward (1878, &c.), C. M. Gayley (1903, _R. E. C._ -i), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._), and J. S. Farmer (1914, _S. F. -T._).--_Dissertation_: O. Ritter, _De R. G. Fabula: F. B. and F. B._ -(1866, _Thorn diss._). - -Fleay, in _Appendix B_ to Ward’s ed., argues from I. i. 137, ‘next -Friday is S. James’, that the date of the play is 1589, in which year -St. James’s Day fell on a Friday. This does not seem to me a very -reliable argument. Probably the play followed not long after Marlowe’s -_Doctor Faustus_ (q.v.), itself probably written in 1588–9. The date of -1589, which Ward, i. 396, and Gayley, 411, accept, is likely enough. -Collins prefers 1591–2, and notes (ii. 4) a general resemblance in tone -and theme to _Fair Em_, but there is nothing to indicate the priority -of either play, and no charge of plagiarism in the pamphlets (_vide -supra_) to which _Fair Em_ gave rise. _Friar Bacon_ was revived by -Strange’s men on 19 Feb. 1592, and again by the Queen’s and Sussex’s -men together on 1 April 1594. Doubtless it was Henslowe’s property, -as Middleton wrote a prologue and epilogue for a performance by the -Admiral’s men at Court at Christmas 1602 (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 149). - - _Orlando Furioso. c. 1591_ - -[_MS._] The Dulwich MSS. contain an actor’s copy with cues of Orlando’s -part. Doubtless it belonged to Alleyn. The fragment covers ll. 595–1592 -of the Q_{q}, but contains passages not in those texts. It is printed -by Collier, _Alleyn Papers_, 198, Collins, i. 266, and Greg, _Henslowe -Papers_, 155. - -_S. R._ 1593, Dec. 7. ‘A plaie booke, intituled, the historye of -Orlando ffurioso, one of the xij peeres of Ffraunce.’ _John Danter_ -(Arber, ii. 641). - -1594, May 28. ‘Entred for his copie by consent of John Danter.... A -booke entytuled The historie of Orlando furioso, &c. Prouided alwaies, -and yt is agreed that soe often as the same booke shalbe printed, the -saide John Danter to haue thimpryntinge thereof.’ _Cuthbert Burby_ -(Arber, ii. 650). - -1594. The Historie of Orlando Furioso One of the twelve Pieres of -France. As it was plaid before the Queenes Maiestie. _John Danter for -Cuthbert Burby._ - -1599. _Simon Stafford for Cuthbert Burby._ - -_Edition_ by W. W. Greg (1907, _M. S. R._). - -The Armada (1588) is referred to in I. i. 87. Two passages are common -to the play and Peele’s _Old Wive’s Tale_ (before 1595), and were -probably borrowed by Peele with the name Sacripant, which Greene got -from Ariosto. The play cannot be the ‘King Charlemagne’ of Peele’s -(q.v.) _Farewell_ (April 1589), as Charlemagne does not appear in -it. The appearance of Sir John Harington’s translation of Ariosto’s -_Orlando Furioso_ in 1591 suggests that as a likely date. This also -would fit the story (_vide supra_) of the second sale to the Admiral’s -men, when the Queen’s ‘were in the country’ (cf. vol. ii, p. 112). -Strange’s men played _Orlando_ for Henslowe on 22 Feb. 1592. Collins, -i. 217, seems to accept 1591 as the date, but Fleay, i. 263, Ward, i. -395, and Gayley, 409, prefer 1588–9. So does Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. -150) on the assumption that _Old Wive’s Tale_ (q.v.) ‘must belong to -1590’. A ‘Comoedia von Orlando Furioso’ was acted at Dresden in 1626 -(Herz, 66, 77). - - _James the Fourth. c. 1591_ - -_S. R._ 1594, May 14. ‘A booke intituled the Scottishe story of James -the Ffourth slayne at Fflodden intermixed with a plesant Comedie -presented by Oboron Kinge of ffayres.’ _Thomas Creede_ (Arber, ii. 648.) - -1598. The Scottish Historie of Iames the fourth, slaine at Flodden. -Entermixed with a pleasant Comedie, presented by Oboram, King of -Fayeries: As it hath bene sundrie times publikely plaide. Written by -Robert Greene, Maister of Arts. _Thomas Creede._ - -_Editions_ by J. M. Manly (1897, _Specimens_, ii. 327) and A. E. -H. Swaen and W. W. Greg (1921, _M. S. R._).--_Dissertation_: W. -Creizenach, _Zu G.’s J. IV_ (1885, _Anglia_, viii. 419). - -There is very little to date the play. Its comparative merit perhaps -justifies placing it, as Greene’s maturest drama, in 1591. Collins, i. -44, agrees; but Fleay, i. 265; Ward, i. 400; Gayley, 415, prefer 1590. -Fleay finds traces of a second hand, whom he believes to be Lodge, but -he is not convincing. In l. 2269 the name Adam appears for Oberon in a -stage-direction, which, when compared with _A Looking-Glass_, suggests -that the actor was John Adams of the Queen’s. - - _Lost Play_ - -Warburton’s list of burnt plays (_3 Library_, ii. 231) contains the -duplicate entries ‘His^t of Jobe by Rob. Green’ and ‘The Trag^d of -Jobe. Good.’ Greg suggests a confusion with Sir Robert Le Grys, who -appears in the list as ‘S^r Rob. le Green’. - -The statement that Greene had a share in a play on Henry VIII -(_Variorum_, xix. 500) seems to be based on a confusion with a Robert -Greene named by Stowe as an authority for his _Annales_ (Collins, i. -69). - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -Greene’s hand has been sought in _Contention of York and Lancaster_, -_Edward III_, _Fair Em_, _George a Greene_, _Troublesome Reign of King -John_, _Knack to Know a Knave_, _Thracian Wonder_, _Leire_, _Locrine_, -_Mucedorus_, _Selimus_, _Taming of A Shrew_, _Thomas Lord Cromwell_ -(cf. ch. xxiv), and Shakespeare’s _Titus Andronicus_ and _Henry VI_. - - -FULKE GREVILLE, LORD BROOKE (_c._ 1554–1628). - -Greville’s father, Sir Fulke, was a cadet of the Grevilles of Milcote, -and held great estates in Warwickshire. The son was born at Beauchamp -Court ten years before he entered Shrewsbury School on 17 Oct. 1564 -with Philip Sidney, of whom he wrote, _c._ 1610–12, a _Life_ (ed. -Nowell Smith, 1907). In 1568 he went to Jesus College, Cambridge, and -from 1577 was a courtier in high favour with Elizabeth, and entrusted -with minor diplomatic and administrative tasks. He took part in the -great tilt of 15 May 1581 (cf. ch. xxiv) and was a steady patron of -learning and letters. His own plays were for the closet. He was -knighted in 1597. James granted him Warwick Castle in 1605, but he was -no friend of Robert Cecil, and took no great part in affairs until -1614, when he became Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1621 he was -created Lord Brooke. On 1 Sept. 1628 he was stabbed to death by his -servant Ralph Haywood. D. Lloyd, _Statesmen of England_ (1665), 504, -makes him claim to have been ‘master’ to Shakespeare and Jonson. - - _Collections_ - -_S. R._ 1632, Nov. 10 (Herbert). ‘A booke called Certaine learned -and elegant Workes of Fulke Lord Brooke the perticular names are as -followeth (viz^t) ... The Tragedy of Alaham. The Tragedy of Mustapha -(by assignment from Master Butter).... _Seile_ (Arber, iv. 288). - -1633. Certaine Learned and Elegant Workes of the Right Honorable -Fulke Lord Brooke, Written in his Youth, and familiar exercise with -Sir Philip Sidney. The seuerall Names of which Workes the following -page doth declare. _E. P. for Henry Seyle._ [Contains _Alaham_ and -_Mustapha_.] - -1670. The Remains of Sir Fulk Grevill Lord Brooke: Being Poems -of Monarchy and Religion: Never before Printed. _T. N. for Henry -Herringham._ [Contains _Alaham_ and _Mustapha_.] - -1870. A. B. Grosart, _The Works in Verse and Prose Complete of the Lord -Brooke_. 4 vols. (_Fuller Worthies Library_). - -_Dissertations_: M. W. Croll, _The Works of F. G._ (1903, _Pennsylvania -thesis_); R. M. Cushman (_M. L. N._ xxiv. 180). - - _Alaham. c. 1600_ (?) - -[_MS._] Holograph at Warwick Castle (cf. Grosart, iv. 336). - -1633. [Part of _Coll._ 1633. Prologue and Epilogue; at end, ‘This -Tragedy, called Alaham, may be printed, this 13 day of June 1632, Henry -Herbert.’] - -Croll dates 1586–1600 on metrical grounds, and Cushman 1598–1603, as -bearing on Elizabethan politics after Burghley’s death. - - _Mustapha. 1603 < > 8_ - -[_MSS._] Holograph at Warwick Castle (cf. Grosart, iv. 336). _Camb. -Univ. MS._ F. f. 2. 35. - -_S. R._ 1608, Nov. 25 (Buck). ‘A booke called the Tragedy of Mustapha -and Zangar.’ _Nathanaell Butter_ (Arber, iii. 396). - -1609. The Tragedy of Mustapha. _For Nathaniel Butter._ - -_S. R._ 1632, Nov. 10. Transfer from Butter to Seile (Arber, iv. 288) -(_vide Collections_, _supra_). - -Cushman dates 1603–9, as bearing on the Jacobean doctrine of divine -right. - - -MATTHEW GWINNE (_c._ 1558–1627). - -Gwinne, the son of a London grocer of Welsh descent, entered St. -John’s, Oxford, from Merchant Taylors in 1574, and became Fellow of the -College, taking his B.A. in 1578, his M.A. in 1582, and his M.D. in -1593. In 1592 he was one of the overseers for the plays at the visit of -Elizabeth (Boas, 252). He became Professor of Physic at Gresham College -in 1597 and afterwards practised as a physician in London. - - LATIN PLAYS - - _Nero > 1603_ - -_S. R._ 1603, Feb. 23 (Buckerydge). ‘A booke called Nero Tragedia nova -Matheo Gwyn medicine Doctore Colegij Divi Johannis precursoris apud -Oxonienses socio Collecta.’ _Edward Blunt_ (Arber, iii. 228). - -1603. Nero Tragoedia Nova; Matthaeo Gwinne Med. Doct. Collegii Diui -Joannis Praecursoris apud Oxonienses Socio collecta è Tacito, Suetonio, -Dione, Seneca. _Ed. Blount._ [Epistle to James, ‘Londini ex aedibus -Greshamiis Cal. Jul. 1603’, signed ‘Matthaeus Gvvinne’; commendatory -verses to Justus Lipsius, signed ‘Io. Sandsbury Ioannensis’; Prologue -and Epilogue.] - -1603. _Ed. Blount._ [Epistle to Thomas Egerton and Francis Leigh, -‘Londini ex aedibus Greshamiis in festo Cinerum 1603’; Epilogue.] - -1639. _M. F. Prostant apud R. Mynne._ - -Boas, 390, assigns the play to St. John’s, Oxford, _c._ Easter 1603, -but the S. R. entry and the ‘Elisa regnat’ of the Epilogue point to an -Elizabethan date. - - _Vertumnus. 29 Aug. 1605_ - -[_MS._] _Inner Temple Petyt MS._ 538, 43, f. 293, has a _scenario_, -with the title ‘The yeare about’. - -1607. Vertumnus sive Annus Recurrens Oxonii, xxix Augusti, Anno. 1605. -Coram Iacobo Rege, Henrico Principe, Proceribus. A Joannensibus in -Scena recitatus ab vno scriptus, Phrasi Comica propè Tragicis Senariis. -_Nicholas Okes, impensis Ed. Blount._ [Epistle to Henry, signed -‘Matthaeus Gwinne’; Verses to Earl of Montgomery; commendatory verses, -signed ‘Guil. Paddy’, ‘Ioa. Craigius’, ‘Io. Sansbery Ioannensis’, -‘Θώμας ὁ Φρεάῤῥεος’; _Author ad Librum_. Appended are verses, signed -‘M. G.’ and headed ‘Ad Regis introitum, è Ioannensi Collegio extra -portam Vrbis Borealem sito, tres quasi Sibyllae, sic (ut e sylua) -salutarunt’, which are thought to have given a hint for _Macbeth_.] - -This was shown to James during his visit to Oxford, and it sent him to -sleep. The performance was at Christ Church by men of St. John’s. - - -STEPHEN HARRISON (_c._ 1604). - -Designer and describer of the arches at the coronation of James I (cf. -ch. xxiv, C). - - -RICHARD HATHWAY (_c._ 1600). - -Practically nothing is known of Hathway outside Henslowe’s diary, -although he was included by Meres amongst the ‘best for comedy’ in -1598, and wrote commendatory verses for Bodenham’s _Belvedere_ (1600). -It is only conjecture that relates him to the Hathaways of Shottery in -Warwickshire, of whom was Shakespeare’s father-in-law, also a Richard. -He has left nothing beyond an undetermined share of _1 Sir John -Oldcastle_, but the following plays by him are traceable in the diary: - - (a) _Plays for the Admiral’s, 1598–1602_ - -(i) _King Arthur._ - -April 1598. - -(ii) _Valentine and Orson._ - -With Munday, July 1598. It is uncertain what relation, if any, this -bore to an anonymous play of the same name which was twice entered in -the S. R. on 23 May 1595 and 31 March 1600 (Arber, ii. 298, iii. 159), -was ascribed in both entries to the Queen’s and not the Admiral’s, and -is not known to be extant. - -(iii, iv) _1, 2 Sir John Oldcastle._ - -With Drayton (q.v.), Munday, and Wilson, Oct.–Dec. 1599. - -(v) _Owen Tudor._ - -With Drayton, Munday, and Wilson, Jan. 1600; but apparently not -finished. - -(vi) _1 Fair Constance of Rome._ - -With Dekker, Drayton, Munday, and Wilson (q.v.), June 1600. - -(vii) _2 Fair Constance of Rome._ - -June 1600; but apparently not finished. - -(viii) _Hannibal and Scipio._ - -With Rankins, Jan. 1601. Greg, ii. 216, bravely suggests that Nabbes’s -play of the same name, printed as a piece of Queen Henrietta’s men in -1637, may have been a revision of this. - -(ix) _Scogan and Skelton._ - -With Rankins, Jan.–March 1601. - -(x) _The Conquest of Spain by John of Gaunt._ - -With Rankins, Mar.–Apr. 1601, but never finished, as shown by a letter -to Henslowe from S. Rowley, bidding him let Hathway ‘have his papars -agayne’ (_Henslowe Papers_, 56). - -(xi, xii) _1, 2 The Six Clothiers._ - -With Haughton and Smith, Oct.–Nov. 1601; but the second part was -apparently unfinished. - -(xiii) _Too Good To Be True._ - -With Chettle (q.v.) and Smith, Nov. 1601–Jan. 1602. - -(xiv) _Merry as May Be._ - -With Day and Smith, Nov. 1602. - - (b) _Plays for Worcester’s, 1602–3_ - -(xv, xvi) _1, 2 The Black Dog of Newgate._ - -With Day, Smith, and an anonymous ‘other poete’, Nov. 1602–Feb. 1603. - -(xvii) _The Unfortunate General._ - -With Day, Smith, and a third, Jan. 1603. - - (c) _Play for the Admiral’s, 1603_ - -(xviii) _The Boss of Billingsgate._ - -With Day and one or more other ‘felowe poetes’, March 1603. - - -CHRISTOPHER HATTON (1540–91). - -Christopher Hatton, of Holdenby, Northants, entered the Inner Temple -in Nov. 1559. He was Master of the Game at the Grand Christmas of -1561, and the mask to which he is said to have owed his introduction -to Elizabeth’s favour was probably that which the revellers took to -Court, together with Norton (q.v.) and Sackville’s _Gorboduc_ on 18 -Jan. 1562. He became a Gentleman Pensioner in 1564, Gentleman of the -Privy Chamber, Captain of the Guard in 1572, Vice-Chamberlain and -Privy Councillor in 1578, when he was knighted, and Lord Chancellor -on 25 April 1587. He was conspicuous at Court in masks and tilts, and -is reported, even as Lord Chancellor, to have laid aside his gown and -danced at the wedding of his nephew and heir, Sir William Newport, -alias Hatton, to Elizabeth Gawdy at Holdenby in June 1590. - -His only contribution to the drama is as writer of an act of _Gismond -of Salerne_ at the Inner Temple in 1568 (cf. s.v. Wilmot). - - -WILLIAM HAUGHTON (_c._ 1575–1605). - -Beyond his extant work and the entries in Henslowe’s diary, in the -earliest of which, on 5 Nov. 1597, he appears as ‘yonge’ Haughton, -little is known of Haughton. Cooper, _Ath. Cantab._ ii. 399, identified -him with an alleged Oxford M.A. of the same name who was incorporated -at Cambridge in 1604, but turns out to have misread the name, which is -‘Langton’ (Baugh, 15). He worked for the Admiral’s during 1597–1602, -and found himself in the Clink in March 1600. Baugh, 22, prints his -will, made on 6 June 1605, and proved on 20 July. He left a widow Alice -and children. Wentworth Smith (q.v.) and one Elizabeth Lewes were -witnesses. He was then of Allhallows, Stainings. He cannot be traced -in the parish, but the name, which in his will is Houghton, is also -spelt by Henslowe Harton, Horton, Hauton, Hawton, Howghton, Haughtoun, -Haulton, and Harvghton, and was common in London. He might be related -to a William Houghton, saddler, who held a house in Turnmill Street in -1577 (Baugh, 11), since in 1601 (_H. P._ 57) Day requested that a sum -due to Haughton and himself might be paid to ‘Will Hamton sadler’. - - _Englishmen for My Money_, or _A Woman Will Have - Her Will. 1598_ - -_S. R._ 1601, Aug. 3. ‘A comedy of A woman Will haue her Will.’ -_William White_ (Arber, iii. 190). - -1616. English-Men For my Money: or, A pleasant Comedy, called, A Woman -will haue her Will. _W. White._ - -1626.... As it hath beene diuers times Acted with great applause. _I. -N., sold by Hugh Perry._ - -1631. _A. M., sold by Richard Thrale._ - -_Editions_ in _O. E. D._ (1830, i) and Dodsley^4, x (1875), and by J. -S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._), W. W. Greg (1912, _M. S. R._), and A. C. -Baugh, (1917). - -The evidence for Haughton’s evidence is in two payments in Henslowe’s -diary of 18 Feb. and early in May 1598 on behalf of the Admiral’s. The -sum of these is only £2, but it seems possible that at least one, and -perhaps more than one, other payment was made for the book in 1597 (cf. -Henslowe, ii. 191). - - _Patient Grissell. 1599_ - - _With_ Chettle and Dekker (q.v.). - - _Lost and Doubtful Plays_ - -The following plays by Haughton, all for the Admiral’s, are traceable -in Henslowe’s diary: - -(i) _A Woman Will Have Her Will._ - -See _supra_. - -(ii) _The Poor Man’s Paradise._ - -Aug. 1599; apparently not finished. - -(iii) _Cox of Collumpton._ - -With Day, Nov. 1599; on a ‘note’ of the play by Simon Forman, cf. ch. -xiii (Admiral’s). - -(iv) _Thomas Merry_, or _Beech’s Tragedy_. - -With Day, Nov.–Dec. 1599, on the same theme as one of Yarington’s _Two -Lamentable Tragedies_ (q.v.). - -(v) _The Arcadian Virgin._ - -With Chettle, Dec. 1599; apparently not finished. - -(vi) _Patient Grissell._ - -With Chettle and Dekker (q.v.), Oct.–Dec. 1599. - -(vii) _The Spanish Moor’s Tragedy._ - -With Day and Dekker, Feb. 1600; but apparently then unfinished; -possibly identical with _Lust’s Dominion_ (cf. s.v. Marlowe). - -(viii) _The Seven Wise Masters._ - -With Chettle, Day, and Dekker, March 1600. - -(ix) _Ferrex and Porrex._ - -March-April 1600. - -(x) _The English Fugitives._ - -April 1600, but apparently not finished. - -(xi) _The Devil and His Dame._ - -6 May 1600; probably the extant anonymous _Grim the Collier of Croydon_ -(q.v.). - -(xii) _Strange News Out of Poland._ - -With ‘M^r. Pett’, May 1600. - -(xiii) _Judas._ - -Haughton had 10_s._ for this, May 1600; apparently the play was -finished by Bird and S. Rowley, Dec. 1601. - -(xiv) _Robin Hood’s Pennorths._ - -Dec. 1600–Jan. 1601; but apparently not finished. - -(xv, xvi) _2, 3 The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green._ - -With Day (q.v.), Jan.–July 1600. - -(xvii) _The Conquest of the West Indies._ - -With Day and Smith, April-Sept. 1601. - -(xviii) _The Six Yeomen of the West._ - -With Day, May–June 1601. - -(xix) _Friar Rush and the Proud Woman of Antwerp._ - -With Chettle and Day, July 1601–Jan. 1602. - -(xx) _2 Tom Dough._ - -With Day, July–Sept. 1601; but apparently not finished. - -(xxi, xxii) _1, 2 The Six Clothiers._ - -With Hathway and Smith, Oct.–Nov. 1601; but apparently the second part -was not finished. - -(xxiii) _William Cartwright._ - -Sept. 1602; perhaps never finished. - - -WALTER HAWKESWORTH (?-1606). - -A Yorkshireman by birth, Hawkesworth entered Trinity College, -Cambridge, in 1588, and became a Fellow, taking his B.A. in 1592 and -his M.A. in 1595. In 1605 he went as secretary to the English embassy -in Madrid, where he died. - - LATIN PLAYS - - _Leander. 1599_ - -[_MSS._] _T. C. C. MS._ R. 3. 9. _Sloane MS._ 1762. [‘Authore M^{ro} -Haukesworth, Collegii Trinitatis olim Socio Acta est secundo A. D. 1602 -comitiis Baccalaureorum ... primo acta est A. D. 1598.’ Prologue, ‘ut -primo acta est’; Additions for revival; Actor-lists.] - -_St. John’s, Cambridge, MS._ J. 8. [Dated at end ‘7 Jan. 1599’.] - -_Emmanuel, Cambridge, MS._ I. 2. 30. - -_Cambridge Univ. Libr. MS._ Ee. v. 16. - -_Bodl. Rawl. Misc. MS._ 341. - -_Lambeth MS._ 838. - -The production in 1599 and 1603 indicated by the MSS. agrees with the -Trinity names in the actor-lists (Boas, 399). - - _Labyrinthus. 1603_ (?) - -[_MSS._] _T. C. C. MS._ R. 3. 6. - -_Cambridge Univ. Libr. MS._ Ee. v. 16. [Both ‘M^{ro} Haukesworth’. -Prologue. Actor-list in _T. C. C. MS._] - -_St. John’s, Cambridge, MS._ J. 8. _T. C. C. MS._ R. 3. 9. _Bodl. Douce -MSS._ 43, 315. _Lambeth MS._ 838. - -_S. R._ 1635, July 17 (Weekes). ‘A Latyn Comedy called Laborinthus -&c.’ _Robinson_ (Arber, iv. 343). - -1636. Labyrinthus Comoedia, habita coram Sereniss. Rege Iacobo in -Academia Cantabrigiensi. _Londini, Excudebat H. R._ [Prologue.] - -An allusion in the text (v. 5) to the marriage ‘_heri_’ of Leander -and Flaminia has led to the assumption that production was on the day -after the revival of _Leander_ in 1603; the actor-list has some -inconsistencies, and is not quite conclusive for any year of the period -1603–6 (Boas, 317, 400). - - -MARY HERBERT, COUNTESS OF PEMBROKE (1561–1621). - -Mary, daughter of Sir Henry, and sister of Sir Philip, Sidney, married -Henry, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, in 1577. She had literary tastes and was -a liberal patroness of poets, notably Samuel Daniel. Most of her time -appears to have been spent at her husband’s Wiltshire seats of Wilton, -Ivychurch, and Ramsbury, but in the reign of James she rented Crosby -Hall in Bishopsgate, and in 1615 the King granted her for life the -manor of Houghton Conquest, Beds. - -_Dissertation_: F. B. Young, _Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke_ (1912). - - TRANSLATION - - _Antony. 1590_ - -_S. R._ 1592, May 3. ‘Item Anthonius a tragedie wrytten also in French -by Robert Garnier ... donne in English by the Countesse of Pembrok.’ -_William Ponsonby_ (Arber, ii. 611). - -1592. A Discourse of Life and Death. Written in French by Ph. Mornay. -Antonius, A Tragoedie written also in French by Ro. Garnier Both done -in English by the Countesse of Pembroke. _For William Ponsonby._ - -1595. The Tragedie of Antonie. Doone ... _For William Ponsonby_. - -_Edition_ by A. Luce (1897). The _Marc-Antoine_ (1578) of Robert -Garnier was reissued in his _Huit Tragédies_ (1580). - - ENTERTAINMENT - - _Astraea. 1592_ (?) - -In Davison’s _Poetical Rapsody_ (1602, S. R. 28 May 1602) is ‘A -Dialogue betweene two Shepheards, Thenot and Piers, in Praise of -Astrea. Made by the excellent Lady the Lady Mary Countesse of Pembrook -at the Queenes Maiesties being at her house at ---- Anno 15--’. - -S. Lee (_D. N. B._) puts the visit at Wilton ‘late in 1599’. But there -was no progress in 1599, and progresses to Wilts. planned in 1600, -1601, and 1602 were abandoned. Presumably the verses were written for -the visit to Ramsbury of 27–9 Aug. 1592 (cf. App. A). - - -JASPER HEYWOOD (1535–98). - -Translator of Seneca (q.v.). - - -THOMAS HEYWOOD (_c._ 1570–1641). - -Heywood regarded Lincolnshire as his ‘country’ and had an uncle -Edmund, who had a friend Sir Henry Appleton. K. L. Bates has found -Edmund Heywood’s will of 7 Oct. 1624 in which Thomas Heywood and -his wife are mentioned, and has shown it to be not improbable that -Edmund was the son of Richard Heywood, a London barrister who had -manors in Lincolnshire. If so, Thomas was probably the son of Edmund’s -disinherited elder brother Christopher who was aged 30 in 1570. And if -Richard Heywood is the same who appears in the circle of Sir Thomas -More, a family connexion with the dramatist John Heywood may be -conjectured. The date of Thomas’s birth is unknown, but he tells us -that he was at Cambridge, although a tradition that he became Fellow -of Peterhouse cannot be confirmed, and is therefore not likely to have -begun his stage career before the age of 18 or thereabouts. Perhaps -we may conjecture that he was born _c._ 1570, for a Thomas Heywood is -traceable in the St. Saviour’s, Southwark, token-books from 1588 to -1607, and children of Thomas Heywood ‘player’ were baptized in the -same parish from 28 June 1590 to 5 Sept. 1605 (Collier, in _Bodl. MS._ -29445). This is consistent with his knowledge (App. C, No. lvii) of -Tarlton, but not of earlier actors. He may, therefore, so far as dates -are concerned, easily have written _The Four Prentices_ as early as -1592; but that he in fact did so, as well as his possible contributions -to the Admiral’s repertory of 1594–7, are matters of inference (cf. -Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 284). The editors of the _Apology for Actors_ -(Introd. v) say that in his _Funeral Elegy upon James I_ (1625) he -claims to have been ‘the theatrical servant of the Earl of Southampton, -the patron of Shakespeare’. I have never seen the Elegy. It is not in -the B. M., but a copy passed from the Bindley to the Brown collection. -There is no other evidence that Southampton ever had a company of -players. The first dated notice of Heywood is in a payment of Oct. -1596 on behalf of the Admiral’s ‘for Hawodes bocke’. On 25 March 1598 -he bound himself to Henslowe for two years as an actor, doubtless for -the Admiral’s, then in process of reconstitution. Between Dec. 1598 -and Feb. 1599 he wrote two plays for this company, and then disappears -from their records. He was not yet out of his time with Henslowe, but -if _Edward IV_ is really his, he may have been enabled to transfer his -services to Derby’s men, who seem to have established themselves in -London in the course of 1599. By the autumn of 1602 he was a member -of Worcester’s, for whom he had probably already written _How a Man -may Choose a Good Wife from a Bad_. He now reappears in Henslowe’s -diary both as actor and as playwright. On 1 Sept, he borrowed 2_s._ -6_d._ to buy garters, and between 4 Sept, and 6 March 1603 he wrote -or collaborated in not less than seven plays for the company. During -the same winter he also helped in one play for the Admiral’s. It seems -probable that some of his earlier work was transferred to Worcester’s. -He remained with them, and in succession to them Queen Anne’s, until -the company broke up soon after the death of the Queen in 1619. Very -little of his work got into print. Of the twelve plays at most which -appeared before 1619, the first seven were unauthorized issues; from -1608 onwards, he himself published five with prefatory epistles. -About this date, perhaps in the enforced leisure of plague-time, he -also began to produce non-dramatic works, both in prose and verse, -of which the _Apology for Actors_, published in 1612, but written -some years earlier (cf. App. C, No. lvii), is the most important. The -loss of his _Lives of All the Poets_, apparently begun _c._ 1614 and -never finished, is irreparable. After 1619 Heywood is not traceable -at all as an actor; nor for a good many years, with the exception -of one play, _The Captives_, for the Lady Elizabeth’s in 1624, as a -playwright, either on the stage or in print. In 1623 a Thomas Heywarde -lived near Clerkenwell Hill (_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xlvi. 345) and is probably -the dramatist. In 1624 he claims in the Epistle to _Gynaikeion_ the -renewed patronage of the Earl of Worcester, since ‘I was your creature, -and amongst other your servants, you bestowed me upon the excellent -princesse Q. Anne ... but by her lamented death, your gift is returned -againe into your hands’. But about 1630 he emerges again. Old plays of -his were revived and new ones produced both by Queen Henrietta’s men -at the Cockpit and the King’s at the Globe and Blackfriars. He wrote -the Lord Mayor’s pageants for a series of years. He sent ten more -plays to the press, and included a number of prologues, epilogues, -and complimentary speeches of recent composition in his _Pleasant -Dialogues and Dramas_ of 1637. This period lies outside my survey. I -have dealt with all plays in which there is a reasonable prospect of -finding early work, but have not thought it necessary to discuss _The -English Traveller_, or _A Maidenhead Well Lost_, merely because of -tenuous attempts by Fleay to connect them with lost plays written for -Worcester’s or still earlier anonymous work for the Admiral’s, any -more than _The Fair Maid of the West_, _The Late Lancashire Witches_, -or _A Challenge for Beauty_, with regard to which no such suggestion -is made. As to _Love’s Mistress_, see the note on _Pleasant Dialogues -and Dramas_. The Epistle to _The English Traveller_ (1633) is worth -quoting. Heywood describes the play as ‘one reserued amongst two -hundred and twenty, in which I haue had either an entire hand, or -at the least a maine finger’, and goes on to explain why his pieces -have not appeared as _Works_. ‘One reason is, that many of them by -shifting and change of Companies, haue beene negligently lost, Others -of them are still retained in the hands of some Actors, who thinke -it against their peculiar profit to haue them come in Print, and a -third, That it neuer was any great ambition in me, to bee in this kind -Volumniously read.’ Heywood’s statement would give him an average of -over five plays a year throughout a forty years’ career, and even if -we assume that he included every piece which he revised or supplied -with a prologue, it is obvious that the score or so plays that we have -and the dozen or so others of which we know the names must fall very -short of his total output. ‘Tho. Heywood, Poet’, was buried at St. -James’s, Clerkenwell, on 16 Aug. 1641 (_Harl. Soc. Reg._ xvii. 248), -and therefore the alleged mention of him as still alive in _The Satire -against Separatists_ (1648) must rest on a misunderstanding. - - _Collections_ - -1842–51. B. Field and J. P. Collier, _The Dramatic Works of Thomas -Heywood_. 2 vols. (_Shakespeare Society_). [Intended for a complete -edition, although issued in single parts; a title-page for vol. i was -issued in 1850 and the 10th Report of the Society treats the plays for -1851 as completing vol. ii. Twelve plays were issued, as cited _infra_.] - -1874. _The Dramatic Works of Thomas Heywood._ 6 vols. (_Pearson -Reprints_). [All the undoubted plays, with _Edward IV_ and _Fair Maid -of the Exchange_; also Lord Mayors’ Pageants and part of _Pleasant -Dialogues and Dramas_.] - -1888. A. W. Verity, _The Best Plays of Thomas Heywood_ (_Mermaid -Series_). [_Woman Killed with Kindness_, _Fair Maid of the West_, -_English Traveller_, _Wise Woman of Hogsdon_, _Rape of Lucrece._] - -_Dissertations_: K. L. Bates, _A Conjecture as to Thomas Heywood’s -Family_ (1913, _J. G. P._ xii. 1); P. Aronstein, _Thomas Heywood_ -(1913, _Anglia_, xxxvii. 163). - - _The Four Prentices of London. 1592_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1594, June 19. ‘An enterlude entituled Godfrey of Bulloigne -with the Conquest of Jerusalem.’ _John Danter_ (Arber, ii. 654). - -1615. The Foure Prentises of London. With the Conquest of Ierusalem. -As it hath bene diuerse times Acted, at the Red Bull, by the Queenes -Maiesties Seruants. Written by Thomas Heywood. _For I. W._ [Epistle -to the Prentices, signed ‘Thomas Heywood’ and Prologue, really an -Induction.] - -1632.... Written and newly reuised by Thomas Heywood. _Nicholas Okes._ - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{2, 3} (1780–1827) and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. -D._ iii). - -The Prologue gives the title as _True and Strange, or The Four -Prentises of London_. The Epistle speaks of the play as written ‘many -yeares since, in my infancy of iudgment in this kinde of poetry, -and my first practice’ and ‘some fifteene or sixteene yeares agoe’. -This would, by itself, suggest a date shortly after the publication -of Fairfax’s translation from Tasso under the title of _Godfrey of -Bulloigne, or The Recouerie of Ierusalem_ in 1600. But the Epistle -also refers to a recent revival of ‘the commendable practice of long -forgotten armes’ in ‘the Artillery Garden’. This, according to Stowe, -_Annales_ (1615), 906, was in 1610, which leads Fleay, i. 182, followed -by Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 166), to assume that the Epistle was written -for an edition, now lost, of about that date. In support they cite -Beaumont’s _K. B. P._ iv. 1 (dating it 1610 instead of 1607), ‘Read -the play of the _Foure Prentices of London_, where they tosse their -pikes so’. Then, calculating back sixteen years, they arrive at the -anonymous _Godfrey of Bulloigne_ produced by the Admiral’s on 19 July -1594, and identify this with _The Four Prentices_, in which Godfrey -is a character. But this _Godfrey of Bulloigne_ was a second part, -and it is difficult to suppose that the first part was anything but -the play entered on the S. R. earlier in 1594. This, from its title, -clearly left no room for a second part covering the same ground as _The -Four Prentices_, which ends with the capture of Jerusalem. If then -Heywood’s play is as old as 1594 at all, it must be identified with -the first part of _Godfrey of Bulloigne_. And is not this in its turn -likely to be the _Jerusalem_ played by Strange’s men on 22 March and -25 April 1592? If so, Heywood’s career began very early, and, as we -can hardly put his Epistle earlier than the opening of the Artillery -Garden in 1610, his ‘fifteene or sixteene yeares’ must be rather an -understatement. There is of course nothing in the Epistle itself to -suggest that the play had been previously printed, but we know from the -Epistle to _Lucrece_ that the earliest published plays by Heywood were -surreptitious. - -Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 230, hesitatingly suggests that a purchase by -Worcester’s of ‘iiij lances for the comody of Thomas Hewedes & M^r. -Smythes’ on 3 Sept. 1602 may have been for a revival of _The Four -Prentices_, ‘where they tosse their pikes so’, transferred from the -Admiral’s. But I think his afterthought, that the comedy was Heywood -and Smith’s _Albere Galles_, paid for on the next day, is sound. - - _Sir Thomas Wyatt. 1602_ - -See s.v. Dekker. - - _The Royal King and the Loyal Subject. 1602_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1637, March 25 (Thomas Herbert, deputy to Sir Henry Herbert). -‘A Comedy called the Royall king and the Loyall Subiects by Master -Heywood.’ _James Beckett_ (Arber, iv. 376). - -1637. The Royall King, and the Loyall Subject. As it hath beene Acted -with great Applause by the Queenes Maiesties Servants. Written by -Thomas Heywood. _Nich. and John Okes for James Becket._ [Prologue -to the Stage and Epilogue to the Reader.] - -_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1850, _Sh. Soc._) and K. W. Tibbals -(1906, _Pennsylvania Univ. Publ._).--_Dissertation_: O. Kämpfer, _Th. -Heywood’s The Royal King and Painter’s Palace of Pleasure_ (1903, -_Halle diss._). - -The Epilogue describes the play as ‘old’, and apparently relates it to -a time when rhyme, of which it makes considerable use, was more looked -after than ‘strong lines’, and when stuffed and puffed doublets and -trunk-hose were worn, which would fit the beginning of the seventeenth -century. An anonymous Marshal is a leading character, and the -identification by Fleay, i. 300, with the _Marshal Osric_ written -by Heywood and Smith for Worcester’s in Sept. 1602 is not the worst of -his guesses. - - _A Woman Killed With Kindness. 1603_ - -1607. A Woman Kilde with Kindnesse. Written by Tho: Heywood. _William -Jaggard, sold by John Hodgets._ [Prologue and Epilogue.] - -1617.... As it hath beene oftentimes Acted by the Queenes Maiest. -Seruants.... The third Edition. _Isaac Jaggard._ - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1, 2, 3} (1744–1827) and by W. Scott (1810, _A. -B. D._ ii), J. P. Collier (1850, _Sh. Soc._), A. W. Ward (1897, _T. -D._), F. J. Cox (1907), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._), K. L. Bates -(1919).--_Dissertation_: R. G. Martin, _A New Source for a Woman Killed -with Kindness_ (1911, _E. S._ xliii. 229). - -Henslowe, on behalf of Worcester’s, paid Heywood £6 for this play in -Feb. and March 1603 and also bought properties for it. It is mentioned -in T. M., _The Black Book of London_ (1604), sig. E3. - - _The Wise Woman of Hogsdon. c. 1604_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1638, Mar. 12 (Wykes). ‘A Play called The wise woman of Hogsden -by Thomas Haywood.’ _Henry Sheapard_ (Arber, iv. 411). - -1638. The Wise Woman of Hogsdon. A Comedie. As it hath been sundry -times Acted with great Applause. Written by Tho: Heywood. _M. P. for -Henry Shephard._ - -Fleay, i. 291, suggested a date _c._ 1604 on the grounds of allusions -to other plays of which _A Woman Killed with Kindness_ is the latest -(ed. Pearson, v. 316), and a conjectural identification with Heywood’s -_How to Learn of a Woman to Woo_, played by the Queen’s at Court on -30 Dec. 1604. The approximate date is accepted by Ward, ii. 574, and -others. It may be added that there are obvious parallelisms with -the anonymous _How a Man may Choose a Good Wife from a Bad_ (1602) -generally assigned to Heywood. - - _If You Know not Me, You Know Nobody. 1605_ - -_S. R._ 1605, July 5 (Hartwell). ‘A booke called yf you knowe not me -you knowe no body.’ _Nathaniel Butter_ (Arber, iii. 295). - -1605, Sept. 14 (Hartwell). ‘A Booke called the Second parte of Yf you -knowe not me you knowe no bodie with the buildinge of the exchange.’ -_Nathaniel Butter_ (Arber, iii. 301). - - [_Part i_] - -1605. If you Know not me, You Know no bodie: Or, The troubles of Queene -Elizabeth. _For Nathaniel Butter._ - -1606, 1608, 1610, 1613, 1623, 1632, 1639. - - [_Part ii_] - -1606. The Second Part of, If you Know not me, you know no bodie. With -the building of the Royall Exchange: And the famous Victorie of Queene -Elizabeth, in the Yeare 1588. _For Nathaniell Butter._ - -1609.... With the Humors of Hobson and Tawny-cote. _For Nathaniell -Butter._ - -N.D. [1623?]. - -1632. _For Nathaniel Butter._ [With different version of Act V.] - -_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1851, _Sh. Soc._) and J. Blew -(1876).--_Dissertation_: B. A. P. van Dam and C. Stoffel, _The -Fifth Act of Thomas Heywood’s Queen Elizabeth: Second Part_ (1902, -_Jahrbuch_, xxxviii. 153). - -_Pleasant Dialogues and Dramas_, 248, has ‘A Prologue to the Play -of Queene Elizabeth as it was last revived at the Cockpit, in which -the Author taxeth the most corrupted copy now imprinted, which was -published without his consent’. It says: - - This: (by what fate I know not) sure no merit, - That it disclaimes, may for the age inherit. - Writing ’bove one and twenty; but ill nurst, - And yet receiv’d, as well perform’d at first, - Grac’t and frequented, for the cradle age, - Did throng the Seates, the Boxes, and the Stage - So much; that some by Stenography drew - The plot: put it in print: (scarce one word trew:) - -There is also an Epilogue, which shows that both parts were revived. -The piracy may serve to date the original production in 1605 and the -Caroline revival probably led to the reprints of 1632. As the play -passed to the Cockpit, it was presumably written for Queen Anne’s. Greg -(_Henslowe_, ii. 223) rightly resists the suggestion that it was the -old _Philip of Spain_ bought by the Admiral’s from Alleyn in 1602. It -is only Part i which has characteristics attributable to stenography, -and this remained unrevised. According to Van Dam and Stoffel, the 1606 -and 1632 editions of Part ii represent the same original text, in the -first case shortened for representation, in the second altered by a -press-corrector. - - _Fortune by Land and Sea. c. 1607_ (?) - - _With_ W. Rowley. - -_S. R._ 1655, June 20. ‘Fortune by Land & sea, a tragicomedie, written -by Tho: Heywood & Wm. Rowley.’ _John Sweeting_ (Eyre, i. 486). - -1655. Fortune by Land and Sea. A Tragi-Comedy. As it was Acted with -great Applause by the Queens Servants. Written by Tho. Haywood and -William Rowly. _For John Sweeting and Robert Pollard._ - -_Edition_ by B. Field (1846, _Sh. Soc._).--_Dissertation_: Oxoniensis, -_Illustration of Fortune by Land and Sea_ (1847, _Sh. Soc. Papers_, -iii. 7). - -The action is placed in the reign of Elizabeth (cf. ed. Pearson, vi, -pp. 409, 431), but this may be due merely to the fact that the source -is a pamphlet (S. R. 15 Aug. 1586) dealing with Elizabethan piracy. -Rowley’s co-operation suggests the date 1607–9 when he was writing for -Queen Anne’s men, and other trifling evidence (Aronstein, 237) makes -such a date plausible. - - _The Rape of Lucrece. 1603 < > 8_ - -_S. R._ 1608, June 3 (Buck). ‘A Booke called A Romane tragedie called -The Rape of Lucrece.’ _John Busby and Nathanael Butter_ (Arber, iii. -380). - -1608. The Rape of Lucrece. A True Roman Tragedie. With the seuerall -Songes in their apt places, by Valerius, the merrie Lord amongst the -Roman Peeres. Acted by her Maiesties Seruants at the Red Bull, neare -Clarkenwell. Written by Thomas Heywood. _For I. B._ [Epistle to the -Reader, signed ‘T. H.’] - -1609. _For I. B._ - -1630.... The fourth Impression.... _For Nathaniel Butter._ - -1638.... The copy revised, and sundry Songs before omitted, now -inserted in their right places.... _John Raworth for Nathaniel Butter._ -[Note to the Reader at end.] - -_Edition_ in 1825 (_O. E. D._ i). - -Fleay, i. 292, notes the mention of ‘the King’s head’ as a tavern sign -for ‘the Gentry’, which suggests a Jacobean date. The play was given at -Court, apparently by the King’s and Queen’s men together, on 13 Jan. -1612. The Epistle says that it has not been Heywood’s custom ‘to commit -my Playes to the Presse’, like others who ‘have used a double sale of -their labours, first to the Stage, and after to the Presse’. He now -does so because ‘some of my Playes have (unknowne to me, and without -any of my direction) accidentally come into the Printers hands (and -therefore so corrupt and mangled, copied only by the eare) that I have -beene as unable to knowe them, as ashamed to challenge them’. A play on -the subject seems to have been on tour in Germany in 1619 (Herz, 98). -_The Rape of Lucrece_ was on the Cockpit stage in 1628, according to a -newsletter in _Athenaeum_ (1879), ii. 497, and to the 1638 edition are -appended songs ‘added by the stranger that lately acted Valerius his -part’. It is in the Cockpit list of plays in 1639 (_Variorum_, iii. -159). - - _The Golden Age > 1611_ - -_S. R._ 1611, Oct. 14 (Buck). William Barrenger, ‘A booke called, The -golden age with the liues of Jupiter and Saturne.’ _William Barrenger_ -(Arber, iii. 470). - -1611. The Golden Age. Or The liues of Iupiter and Saturne, with the -defining of the Heathen Gods. As it hath beene sundry times acted at -the Red Bull, by the Queenes Maiesties Seruants. Written by Thomas -Heywood. _For William Barrenger._ [Epistle to the Reader, signed ‘T. -H.’ Some copies have ‘defining’ corrected to ‘deifying’ in the title.] - -_Edition_ by J. P. Collier (1851, _Sh. Soc._). - -The Epistle describes the play as ‘the eldest brother of three Ages, -that haue aduentured the Stage, but the onely yet, that hath beene -iudged to the presse’, and promises the others. It came to the press -‘accidentally’, but Heywood, ‘at length hauing notice thereof’, -prefaced it, as it had ‘already past the approbation of auditors’. -Fleay, i. 283, followed hesitatingly by Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 175), -thinks it a revision of the _Olympo_ or _Seleo & Olempo_, which he -interprets _Coelo et Olympo_, produced by the Admiral’s on 5 March -1595. The Admiral’s inventories show that they had a play with Neptune -in it, but it is only at the very end of _The Golden Age_ that the -sons of Saturn draw lots and Jupiter wins Heaven or Olympus. Fleay’s -assumption that the play was revised _c._ 1610, because of Dekker, -_If it be not Good_, i. 1, ‘The Golden Age is moulding new again’, is -equally hazardous. - - _The Silver Age > 1612_ - -1613. The Silver Age, Including. The loue of Iupiter to Alcmena: The -birth of Hercules. And the Rape of Proserpine. Concluding, With the -Arraignement of the Moone. Written by Thomas Heywood. _Nicholas Okes, -sold by Beniamin Lightfoote._ [Epistle to the Reader, signed ‘T. H,’; -Prologue and Epilogue.] - -_Edition_ by J. P. Collier (1851, _Sh. Soc._). - -The Epistle says, ‘Wee begunne with _Gold_, follow with _Siluer_, -proceede with _Brasse_, and purpose by Gods grace, to end with _Iron_’. -Fleay, i. 283, and Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 175) take this and _The Brazen -Age_ to be the two parts of the anonymous _Hercules_, produced by the -Admiral’s men on 7 and 23 May 1595 respectively. It may be so. But the -text presumably represents the play as given at Court, apparently by -the King’s and Queen’s men together, on 12 Jan. 1612. An Anglo-German -_Amphitryo_ traceable in 1626 and 1678 may be based on Heywood’s work -(Herz, 66; _Jahrbuch_, xli. 201). - - _The Brazen Age > 1613_ - -1613. The Brazen Age, The first Act containing, The death of the -Centaure Nessus, The Second, The Tragedy of Meleager: The Third The -Tragedy of Iason and Medea. The Fourth. Vulcans Net. The Fifth. The -Labours and death of Hercules: Written by Thomas Heywood. _Nicholas -Okes for Samuel Rand._ [Epistle to the Reader; Prologue and Epilogue.] - -Cf. s.v. _The Silver Age_. - - _The Iron Age. c. 1613_ (?) - -1632. [_Part i_] The Iron Age: Contayning the Rape of Hellen: The siege -of Troy: The Combate betwixt Hector and Aiax: Hector and Troilus slayne -by Achilles: Achilles slaine by Paris: Aiax and Vlesses contend for the -Armour of Achilles: The Death of Aiax, &c. Written by Thomas Heywood. -_Nicholas Okes._ [Epistles to Thomas Hammon and to the Reader, signed -‘Thomas Heywood’.] - -1632. [_Part ii_] The Second Part of the Iron Age. Which contayneth the -death of Penthesilea, Paris, Priam, and Hecuba: The burning of Troy: -The deaths of Agamemnon, Menelaus, Clitemnestra, Hellena, Orestes, -Egistus, Pillades, King Diomed, Pyrhus, Cethus, Synon, Thersites, &c. -Written by Thomas Heywood. _Nicholas Okes._ [Epistles to the Reader and -to Thomas Mannering, signed ‘Thomas Heywood’.] - -_Dissertation_: R. G. Martin, _A New Specimen of the Revenge Play_ -(1918, _M. P._ xvi. 1). - -The Epistles tell us that ‘these were the playes often (and not with -the least applause,) Publickely Acted by two Companies, vppon one Stage -at once, and haue at sundry times thronged three seuerall Theaters, -with numerous and mighty Auditories’; also that they ‘haue beene long -since Writ’. This, however, was in 1632, and I can only read the -Epistles to the earlier _Ages_ as indicating that the _Iron Age_ was -contemplated, but not yet in existence, up to 1613. I should therefore -put the play _c._ 1613, and take the three theatres at which it was -given to be the Curtain, Red Bull, and Cockpit. Fleay, i. 285, thinks -that Part i was the anonymous _Troy_ produced by the Admiral’s on 22 -June 1596. More plausible is the conjecture of Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. -180) that this was ‘an earlier and shorter version later expanded into -the two-part play’. Spencer had a play on the Destruction of Troy at -Nuremberg in 1613 (Herz, 66). - - _Pleasant Dialogues and Dramas. 1630–6_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1635, Aug. 29 (Weekes). ‘A booke called Pleasant Dialogues -and Dramma’s selected out of Lucian Erasmus Textor Ovid &c. by Thomas -Heywood.’ _Richard Hearne_ (Arber, iv. 347). - -1637. Pleasant Dialogues and Dramma’s, selected out of Lucian, Erasmus, -Textor, Ovid, &c. With sundry Emblems extracted from the most elegant -Iacobus Catsius. As also certaine Elegies, Epitaphs, and Epithalamions -or Nuptiall Songs; Anagrams and Acrosticks; With divers Speeches (upon -severall occasions) spoken to their most Excellent Majesties, King -Charles, and Queene Mary. With other Fancies translated from Beza, -Bucanan, and sundry Italian Poets. By Tho. Heywood. _R. O. for R. H., -sold by Thomas Slater._ [Epistle to the Generous Reader, signed ‘Tho. -Heywood’, and Congratulatory Poems by Sh. Marmion, D. E., and S. N.] - -_Edition_ by W. Bang (1903, _Materialien_, iii). - -The section called ‘Sundry Fancies writ upon severall occasions’ (Bang, -231) includes a number of Prologues and Epilogues, of which those which -are datable fall between 1630 and 1636. Bang regards all the contents -of the volume as of about this period. Fleay, i. 285, had suggested -that _Deorum Judicium_, _Jupiter and Io_, _Apollo and Daphne_, -_Amphrisa_, and possibly _Misanthropos_ formed the anonymous _Five -Plays in One_ produced by the Admiral’s on 7 April 1597, and also that -_Misanthropos_, which he supposed to bear the name _Time’s Triumph_, -was played with _Faustus_ on 13 April 1597 and carelessly entered by -Henslowe as ‘times triumpe & fortus’. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 183) says -of the _Dialogues and Dramas_, ‘many of the pieces in that collection -are undoubtedly early’. He rejects Fleay’s views as to _Misanthropos_ -on the grounds that it is ‘unrelieved tediousness’ and has no claim to -the title _Time’s Triumph_, and is doubtful as to _Deorum Judicium_. -The three others he seems inclined to accept as possibly belonging to -the 1597 series, especially _Jupiter and Io_, where the unappropriated -head of Argus in one of the Admiral’s inventories tempts him. He is -also attracted by an alternative suggestion of Fleay’s that one of the -_Five Plays in One_ may have been a _Cupid and Psyche_, afterwards -worked up into _Love’s Mistress_ (1636). This he says, ‘if it existed’, -would suit very well. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that it -did exist. Moreover, P. A. Daniel has shown that certain lines found -in _Love’s Mistress_ are assigned to Dekker in _England’s Parnassus_ -(1600, ed. Crawford, xxxi. 509, 529) and must be from the _Cupid and -Psyche_ produced by the Admiral’s _c._ June 1600 (_Henslowe_, ii. 212). -There is no indication that Heywood collaborated with Dekker, Chettle, -and Day in this; but it occurs to me that, if he was still at the Rose, -he may have acted in the play and cribbed years afterwards from the -manuscript of his part. I will only add that _Misanthropos_ and _Deorum -Judicium_ seem to me out of the question. They belong to the series of -‘dialogues’ which Heywood in his Epistle clearly treats as distinct -from the ‘dramas’, for after describing them he goes on, ‘For such as -delight in Stage-poetry, here are also divers Dramma’s, never before -published: Which, though some may condemne for their shortnesse, others -againe will commend for their sweetnesse’. It is only _Jupiter and Io_ -and _Apollo and Daphne_, which are based on Ovid, and _Amphrisa_, for -which there is no known source, that can belong to this group; and -Heywood gives no indication as to their date. - - _Lost and Doubtful Plays_ - -On _How to Learn of a Woman to Woo_, see s.v. _The Wise Woman of -Hogsden_. The author of _The Second Part of Hudibras_ (1663) names -Heywood as the author of _The Bold Beauchamps_, which is mentioned with -_Jane Shore_ in _The Knight of the Burning Pestle_, Ind. 59. - -The following is a complete list of the plays, by Heywood or -conjecturally assigned to him, which are recorded in Henslowe’s diary: - - _Possible plays for the Admiral’s, 1594–7_ - -For conjectures as to the authorship by Heywood of _Godfrey of -Bulloigne_ (1594), _The Siege of London_ (>1594), _Wonder of a Woman_ -(1595), _Seleo and Olympo_ (1595), _1, 2 Hercules_ (1595), _Troy_ -(1596), _Five Plays in One_ (1597), _Time’s Triumph_ (>1597), see _The -Four Prentices_, the anonymous _Edward IV_, W. Rowley’s _A New Wonder_, -_The Golden Age_, _The Silver Age_, _The Iron Age_, _Pleasant Dialogues -and Dramas_. - - _Plays for the Admiral’s, 1598–1603_ - -(i) _War without Blows and Love without Suit._ - -Dec. 1598–Jan. 1599; identified, not plausibly, by Fleay, i. 287, with -the anonymous _Thracian Wonder_ (q.v.). - -(ii) _Joan as Good as my Lady._ - -Feb. 1599, identified, conjecturally, by Fleay, i. 298, with _A -Maidenhead Well Lost_, printed as Heywood’s in 1634. - -(iii) _1 The London Florentine._ - -With Chettle, Dec. 1602–Jan. 1603. - - _Plays for Worcester’s, 1602–3_ - -(iv) _Albere Galles._ - -With Smith, Sept. 1602, possibly identical with the anonymous _Nobody -and Somebody_ (q.v.). - -(v) _Cutting Dick_ (additions only). - -Sept. 1602, identified by Fleay, ii. 319, with the anonymous _Trial of -Chivalry_, but not plausibly (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 231). - -(vi) _Marshal Osric._ - -With Smith, Sept. 1602, conceivably identical with _The Royal King and -the Loyal Subject_ (q.v.). - -(vii) _1 Lady Jane._ - -With Chettle, Dekker, Smith, and Webster, Oct. 1602, doubtless -represented by the extant _Sir Thomas Wyatt_ of Dekker (q.v.) and -Webster, in which, however, Heywood’s hand has not been traced. - -(viii) _Christmas Comes but Once a Year_. - -With Chettle, Dekker, and Webster, Nov. 1602. - -(ix) _The Blind Eats many a Fly_. - -Nov. 1602–Jan. 1603. - -(x) [Unnamed play.] - -With Chettle, Jan. 1603, but apparently not finished, or possibly -identical with the _Shore_ of Chettle (q.v.) and Day. The title _Like -Quits Like_, inserted into one entry for this play, is a forgery (Greg, -_Henslowe_, i. xliii). - -(xi) _A Woman Killed With Kindness_. - -Feb.–March 1603. _Vide supra._ - -Heywood’s hand or ‘finger’ has also been suggested in the _Appius and -Virginia_ printed as Webster’s (q.v.), in _Pericles_, and in _Fair Maid -of the Exchange_, _George a Greene_, _How a Man May Choose a Good Wife -from a Bad_, _Thomas Lord Cromwell_, and _Work for Cutlers_ (cf. ch. -xxiv). - - -GRIFFIN HIGGS (1589–1659). - -A student at St. John’s, Oxford (1606), afterwards Fellow of Merton -(1611), Chaplain to Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia (1627), and Dean of -Lichfield (1638). The MS. of _The Christmas Prince_ (_1607_) was once -thought to be in his handwriting (cf. ch. xxiv, C). - - -THOMAS HUGHES (_c._ 1588). - -A Cheshire man, who matriculated from Queens’ College, Cambridge, in -Nov. 1571 and became Fellow of the College on 8 Sept. 1576. - - _The Misfortunes of Arthur. 28 Feb. 1588_ - -1587. Certain deuises and shewes presented to her Maiestie by the -Gentlemen of Grayes Inne at her Highnesse Court in Greenewich, the -twenty-eighth day of Februarie in the thirtieth yeare of her Maiesties -most happy Raigne. _Robert Robinson._ [‘An Introduction penned by -Nicholas Trotte Gentleman one of the society of Grayes Inne’; followed -by ‘The misfortunes of Arthur (Vther Pendragons Sonne) reduced into -Tragicall notes by Thomas Hughes one of the societie of Grayes Inne. -And here set downe as it past from vnder his handes and as it was -presented, excepting certaine wordes and lines, where some of the -Actors either helped their memories by brief omission: or fitted their -acting by some alteration. With a note at the ende, of such speaches -as were penned by others in lue of some of these hereafter following’; -Arguments, Dumb-Shows, and Choruses between the Acts; at end, two -substituted speeches ‘penned by William Fulbecke gentleman, one of the -societie of Grayes Inne’; followed by ‘Besides these speaches there was -also penned a Chorus for the first act, and an other for the second -act, by Maister Frauncis Flower, which were pronounced accordingly. -The dumbe showes were partly deuised by Maister Christopher Yeluerton, -Maister Frauncis Bacon, Maister Iohn Lancaster and others, partly by -the saide Maister Flower, who with Maister Penroodocke and the said -Maister Lancaster directed these proceedings at Court.’] - -_Editions_ in Collier, _Five Old Plays_ (1833), and Dodsley^4 (1874, -iv), and by H. C. Grumbine (1900), J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._), and -J. W. Cunliffe (1912, _E. E. C. T._). - -Of the seven collaborators, three--Bacon, Yelverton, and -Fulbecke--subsequently attained distinction. It is to be wished that -editors of more important plays had been as communicative as offended -dignity, or some other cause, made Thomas Hughes. - - -WILLIAM HUNNIS (?-1597). - -[Nearly all that is known of Hunnis, except as regards his connexion -with the Blackfriars, and much that is conjectural has been gathered -and fully illustrated by Mrs. C. C. Stopes in _Athenaeum_ and -_Shakespeare-Jahrbuch_ papers, and finally in _William Hunnis and the -Revels of the Chapel Royal_ (1910, _Materialien_, xxix).] - -The date of Hunnis’s birth is unknown, except as far as it can be -inferred from the reference to him as ‘in winter of thine age’ in 1578. -He is described on the title-page of his translation of _Certayne -Psalmes_ (1550) as ‘seruant’ to Sir William Herbert, who became -Earl of Pembroke. He is in the lists of the Gentlemen of the Chapel -about 1553, but he took part in plots against Mary and in 1556 was -sent to the Tower. He lost his post, but this was restored between -Elizabeth’s accession in 1558 and the opening of the extant _Cheque -Book_ of the Chapel in 1561, and on 15 Nov. 1566 he was appointed -Master of the Children in succession to Richard Edwardes (q.v.). For -the history of his Mastership, cf. ch. xii (Chapel). Early in 1559 he -married Margaret, widow of Nicholas Brigham, Teller of the Exchequer, -through whom he acquired a life-interest in the secularized Almonry at -Westminster. She died in June 1559, and about 1560 Hunnis married Agnes -Blancke, widow of a Grocer. He took out the freedom of the Grocers’ -Company, and had a shop in Southwark. He was elected to the livery of -the Company in 1567, but disappears from its records before 1586. In -1569 he obtained a grant of arms, and is described as of Middlesex. -From 1576–85, however, he seems to have had a house at Great Ilford, -Barking, Essex. His only known child, Robin, was page to Walter Earl -of Essex in Ireland, and is said in _Leicester’s Commonwealth_ to have -tasted the poison with which Leicester killed Essex in 1576 and to have -lost his hair. But he became a Rider of the Stable under Leicester as -Master of the Horse during 1579–83, and received payments for posting -services in later years up to 1593. In 1562 William Hunnis became -Keeper of the Orchard and Gardens at Greenwich, and held this post -with his Mastership to his death. He supplied greenery and flowers -for the Banqueting Houses of 1569 and 1571 (cf. ch. i). In 1570 the -Queen recommended him to the City as Taker of Tolls and Dues on London -Bridge, and his claim was bought off for £40. In 1583 he called -attention to the poor remuneration of the Mastership, and in 1585 he -received grants of land at Great Ilford and elsewhere. He died on 6 -June 1597. - -Hunnis published several volumes of moral and religious verse, original -and translated: _Certayne Psalmes_ (1550); _A Godly new Dialogue of -Christ and a Sinner_ (S. R. 1564, if this is rightly identified with -the _Dialogue_ of Hunnis’s 1583 volume); _A Hive Full of Honey_ (1578, -S. R. 1 Dec. 1577, dedicated to Leicester); _A Handful of Honnisuckles_ -(N.D., S. R. 11 Dec. 1578, a New Year’s gift to the Ladies of the Privy -Chamber); _Seven Sobbes of a Sorrowful Soule for Sinne_ (1583, S. R. -7 Nov. 1581, with the _Handful of Honnisuckles_, _The Widow’s Mite_, -and _A Comfortable Dialogue between Christ and a Sinner_, dedicated to -Lady Sussex); _Hunnies Recreations_ (1588, S. R. 4 Dec. 1587, dedicated -to Sir Thomas Heneage). Several poems by Hunnis are also with those of -Richard Edwardes and others in _The Paradyse of Daynty Deuises_ (1567); -one, the _Nosegay_, in Clement Robinson’s _A Handfull of Pleasant -Delites_ (1584); and it is usual to assign to him two bearing the -initials W. H., _Wodenfride’s Song in Praise of Amargana_ and _Another -of the Same_, in _England’s Helicon_ (1600). - -The name of no play by Hunnis has been preserved, although he may -probably enough have written some of those produced by the Chapel boys -during his Mastership. That he was a dramatist is testified to by the -following lines contributed by Thomas Newton, one of the translators of -Seneca, to his _Hive Full of Honey_. - - In prime of youth thy pleasant Penne depaincted Sonets sweete, - Delightfull to the greedy Eare, for youthfull Humour meete. - Therein appeared thy pregnant wit, and store of fyled Phraze - Enough t’ astoune the doltish Drone, and lumpish Lout amaze, - Thy Enterludes, thy gallant Layes, thy Rond’letts and thy Songes, - Thy Nosegay and thy Widowes’ Mite, with that thereto belonges.... - ... Descendinge then in riper years to stuffe of further reache, - Thy schooled Quill by deeper skill did graver matters teache, - And now to knit a perfect Knot; In winter of thine age - Such argument thou chosen hast for this thy Style full sage. - As far surmounts the Residue. - -Newton’s account of his friend’s poetic evolution seems to assign his -‘enterludes’ to an early period of mainly secular verse; but if this -preceded his _Certayne Psalmes_ of 1550, which are surely of ‘graver -matters’, it must have gone back to Henry VIII’s reign, far away from -his Mastership. On the other hand, Hunnis was certainly contributing -secular verse and devices to the Kenilworth festivities (cf. s.v. -Gascoigne) only three years before Newton wrote. Mrs. Stopes suggests, -with some plausibility, that the Amargana songs of _England’s Helicon_ -may come from an interlude. She also assigns to Hunnis, by conjecture, -_Godly Queen Hester_, in which stress is laid on Hester’s Chapel Royal, -and _Jacob and Esau_ (1568, S. R. 1557–8), which suggests gardens. - - -LEONARD HUTTEN (_c._ 1557–1632). - -Possibly the author of the academic _Bellum Grammaticale_ (cf. App. K). - - -THOMAS INGELEND. - -Lee (_D. N. B._) conjecturally identifies Ingelend with a man of the -same name who married a Northamptonshire heiress. - - _The Disobedient Child, c. 1560_ - -_S. R._ 1569–70. ‘An enterlude for boyes to handle and to passe tyme -at christinmas.’ _Thomas Colwell_ (Arber, i. 398). [The method of -exhaustions points to this as the entry of the play.] - -N.D. A pretie and Mery new Enterlude: called the Disobedient Child. -Compiled by Thomas Ingelend late Student in Cambridge. _Thomas Colwell._ - -_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1848, _Percy Soc._ lxxv), in Dodsley^4 -(1874, ii), and by J. S. Farmer (1908, _T. F. T._).--_Dissertation_: F. -Holthausen, _Studien zum älteren englischen Drama_ (1902, _E. S._ xxxi. -90). - -J. Bolte, _Vahlen-Festschrift_, 594, regards this as a translation of -the _Iuvenis, Pater, Uxor_ of J. Ravisius Textor (_Dialogi_, ed. 1651, -71), which Holthausen reprints, but which is only a short piece in one -scene. Brandl, lxxiii, traces the influence of the _Studentes_ (1549) -of Christopherus Stymmelius (Bahlmann, _Lat. Dr._ 98). The closing -prayer is for Elizabeth. - - -JAMES I (1566–1625). - - _An Epithalamion on the Marquis of Huntly’s Marriage. - 21 July 1588_ - -R. S. Rait, _Lusus Regis_ (1901), 2, printed from _Bodleian MS._ 27843 -verses by James I, which he dated _c._ 1581. The occasion and correct -date are supplied by another text, with a title, in A. F. Westcott, -_New Poems of James I_ (1911). The bridal pair were George Gordon, -6th Earl and afterwards 1st Marquis of Huntly, and Henrietta Stuart, -daughter of Esme, Duke of Lennox. The verses consist of a hymeneal -dialogue, with a preliminary invocation by the writer, and speeches by -Mercury, Nimphes, Agrestis, Skolar, Woman, The Vertuouse Man, Zani, -The Landvart Gentleman, The Soldat. The earlier lines seem intended to -accompany a tilting at the ring or some such contest, but at l. 74 is a -reference to the coming of ‘strangers in a maske’. - -Westcott, lviii, says that James helped William Fowler in devising a -mimetic show for the banquet at the baptism of Prince Henry on 23 Aug. -1594. - - -JOHN JEFFERE (?-?). - -Nothing is known of him, beyond his possible authorship of the -following play: - - _The Bugbears. 1563 <_ - -[_MS._] _Lansdowne MS._ 807, f. 57. [The MS. contains the relics -of John Warburton’s collection, and on a slip once attached to the -fly-leaf is his famous list of burnt plays, which includes ‘Bugbear -C. Jo^n. Geffrey’ (Greg in _3 Library_, ii. 232). It appears to be -the work of at least five hands, of which one, acting as a corrector, -as well as a scribe, may be that of the author. The initials J. B. -against a line or two inserted at the end do not appear to be his, but, -as there was no single scribe, he may be writer of a final note to -the text, written in printing characters, ‘Soli deo honor et gloria -Johannus Jeffere scribebat hoc’. This note is followed by the songs and -their music, and at the top of the first is written ‘Giles peperel for -Iphiginia’. On the last page are the names ‘Thomas Ba ...’ and ‘Frances -Whitton’, which probably do not indicate authorship. A title-page may -be missing, and a later hand has written at the head of the text, ‘The -Buggbears’.] - -_Editions_ by C. Grabau (1896–7, _Archiv_, xcviii. 301; xcix. 311) and -R. W. Bond (1911, _E. P. I._).--_Dissertation_: W. Dibelius (_Archiv_, -cxii. 204). - -The play is an adaptation of A. F. Grazzini, _La Spiritata_ (1561), and -uses also material from J. Weier (_De Praestigiis Daemonum_) (1563) and -from the life of Michel de Nôtredame (Nostradamus), not necessarily -later than his death in 1566. Bond is inclined to date the play, partly -on metrical grounds, about 1564 or 1565. Grabau and Dibelius suggest a -date after 1585, apparently under the impression that the name Giles -in the superscription to the music may indicate the composition of -Nathaniel Giles, of the Chapel Royal, who took his Mus. Bac. in 1585. -But the name, whether of a composer, or of the actor of the part of -Iphigenia, is Giles Peperel. The performers were ‘boyes’, but the -temptation to identify the play with the _Effiginia_ shown by Paul’s at -Court on 28 Dec. 1571 is repressed by the description of _Effiginia_ in -the Revels account as a ‘tragedye’, whereas _The Bugbears_ is a comedy. -Moreover, Iphigenia is not a leading part, although one added by the -English adapter. - - -LAURENCE JOHNSON (_c._ 1577). - -A possible author of _Misogonus_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - -BENJAMIN JONSON (1572–1637). - -Benjamin Johnson, or Jonson, as he took the fancy to spell his name, -was born, probably on 11 June 1572, at Westminster, after the death -of his father, a minister, of Scottish origin. He was withheld, or -withdrawn, from the University education justified by his scholastic -attainments at Westminster to follow his step-father’s occupation -of bricklaying, and when this proved intolerable, he served as a -soldier in the Netherlands. In a prologue to _The Sad Shepherd_, left -unfinished at his death in August 1637, he describes himself as ‘He -that has feasted you these forty years’, and by 1597 at latest his -connexion with the stage had begun. Aubrey tells us (ii. 12, 226) that -he ‘acted and wrote, but both ill, at the Green Curtaine, a kind of -nursery or obscure play-house, somewhere in the suburbes (I thinke -towards Shoreditch or Clarkenwell)’, and again that he ‘was never a -good actor, but an excellent instructor’. The earliest contemporary -records, however, show Jonson not at the Curtain, but on the Bankside. -On 28 July 1597 Henslowe (i. 200) recorded a personal loan to ‘Bengemen -Johnson player’ of £4 ‘to be payd yt agayne when so euer ether I or any -for me shall demande yt’, and on the very same day he opened on another -page of his diary (i. 47) an account headed ‘Received of Bengemenes -Johnsones share as ffoloweth 1597’ and entered in it the receipt of -a single sum of 3_s._ 9_d._, to which no addition was ever made. Did -these entries stand alone, one would infer, on the analogy of other -transactions of Henslowe’s and from the signatures of two Admiral’s -men as witnesses to the loan, that Jonson had purchased a share in -the Admiral’s company for £4, that he borrowed the means to do this -from Henslowe, and that Henslowe was to recoup himself by periodical -deductions from the takings of the company as they passed through his -hands. But there is no other evidence that Jonson ever had an interest -in the Admiral’s, and there are facts which, if one could believe that -Henslowe would regard the takings of any company but the Admiral’s as -security for a loan, would lead to the conclusion that Jonson’s ‘share’ -was with Pembroke’s men at the Swan. The day of Henslowe’s entries, -28 July 1597, is the very day on which the theatres were suppressed -as a result of the performance of _The Isle of Dogs_ (cf. App. D, No. -cx), and it is hardly possible to doubt that Jonson was one of the -actors who had a hand with Nashe (q.v.) in that play. The Privy Council -registers record his release, with Shaw and Spencer of Pembroke’s -men, from the Marshalsea on 3 Oct. 1597 (Dasent, xxviii. 33; cf. App. -D, No. cxii); while Dekker in _Satiromastix_ (l. 1513) makes Horace -admit that he had played Zulziman in Paris Garden, and Tucca upbraid -him because ‘when the Stagerites banisht thee into the Ile of Dogs, -thou turn’dst Bandog (villanous Guy) & ever since bitest’. The same -passage confirms Aubrey’s indication that Jonson was actor, and a bad -actor, as well as poet. ‘Thou putst vp a supplication’, says Tucca, ‘to -be a poor iorneyman player, and hadst beene still so, but that thou -couldst not set a good face vpon ’t: thou hast forgot how thou amblest -(in leather pilch) by a play-wagon, in the high way, and took’st mad -Ieronimoes part, to get seruice among the mimickes.’ Elsewhere (l. 633) -Tucca taunts him that ‘when thou ranst mad for the death of Horatio, -thou borrowedst a gowne of Roscius the stager, (that honest Nicodemus) -and sentst it home lowsie’. This imprisonment for the _Isle of Dogs_ -is no doubt the ‘bondage’ for his ‘first error’ to which Jonson refers -in writing to Salisbury about _Eastward Ho!_ in 1605, and the ‘close -imprisonment, under Queen Elizabeth’, during which he told Drummond he -was beset by spies (Laing, 19). Released, Jonson borrowed 5_s._ more -from Henslowe (i. 200) on 5 Jan. 1598, and entered into a relationship -with him and the Admiral’s as a dramatist, which lasted intermittently -until 1602. It was broken, not only by plays for the King’s men, -whose employment of him, which may have been at the Curtain, was due, -according to Rowe, to the critical instinct of Shakespeare (H.-P. -ii. 74), and for the Chapel children when these were established at -Blackfriars in 1600, but also by a quarrel with Gabriel Spencer, whose -death at his hands during a duel with swords in Hoxton Fields on 22 -Sept. 1598 was ‘harde & heavey’ news to Henslowe (_Henslowe Papers_, -48) and brought Jonson to trial for murder, from which he only escaped -by reading his neck-verse (Jeaffreson, _Middlesex County Records_, -i. xxxviii; iv. 350; cf. Laing, 19). Jonson’s pen was critical, and -to the years 1600–2 belongs the series of conflicts with other poets -and with the actors generically known as the _Poetomachia_ or Stage -Quarrel (cf. ch. xi). Meanwhile Jonson, perhaps encouraged by his -success in introducing a mask into _Cynthia’s Revels_ (1601), seems to -have conceived the ambition of becoming a Court poet. At first he was -not wholly successful, and the selection of Daniel to write the chief -Christmas mask of 1603–4 appears to have provoked an antagonism between -the two poets, which shows itself in Jonson’s qualified acknowledgement -to Lady Rutland of the favours done him by Lady Bedford (_Forest_, xii): - - though she have a better verser got, - (Or poet, in the court-account) than I, - And who doth me, though I not him envy, - -and long after in the remark to Drummond (Laing, 10) that ‘Daniel was -at jealousies with him’. But the mask was a form of art singularly -suited to Jonson’s genius. In the next year he came to his own, and -of ten masks at Court during 1605–12 not less than eight are his. -This employment secured him a considerable vogue as a writer of -entertainments and complimentary verses, and a standing with James -himself, with the Earl of Salisbury, and with other persons of honour, -which not only brought him pecuniary profit, but also enabled him to -withstand the political attacks made upon _Sejanus_, for which he was -haled before the Council, and upon _Eastward Ho!_, for which he was -once more imprisoned. During this period he continued to write plays, -with no undue frequency, both for the King’s men and for the Queen’s -Revels and their successors, the Lady Elizabeth’s. As a rule, he had -published his plays, other than those bought by Henslowe, soon after -they were produced, and in 1612 he seems to have formed the design of -collecting them, with his masks and occasional verses, into a volume -of Works. Probably the design was deferred, owing to his absence in -France as tutor to the son of Sir Walter Raleigh, from the autumn of -1612 (_M. P._ xi. 279) to some date in 1613 earlier than 29 June, when -he witnessed the burning of the Globe (_M. L. R._ iv. 83). For the -same reason he took no part in the masks for the Princess Elizabeth’s -wedding at Shrovetide. But he returned in time for that of the Earl of -Somerset at Christmas 1613, and wrote three more masks before his folio -_Works_ actually appeared in 1616. In the same year he received a royal -pension of 100 marks. - -Jonson’s later life can only be briefly summarized. During a visit to -Scotland he paid a visit to William Drummond of Hawthornden in January -1619, and of his conversation his host took notes which preserve many -biographical details and many critical utterances upon the men, books, -and manners of his time. In 1621 (cf. ch. iii) he obtained a reversion -of the Mastership of the Revels, which he never lived to enjoy. His -masks continued until 1631, when an unfortunate quarrel with Inigo -Jones brought them to an end. His play-writing, dropped after 1616, -was resumed about 1625, and to this period belong his share in _The -Bloody Brother_ of the Beaumont and Fletcher series, _The Staple of -News_, _The New Inn_, _The Magnetic Lady_, and _The Tale of a Tub_. -In 1637, probably on 6 August, he died. He had told Drummond ‘that -the half of his comedies were not in print’, as well as that ‘of all -his playes he never gained two hundreth pounds’ (Laing, 27, 35), and -in 1631 he began the publication, by instalments, of a second volume -of his Works. This was completed after his death, with the aid of Sir -Kenelm Digby, in 1640 and 1641. But it did not include _The Case is -Altered_, the printing of which in 1609 probably lacked his authority, -or the Henslowe plays, of which his manuscripts, if he had any, may -have perished when his library was burnt in 1623. - - _Collections_ - - _F_{1}_ (_1616_) - -_S. R._ 1615, Jan. 20 (Tavernour). William Stansbye, ‘Certayne Masques -at the Court never yet printed written by Ben Johnson’ (Arber, iii. -562). - -1616. The Workes of Beniamin Jonson. _W. Stansby, sold by Rich. -Meighen._ [Contains (_a_) commendatory verses, some reprinted from Qq, -signed ‘I. Selden I.C.’, ‘Ed. Heyward’, ‘Geor. Chapman’, ‘H. Holland’, -‘I. D.’, ‘E. Bolton’, and for three sets ‘Franc. Beaumont’; (_b_) nine -plays, being all printed in Q, except _The Case is Altered_; (_c_) -the five early entertainments; (_d_) the eleven early masks and two -barriers, with separate title-page ‘Masques at Court, London, 1616’; -(_e_) non-dramatic matter. For bibliographical details on both Ff., -see B. Nicholson, _B. J.’s Folios and the Bibliographers_ (1870, _4 N. -Q._ v. 573); Greg, _Plays_, 55, and _Masques_, xiii, 11; G. A. Aitken, -_B. J.’s Works_ (_10 N. Q._ xi. 421); the introductions to the Yale -editions; and B. A. P. van Dam and C. Stoffel, _The Authority of the B. -J. Folio of 1616_ (1903, _Anglia_, xxvi. 377), whose conclusion that -Jonson did not supervise F_{1} is not generally accepted. It is to be -noted that, contrary to the usual seventeenth-century practice, some, -and possibly all, of the dates assigned to productions in F_{1} follow -the Circumcision and not the Annunciation style; cf. Thorndike, 17, -whose demonstration leaves it conceivable that Jonson only adopted the -change of style from a given date, say, 1 Jan. 1600, when it came into -force in Scotland.] - - _F_{2}_ (_1631–41_) - -1640. The Workes of Beniamin Jonson. _Richard Bishop, sold by Andrew -Crooke._ [Same contents as F_{1}.] - -1640. The Workes of Benjamin Jonson. The second volume. Containing -these Playes, Viz. 1 Bartholomew Fayre. 2 The Staple of Newes. 3 The -Divell is an Asse. _For Richard Meighen._ [Contains (_a_) reissue of -folio sheets of three plays named with separate title-pages of 1631; -(_b_) _The Magnetic Lady_, _A Tale of a Tub_, _The Sad Shepherd_, -_Mortimer his Fall_; (_c_) later masks; (_d_) non-dramatic matter. The -editor is known to have been Sir Kenelm Digby.] - -_S. R._ 1658, Sept. 17. ‘A booke called Ben Johnsons Workes ye 3^d -volume containing these peeces, viz^t. Ffifteene masques at court and -elsewhere. Horace his art of Poetry Englished. English Gramar. Timber -or Discoveries. Underwoods consisting of divers poems. The Magnetick -Lady. A Tale of a Tub. The sad shephard or a tale of Robin hood. The -Devill is an asse. Salvo iure cuiuscunque. _Thomas Walkley_ (Eyre, -ii. 196). - -1658, Nov. 20. Transfer of ‘Ben Johnsons workes ye 3^d vol’ from -Walkley to Humphrey Moseley (Eyre, ii. 206). [Neither Walkley nor -Moseley ever published the _Works_.] - - _F_{3}_ (_1692_) - -1692. The Works of Ben Jonson, Which were formerly Printed in Two -Volumes, are now Reprinted in One. To which is added a Comedy, called -the New Inn. With Additions never before Published. _Thomas Hodgkin, -for H. Herringham_ [&c.]. - -The more important of the later collections are: - -1756. P. Whalley, _The Works of B. J._ 7 vols. [Adds _The Case is -Altered_.] - -1816, 1846. W. Gifford, _The Works of B. J._ 9 vols. - -1828. J. Nichols, _The Progresses, Processions and Magnificent -Festivities of King James the First_. 4 vols. [Prints the masks.] - -1871, &c. W. Gifford, edited by F. Cunningham, _The Works of B. J._ 3 -vols. - -1875. W. Gifford, edited by F. Cunningham, _The Works of B. J._ 9 vols. - -1893–5. B. Nicholson, _The Best Plays of B. J._ 3 vols. (_Mermaid -Series_). [The nine plays of F_{1}.] - -1905–8 (_in progress_). W. Bang, _B. J.’s Dramen in Neudruck -herausgegeben nach der Folio 1616_. (_Materialien_, vi.) - -1906. H. C. Hart, _The Plays of B. J._ 2 vols. (_Methuen’s Standard -Library_). [_Case is Altered_, _E. M. I._, _E. M. O._, _Cynthia’s -Revels_, _Poetaster_.] - -In the absence of a complete modern critical edition, such as is -promised by C. H. Herford and P. Simpson from the Clarendon Press, -reference must usually be made to the editions of single plays in the -_Yale Studies_ and _Belles Lettres Series_. - -_Select Dissertations_: W. R. Chetwood, _Memoirs of the Life and -Writings of B. J._ (1756); O. Gilchrist, _An Examination of the -Charges of B. J.’s Enmity to Shakespeare_ (1808), _A Letter to W. -Gifford_ (1811); D. Laing, _Notes of B. J.’s Conversations with -Drummond of Hawthornden_ (1842, _Sh. Soc._); B. Nicholson, _The -Orthography of B. J.’s Name_ (1880, _Antiquary_, ii. 55); W. Wilke, -_Metrische Untersuchungen zu B. J._ (1884, _Halle diss._), _Anwendung -der Rhyme-test und Double-endings test auf. B. J.’s Dramen_ (1888, -_Anglia_, x. 512); J. A. Symonds, _B. J._ (1888, _English Worthies_); -A. C. Swinburne, _A Study of B. J._ (1889); P. Aronstein, _B. J.’s -Theorie des Lustspiels_ (1895, _Anglia_, xvii. 466), _Shakespeare and -B. J._ (1904, _E. S._ xxxiv. 193); _B. J._ (1906, _Literarhistorische -Forschungen_, xxxiv); E. Koeppel, _Quellen-Studien zu den Dramen B. -J.’s, John Marston’s, und Beaumont und Fletcher’s_ (1895, _Münchener -Beiträge_, xi), _B. J.’s Wirkung auf zeitgenössische Dramatiker_ (1906, -_Anglistische Forschungen_, xx); J. H. Penniman, _The War of the -Theatres_ (1897, _Pennsylvania Univ. Series_, iv. 3); E. Woodbridge, -_Studies in J.’s Comedy_ (1898, _Yale Studies_, v); R. A. Small, _The -Stage-Quarrel between B. J. and the so-called Poetasters_ (1899); B. -Dobell, _Newly Discovered Documents_ (1901, _Athenaeum_, i. 369, 403, -433, 465); J. Hofmiller, _Die ersten sechs Masken B. J.’s in ihrem -Verhältnis zur antiken Literatur_ (1901, _Freising progr._); H. C. -Hart, _B. J., Gabriel Harvey and Nash_, &c. (1903–4, _9 N. Q._ xi. 201, -281, 343, 501; xii. 161, 263, 342, 403, 482; _10 N. Q._ i. 381); G. -Sarrazin, _Nym und B. J._ (1904, _Jahrbuch_, xl. 212); M, Castelain, -_B. J., l’Homme et l’Œuvre_ (1907); _Shakespeare and B. J._ (1907, -_Revue Germanique_, iii. 21, 133); C. R. Baskervill, _English Elements -in J.’s Early Comedy_ (1911, _Texas Univ. Bulletin_, 178); W. D. -Briggs, _Studies in B. J._ (1913–14, _Anglia_, xxxvii. 463; xxxviii. -101), _On Certain Incidents in B. J.’s Life_ (1913, _M. P._ xi. 279), -_The Birth-date of B. J._ (1918, _M. L. N._ xxxiii. 137); G. Gregory -Smith, _Ben Jonson_ (1919, _English Men of Letters_); J. Q. Adams, _The -Bones of Ben Jonson_ (1919, _S. P._ xvi. 289). For fuller lists, see -Castelain, xxiii, and _C. H._ vi. 417. - - PLAYS - - _The Case is Altered. 1597 (?)-1609_ - -_S. R._ 1609, Jan. 26 (Segar, ‘deputy to Sir George Bucke’). ‘A booke -called The case is altered.’ _Henry Walley_, _Richard Bonion_ (Arber, -iii. 400). - -1609, July 20. ‘Entred for their copie by direction of master Waterson -warden, a booke called the case is altered whiche was entred for H. -Walley and Richard Bonyon the 26 of January last.’ _Henry Walley_, -_Richard Bonyon_, _Bartholomew Sutton_ (Arber, iii. 416). - -1609. [Three issues, with different t.ps.] - -(_a_) Ben: Ionson, His Case is Alterd. As it hath beene sundry times -Acted by the Children of the Blacke-friers. _For Bartholomew Sutton._ -[B.M. 644, b. 54.] - -(_b_) A Pleasant Comedy, called: The Case is Alterd. As it hath beene -sundry times acted by the children of the Black-friers. Written by Ben. -Ionson. _For Bartholomew Sutton and William Barrenger._ [B.M. T. 492 -(9); Bodl.; W. A. White.] - -(_c_) A Pleasant Comedy, called: The Case is Alterd. As it hath -been sundry times acted by the children of the Black-friers. _For -Bartholomew Sutton and William Barrenger._ [Devonshire.] - -_Edition_ by W. E. Selin (1917, _Yale Studies_, lvi).--_Dissertation_: -C. Crawford, _B. J.’s C. A.: its Date_ (1909, _10 N. Q._ xi. 41). - -As Nashe, _Lenten Stuff_ (_Works_, iii. 220), which was entered in S. -R. on 11 Jan. 1599, refers to ‘the merry coblers cutte in that witty -play of _the Case is altered_’, and as I. i chaffs Anthony Munday as -‘in print already for the best plotter’, alluding to the description of -him in Francis Meres’s _Palladis Tamia_ (S. R. 7 Sept. 1598), the date -would seem at first sight to be closely fixed to the last few months of -1598. But I. i has almost certainly undergone interpolation. Antonio -Balladino, who appears in this scene alone, and whose dramatic function -is confused with that later (II. vii) assigned to Valentine, is only -introduced for the sake of a satirical portrait of Munday. He is -‘pageant poet to the City of Milan’, at any rate ‘when a worse cannot -be had’. He boasts that ‘I do use as much stale stuff, though I say it -myself, as any man does in that kind’, and again, ‘An they’ll give me -twenty pound a play, I’ll not raise my vein’. Some ‘will have every -day new tricks, and write you nothing but humours’; this pleases the -gentlemen, but he is for ‘the penny’. Crawford points out that there -are four quotations from the play in Bodenham’s _Belvedere_ (1600), of -which Munday was the compiler, and suggests that he would have left it -alone had the ridicule of himself then been a part of it. I should put -the scene later still. Antonio makes an offer of ‘one of the books’ -of his last pageant, and as far as is known, although Munday may have -been arranging city pageants long before, the first which he printed -was that for 1605. Nor does the reference to plays of ‘tricks’ and -‘humours’ necessarily imply proximity to Jonson’s own early comedies, -for Day’s _Law Tricks_ and his _Humour out of Breath_, as well as -probably the anonymous _Every Woman in her Humour_, belong to 1604–8. -Moreover, the play was certainly on the stage about this time, since -the actors are called ‘Children of Blackfriars’, although of course -this would not be inconsistent with their having first produced it when -they bore some other name. The text is in an odd state. Up to the end -of Act III it has been arranged in scenes, on the principle usually -adopted by Jonson; after ‘Actus 3 [an error for 4] Scaene 1’ there is -no further division, and in Act V verse and prose are confused. As -Jonson was careful about the printing of his plays, as there is no -epistle, and as _C. A._ was left out of the Ff., there is some reason -to suppose that the publication in this state was not due to him. Is -it possible that Day, whom Jonson described to Drummond as a ‘rogue’ -and a ‘base fellow’, was concerned in this transaction? It is obvious -that, if I. i is a later addition, the original production may have -been earlier than 1598. And the original company is unknown. The mere -fact that the Children of the Blackfriars revived it shortly before -1609 does not in the least prove that it was originally written for -the Children of the Chapel. If Chapman’s _All Fools_ is a Blackfriars -revival of an Admiral’s play, _C. A._ might even more easily be a -Blackfriars revival of a play written, say, for the extinct Pembroke’s. -With the assumption that _C. A._ was a Chapel play disappears the -assumption that the Chapel themselves began their renewed dramatic -activities at a date earlier than the end of 1600. Selin shows a fair -amount of stylistic correspondence with Jonson’s other work, but it is -quite possible that, as suggested by Herford (_R. E. C._ ii. 9), he had -a collaborator. If so, Chapman seems plausible. - -_C. A._ has nothing to do with the _Poetomachia_. Hart (_9 N. Q._ xi. -501, xii. 161, 263) finds in the vocabulary of Juniper a parody of the -affected phraseology of Gabriel Harvey, and in the critical attitude of -Valentine a foreshadowing of such autobiographical studies as that of -Asper in _E. M. O._ His suggestion that the cudgel-play between Onion -and Martino in II. vii represents the controversy between Nashe and -Martin Marprelate is perhaps less plausible. Nashe would be very likely -to think the chaff of Harvey ‘witty’. - - _Every Man In his Humour. 1598_ - -_S. R._ [1600], Aug. 4. ‘Euery man in his humour, a booke ... to be -staied’ (Arber, iii. 37). [_As You Like It_, _Henry V_, and _Much -Ado about Nothing_ are included in the entry, which appears to be an -exceptional memorandum. The year 1600 is conjectured from the fact that -the entry follows another of May 1600.] - -1600, Aug. 14 (Pasfield). ‘A booke called Euery man in his humour.’ -_Burby and Walter Burre_ (Arber, iii. 169). - -1609, Oct. 16. Transfer of Mrs. Burby’s share to Welby (Arber, iii. -421). - -1601. Every Man In his Humor. As it hath beene sundry times publickly -acted by the right Honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. -Written by Ben. Iohnson. _For Walter Burre._ - -1616. Euery Man In His Humour. A Comœdie. Acted in the yeere 1598. -By the then Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants. The Author B. I. _By -William Stansby._ [Part of F_{1}. Epistle to William Camden, signed -‘Ben. Ionson’, and Prologue. After text: ‘This Comoedie was first -Acted, in the yeere 1598. By the then L. Chamberlayne his Seruants. -The principall Comœdians were, Will. Shakespeare, Ric. Burbadge, -Aug. Philips, Ioh. Hemings, Hen. Condel, Tho. Pope, Will. Slye, Chr. -Beeston, Will. Kempe, Ioh. Duke. With the allowance of the Master of -Revells.’] - -_Editions_ by W. Scott (1811, _M. B. D._ iii), H. B. Wheatley (1877), -W. M. Dixon (1901, _T. D._), H. Maas (1901, _Rostock diss._), W. A. -Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._), C. H. Herford (1913, _R. E. C._ ii), P. -Simpson (1919), H. H. Carter (1921, _Yale Studies_, lii), and facsimile -reprints of Q_{1} by C. Grabau (1902, _Jahrbuch_, xxxviii. 1), W. -Bang and W. W. Greg (1905, _Materialien_, x).--_Dissertations_: A. -Buff, _The Quarto Edition of B. J.’s E. M. I._ (1877, _E. S._ i. 181), -B. Nicholson, _On the Dates of the Two Versions of E. M. I._ (1882, -_Antiquary_, vi. 15, 106). - -The date assigned by F_{1} is confirmed by an allusion (IV. iv. 15) to -the ‘fencing Burgullian’ or Burgundian, John Barrose, who challenged -all fencers in that year, and was hanged for murder on 10 July (Stowe, -_Annales_, 787). The production must have been shortly before 20 Sept, -when Toby Mathew wrote to Dudley Carleton (_S. P. D. Eliz._ cclxviii. -61; Simpson, ix) of an Almain who lost 300 crowns at ‘a new play -called, Euery mans humour’. Two short passages were taken from the -play in R. Allot’s _England’s Parnassus_ (1600, ed. Crawford, xxxii. -110, 112, 436) which is earlier than Q_{1}. The Q_{1} text (I. i. 184) -contains a hit at Anthony Munday in ‘that he liue in more penurie of -wit and inuention, then eyther the Hall-Beadle, or Poet Nuntius’. -This has disappeared from F_{1}, which in other respects represents a -complete revision of the Q_{1} text. Many passages have been improved -from a literary point of view; the scene has been transferred from -Italy to London and the names anglicized; the oaths have all been -expunged or softened. Fleay, i. 358, finding references to a ‘queen’ in -F_{1} for the ‘duke’ of Q_{1} and an apparent dating of St. Mark’s Day -on a Friday, assigned the revision to 1601, and conjectured that it was -done by Jonson for the Chapel, that the Chamberlain’s published the Q -in revenge, and that Jonson tried to stay it. Here he is followed by -Castelain. But Q_{1} is a good edition and there is no sign whatever -that it had not Jonson’s authority, and as the entry in S. R. covers -other Chamberlain’s plays, it is pretty clear that the company caused -the ‘staying’. St. Mark’s Day did not, as Fleay thought, fall on a -Friday in 1601, and if it had, the dating is unchanged from Q_{1} and -the references to a queen may, as Simpson suggests, be due to Jonson’s -conscientious desire to preserve consistency with the original date of -1598. Nor is the play likely to have passed to the Chapel, since the -King’s men played it before James on 2 Feb. 1605 (cf. App. B). This -revival would be the natural time for a revision, and in fact seems to -me on the whole the most likely date, in spite of two trifling bits -of evidence which would fit in rather better a year later. These are -references to the siege of Strigonium or Graan (1595) as ten years -since (III. i. 103), and to a present by the Turkey company to the -Grand Signior (I. ii. 78), which was perhaps the gift worth £5,000 -sent about Christmas 1605 (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, xv. 3; xvii. 35; xx. -27). No doubt also the revision of oaths in Jacobean plays is usually -taken as due to the _Act against Abuses of Players_ (1606), although -it is conceivable that the personal taste of James may have required -a similar revision of plays selected for Court performance at an -earlier date. Or this particular bit of revision, which was done for -other plays before F_{1}, may be of later date than the rest. Simpson -is in favour, largely on literary grounds, for a revision in 1612, -in preparation for F_{1}. The Prologue, which is not in Q, probably -belongs to the revision, or at any rate to a revival later than 1598, -since it criticizes not only ‘Yorke, and Lancasters long jarres’, but -also plays in which ‘Chorus wafts you ore the seas’, as in _Henry V_ -(1599). These allusions would not come so well in 1612; on the other -hand, Simpson’s date would enable us to suppose that the play in which -the public ‘grac’d monsters’ was the _Tempest_ (cf. the similar jibe -in _Bartholomew Fair_). The character Matheo or Mathew represents a -young gull of literary tendencies, and is made to spout passages from, -or imitations of, Daniel’s verses. Perhaps this implies some indirect -criticism of Daniel, but it can hardly be regarded as a personal attack -upon him. - - _Every Man Out of his Humour. 1599_ - -_S. R._ 1600, April 8 (Harsnett). ‘A Comicall Satyre of euery man out -of his humour.’ _William Holme_ (Arber, iii. 159). - -1638, April 28. Transfer by Smethwicke to Bishop (Arber, iv. 417). - -Q_{1}, 1600. The Comicall Satyre of Every Man Out Of His Humor. As -it was first composed by the Author B. I. Containing more than hath -been Publickely Spoken or Acted. With the seuerall Character of euery -Person. _For William Holme._ [Names and description of Characters; -Publisher’s note, ‘It was not neere his thoughts that hath publisht -this, either to traduce the Authour; or to make vulgar and cheape, any -the peculiar & sufficient deserts of the Actors; but rather (whereas -many Censures flutter’d about it) to giue all leaue, and leisure, to -iudge with Distinction’; Induction, by Asper, who becomes Macilente -and speaks Epilogue, Carlo Buffone who speaks in lieu of Prologue, and -Mitis and Cordatus, who remain on stage as Grex or typical spectators.] - -Q_{2}, 1600. [_Peter Short_] _For William Holme_. [W. W. Greg (1920, -_4 Library_, i. 153) distinguished Q_{1}, of which he found a copy in -Brit. Mus. C. 34, i. 29, from Q_{2}, (Bodl. and Dyce).] - -Q_{3}, 1600. _For Nicholas Linge._ [‘A careless and ignorant reprint’ -(Greg) of Q_{1}.] - -F_{1}, 1616. Euery Man Out Of His Humour. A Comicall Satyre. Acted -in the yeere 1599. By the then Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants. The -Author B. I. _William Stansby for Iohn Smithwicke._ [Epistle to the -Inns of Court, signed ‘Ben. Ionson’. After text: ‘This Comicall Satyre -was first acted in the yeere 1599. By the then Lord Chamberlaine his -Seruants. The principall Comœdians were, Ric. Burbadge, Ioh. Hemings, -Aug. Philips, Hen. Condel, Wil. Sly, Tho. Pope. With the allowance of -the Master of Revels.’] - -_Facsimile reprints_ of Q_{1} by W. W. Greg and F. P. Wilson (1920, _M. -S. R._) and of Q_{2, 3} by W. Bang and W. W. Greg (1907, _Materialien_, -xvi, xvii).--_Dissertations_: C. A. Herpich, _Shakespeare and B. J. Did -They Quarrel?_ (1902, _9 N. Q._ ix. 282); Van Dam and C. Stoffel, _The -Authority of the B. J. Folio of 1616_ (1903, _Anglia_, xxvi. 377); W. -Bang, _B. J. und Castiglione’s Cortegiano_ (1906, _E. S._ xxxvi. 330). - -In the main the text of F_{1} follows that of Q_{1} with some slight -revision of wording and oaths. The arrangement of the epilogues is -somewhat different, but seems intended to represent the same original -stage history. In Q_{1} Macilente speaks an epilogue, ‘with Aspers -tongue (though not his shape)’, evidently used in the theatre as it -begs ‘The happier spirits in this faire-fild Globe’ to confirm applause - - as their pleasures Pattent: which so sign’d, - Our leane and spent Endeuours shall renue - Their Beauties with the _Spring_ to smile on you. - -Then comes a ‘Finis’ and on the next page, ‘It had another -_Catastrophe_ or Conclusion at the first Playing: which (διὰ τὸ -τὴν βασίλισσαν προσωποποιεῖσθαι) many seem’d not to relish it: and -therefore ’twas since alter’d: yet that a right-ei’d and solide -_Reader_ may perceiue it was not so great a part of the Heauen awry, -as they would make it; we request him but to looke downe vpon these -following Reasons.’ There follows an apology, from which it is clear -that originally Macilente was cured of his envious humour by the -appearance on the stage of the Queen; and this introduces a different -epilogue of the nature of an address to her. At the end of all comes -a short dialogue between Macilente, as Asper, and the _Grex_. There -is no mention of the Globe, but as the whole point of the objection -to this epilogue, which it is not suggested that Elizabeth herself -shared, lay in the miming of the Queen, one would take it, did the -Q_{1} stand alone, to have been, like its substitute, a theatre and -not a Court epilogue. In F_{1}, however, we get successively (_a_) a -shortened version of the later epilogue, (_b_) the dialogue with the -_Grex_, followed by ‘The End’, and (_c_) a version of the original -epilogue, altered so as to make it less of a direct address and headed -‘Which, in the presentation before Queen E. was thus varyed’. It seems -to me a little difficult to believe that the play was given at Court -before it had been ‘practised’ in public performances, and I conclude -that, having suppressed the address to a mimic Elizabeth at the Globe, -Jonson revived it in a slightly altered form when he took the play -to Court at Christmas. As to the date of production, Fleay, i. 361, -excels himself in the suggestion that ‘the mention of “spring” and the -allusion to the company’s new “patent” for the Globe in the epilogue’ -fix it to _c._ April 1599. Even if this were the original epilogue, -it alludes to a coming and not a present spring, and might have been -written at any time in the winter, either before or after the New Year. -Obviously, too, there can be no allusion to an Elizabethan patent for -the Globe, which never existed. I do not agree with Small, 21, that -the Globe was not opened until early in 1600, nor do I think that any -inference can be drawn from the not very clear notes of dramatic time -in I. iii and III. ii. At first sight it seems natural to suppose that -the phrase ‘would I had one of Kempes shooes to throw after you’ (IV. -v) was written later than at any rate the planning of the famous morris -to Norwich, which lasted from 11 Feb. to 11 March 1600 and at the end -of which Kempe hung his shoes in Norwich Guildhall. Certainly it cannot -refer, as Fleay thinks, merely to Kempe’s leaving the Chamberlain’s -men. Conceivably it might be an interpolation of later date than the -original production. Creizenach, 303, however, points out that in 1599 -Thomas Platter saw a comedy in which a servant took off his shoe and -threw it at his master, and suggests that this was a bit of common-form -stage clownery, in which case the Norwich dance would not be concerned. -The performance described by Platter was in September or October, and -apparently at the Curtain (cf. ch. xvi, introd.). Kempe may quite -well have been playing then at the Curtain with a fresh company after -the Chamberlain’s moved to the Globe. Perhaps the episode had already -found a place in Phillips’s _Jig of the Slippers_, printed in 1595 -and now lost (cf. ch. xviii). If 1600 is the date of _E. M. O._, the -Court performance may have been that of 3 February, or perhaps more -probably may have fallen in the following winter, which would explain -the divergence between Q_{1} and F_{1} as to the epilogues. But it -must be remembered that the F_{1} date is 1599, and that most, if not -quite all, of the F_{1} dates follow Circumcision style, although -Jonson may not have adopted this style as early as 1600. On the whole, -I think that the balance of probability is distinctly in favour of -1599. If so, the production must have been fairly late in that year, -as there is a hit (III. i) at the _Histriomastix_ of the same autumn. -The play has been hunted through and through for personalities, most -of which are effectively refuted by Small. Most of the characters are -types rather than individuals, and social types rather than literary -or stage types. I do not think there are portraits of Daniel, Lyly, -Drayton, Donne, Chapman, Munday, Shakespeare, Burbadge, in the play or -its induction at all. Nor do I think there are portraits in the strict -sense of Marston and Dekker, although no doubt some parody of Marston’s -‘fustian’ vocabulary is put into the mouth of Clove (iii. 1), and, on -the other hand, the characters of Carlo Buffone and Fastidious Brisk -have analogies with the Anaides and Hedon of _Cynthia’s Revels_, and -these again with the Demetrius and Crispinus of _Poetaster_, who are -undoubtedly Dekker and Marston. But we know from Aubrey, ii. 184, that -Carlo was Charles Chester, a loose-tongued man about town, to whom -there are many contemporary references. To those collected by Small and -Hart (_10 N. Q._ i. 381) I may add Chamberlain, 7, Harington, _Ulysses -upon Ajax_ (1596), 58, and _Hatfield Papers_, iv. 210, 221; x. 287. -The practical joke of sealing up Carlo’s mouth with wax (V. iii) was, -according to Aubrey, played upon Chester by Raleigh, and there may be -traits of Raleigh in Puntarvolo, perhaps combined with others of Sir -John Harington, while Hart finds in the mouths both of Puntarvolo and -of Fastidious Brisk the vocabulary of Gabriel Harvey. The play was -revived at Court on 8 Jan. 1605. - - _Cynthia’s Revels. 1600–1_ - -_S. R._ 1601, May 23 (Pasfield). ‘A booke called Narcissus the -fountaine of self-love.’ _Walter Burre_ (Arber, iii. 185). - -1601. The Fountaine of Selfe-Loue. Or Cynthias Reuels. As it hath beene -sundry times priuately acted in the Black-Friers by the Children of -her Maiesties Chappell. Written by Ben: Iohnson. _For Walter Burre._ -[Induction, Prologue, and Epilogue.] - -1616. Cynthias Revels, Or The Fountayne of selfe-loue. A Comicall -Satyre. Acted in the yeere 1600. By the then Children of Queene -Elizabeth’s Chappel. The Author B. I. _William Stansby._ [Part of -F_{1}. Epistle to the Court, signed ‘Ben Ionson’, Induction, Prologue, -and Epilogue. After text: ‘This Comicall Satyre was first acted, in -the yeere 1600. By the then Children of Queene Elizabeths Chappell. -The principall Comœdians were, Nat. Field, Ioh. Underwood, Sal. Pavy, -Rob. Baxter, Tho. Day, Ioh. Frost. With the allowance of the Master of -Revells.’] - -_Edition_ by A. C. Judson (1912, _Yale Studies_, xlv), and facsimile -reprint of Q by W. Bang and L. Krebs (1908, _Materialien_, xxii). - -The difference between the Q and F_{1} texts amounts to more than mere -revision of wording and of oaths. _Criticus_ is renamed _Crites_, and -the latter half of the play is given in a longer form, parts of IV. i -and IV. iii, and the whole of V. i-iv appearing in F_{1} alone. I think -the explanation is to be found in a shortening of the original text -for representation, rather than in subsequent additions. Jonson’s date -for the play is 1600. This Small, 23, would translate as Feb. or March -1601, neglecting the difficulty due to the possibility that Jonson’s -date represents Circumcision style. He relies on V. xi, where Cynthia -says: - - For so Actaeon, by presuming farre, - Did (to our griefe) incurre a fatall doome; - ... But are we therefore judged too extreme? - Seemes it no crime, to enter sacred bowers, - And hallowed places, with impure aspect, - Most lewdly to pollute? - -Rightly rejecting the suggestion of Fleay, i. 363, that this alludes to -Nashe and the _Isle of Dogs_, Small refers it to the disgrace of Essex, -and therefore dates the play after his execution on 25 Feb. 1601. -But surely the presumption which Jonson has in mind is not Essex’s -rebellion, but his invasion of Elizabeth’s apartment on his return from -Ireland in 1599, and the ‘fatall doome’ is merely his loss of offices -in June 1600. I do not believe that a Court dramatist would have dared -to refer to Essex at all after 25 Feb. 1601. I feel little doubt that -the play was the subject of the Chapel presentation on 6 Jan. 1601, and -the description of this by the Treasurer of the Chamber as including -a ‘show’, which puzzled Small, is explained by the presence of a -full-blown Court mask in V. vii-x. The original production will have -been in the winter of 1600, soon after Evans set up the Chapel plays. -As to personalities, Small rightly rejects the identifications of Hedon -with Daniel, Anaides with Marston, and Asotus with Lodge. Amorphus -repeats the type of Puntarvolo from _E. M. O._ and like Puntarvolo -may show traces of the Harveian vocabulary. As _Satiromastix_, I. ii. -191, applies to Crispinus and Demetrius the descriptions (III. iii) -of Hedon as ‘a light voluptuous reveller’ and Anaides as ‘a strange -arrogating puff’, it seems clear that Marston and Dekker, rightly or -wrongly, fitted on these caps. Similarly, there is a clear attempt in -_Satiromastix_, I. ii. 376, ‘You must be call’d Asper, and Criticus, -and Horace’, to charge Jonson with lauding himself as Criticus. But -the description of the ‘creature of a most perfect and diuine temper’ -in II. iii surely goes beyond even Jonson’s capacity of self-praise. I -wonder whether he can have meant Donne, whom he seems from a remark to -Drummond (Laing, 6) to have introduced as Criticus in an introductory -dialogue to the _Ars Poetica_. - -Of the three children who appear in the induction, both Q and F_{1} -name one as Jack. He might be either Underwood or Frost. Q alone -(l. 214) names another, who played Anaides, as Sall, i.e. Salathiel -Pavy. An interesting light is thrown on the beginnings of the Chapel -enterprise by the criticism (_Ind._ 188), ‘They say, the _Vmbrae_, or -Ghosts of some three or foure Playes, departed a dozen yeares since, -haue been seene walking on your Stage here.’ - - _The Poetaster. 1601_ - -_S. R._ 1601, Dec. 21 (Pasfield). ‘A booke called Poetaster or his -arrainement.’ _Matthew Lownes_ (Arber, iii. 198). - -1602. Poetaster or The Arraignment: As it hath beene sundry times -priuately acted in the Blacke-Friers, by the Children of her Maiesties -Chappell. Composed by Ben. Iohnson. _For M. L._ [Prologue; after text, -Note to Reader: ‘Here (Reader) in place of the Epilogue, was meant to -thee an Apology from the Author, with his reasons for the publishing of -this booke: but (since he is no lesse restrain’d, then thou depriv’d of -it by Authoritie) hee praies thee to think charitably of what thou hast -read, till thou maist heare him speake what hee hath written.’] - -1616. Poëtaster, Or His Arraignement. A Comicall Satyre, Acted, in the -yeere 1601. By the then Children of Queene Elizabeths Chappel. The -Author B. I. _W. Stansby for M. Lownes._ [Part of F_{1}. Epistle to -Richard Martin, by ‘Ben. Ionson’; Prologue. After text, Note to Reader, -with ‘an apologeticall Dialogue: which was only once spoken vpon the -stage, and all the answere I euer gaue, to sundry impotent libells then -cast out (and some yet remayning) against me, and this Play’. After the -dialogue: ‘This comicall Satyre was first acted, in the yeere 1601. -By the then Children of Queene Elizabeths Chappell. The principall -Comœdians were, Nat. Field, Ioh. Vnderwood, Sal. Pavy, Will. Ostler, -Tho. Day, Tho. Marton. With the allowance of the Master of Revells.’] - -_Editions_ by H. S. Mallory (1905, _Yale Studies_, xxvii), J. H. -Penniman (1913, _B. L._). - -The play is admittedly an attack upon the poetaster represented as -Crispinus, and his identity is clear from Jonson’s own statement -to Drummond (Laing, 20) that ‘he had many quarrells with Marston, -beat him, and took his pistol from him, wrote his Poetaster on him’. -Marston’s vocabulary is elaborately ridiculed in V. iii. Nor is there -any reason to doubt that Demetrius Fannius, ‘a dresser of plaies about -the towne, here’, who has been ‘hir’d to abuse Horace, and bring him -in, in a play’ (III. iv. 367), is Dekker, who certainly associated -himself with Marston as a victim of Jonson’s arraignment, and wrote -_Satiromastix_ (q.v.) in reply. At the same time these characters -continue the types of Hedon and Anaides from _Cynthia’s Revels_, -although these were not literary men. Horace is Jonson himself, as the -rival portrait of Horace in _Satiromastix_ shows, while Dekker tells -us that Tucca is ‘honest Capten Hannam’, doubtless the Jack Hannam -traceable as a Captain under Drake in 1585; cf. the reference to him -in a letter of that year printed by F. P. Wilson in _M. L. R._ xv. 81. -Fleay, i. 367, has a long list of identifications of minor personages, -Ovid with Donne, Tibullus with Daniel, and so forth, all of which may -safely be laid aside, and in particular I do not think that the fine -eulogies of Virgil (V. i) are meant for Chapman, or for Shakespeare, -applicable as some of them are to him, or for any one but Virgil. On -the matter of identifications there is little to add to the admirable -treatment of Small, 25. But in addition to the personal attacks, -the play clearly contains a more generalized criticism of actors, -the challenge of which seems to have been specially taken up by the -Chamberlain’s men (cf. ch. xi), while there is evidence that Tucca -and, I suppose, Lupus were taken amiss by the soldiers and the lawyers -respectively. The latter at least were powerful, and in the epistle -to Martin Jonson speaks of the play as one ‘for whose innocence, -as for the Authors, you were once a noble and timely undertaker, to -the greatest Iustice of this Kingdome’, and on behalf of posterity -acknowledges a debt for ‘the reading of that ... which so much -ignorance, and malice of the times, then conspir’d to haue supprest’. -Evidently Jonson had not made matters better by his Apologetical -Dialogue, the printing of which with the play was restrained. In this -he denies that he - - tax’d - The Law, and Lawyers; Captaines; and the Players - By their particular names; - -but admits his intention to try and shame the - - Fellowes of practis’d and most laxative tongues, - -of whom he says, that during - - three yeeres, - They did provoke me with their petulant stiles - On every stage. - -Now he has done with it, will not answer the ‘libells’, or the -‘untrussers’ (i. e. _Satiromastix_), and is turning to tragedy. - -Jonson gives the date of production as 1601. The play followed -_Cynthia’s Revels_, criticisms on the epilogue of which inspired its -‘armed Prologue’, who sets a foot on Envy. Envy has been waiting -fifteen weeks since the plot was an ‘embrion’, and this is chaffed in -_Satiromastix_, I. ii. 447, ‘What, will he bee fifteene weekes about -this cockatrice’s egge too?’ Later (V. ii. 218) Horace is told, ‘You -and your itchy poetry breake out like Christmas, but once a yeare’. -This stung Jonson, who replied in the Apologetical Dialogue, - - _Polyposus._ They say you are slow, - And scarse bring forth a play a yeere. - _Author._ ’Tis true. - I would they could not say that I did that. - -The year’s interval must not be pressed too closely. On the other -hand, I do not know why Small, 25, assumes that the fifteen weeks -spent on the _Poetaster_ began directly after _Cynthia’s Revels_ was -produced, whatever that date may be. It must have come very near that -of _Satiromastix_, for Horace knows that Demetrius has been hired to -write a play on him. On the other hand, _Satiromastix_ cannot possibly -have been actually written until the contents of _Poetaster_ were known -to Dekker. The S. R. entry of _Satiromastix_ is 11 Nov. 1601, and the -two dates of production may reasonably be placed in the late spring or -early autumn of the same year. The Note to the Reader in Q shows that -the Dialogue had been restrained before _Poetaster_ itself appeared in -1602. Probably it was spoken in December between the two S. R. entries. -Hart (_9 N. Q._ xi. 202) assuming that the contemplated tragedy was -_Sejanus_ (q.v.) put it in 1603, but this is too late. - - _Sejanus. 1603_ - -_S. R._ 1604, Nov. 2 (Pasfield). ‘A booke called the tragedie of -Seianus written by Beniamin Johnson.’ _Edward Blunt_ (Arber, iii. 273). - -1605, Aug. 6. Transfer from Blount to Thomas Thorpe (Arber, iii. 297). - -1610, Oct. 3. Transfer from Thorpe to Walter Burre (Arber, iii. 445). - -1605. Seianus his fall. Written by Ben: Ionson. _G. Eld for Thomas -Thorpe._ [Epistle to Readers, signed ‘Ben. Jonson’; Commendatory -Verses, signed ‘Georgius Chapmannus’, ‘Hugh Holland’, ‘Cygnus’, ‘Th. -R.’, ‘Johannes Marstonius’, ‘William Strachey’, ‘ΦΙΛΟΣ’, ‘Ev. B.’; -Argument.] - -1616. Seianus his Fall. A Tragœdie. Acted, in the yeere 1603. By the -K. Maiesties Servants. The Author B. I. _William Stansby._ [Part of -F_{1}. Epistle to Esmé, Lord Aubigny, signed ‘Ben. Ionson’. After -text: ‘This Tragœdie was first acted, in the yeere 1603. By the Kings -Maiesties Servants. The principall Tragœdians were, Ric. Burbadge, -Will. Shake-Speare, Aug. Philips, Ioh. Hemings, Will. Sly, Hen. Condel, -Ioh. Lowin, Alex. Cooke. With the allowance of the Master of Revells.’] - -_Editions_ by W. D. Briggs (1911, _B. L._) and W. A. Neilson (1911, -_C. E. D._).--_Dissertations_: B. Nicholson, _Shakespeare not the -Part-Author of B. J.’s S._ (1874, _Acad._ ii. 536); W. A. Henderson, -_Shakespeare and S._ (1894, _8 N. Q._ v. 502). - -As the theatres were probably closed from Elizabeth’s death to March -1604, the production may have been at Court in the autumn or winter -of 1603, although, if _Sejanus_ is the something ‘high, and aloofe’ -contemplated at the end of the Apologetical Dialogue to _Poetaster_ -(q.v.), it must have been in Jonson’s mind since 1601. The epistle to -Aubigny admits the ‘violence’ which the play received in public, and -‘Ev. B.’s’ verses indicate that this ‘beastly rage’ was at the Globe. -Marston’s verses were presumably written before his renewed quarrel -with Jonson over _Eastward Ho!_ (q.v.), and there appears to be an -unkindly reference to _Sejanus_ in the epistle to his _Sophonisba_ -(1606). But either _Eastward Ho!_ or something else caused publication -to be delayed for nearly a year after the S. R. entry, since Chapman’s -verses contain a compliment to the Earl of Suffolk, - - Who when our Hearde came not to drink, but trouble - The Muses waters, did a Wall importune, - (Midst of assaults) about their sacred River, - -which seems to refer to his share in freeing Jonson and Chapman from -prison about Sept. or Oct. 1605. Chapman also has compliments to the -Earls of Northampton and Northumberland. It must therefore be to a -later date that Jonson referred, when he told Drummond (Laing, 22) that -‘Northampton was his mortall enimie for beating, on a St. George’s -day, one of his attenders; He was called before the Councell for his -Sejanus, and accused both of poperie and treason by him’. Fleay, i. -372, suggests that the reference at the end of the Q version of the -Argument to treason against princes, ‘for guard of whose piety and -vertue, the _Angels_ are in continuall watch, and _God_ himselfe -miraculously working’, implies publication after the discovery of the -Plot. On the other hand, one would have expected Chapman’s reference -to Northumberland, if not already printed, to be suppressed, in view -of the almost immediate suspicion of a connexion with the Plot that -fell upon him. Castelain, 907, considers, and rightly rejects, another -suggestion by Fleay that _Sejanus_ and not _Eastward Ho!_ was the cause -of the imprisonment of Jonson and Chapman in 1605. Fleay supposed that -Chapman was the collaborator of whom Jonson wrote in the Q epistle, ‘I -would informe you, that this Booke, in all numbers, is not the same -with that which was acted on the publike Stage, wherein a second pen -had good share; in place of which I have rather chosen, to put weaker -(and no doubt lesse pleasing) of mine own, then to defraud so happy -a _Genius_ of his right, by my lothed usurpation’. Shakespeare also -has been guessed at. If Jonson’s language was seriously meant, there -were not, of course, many contemporaries of whom he would have so -spoken. Probably the problem is insoluble, as the subject-matter of -it has disappeared. It is difficult to believe that the collaborator -was Samuel Sheppard, who in his _The Times Displayed in Six Sestyads_ -(1646) claims to have ‘dictated to’ Ben Jonson ‘when as Sejanus’ fall -he writ’. Perhaps he means ‘been amanuensis to’. - - _Eastward Ho!_ (_1605_) - -_With_ Chapman (q.v.) _and_ Marston. - - _Volpone_ or _The Fox. 1606_ - -[_MS._] J. S. Farmer (_Introd._ to _Believe As You List_ in _T. F. T._) -states that a holograph MS. is extant. He may have heard of a modern -text by L. H. Holt, used by J. D. Rea. If so, App. N is in error. - -_S. R._ 1610, Oct. 3. Transfer from Thomas Thorpe to Walter Burre of -‘2 bookes the one called, Seianus his fall, the other, Vulpone or the -ffoxe’ (Arber, iii. 445). - -1607. Ben: Ionson his Volpone Or The Foxe. _For Thomas Thorpe._ -[Dedicatory epistle by ‘Ben. Ionson’ to the two Universities, dated -‘From my House in the Black Friars, the 11^{th} day of February, 1607’; -Commendatory Verses, signed ‘I. D[onne]’, ‘E. Bolton’, ‘F[rancis] -B[eaumont]’, ‘T. R.’, ‘D. D.’, ‘I. C.’, ‘G. C.’, ‘E. S.’, ‘I. F.’; -Argument; Prologue and Epilogue.] - -1616. Volpone, or The Foxe. A Comœdie. Acted in the yeere 1605. By -the K. Maiesties Servants. The Author B. I. _William Stansby._ [Part -of F_{1}. After text: ‘This Comoedie was first acted, in the yeere -1605. By the Kings Maiesties Servants. The principall Comœdians were, -Ric. Burbadge, Ioh. Hemings, Hen. Condel, Ioh. Lowin, Will. Sly, Alex. -Cooke. With the allowance of the Master of Revells.’] - -_Editions_ by W. Scott (1811, _M. B. D._ iii) in _O. E. D._ (1830, -i) and by H. B. Wilkins (1906), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._), J. -D. Rea (1919, _Yale Studies_).--_Dissertations_: F. Holthausen, _Die -Quelle von B. J.’s V._ (1889, _Anglia_, xii. 519); J. Q. Adams, _The -Sources of B. J.’s V._ (1904, _M. P._ ii. 289); L. H. Holt, _Notes on -J.’s V._ (1905, _M. L. N._ xx. 63). - -Jonson dates the production 1605, and the uncertainty as to the style -he used leaves it possible that this may cover the earlier part of -1606. Fleay, i. 373, attempts to get nearer with the help of the news -from London brought to Venice by Peregrine in II. i. Some of this does -not help us much. The baboons had probably been in London as early as -1603 at least (cf. s.v. _Sir Giles Goosecap_). The Tower lioness had a -whelp on 5 Aug. 1604, another on 26 Feb. 1605, and two more on 27 July -1605 (Stowe, ed. 1615, 844, 857, 870). The ‘another whelp’ of _Volpone_ -would suggest Feb.–July 1605. On the other hand, the whale at Woolwich -is recorded by Stowe, 880, a few days after the porpoise at West Ham -(not ‘above the bridge’ as in _Volpone_) on 19 Jan. 1606. Holt argues -from this that, as Peregrine left England seven weeks before, the play -must have been produced in March 1606, but this identification of -actual and dramatic time can hardly be taken for granted. There are -also allusions to meteors at Berwick and a new star, both in 1604, and -to the building of a raven in a royal ship and the death of Stone the -fool, which have not been dated and might help. Gawdy, 146, writes on -18 June 1604 that ‘Stone was knighted last weeke, I meane not Stone the -foole, but Stone of Cheapsyde’. Stone the fool was whipped about March, -1605 (Winwood, ii. 52). The suggested allusion to _Volpone_ in Day’s -_Isle of Gulls_ (q.v.) of Feb. 1606 is rather dubious. The ambiguity of -style must also leave us uncertain whether Q and its dedication belong -to 1607 or 1608, and therefore whether ‘their love and acceptance -shewn to his poeme in the presentation’ by the Universities was in -1606 or 1607. This epistle contains a justification of Jonson’s comic -method. He has had to undergo the ‘imputation of sharpnesse’, but has -never provoked a ‘nation, societie, or generall order, or state’, or -any ‘publique person’. Nor has he been ‘particular’ or ‘personall’, -except to ‘a mimick, cheater, bawd, or buffon, creatures (for their -insolencies) worthy to be tax’d’. But that he has not wholly forgotten -the _Poetomachia_ is clear from a reference to the ‘petulant stiles’ of -other poets, while in the prologue he recalls the old criticism that he -was a year about each play, and asserts that he wrote _Volpone_ in five -weeks. The commendatory verses suggest that the play was successful. -Fleay’s theory that it is referred to in the epilogue to the anonymous -_Mucedorus_ (q.v.), as having given offence, will not bear analysis. -The passage in III. iv about English borrowings from Guarini and -Montaigne is too general in its application to be construed as a -specific attack on Daniel. But the gossip of Aubrey, ii. 246, on Thomas -Sutton, the founder of the Charterhouse, relates that ‘’Twas from him -that B. Johnson took his hint of the fox, and by Seigneur Volpone is -meant Sutton’. - - _Epicoene. 1609_ - -_S. R._ 1610, Sept. 20 (Buck). ‘A booke called, Epicoene or the silent -woman by Ben Johnson.’ _John Browne and John Busby_ (Arber, iii. 444). - -1612, Sept. 28. Transfer from Browne to Walter Burre (Arber, iii. 498). - -1609, 1612. Prints of both dates are cited, but neither is now -traceable. The former, in view of the S. R. date, can hardly have -existed; the latter appears to have been seen by Gifford, and for it -the commendatory verses by Beaumont, found at the beginning of F_{1}, -were probably written. - -1616. Epicoene, Or The silent Woman. A Comœdie. Acted in the yeere -1609. By the Children of her Maiesties Revells. The Author B. I. -_W. Stansby._ [Part of F_{1}. Epistle to Sir Francis Stuart, signed -‘Ben. Ionson’; Two Prologues, the second ‘Occasion’d by some persons -impertinent exception’; after text: ‘This Comœdie was first acted, -in the yeere 1609. By the Children of her Maiesties Revells. The -principall Comœdians were, Nat. Field, Will. Barksted, Gil. Carie, -Will. Pen, Hug. Attawel, Ric. Allin, Ioh. Smith, Ioh. Blaney. With the -allowance of the Master of Revells.’] - -1620. _William Stansby, sold by John Browne._ - -_Editions_ in _O. E. D._ (1830, iii) and by A. Henry (1906, _Yale -Studies_, xxxi) and C. M. Gayley (1913, _R. E. C._ ii). - -The first prologue speaks of the play as fit for ‘your men, and -daughters of _white-Friars’_, and at Whitefriars the play was probably -produced by the Revels children, either at the end of 1609, or, if -Jonson’s chronology permits, early in 1610. Jonson told Drummond -(Laing, 41) that, ‘When his play of a Silent Woman was first acted, -ther was found verses after on the stage against him, concluding that -that play was well named the Silent Woman, ther was never one man to -say _Plaudite_ to it’. Fleay, i. 374, suggests an equation between Sir -John Daw and Sir John Harington. In I. i. 86 Clerimont says of Lady -Haughty, the President of the Collegiates, ‘A poxe of her autumnall -face, her peec’d beautie’. I hope that this was not, as suggested by -H. J. C. Grierson, _Poems of Donne_, ii. 63, a hit at Lady Danvers, on -whom Donne wrote (Elegy ix): - - No _Spring_, nor _Summer_ Beauty hath such grace, - As I have seen in one _Autumnall_ face. - -In any case, I do not suppose that these are the passages which led to -the ‘exception’ necessitating the second prologue. This ends with the -lines: - - If any, yet, will (with particular slight - Of application) wrest what he doth write; - And that he meant or him, or her, will say: - They make a libell, which he made a play. - -Jonson evidently refers to the same matter in the Epistle, where -he says: ‘There is not a line, or syllable in it changed from the -simplicity of the first copy. And, when you shall consider, through the -certaine hatred of some, how much a mans innocency may bee indanger’d -by an vn-certaine accusation; you will, I doubt not, so beginne to -hate the iniquitie of such natures, as I shall loue the contumely done -me, whose end was so honorable, as to be wip’d off by your sentence.’ -I think the explanation is to be found in a dispatch of the Venetian -ambassador on 8 Feb. 1610 (_V. P._ xi. 427), who reports that Lady -Arabella Stuart ‘complains that in a certain comedy the playwright -introduced an allusion to her person and the part played by the Prince -of Moldavia. The play was suppressed.’ The reference may be to V. i. 17 -of the play: - - _La Foole._ He [_Daw_] has his boxe of instruments ... - to draw maps of euery place, and person, where he comes. - - _Clerimont._ How, maps of persons! - - _La Foole._ Yes, sir, of Nomentack, when he was here, and - of the Prince of _Moldauia_, and of his mistris, mistris - _Epicoene_. - - _Clerimont._ Away! he has not found out her latitude, I - hope. - -The Prince of Moldavia visited London in 1607 and is said to have been -a suitor for Arabella, but if Jonson’s text is really not ‘changed -from the simplicity of the first copy’, it is clear that Arabella -misunderstood it, since Epicoene was Daw’s mistress. - - _The Alchemist. 1610_ - -_S. R._ 1610, Oct. 3 (Buck). ‘A Comoedy called The Alchymist made by -Ben: Johnson.’ _Walter Burre_ (Arber, iii. 445). - -1612. The Alchemist. Written by Ben Ionson. _Thomas Snodham for Walter -Burre, sold by John Stepneth._ [Epistles to Lady Wroth, signed ‘Ben. -Jonson’ and to the Reader; Commendatory Verses, signed ‘George Lucy’; -Argument and Prologue.] - -1616. The Alchemist. A Comœdie. Acted in the yeere 1610. By the Kings -Maiesties Seruants. The author B. I. _W. Stansby._ [Part of F_{1}. -After text: ‘This Comoedie was first acted, in the yeere 1610. By the -Kings Maiesties Servants. The principall Comœdians were, Ric. Burbadge, -Ioh. Hemings, Ioh. Lowin, Will. Ostler, Hen. Condel, Ioh. Vnderwood, -Alex. Cooke, Nic. Tooley, Rob. Armin, Will. Eglestone. With the -allowance of the Master of Revells.’] - -_Editions_ by W. Scott (1811, _M. B. D._ iii), C. M. Hathaway (1903, -_Yale Studies_, xvii), H. C. Hart (1903, _King’s Library_), F. E. -Schelling (1903, _B. L._), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._), G. A. -Smithson (1913, _R. E. C._). - -Jonson’s date is confirmed by the references in II. vi. 31 and IV. iv. -29 to the age of Dame Pliant, who is 19 and was born in 1591. In view -of the S. R. entry, one would take the production to have fallen in -the earlier half of the year, before the plague reached forty deaths, -which it did from 12 July to 29 Nov. The action is set in plague-time, -but obviously the experience of 1609 and early years might suggest -this. Fleay, i. 375, and others following him argue that the action -of the play is confined to one day, that this is fixed by V. v. 102 -to ‘the second day of the fourth week in the eighth month’, and that -this must be 24 October. They are not deterred by the discrepancy -of this with III. ii. 129, which gives only a fifteen-days interval -before ‘the second day, of the third weeke, in the ninth month’, i. e. -on their principles 17 November. And they get over the S.R. entry by -assuming that Jonson planned to stage the play on 24 October and then, -finding early in October that the plague continued, decided to publish -it at once. This seems to me extraordinarily thin, in the absence of -clearer knowledge as to the system of chronology employed by Ananias -of Amsterdam. Aubrey, i. 213, says that John Dee ‘used to distill -egge-shells, and ’twas from hence that Ben Johnson had his hint of the -alkimist, whom he meant’. The play was given by the King’s men at Court -during 1612–13. - - _Catiline his Conspiracy. 1611_ - -1611. Catiline his Conspiracy. Written by Ben: Ionson. _For Walter -Burre._ [Epistles to William Earl of Pembroke, and to the Reader, both -signed ‘Ben. Jonson’; Commendatory Verses, signed ‘Franc: Beaumont’, -‘John Fletcher’, ‘Nat. Field’.] - -1616. Catiline his Conspiracy. A Tragoedie. Acted in the yeere 1611. By -the Kings Maiesties Seruants. The Author B. I. _William Stansby._ [Part -of F_{1}. After text: ‘This Tragœdie was first Acted, in the yeere -1611. By the Kings Maiesties Servants. The principall Tragœdians were, -Ric. Burbadge, Ioh. Hemings, Alex. Cooke, Hen. Condel, Ioh. Lowin, Ioh. -Underwood, Wil. Ostler, Nic. Tooly, Ric. Robinson, Wil. Eglestone.’] - -1635.... ‘now Acted by his Maiesties Servants’.... _N. Okes for I. S._ - -_Edition_ by L. H. Harris (1916, _Yale Studies_, -liii).--_Dissertation_: A. Vogt, _B. J.’s Tragödie C. und ihre Quellen_ -(1905, _Halle diss._). - - _Bartholomew Fair. 1614_ - -1631. Bartholomew Fayre: A Comedie, Acted in the Yeare, 1614. By the -Lady Elizabeths Seruants. And then dedicated to King Iames of most -Blessed Memorie; By the Author, Beniamin Iohnson. _I. B. for Robert -Allot._ [Part of F_{2}. Prologue to the King; Induction; Epilogue. -Jonson wrote (n.d.) to the Earl of Newcastle (_Harl. MS._ 4955, quoted -in Gifford’s memoir and by Brinsley Nicholson in _4 N. Q._ v. 574): ‘It -is the lewd printer’s fault that I can send ... no more of my book. I -sent you one piece before, The Fair, ... and now I send you this other -morsel, The fine gentleman that walks the town, The Fiend; but before -he will perfect the rest I fear he will come himself to be a part under -the title of The Absolute Knave, which he hath played with me.’] - -_Edition_ by C. S. Alden (1904, _Yale Studies_, xxv).--_Dissertation_: -C. R. Baskervill, _Some Parallels to B. F._ (1908, _M. P._ vi. 109). - -No dedication to James, other than the prologue and epilogue, appears -to be preserved, but Aubrey, ii. 14, says that ‘King James made -him write against the Puritans, who began to be troublesome in his -time’. The play was given at Court on 1 Nov. 1614 (App. B), and a -mock indenture between the author and the spectators at the Hope, on -31 Oct. 1614, is recited in the Induction and presumably fixes the -date of production. One must not therefore assume that a ballad of -_Rome for Company in Bartholomew Faire_, registered on 22 Oct. 1614 -(Arber, iii. 554), was aimed at Jonson. Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 78, -follows Malone and Fleay, i. 80, in inferring from a mention of a -forthcoming ‘Johnsons play’ in a letter of 13 Nov. 1613 from Daborne -to Henslowe that the production may have been intended for 1613, but -I think that Daborne refers to the revival of _Eastward Ho!_ The -Induction describes the locality of the Hope as ‘being as durty as -_Smithfield_, and as stinking euery whit’, and possibly glances at -the _Winter’s Tale_ and _Tempest_ in disclaiming the introduction of -‘a _Seruant-monster_’ and ‘a nest of _Antiques_’, since the author -is ‘loth to make Nature afraid in his _Playes_, like those that -beget _Tales_, _Tempests_, and such like _Drolleries_’. There is -no actor-list, but in V. iii ‘Your best _Actor_. Your _Field_?’ is -referred to on a level with ‘your _Burbage_’. Similarly the puppet -Leander is said to shake his head ‘like an hostler’ and it is declared -that ‘one _Taylor_, would goe neere to beat all this company, with -a hand bound behinde him’. Field and Taylor were both of the Lady -Elizabeth’s men in 1614, while the allusion to Ostler of the King’s men -is apparently satirical. The suggestion of Ordish, 225, that Taylor -is the water poet, who had recently appeared on the Hope stage, is -less probable. The ‘word out of the play, _Palemon_’ (IV. iii) is set -against another, _Argalus_ ‘out of the _Arcadia_’, and might therefore, -as Fleay, i. 377, thinks, refer to Daniel’s _Queen’s Arcadia_ (1605), -but the Palamon of _T. N. K._ was probably quite recent. I see no -reason to accept Fleay’s identification of Littlewit with Daniel; that -of Lanthorn Leatherhead with Inigo Jones is more plausible. Gifford -suggested that the burlesque puppet-play of Damon and Pythias in -V. iv may have been retrieved by Jonson from earlier work, perhaps -for the real puppet-stage, since ‘Old Cole’ is a character, and in -_Satiromastix_ Horace is called ‘puppet-teacher’ (1980) and in another -passage (607) ‘olde Coale’, and told that Crispinus and Demetrius ‘shal -be thy Damons and thou their Pithyasse’. - - _The Devil Is An Ass 1616_ - -1631. The Diuell is an Asse: A Comedie Acted in the yeare, 1616. By -His Maiesties Seruants. The Author Ben: Ionson. _I. B. for Robert -Allot._ [Part of F_{2}. Prologue and Epilogue. The play is referred to -in Jonson’s letter to the Earl of Newcastle, quoted under _Bartholomew -Fair_.] - -1641. _Imprinted at London._ - -_Edition_ by W. S. Johnson (1905, _Yale Studies_, -xxix).--_Dissertation_: E. Holstein, _Verhältnis von B. J.’s D. A. und -John Wilson’s Belphegor zu Machiavelli’s Novelle vom Belfagor_ (1901). - -In the play itself are introduced references to a performance of _The -Devil_ as a new play, to its playbill, to the Blackfriars as the house, -and to Dick Robinson as a player of female parts (I. iv. 43; vi. 31; -II. viii. 64; III. v. 38). Probably the production was towards the end -rather than the beginning of 1616. - - _Lost Plays_ - -I do not feel able to accept the view, expounded by Fleay, i. 370, 386, -and adopted by some later writers, that _A Tale of a Tub_, licensed -by Herbert on 7 May 1633, was only a revision of one of Jonson’s -Elizabethan plays. It appears to rest almost wholly upon references -to a ‘queen’. These are purely dramatic, and part of an attempt to -give the action an old-fashioned setting. The queen intended is not -Elizabeth, but Mary. There are also references to ‘last King Harry’s -time’ (I. ii), ‘King Edward, our late liege and sovereign lord’ (I. v). -A character says, ‘He was King Harry’s doctor and my god-phere’ (IV. -i). The priest is ‘Canon’ or ‘Sir’ Hugh, and has a ‘Latin tongue’ (III. -vii). ‘Old John Heywood’ is alive (V. ii). - -In 1619 Jonson told Drummond (Laing, 27) ‘That the half of his Comedies -were not in print’. The unprinted ones of course included _Bartholomew -Fair_ and _The Devil is an Ass_. He went on to describe ‘a pastorall -intitled The May Lord’, in which he figured himself as Alkin. As it -had a ‘first storie’, it may not have been dramatic. But Alkin appears -in _The Sad Shepherd_, a fragment of a dramatic pastoral, printed in -F_{2} with a prologue in which Jonson describes himself as ‘He that -hath feasted you these forty yeares’, and which therefore cannot have -been written long before his death in 1637. This is edited by W. W. -Greg (1905, _Materialien_, xi) with an elaborate discussion in which -he arrives at the sound conclusions that the theory of its substantial -identity with _The May Lord_ must be rejected, and that there is no -definite evidence to oppose to the apparent indication of its date in -the prologue. - -It is doubtful whether any of Jonson’s early work for Pembroke’s and -the Admiral’s, except perhaps _The Case is Altered_, ever found its way -into print. The record of all the following plays, except the first, is -in Henslowe’s diary (cf. Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 288). - -(_a_) _The Isle of Dogs._ - -See s.v. Nashe. - -(_b_) On 3 Dec. 1597 he received £1 ‘vpon a boocke w^{ch} he showed the -plotte vnto the company w^{ch} he promysed to dd vnto the company at -crysmas’. It is just possible that this was _Dido and Aeneas_, produced -by the Admiral’s on 8 Jan. 1598. But no further payment to Jonson is -recorded, and it is more likely that _Dido and Aeneas_ was taken over -from Pembroke’s repertory; and it may be that Jonson had not carried -out his contract before the fray with Spencer in Sept. 1598, and that -this is the ‘Bengemens plotte’ on which Chapman was writing a tragedy -on the following 23 Oct. The theory that it is the _Fall of Mortimer_, -still little more than a plot when Jonson died, may safely be rejected -(Henslowe, ii. 188, 199, 224). - -(_c_) _Hot Anger Soon Cold._ - -Written with Chettle and Porter in Aug. 1598 (Henslowe, ii. 196). - -(_d_) _Page of Plymouth._ - -Written with Dekker in Aug. and Sept. 1599 (Henslowe, ii. 205). - -(_e_) _Robert the Second, King of Scots._ - -A tragedy, written with Chettle, Dekker, ‘& other Jentellman’ (probably -Marston) in Sept. 1599 (Henslowe, ii. 205). - -(_f_) Additions to _Jeronimo_. - -See s.v. Kyd, _Spanish Tragedy_. - -(_g_) _Richard Crookback._ - -For this Jonson received a sum ‘in earnest’ on 22 June 1602, but it is -not certain that it was ever finished (Henslowe, ii, 222). - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -Jonson’s hand has been sought in _The Captain_ of the Beaumont (q.v.) -and Fletcher series, and the anonymous _Puritan_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - MASKS - - _Mask of Blackness. 6 Jan. 1605_ - -[_MS._] _Brit. Mus. Royal MS._ 17 B. xxxi. [‘The Twelvth Nights -Reuells.’ Not holograph, but signed ‘Hos ego versiculos feci. Ben. -Jonson.’ A shorter text than that of the printed descriptions, in -present tense, as for a programme.] - -_S. R._ 1608, April 21 (Buck). ‘The Characters of Twoo Royall Maskes. -Invented by Ben. Johnson.’ _Thomas Thorpe_ (Arber, iii. 375). - -N.D. The Characters of Two royall Masques. The one of Blacknesse, The -other of Beautie. personated By the most magnificent of Queenes Anne -Queene of Great Britaine, &c. With her honorable Ladyes, 1605. and -1608. at Whitehall: and Inuented by Ben: Ionson. _For Thomas Thorp._ - -1616. The Queenes Masques. The first, Of Blacknesse: Personated at the -Court, at White-Hall, on the Twelu’th night, 1605. [Part of F_{1}.] - -_Edition_ in J. P. Collier, _Five Court Masques_ (1848, _Sh. Soc._ from -MS.). - -The maskers, in azure and silver, were twelve nymphs, ‘negroes and -the daughters of Niger’; the torchbearers, in sea-green, Oceaniae; -the presenters Oceanus, Niger, and Aethiopia the Moon; the musicians -Tritons, Sea-maids, and Echoes. - -The locality was the old Elizabethan banqueting-house at Whitehall -(Carleton; Office of Works). The curtain represented a ‘landtschap’ of -woods with hunting scenes, ‘which falling’, according to the Quarto, -‘an artificial sea was seen to shoot forth’. The MS. describes the -landscape as ‘drawne uppon a downe right cloth, strayned for the scene, -... which openinge in manner of a curtine’, the sea shoots forth. On -the sea were the maskers in a concave shell, and the torchbearers borne -by sea-monsters. - -The maskers, on landing, presented their fans. They gave ‘their own -single dance’, and then made ‘choice of their men’ for ‘several -measures and corantoes’. A final dance took them back to their shell. - -This was a Queen’s mask, danced by the Queen, the Countesses of -Bedford, Derby, and Suffolk, the Ladies Rich, Bevill, Howard of -Effingham, Wroth, and Walsingham, Lady Elizabeth Howard, Anne Lady -Herbert, and Susan Lady Herbert. The ‘bodily part’ was the ‘design and -act’ of Inigo Jones. - -Sir Thomas Edmondes told Lord Shrewsbury on 5 Dec. that the mask was to -cost the Exchequer £3,000 (Lodge, iii. 114). The same sum was stated by -Chamberlain to Winwood on 18 Dec. to have been ‘delivered a month ago’ -(Winwood, ii. 41). Molin (_V. P._ x. 201) reported the amount on 19 -Dec. as 25,000 crowns. On 12 Dec. John Packer wrote to Winwood of the -preparations, and after naming some of the maskers added, ‘The Lady of -Northumberland is excused by sickness, Lady Hartford by the measles. -Lady of Nottingham hath the polypus in her nostril, which some fear -must be cut off. The Lady Hatton would feign have had a part, but some -unknown reason kept her out’ (Winwood, ii. 39). The performance was -described by Carleton to Winwood, as following the creation of Prince -Charles as Duke of York on 6 Jan. (Winwood, ii. 44): ‘At night we had -the Queen’s maske in the Banquetting-House, or rather her pagent. There -was a great engine at the lower end of the room, which had motion, -and in it were the images of sea-horses with other terrible fishes, -which were ridden by Moors: The indecorum was, that there was all -fish and no water. At the further end was a great shell in form of a -skallop, wherein were four seats; on the lowest sat the Queen with my -Lady Bedford; on the rest were placed the Ladies Suffolk, Darby, Rich, -Effingham, Ann Herbert, Susan Herbert, Elizabeth Howard, Walsingham, -and Bevil. Their apparell was rich, but too light and curtizan-like for -such great ones. Instead of vizzards, their faces, and arms up to the -elbows, were painted black, which was disguise sufficient, for they -were hard to be known; but it became them nothing so well as their -red and white, and you cannot imagine a more ugly sight, then a troop -of lean-cheek’d Moors. The Spanish and Venetian ambassadors were both -present, and sate by the King in state, at which Monsieur Beaumont -quarrells so extreamly, that he saith the whole court is Spanish. But -by his favour, he should fall out with none but himself, for they were -all indifferently invited to come as private men, to a private sport; -which he refusing, the Spanish ambassador willingly accepted, and -being there, seeing no cause to the contrary, he put off Don Taxis, -and took upon him El Señor Embaxadour, wherein he outstript our little -Monsieur. He was ... taken out to dance, and footed it like a lusty old -gallant with his country woman. He took out the Queen, and forgot not -to kiss her hand, though there was danger it would have left a mark on -his lips. The night’s work was concluded with a banquet in the great -Chamber, which was so furiously assaulted, that down went table and -tressels before one bit was touched.’ Carleton gives some additional -information in another account, which he sent to Chamberlain on 7 Jan. -(_S. P. D. Jac. I_, xii. 6, quoted by Sullivan, 28), as that the ‘black -faces and hands, which were painted and bare up to the elbowes, was a -very lothsome sight’, and he was ‘sory that strangers should see owr -court so strangely disguised’; that ‘the confusion in getting in was -so great, that some Ladies lie by it and complain of the fury of the -white stafes’; that ‘in the passages through the galleries they were -shutt up in several heapes betwixt dores and there stayed till all was -ended’; and that there were losses ‘of chaynes, jewels, purces and such -like loose ware’. References in letters to one Benson and by the Earl -of Errol to Cecil (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, xii. 16; xix. 25) add nothing -material. Carleton’s account of the triumph of the Spanish ambassador -is confirmed by reports of the Venetian (_V. P._ x. 212) and French -(_B. M. King’s MS._ cxxvii, ff. 117, 127^v, 177^v; cf. Sullivan, 196–8) -ambassadors. Beaumont had pleaded illness in order to avoid attending a -mask on 27 Dec. 1604 in private, and the Court chose to assume that he -was still ill on 6 Jan. This gave De Taxis and Molin an opening to get -their private invitations converted into public ones. Beaumont lost his -temper and accused Sir Lewis Lewknor and other officials of intriguing -against him, but he had to accept his defeat. - -The Accounts of the Master of the Revels (Cunningham, 204) record -‘The Queens Ma^{tis} Maske of Moures with Aleven Laydies of honnour’ -as given on 6 Jan. Reyher, 358, 520, notes references to the mask in -accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber and of the Office of Works, -and quotes from the latter items for ‘framinge and settinge vpp of a -great stage in the banquettinge house xl foote square and iiij^{or} -foote in heighte with wheeles to goe on ... framinge and settinge vpp -an other stage’. - -Many of the notices of the Queen’s mask also refer to another mask -which was performed ‘among the noblemen and gentlemen’ (Lodge, iii. -114) on 27 Dec. 1604, at the wedding of Sir Philip Herbert and Lady -Susan Vere, daughter of the Earl of Oxford. The bride was herself a -dancer in the Queen’s mask. The wedding mask, the subject of which -was Juno and Hymenaeus, is unfortunately lost. The Revels Accounts -(Cunningham, 204) tell us that it was ‘presented by the Earl of -Pembroke, the Lord Willowbie and 6 Knightes more of the Court’, and -Stowe’s _Chronicle_, 856, briefly records ‘braue Masks of the most -noble ladies’. Carleton gave Winwood details of the wedding, and said -(Winwood, ii. 43): ‘At night there was a mask in the Hall, which for -conceit and fashion was suitable to the occasion. The actors were the -Earle of Pembrook, the Lord Willoby, Sir Samuel [James?] Hays, Sir -Thomas Germain, Sir Robert Cary, Sir John Lee, Sir Richard Preston, -and Sir Thomas Bager. There was no smal loss that night of chaines and -jewells, and many great ladies were made shorter by the skirts, and -were well enough served that they could keep cut no better.’ Carleton -wrote to Chamberlain (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, xii. 6, quoted by Sullivan, -25): ‘Theyre conceit was a representacion of Junoes temple at the lower -end of the great hall, which was vawted and within it the maskers -seated with staves of lights about them, and it was no ill shew. -They were brought in by the fower seasons of the yeare and Hymeneus: -which for songs and speaches was as goode as a play. Theyre apparel -was rather costly then cumly; but theyr dancing full of life and -variety; onely S^r Tho: Germain had lead in his heales and sometimes -forgott what he was doing.’ There was a diplomatic contretemps on this -occasion. At the wedding dinner the Venetian ambassador Molin was -given precedence of the Queen’s brother, the Duke of Holstein, to the -annoyance of the latter. But after dinner Molin was led to a closet and -forgotten there until supper was already begun. Meanwhile the Duke took -his place. There was a personal apology from the King, and at the mask -Molin was given a stool in the royal box to the right of the King, and -the Duke one to the left of the Queen. He preferred to stand for three -hours rather than make use of it (Winwood, ii. 43; Sullivan, 25; _V. -P._ x. 206). - -Carleton wrote to Winwood (ii. 44), ‘They say the Duke of Holst will -come upon us with an after reckoning, and that we shall see him on -Candlemas night in a mask, as he hath shewed himself a lusty reveller -all this Christmas’. But if this mask ever took place, nothing is known -of it. - - _Hymenaei. 5 Jan. 1606_ - -1606. Hymenaei: or The Solemnities of Masque, and Barriers, -Magnificently performed on the eleventh, and twelfth Nights, -from Christmas; At Court: To the auspicious celebrating of the -Marriage-vnion, betweene Robert, Earle of Essex, and the Lady Frances, -second Daughter to the most noble Earle of Suffolke. By Ben: Ionson. -_Valentine Sims for Thomas Thorp._ - -1616. Hymenaei, or The solemnities of Masque and Barriers at a -Marriage. [Part of F_{1}.] - -This was a double mask of eight men and eight women. The men, in -carnation cloth of silver, with variously coloured mantles and watchet -cloth of silver bases, were Humours and Affections; the women, in white -cloth of silver, with carnation and blue undergarments, the Powers of -Juno; the presenters Hymen, with a bride, bridegroom, and bridal train, -Reason, and Order; the musicians the Hours. - -The locality was probably the Elizabethan banqueting-house, which seems -to have been repaired in 1604 (Reyher, 340). ‘The scene being drawn’ -discovered first an altar for Hymen and ‘a microcosm or globe’, which -turned and disclosed the men maskers in a ‘mine’ or ‘grot’. On either -side of the globe stood great statues of Hercules and Atlas. They bore -up the ‘upper part of the scene’, representing clouds, which opened to -disclose the upper regions, whence the women descended on _nimbi_. - -Each set of maskers had a dance at entry. They then danced together a -measure with strains ‘all notably different, some of them formed into -letters very signifying to the name of the bridegroom’. This done, -they ‘dissolved’ and took forth others for measures, galliards, and -corantoes. After these ‘intermixed dances’ came ‘their last dances’, -and they departed in a bridal procession with an epithalamion. - -The mask was in honour of the wedding of the Earl of Essex and Frances -Howard, daughter of the Earl of Suffolk, and was probably given by -their friends. The only Household expenses appear to have been for -the making ready of the room (Reyher, 520), but Lady Rutland’s share -seems to have cost the Earl over £100 (_Hist. MSS. Rutland Accounts_, -iv. 457). The dancers were the Countesses of Montgomery, Bedford, and -Rutland, the Ladies Knollys, Berkeley, Dorothy Hastings, and Blanch -Somerset, and Mrs. A. Sackville, with the Earls of Montgomery and -Arundel, Lords Willoughby and Howard de Walden, Sir James Hay, Sir -Thomas Howard, Sir Thomas Somerset, and Sir John Ashley. The ‘design -and act’ and the device of the costumes were by Inigo Jones, the songs -by Alphonso Ferrabosco, and the dances by Thomas Giles. - -On the next day followed a Barriers, in which, after a dialogue by -Jonson between Truth and Opinion, sixteen knights fought on the side of -either disputant (cf. vol. i, p. 146). - -The following account was sent by John Pory to Sir Robert Cotton on 7 -Jan. (_B.M. Cotton MS. Julius_ C. iii. 301, printed in Goodman, ii. -124; Collier, i. 350; Birch, i. 42; Sullivan, 199): - - ‘I haue seen both the mask on Sunday and the barriers on Mundy - night. The Bridegroom carried himself as grauely and gracefully - as if he were of his fathers age. He had greater guiftes giuen - him then my lord Montgomery had, his plate being valued at - 3000£ and his jewels, mony and other guiftes at 1600£ more. - But to returne to the maske; both Inigo, Ben, and the actors - men and women did their partes with great commendation. The - conceite or soule of the mask was Hymen bringing in a bride - and Juno pronuba’s priest a bridegroom, proclaiming those two - should be sacrificed to nuptial vnion, and here the poet made - an apostrophe to the vnion of the kingdoms. But before the - sacrifice could be performed, Ben Jonson turned the globe of - the earth standing behind the altar, and within the concaue - sate the 8 men maskers representing the 4 humours and the fower - affections which leapt forth to disturb the sacrifice to vnion; - but amidst their fury Reason that sate aboue them all, crowned - with burning tapers, came down and silenced them. These eight - together with Reason their moderatresse mounted aboue their - heades, sate somewhat like the ladies in the scallop shell the - last year. Aboue the globe of erth houered a middle region of - cloudes in the center wherof stood a grand consort of musicians, - and vpon the cantons or hornes sate the ladies 4 at one corner, - and 4 at another, who descended vpon the stage, not after the - stale downright perpendicular fashion, like a bucket into a - well; but came gently sloping down. These eight, after the - sacrifice was ended, represented the 8 nuptial powers of Juno - pronuba who came downe to confirme the vnion. The men were clad - in crimzon and the weomen in white. They had euery one a white - plume of the richest herons fethers, and were so rich in jewels - vpon their heades as was most glorious. I think they hired and - borrowed all the principal jewels and ropes of perle both in - court and citty. The Spanish ambassador seemed but poore to - the meanest of them. They danced all variety of dances, both - seuerally and promiscue; and then the women took in men as - namely the Prince (who danced with as great perfection and as - setled a maiesty as could be deuised) the Spanish ambassador, - the Archdukes, Ambassador, the Duke, etc., and the men gleaned - out the Queen, the bride, and the greatest of the ladies. The - second night the barriers were as well performed by fifteen - against fifteen; the Duke of Lennox being chieftain on the one - side, and my Lord of Sussex on the other.’ - - _Mask of Beauty. 10 Jan. 1608_ - -_S. R._ 1608, 21 April. [See _Mask of Blackness_.] - -N.D. [See _Mask of Blackness_.] - -1616. The Second Masque. Which was of Beautie; Was presented in the -same Court, at White-Hall, on the Sunday night after the Twelfth Night. -1608. [Part of F_{1}.] The maskers, in orange-tawny and silver and -green and silver, were the twelve Daughters of Niger of the Mask of -Blackness, now laved white, with four more; the torchbearers Cupids; -the presenters January, Boreas, Vulturnus, Thamesis; the musicians -Echoes and Shades of old Poets. - -The locality was the new banqueting-house at Whitehall. January was -throned in midst of the house. The curtain, representing Night, -was drawn to discover the maskers on a Throne of Beauty, borne by a -floating isle. - -The maskers gave two dances, which were repeated at the King’s request, -and then danced ‘with the lords’. They danced galliards and corantoes. -They then gave a third dance, and a fourth, which took them into their -throne again. - -This was a Queen’s mask, danced by the Queen, Arabella Stuart, the -Countesses of Arundel, Derby, Bedford, and Montgomery, and the Ladies -Elizabeth Guildford, Katherine Petre, Anne Winter, Windsor, Anne -Clifford, Mary Neville, Elizabeth Hatton, Elizabeth Gerard, Chichester, -and Walsingham. The torchbearers were ‘chosen out of the best and -ingenious youth of the Kingdom’. The scene was ‘put in act’ by the -King’s master carpenter. Thomas Giles made the dances and played -Thamesis. - -The mask was announced by 9 Dec. (_V. P._ xi. 74). On 10 Dec. La -Boderie (ii. 490) reported that it would cost 6,000 or 7,000 crowns, -and that nearly all the ladies invited by the Queen to take part in -it were Catholics. Anne’s preparations were in swing before 17 Dec. -(_V. P._ xi. 76). On 22 Dec. La Boderie reported (iii. 6) that he had -underestimated the cost, which would not be less than 30,000 crowns, -and was causing much annoyance to the Privy Council. On 31 Dec. Donne -(_Letters_, i. 182) intended to deliver a letter ‘when the rage of the -mask is past’. Lord Arundel notes his wife’s practising early in Jan. -(Lodge, App. 124). The original date was 6 Jan. ‘The Mask goes forward -for Twelfth-day’, wrote Chamberlain to Carleton on 5 Jan. (_S. P. D. -Jac. I_, xxxi. 2; Birch, i. 69), ‘though I doubt the new room will be -scant ready’. But on 8 Jan. (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, xxxi. 4; Birch, i. 71) -he wrote again: - - ‘We had great hopes of having you here this day, and then I - would not have given my part of the mask for any of their - places that shall be present, for I suppose you and your lady - would find easily passage, being so befriended; for the show is - put off till Sunday, by reason that all things are not ready. - Whatsoever the device may be, and what success they may have in - their dancing, yet you would have been sure to have seen great - riches in jewels, when one lady, and that under a baroness, is - said to be furnished far better then a hundred thousand pounds. - And the Lady Arabella goes beyond her; and the queen must not - come behind.’ - -The delay was really due to ambassadorial complications, which are -reported by Giustinian (_V. P._ xi. 83, 86) and very fully by La -Boderie (iii. 1–75; cf. Sullivan, 35, 201). The original intention was -to invite the Spanish and Venetian, but not the French and Flemish -ambassadors. This, according to Giustinian, offended La Boderie, -because Venice was ‘the nobler company’. But the real sting lay in -the invitation to Spain. This was represented to La Boderie about 23 -Dec. as the personal act of Anne, in the face of a remonstrance by -James on the ground of the preference already shown to Spain in 1605. -La Boderie replied that he had already been slighted at the King of -Denmark’s visit, that the mask was a public occasion, and that Henri -would certainly hold James responsible. A few days later he was told -that James was greatly annoyed at his wife’s levity, and would ask -him and the Venetian ambassador to dinner; but La Boderie refused to -accept this as a compliment equivalent to seeing the Queen dance, -and supping with the King before 10,000 persons. He urged that both -ambassadors or neither should be invited, and hinted that, if Anne was -so openly Spanish in her tendencies, Henri might feel obliged to leave -the mission in charge of a secretary. An offer was made to invite La -Boderie’s wife, but this he naturally refused. The Council tried in -vain to make Anne hear reason, but finally let the mask proceed, and -countered Henri diplomatically by calling his attention to the money -debts due from France to England. Meanwhile Giustinian had pressed for -his own invitation in place of the Flemish ambassador, and obtained it. -The Spanish and Venetian ambassadors were therefore present. La Boderie -reported that much attention was paid to Giustinian, and little to the -Spanish ambassador, and also that James was so angry with Anne that he -left for a hunting trip the next day without seeing her. Giustinian -admired the mask, which was, James told him (_V. P._ xi. 86), ‘to -consecrate the birth of the Great Hall, which his predecessors had -left him built merely in wood, but which he had converted into stone’. -Probably this is the mask described in a letter of Lady Pembroke to -Lord Shrewsbury calendared without date among letters of 1607–8 in -Lodge, iii, App. 121. On 28 Jan. the Spanish ambassador invited the -fifteen ladies who had danced to dinner (Lodge, iii. 223; La Boderie, -iii. 81). On 29 Jan. Lord Lisle wrote to the Earl of Shrewsbury -regretting that he could not send him the verses, because Ben Jonson -was busy writing more for the Haddington wedding (Lodge, App. 102). - -A warrant for expenses was signed 11 Dec. (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, xxviii). -A payment was made to Bethell (Reyher, 520). - - _Lord Haddington’s Mask_ [_The Hue and Cry after Cupid_]. - _9 Feb. 1608_ - -N.D. The Description of the Masque. With the Nuptiall Songs. -Celebrating the happy Marriage of Iohn, Lord Ramsey, Viscount -Hadington, with the Lady Elizabeth Ratcliffe, Daughter to the right -Honor: Robert, Earle of Sussex. At Court On the Shroue-Tuesday at -night. 1608. Deuised by Ben: Ionson. [_No imprint._] - -1616. [Part of F_{1}.] The maskers were the twelve Signs of the Zodiac -in carnation and silver; the antimaskers Cupid and twelve Joci and -Risus, who danced ‘with their antic faces’; the presenters Venus, the -Graces and Cupid, Hymen, Vulcan and the Cyclopes; the musicians Priests -of Hymen, while the Cyclopes beat time with their sledges. - -Pilasters hung with amorous trophies supported gigantic figures of -Triumph and Victory ‘in place of the arch, and holding a gyrlond of -myrtle for the key’. The scene was a steep red cliff (Radcliffe), over -which clouds broke for the issue of the chariot of Venus. After the -antimasque, the cliff parted, to discover the maskers in a turning -sphere of silver. The maskers gave four dances, interspersed with -verses of an epithalamion. The mask was given by the maskers, seven -Scottish and five English lords and gentlemen, the Duke of Lennox, -the Earls of Arundel, Pembroke, and Montgomery, Lords D’Aubigny, De -Walden, Hay, and Sanquhar, the Master of Mar, Sir Robert Rich, Sir John -Kennedy, and Mr. Erskine. (Quarto and Lodge, iii. 223.) The ‘device and -act of the scene’ were supplied by Inigo Jones, the tunes by Alphonso -Ferrabosco, and two dances each by Hierome Herne and Thomas Giles, who -also beat time as Cyclopes. - -Rowland White told Lord Shrewsbury on 26 Jan. that the mask was ‘now -the only thing thought upon at court’, and would cost the maskers about -£300 a man (Lodge, iii. 223). Jonson was busy with the verses on 29 -Jan. (Lodge, App. 102). - -Sussex and Haddington intended to ask the French ambassador both -to the wedding dinner and to the mask and banquet, but the Lord -Chamberlain, having Spanish sympathies, would not consent. In the end -he was asked by James himself to the mask and banquet, at which Prince -Henry would preside. He accepted, and suggested that Henri should -present Haddington with a ring, but this was not done. He thought the -mask ‘assez maigre’, but Anne was very gracious, and James regretted -that etiquette did not allow him to sit at the banquet in person. La -Boderie’s wife and daughter, who danced with the Duke of York, were -also present. Unfortunately he did not receive in time an instruction -from Paris to keep away if the Flemish ambassador was asked, and did -not protest against this invitation on his own responsibility, partly -out of annoyance with the Venetian for attending the Queen’s mask -without him, and partly for fear of losing his own invitation. The -Fleming had had far less consideration than himself (La Boderie, iii. -75–144). So both the French and the Flemish ambassador were present, -with two princes of Saxony (_V. P._ xi. 97). - -English criticisms were more kindly than La Boderie’s. Sir Henry -Saville described it to Sir Richard Beaumont on the same night as a -‘singular brave mask’, at which he had been until three in the morning -(_Beaumont Papers_, 17), and Chamberlain wrote to Carleton on 11 Feb. -(_S. P. D. Jac. I_, xxxi. 26; Birch, i. 72): ‘I can send you no perfect -relation of the marriage nor mask on Tuesday, only they say all, -but especially the motions, were well performed; as Venus, with her -chariot drawn by swans, coming in a cloud to seek her son; who with his -companions, Lusus, Risus, and Janus [? Jocus], and four or five more -wags, were dancing a matachina, and acted it very antiquely, before the -twelve signs, who were the master maskers, descended from the zodiac, -and played their parts more gravely, being very gracefully attired.’ - - _Mask of Queens. 2 Feb. 1609_ - -[_MSS._] (a) _B.M. Harl. MS._ 6947, f. 143 (printed Reyher, 506). -[Apparently a short descriptive analysis or programme, without the -words of the dialogue and songs.] - -(b) _B.M. Royal MS._ 18 A. xlv. [Holograph. Epistle to Prince Henry.] - -_S. R._ 1609, Feb. 22 (Segar). ‘A booke called, The maske of Queenes -Celebrated, done by Beniamin Johnson.’ _Richard Bonion and Henry -Walley_ (Arber, iii. 402). - -1609. The Masque of Queenes Celebrated From the House of Fame: By the -most absolute in all State, And Titles. Anne, Queene of Great Britaine, -&c. With her Honourable Ladies. At White-Hall, Febr. 2. 1609. Written -by Ben: Ionson. _N. Okes for R. Bonian and H. Wally._ [Epistle to -Prince Henry.] - -1616. [Part of F_{1}.] - -_Edition_ in J. P. Collier, _Five Court Masques_ (1848, _Sh. Soc._ from -_Royal MS._). - -Jonson prefaces that ‘because Her Majesty (best knowing that a -principal part of life in these spectacles lay in their variety) had -commanded me to think on some dance, or shew, that might precede -hers, and have the place of a foil, or false masque: I was careful -to decline, not only from others, but mine own steps in that kind, -since the last year, I had an antimasque of boys; and therefore now -devised that twelve women, in the habit of hags or witches, sustaining -the persons of Ignorance, Suspicion, Credulity, &c., the opposites to -good Fame, should fill that part, not as a masque, but as a spectacle -of strangeness’ [it is called a ‘maske’ in the programme] ‘producing -multiplicity of gesture, and not unaptly sorting with the current and -whole fall of the device’. - -The maskers, in various habits, eight designs for which are in _Sh. -England_, ii. 311, were Bel-Anna and eleven other Queens, who were -attended by torchbearers; the antimaskers eleven Hags and their dame -Ate; the presenters Perseus or Heroic Virtue and Fame. - -The locality was the new banqueting-house at Whitehall (_T. of C. -Acct._, quoted by Sullivan, 54). The scene at first represented a -Hell, whence the antimask issued. In the middle of a ‘magical dance’ -it vanished at a blast of music, ‘and the whole face of the scene -altered’, becoming the House of Fame, a ‘_machina versatilis_’, which -showed first Perseus and the maskers and then Fame. Descending, the -maskers made their entry in three chariots, to which the Hags were -bound. They danced their first and second dances; then ‘took out the -men, and danced the measures’ for nearly an hour. After an interval for -a song, came their third dance, ‘graphically disposed into letters, -and honouring the name of the most sweet and ingenious Prince, Charles -Duke of York’. Galliards and corantoes followed, and after their ‘last -dance’ they returned in their chariots to the House of Fame. - -This was a Queen’s mask, danced by the Queen, the Countesses of -Arundel, Derby, Huntingdon, Bedford, Essex, and Montgomery, the -Viscountess Cranborne, and the Ladies Elizabeth Guildford, Anne Winter, -Windsor, and Anne Clifford. Inigo Jones was responsible for the attire -of the Hags, and ‘the invention and architecture of the whole scene and -machine’; Alphonso Ferrabosco for the airs of the songs; Thomas Giles -for the third dance, and Hierome Herne for the dance of Hags. John -Allen, ‘her Majesty’s servant’, sang a ditty between the measures and -the third dance. - -As early as 14 Nov. Donne wrote to Sir Henry Goodyere (_Letters_, i. -199), ‘The King ... hath left with the Queen a commandment to meditate -upon a masque for Christmas, so that they grow serious about that -already’. The performance was originally intended for 6 Jan. (_V. P._ -xi. 219), but on 10 Jan. Chamberlain wrote to Carleton (Birch, i. -87), ‘The mask at court is put off till Candlemas, as it is thought -the Spaniard may be gone, for the French ambassador hath been so long -and so much neglected, that it is doubted more would not be well -endured’. The intrigues which determined this delay are described in -the diplomatic correspondence of the French and Venetian ambassadors -(La Boderie, iv. 104, 123, 136, 145, 175, 228; _V. P._ xi. 212, 219, -222, 231, 234; cf. Sullivan, 47, 212). Hints of a _rapprochement_ -between France and Spain had made James anxious to conciliate Henri IV. -Even Anne had learnt discretion, and desired that La Boderie should -be present at the mask. He was advised by Salisbury to ask for an -invitation, which he did, through his wife and Lady Bedford. He had -instructions from Henri to retire from Court and leave a secretary -in charge if his master’s dignity was compromised. Unfortunately -the Spanish ambassador leiger was reinforced by an ambassador -extraordinary, Don Fernandez de Girone, and took advantage of this -to press on his side for an invitation. Etiquette gave a precedence -to ambassadors extraordinary, and all that could be done was to wait -until Don Fernandez was gone. This was not until 1 Feb. La Boderie was -at the mask, and treated with much courtesy. He excused himself from -dancing, but the Duke of York took out his daughter, and he supped -with the King and the princes. He found the mask ‘fort riche, et s’il -m’est loisible de le dire, plus superbe qu’ingenieux’. He also thought -that of the ‘intermédes’ there were ‘trop et d’assez tristes’. The -Spanish influence, however, was sufficiently strong, when exercised on -behalf of Flanders, to disappoint the Venetian ambassador of a promised -invitation, and La Boderie was the only diplomatic representative -present. Anne asked Correr to come privately, but this he would not do, -and she said she should trouble herself no more about masks. - -It was at first intended to limit the cost of the mask to £1,000, but -on 27 Nov. Sir Thomas Lake wrote to Salisbury that the King would -allow a ‘reasonable encrease’ upon this, and had agreed that certain -lords should sign and allow bills for the charges (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, -xxxvii. 96, printed and misdated 1607 in Sullivan, 201). This duty -was apparently assigned to Lord Suffolk as Lord Chamberlain and Lord -Worcester as Master of the Horse, in whose names a warrant was issued -on 1 Dec. (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, xxxviii. 1). The financial documents -cited by Reyher, 520, suggest that the actual payments passed through -the hands of Inigo Jones and Henry Reynolds. Reyher, 72, reckons the -total cost at near £5,000. This seems very high. A contemporary writer, -W. Ffarrington (_Chetham Soc._ xxxix. 151), gives the estimate of ‘them -that had a hand in the business as “at the leaste two thousand pounde”’. - - _Oberon, the Faery Prince. 1 Jan. 1611_ - -1616. Oberon the Faery Prince. A Masque of Prince Henries. _W. Stansby, -sold by Richard Meighen._ [Part of F_{1}.] - -The maskers were Oberon and his Knights, accompanied by the Faies, -‘some bearing lights’; the antimaskers Satyrs; the presenters Sylvans; -some of the musicians Satyrs and Faies. - -This was ‘a very stately maske ... in the beautifull roome at -Whitehall, which roome is generally called the Banquetting-house; and -the King new builded it about foure yeeres past’ (Stowe, _Annales_, -910). ‘The first face of the scene’ was a cliff, from which the -antimask issued. The scene opened to discover the front of a palace, -and this again, after ‘an antick dance’ ended by the crowing of the -cock, to disclose ‘the nation of Faies’, with the maskers on ‘sieges’ -and Oberon in a chariot drawn by two white bears. ‘The lesser Faies’ -danced; then came a first and second ‘masque-dance’, then ‘measures, -corantos, galliards, etc.’, and finally a ‘last dance into the work’. - -This was a Prince’s mask, and clearly Henry was Oberon, but the names -of the other maskers are not preserved. - -Henry’s preparation for a mask is mentioned on 15 Nov. by Correr, who -reports that he would have liked it to be on horseback, if James had -consented (_V. P._ xii. 79), on 3 Dec. by Thomas Screven (_Rutland -MSS._ iv. 211), ‘The Prince is com to St. James and prepareth for a -mask’, and on 15 Dec. by John More (Winwood, iii. 239), ‘Yet doth the -Prince make but one mask’. - -The diplomatic tendency at this time was to detach France from growing -relations from Spain, and it was intended that both the masks of the -winter 1610–11 should serve to entertain the Marshal de Laverdin, -expected as ambassador extraordinary from Paris for the signature of a -treaty. But the Regent Marie de Médicis was not anxious to emphasize -the occasion, and the Marshal did not arrive in time for the Prince’s -mask, which took place on 1 Jan. ‘It looked’, says Correr, ‘as though -he did not understand the honour done him by the King and the Prince.’ -The Spanish and Venetian ambassadors were therefore invited, and were -present. The Dutch ambassador was invited, but professed illness, to -avoid complications with the Spaniard. Correr found the mask ‘very -beautiful throughout, very decorative, but most remarkable for the -grace of the Prince’s every movement’ (_Rutland MSS._ i. 426; _V. P._ -xii. 101, 106; cf. Sullivan, 61). - -None of the above notices in fact identify Henry’s mask of 1 Jan. 1611 -with the undated _Oberon_, but proof is forthcoming from an Exchequer -payment of May 1611 for ‘the late Princes barriers and masks’ (text in -Reyher, 511) which specifies ‘the Satires and faeries’. The amount was -£247 9_s._, and the items include payments to composers, musicians, and -players. We learn that [Robert] Johnson and [Thomas] Giles provided -the dances, and Alphonse [Ferrabosco] singers and lutenists, that the -violins were Thomas Lupo the elder, Alexander Chisan, and Rowland -Rubidge, and that ‘xiij^n Holt boyes’ were employed, presumably as -fays. There is a sum of £15 for ‘players imployed in the maske’ and -£15 more for ‘players imployed in the barriers’, about which barriers -no more is known. This account, subscribed by Sir Thomas Chaloner, by -no means exhausts the expense of the mask. Other financial documents -(Devon, 131, 134, 136; cf. Reyher, 521) show payments of £40 each to -Jonson and Inigo Jones, and £20 each to Ferrabosco, Jerome Herne, and -Confess. These were from the Exchequer. An additional £16 to Inigo -Jones ‘devyser for the saide maske’ fell upon Henry’s privy purse, -together with heavy bills to mercers and other tradesmen, amounting -to £1,076 6_s._ 10_d._ (Cunningham, viii, from _Audit Office Declared -Accts._). Correr had reported on 22 Nov. that neither of the masks of -this winter was to ‘be so costly as last year’s, which to say sooth -was excessively costly’ (_V. P._ xii. 86). The anticipation can hardly -have been fulfilled. I suppose that ‘last year’s’ means the _Tethys’ -Festival_ of June 1610, as no mask during the winter of 1609–10 is -traceable. - - _Love Freed from Ignorance and Folly. 3 Feb. 1611_ - -1616. A Masque of her Maiesties. Love freed from Ignorance and Folly. -_W. Stansby, sold by Richard Meighen._ [Part of F_{1}.] - -The maskers were eleven Daughters of the Morn, led by the Queen of the -Orient; the antimaskers twelve Follies or She-Fools; the presenters -Cupid and Ignorance, a Sphinx; the musicians twelve Priests of the -Muses, who also danced a measure, and three Graces, with others. - -The locality was probably the banqueting-hall. The scene is not -described. There were two ‘masque-dances’, with ‘measures and revels’ -between them. This was a Queen’s mask, but the names of the maskers are -not preserved. - -John More wrote on 15 Dec. (Winwood, iii. 239), ‘Yet doth the Prince -make but one mask, and the Queen but two, which doth cost her majesty -but £600.’ Perhaps the writer was mistaken. Anne had not given more -than one mask in any winter, nor is there any trace of a second in that -of 1610–11. Correr, on 22 Nov., anticipates one only, not to be so -costly as last year’s. It was to precede the Prince’s. It was, however, -put off to Twelfth Night, and then again to Candlemas, ‘either because -the stage machinery is not in order, or because their Majesties thought -it well to let the Marshal depart first’. This was Marshal de Laverdin, -whose departure from France as ambassador extraordinary was delayed -(cf. _Mask of Oberon_). He was present at the mask when it actually -took place on 3 Feb., the day after Candlemas. Apparently the Venetian -ambassador was also invited. (_V. P._ xii. 86, 101, 106, 110, 115.) - -Several financial documents bearing on the mask exist (_S. P. D. -Jac. I_, lvii, Nov.; Devon, 135; Reyher, 509, 521), and show that -the contemplated £600 was in fact exceeded. An account signed by the -Earls of Suffolk and Worcester, to whom the oversight of the charges -was doubtless assigned as Household officers, shows that in addition -to £600 14_s._ 3_d._ spent in defraying the bills of Inigo Jones and -others and in rewards, there was a further expenditure of £118 7_s._ -by the Wardrobe, and even then no items are included for the dresses -of the main maskers, which were probably paid for by the wearers. The -rewards include £2 each to five boys who played the Graces, Sphinx, and -Cupid, and £1 each to the twelve Fools. This enables us to identify -Jonson’s undated mask with that of 1611. Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones had -£40 each; Alphonso [Ferrabosco] £20 for the songs; [Robert] Johnson -and Thomas Lupo £5 each for setting the songs to lutes and setting the -dances to violins, and Confess and Bochan £50 and £20 for teaching the -dances. - - _Love Restored. 6 Jan. 1612_ - -1616. Love Restored, In a Masque at Court, by Gentlemen the Kings -Seruants. _W. Stansby, sold by Richard Meighen._ [Part of F_{1}.] - -The maskers were the ten Ornaments of Court--Honour, Courtesy, Valour, -Urbanity, Confidence, Alacrity, Promptness, Industry, Hability, -Reality; the presenters Masquerado, Plutus, Robin Goodfellow, and -Cupid, who entered in a chariot attended by the maskers. There were -three dances. Jonson’s description is exceptionally meagre. - -The dialogue finds its humour in the details of mask-presentation -themselves. Masquerado, in his vizard, apologizes for the absence of -musicians and the hoarseness of ‘the rogue play-boy, that acts Cupid’. -Plutus criticizes the expense and the corruption of manners involved in -masks. Robin Goodfellow narrates his difficulties in obtaining access. -He has tried in vain to get through the Woodyard on to the Terrace, but -the Guard pushed him off a ladder into the Verge. The Carpenters’ way -also failed him. He has offered, or thought of offering, himself as an -‘enginer’ belonging to the ‘motions’, but they were ‘ceased’; as an -old tire-woman; as a musician; as a feather-maker of Blackfriars; as a -‘bombard man’, carrying ‘bouge’ to country ladies who had fasted for -the fine sight since seven in the morning; as a citizen’s wife, exposed -to the liberties of the ‘black-guard’; as a wireman or a chandler; and -finally in his own shape as ‘part of the Device’. - -There are several financial documents relating to a mask at Christmas -1611, for which funds were issued to one Meredith Morgan (_S. P. D. -Jac. I_, lxvii, Dec.; lxviii, Jan.; Reyher, 521). The Revels Account -(Cunningham, 211) records a ‘princes Mask performed by Gentelmen of his -High [ ]’ on 6 Jan. 1612. According to Chamberlain, the Queen was at -Greenwich ‘practising for a new mask’ on 20 Nov., but this was put off -in December as ‘unseasonable’ so soon after the death of the Queen of -Spain (Birch, i. 148, 152). Jonson does not date _Love Restored_, but -Dr. Brotanek has successfully assigned it to 1611–12 on the ground of -its reference to ‘the Christmas cut-purse’, of whom Chamberlain wrote -to Carleton on 31 Dec. 1611 that ‘a cut-purse, taken in the Chapel -Royal, will be executed’ (Brotanek, 347; cf. _S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxvii. -117, and _Bartholomew Fair_ (1614), III. v. 132). This was one John -Selman, executed on 7 Jan. 1612 for picking the pocket of Leonard -Barry, servant to Lord Harington, on Christmas Day (Rye, 269). I may -add that Robin Goodfellow, when pretending to be concerned with the -motions, was asked if he were ‘the fighting bear of last year’, and -that the chariot of Oberon on 1 Jan. 1611 was drawn by white bears. -There is, of course, nothing inconsistent in a Prince’s mask being -performed by King’s servants, and the ‘High[ness]’ of the Revels -Account may mean James, just as well as Henry. Simpson (_E. M._ 1. -xxxiv) puts _Love Restored_ in 1613–14, as connected with the tilt (cf. -p. 393), but there is no room for it (cf. p. 246). - - _The Irish Mask. 29 Dec. 1613_ - -1616. The Irish Masque at Court, by Gentlemen the Kings Servants. _W. -Stansby, sold by Richard Meighen._ [Part of F_{1}.] - -The maskers were twelve Irish Gentlemen, first in mantles, then -without; the antimaskers their twelve Footmen; the presenters a Citizen -and a Gentleman; one of the musicians an Irish bard. The Footmen dance -‘to the bag-pipe and other rude music’, after which the Gentlemen -‘dance forth’ twice. - -The antimaskers say that their lords have come to the bridal of ‘ty -man Robyne’ to the daughter of ‘Toumaish o’ Shuffolke’, who has -knocked them on the pate with his ‘phoyt stick’, as they came by. -There are also compliments to ‘King Yamish’, ‘my Mistresh tere’, ‘my -little Maishter’, and ‘te vfrow, ty daughter, tat is in Tuchland’. It -is therefore easy to supply the date which Jonson omits, as the mask -clearly belongs to the series presented in honour of the wedding of -Robert Earl of Somerset with the Earl of Suffolk’s daughter during -the Christmas of 1613–14. The list in Stowe, _Annales_, 928 (cf. -s.v. Campion), includes one on 29 Dec. by ‘the Prince’s Gentlemen, -which pleased the King so well that hee caused them to performe it -againe uppon the Monday following’. This was 3 Jan.; the 10 Jan. in -Nichols, ii. 718, is a misreading of the evidence in Chamberlain’s -letters, which identify the mask as Jonson’s by a notice of the Irish -element. On 30 Dec. Chamberlain wrote to Alice Carleton (Birch, i. -285), ‘yesternight there was a medley mask of five English and five -Scots, which are called the high dancers, amongst whom Sergeant Boyd, -one Abercrombie, and Auchternouty, that was at Padua and Venice, are -esteemed the most principal and lofty, but how it succeeded I know -not’. Later in the letter he added, probably in reference to this and -not Campion’s mask, ‘Sir William Bowyer hath lost his eldest son, Sir -Henry. He was a fine dancer, and should have been of the masque, but -overheating himself with practising, he fell into the smallpox and -died.’ On 5 Jan. he wrote to Dudley Carleton (Birch, i. 287), ‘The---- -maskers were so well liked at court the last week that they were -appointed to perform again on Monday: yet their device, which was a -mimical imitation of the Irish, was not pleasing to many, who think it -no time, as the case stands, to exasperate that nation, by making it -ridiculous’. On the finance cf. s.v. Campion. - - _Mercury Vindicated from the Alchemists. 6 Jan. 1615_ - -1616. Mercury Vindicated from the Alchemists at Court by Gentlemen the -Kings Seruants. _W. Stansby, sold by Richard Meighen._ [Part of F_{1}.] - -The maskers were twelve Sons of Nature; the first antimaskers -Alchemists, the second Imperfect Creatures, in helms of limbecs; the -presenters Vulcan, Cyclops, Mercury, Nature, and Prometheus, with a -chorus of musicians. - -The locality was doubtless Whitehall. The scene first discovered was -a laboratory. After the antimasks it changed to a bower, whence the -maskers descended for ‘the first dance’, ‘the main dance’, and, after -dancing with the ladies, ‘their last dance’. Donne (_Letters_, ii. 65) -wrote to Sir Henry Goodyere on 13 Dec. [1614], ‘They are preparing -for a masque of gentlemen, in which M^r. Villiers is and M^r. Karre -whom I told you before my Lord Chamberlain had brought into the -bedchamber’. On 18 Dec. [1614] (ii. 66) he adds, ‘M^r. Villiers ... -is here, practising for the masque’. The year-dates can be supplied -by comparison with Chamberlain’s letters to Carleton. On 1 Dec. 1614 -(_S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxviii. 65) Chamberlain wrote, ‘And yet for all -this penurious world we speake of a maske this Christmas toward which -the King gives 1500£ the principall motiue wherof is thought to be the -gracing of younge Villers and to bring him on the stage’. It should -be borne in mind that there was at this time an intrigue amongst the -Court party opposed to Somerset and the Howards, including Donne’s -patroness Lady Bedford, to put forward George Villiers, afterwards Duke -of Buckingham, as a rival to the Earl of Somerset in the good graces of -James I. On 5 Jan. Chamberlain wrote again (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxx. 1; -Birch, i. 290, but there misdated), ‘Tomorrow night there is a mask at -court, but the common voice and preparations promise so little, that -it breeds no great expectation’; and on 12 Jan. (_S. P. D._ lxxx. 4; -Birch, i. 356), ‘The only matter I can advertise ... is the success -of the mask on Twelfth Night, which was so well liked and applauded, -that the King had it represented again the Sunday night after [8 -Jan.] in the very same manner, though neither in device nor show was -there anything extraordinary, but only excellent dancing; the choice -being made of the best, both English and Scots’. He then describes an -ambassadorial incident, which is also detailed in a report by Foscarini -(_V. P._ xiii. 317) and by Finett, 19 (cf. Sullivan, 95). The Spanish -ambassador refused to appear in public with the Dutch ambassador, -although it was shown that his predecessor had already done so, and in -the end both withdrew. The Venetian ambassador and Tuscan agent were -alone present. An invitation to the French ambassador does not appear -to have been in question. - -Financial documents (Reyher, 523; _S. P. D._ lxxx, Mar.) show that one -Walter James received Exchequer funds for the mask. - -I am not quite sure that Brotanek, 351, is right in identifying -_Mercury Vindicated_ with the mask of January 1615 and _The Golden -Age Restored_ with that of January 1616, but the evidence is so -inconclusive that it is not worth while to disturb his chronology. -_Mercury Vindicated_ is not dated in the Folio, but it is printed next -before _The Golden Age Restored_, which is dated ‘1615’. Now it is true -that the order of the Folio, as Brotanek points out, appears to be -chronological; but it is also true that, at any rate for the masks, the -year-dates, by a practice characteristic of Jonson, follow Circumcision -and not Annunciation style. One or other principle seems to have been -disregarded at the end of the Folio, and who shall say which? Brotanek -attempts to support his arrangement by tracing topical allusions (_a_) -in _Mercury Vindicated_ to Court ‘brabbles’ of 1614–15, (_b_) in _The -Golden Age Restored_ to the Somerset _esclandre_. But there are always -‘brabbles’ in courts, and I can find no references to Somerset at all. -Nor is it in the least likely that there would be any. _Per contra_, I -may note that Chamberlain’s description of the ‘device’ in 1615 as not -‘extraordinary’ applies better to _The Golden Age Restored_ than to -_Mercury Vindicated_. - - _The Golden Age Restored. 1 Jan. 1616_ - -1616. The Golden Age Restor’d. In a Maske at Court, 1615. by the Lords, -and Gentlemen, the Kings Seruants. _W. Stansby, sold by Richard -Meighen._ [Part of F_{1}.] - -The maskers were Sons of Phoebus, Chaucer, Gower, Lydgate, Spenser, and -presumably others; the antimaskers twelve Evils; the presenters Pallas, -Astraea, the Iron Age, and the Golden Age, with a chorus of musicians. - -The locality was doubtless Whitehall. Pallas descended, and the Evils -came from a cave, danced to ‘two drums, trumpets, and a confusion of -martial music’, and were turned to statues. The scene changed, and -later the scene of light was discovered. After ‘the first dance’ and -‘the main dance’, the maskers danced with the ladies, and then danced -‘the galliards and corantos’. - -Finett, 31 (cf. Sullivan, 237), tells us that ‘The King being desirous -that the French, Venetian, and Savoyard ambassadors should all be -invited to a maske at court prepared for New-years night, an exception -comming from the French, was a cause of deferring their invitation -till Twelfe night, when the Maske was to be re-acted, ... [They] were -received at eight of the clock, the houre assigned (no supper being -prepared for them, as at other times, to avoid the trouble incident) -and were conducted to the privy gallery by the Lord Chamberlaine and -the Lord Danvers appointed (an honour more than had been formerly -done to Ambassadors Ordinary) to accompany them, the Master of the -Ceremonies being also present. They were all there placed at the maske -on the Kings right hand (not right out, but byas forward) first and -next to the King the French, next him the Venetian, and next him the -Savoyard. At his Majesties left hand sate the Queen, and next her the -Prince. The maske being ended, they followed his Majesty to a banquet -in the presence, and returned by the way they entered: the followers -of the French were placed in a seate reserved for them above over -the Kings right hand; the others in one on the left. The Spanish -ambassadors son, and the agent of the Arch-Duke (who invited himselfe) -were bestowed on the forme where the Lords sit, next beneath the -Barons, English, Scotish, and Irish as the sonns of the Ambassador of -Venice, and of Savoy had been placed the maske night before, but were -this night placed with their countreymen in the gallery mentioned.’ - -Financial documents (Reyher, 523; _S. P. D._ lxxxix. 104) show -Exchequer payments for the mask to Edmund Sadler and perhaps Meredith -Morgan. - -On the identification of the mask of 1 and 6 Jan. 1616 with _The Golden -Age Restored_, s.v. _Mercury Vindicated_. - - ENTERTAINMENTS - - _Althorp Entertainment_ [_The Satyr_]. _1603_ - -_S. R._ 1604, March 19. [See _Coronation Entertainment_.] - -1604. A particular Entertainment of the Queene and Prince their -Highnesse to Althrope, at the Right Honourable the Lord Spencers, -on Saterday being the 25. of Iune 1603. as they come first into the -Kingdome; being written by the same Author [B. Jon:], and not before -published. _V.S. for Edward Blount._ [Appended to the _Coronation -Entertainment_.] - -_Editions_ in _Works_ and by Nichols, _James_ (1828), i. 176. - -The host, Sir Robert Spencer, of Althorp, Northants, was created Lord -Spencer of Wormleighton on 21 July 1603. On arrival (25 June) the Queen -and Prince were met in the park by a Satyr, Queen Mab, and a bevy of -Fairies, who after a dialogue and song, introduced Spencer’s son John, -as a huntsman, to Henry; and a hunt followed. On Monday afternoon (27 -June) came Nobody with a speech to introduce ‘a morris of the clowns -thereabout’, but this and a parting speech by a youth could not be -heard for the throng. - - _Coronation Entertainment. 1604_ - -_S. R._ 1604, March 19 (Pasfield). ‘A Parte of the Kinges Maiesties ... -Entertainement ... done by Beniamin Johnson.’ _Edward Blunt_ (Arber, -iii. 254). - -1604. B. Jon: his part of King James his Royall and Magnificent -Entertainement through his Honorable Cittie of London, Thurseday -the 15. of March, 1603. So much as was presented in the first and -last of their Triumphall Arch’s. With his speach made to the last -Presentation, in the Strand, erected by the inhabitants of the Dutchy, -and Westminster. Also, a briefe Panegyre of his Maiesties first and -well auspicated entrance to his high Court of Parliament, on Monday, -the 19. of the same Moneth. With other Additions. _V.S. for Edward -Blount._ [This also includes the _Althorp Entertainment_.] - -_Editions_ in _Works_ of Jonson, and by Nichols, _James_ -(1828), i. 377. - -For other descriptions of the triumph and Jonson’s speeches cf. ch. -xxiv, C. - - _Highgate Entertainment_ [_The Penates_]. _1604_ - -1616. [Head-title] A Priuate Entertainment of the King and Queene, -on May Day in the Morning, At Sir William Cornwalleis his house, at -Highgate. 1604. [Part of F_{1}.] - -_Editions_ in _Works_ and by Nichols, _James_ (1828), i. 431. - -The host was Sir William Cornwallis, son of Sir Thomas, of Brome Hall, -Suffolk. On arrival, in the morning (1 May), the King and Queen were -received by the Penates, and led through the house into the garden, -for speeches by Mercury and Maia, and a song by Aurora, Zephyrus, and -Flora. In the afternoon was a dialogue in the garden by Mercury and -Pan, who served wine from a fountain. - - _Entertainment of King of Denmark. 1606_ - -1616. [Head-title] The entertainment of the two Kings of Great -Brittaine and Denmarke at Theobalds, Iuly 24, 1606. [Part of F_{1}.] - -_Editions_ in _Works_ and by Nichols, _James_, ii. 70. - -This consists only of short speeches by the three Hours to James -(in English) and Christian (in Latin) on their entry into the Inner -Court at Lord Salisbury’s house of Theobalds, Herts. (24 July), and -some Latin inscriptions and epigrams hung on the walls. But the visit -lasted until 28 July, and further details are given, not only in the -well-known letter of Sir John Harington (cf. ch. vi) but also in _The -King of Denmarkes Welcome_ (1606; cf. ch. xxiv), whose author, while -omitting to describe ‘manie verie learned, delicate and significant -showes and deuises’, because ‘there is no doubt but the author thereof -who hath his place equall with the best in those Artes, will himselfe -at his leasurable howers publish it in the best perfection’, gives a -Song of Welcome, sung under an artificial oak of silk at the gates. -Probably this was not Jonson’s, as he did not print it. Bond, i. 505, -is hardly justified in reprinting it as Lyly’s. - - _Theobalds Entertainment. 1607_ - -1616. An Entertainment of King Iames and Queene Anne, at Theobalds, -When the House was deliuered vp, with the posession, to the Queene, by -the Earle of Salisburie, 22. of May, 1607. The Prince Ianvile, brother -to the Duke of Guise, being then present. [Part of F_{1}.] - -_Editions_ in _Works_ and by Nichols, _James_ (1828), ii. 128. - -The Genius of the house mourns the departure of his master, but is -consoled by Mercury, Good Event, and the three Parcae, and yields the -keys to Anne. The performance took place in a gallery, known later as -the green gallery, 109 feet long by 12 wide. Boderie, ii. 253, notes -the ‘espéce de comedie’, and the presence of Prince de Joinville. - - _Prince Henry’s Barriers. 6 Jan. 1610_ - -1616. The Speeches at Prince Henries Barriers. [Part of F_{1}.] - -_Editions_ in _Works_ and by Nichols, _James_ (1828), ii. 271. - -The barriers had a spectacular setting. The Lady of the Lake is -‘discovered’ and points to her lake and Merlin’s tomb. Arthur is -‘discovered as a star above’. Merlin rises from his tomb. Their -speeches lament the decay of chivalry, and foretell its restoration, -now that James ‘claims Arthur’s seat’, through a knight, for whom -Arthur gives the Lady a shield. The Knight, ‘Meliadus, lord of the -isles’, is then ‘discovered’ with his six assistants in a place -inscribed ‘St. George’s Portico’. Merlin tells the tale of English -history. Chivalry comes forth from a cave, and the barriers take place, -after which Merlin pays final compliments to the King and Queen, Henry, -Charles, and Elizabeth. - -Jonson does not date the piece, but it stands in F_{1} between the -_Masque of Queens_ (2 Feb. 1609) and _Oberon_ (1 Jan. 1611), and -this, with the use of the name Meliadus, enables us to attach it to -the barriers of 6 Jan. 1610, of which there is ample record (Stowe, -_Annales_, 574; Cornwallis, _Life of Henry_, 12; Birch, i. 102; -Winwood, iii. 117; _V. P._ xi. 400, 403, 406, 410, 414). It was -Henry’s first public appearance in arms, and he had some difficulty -in obtaining the King’s consent, but His Majesty did not wish to -cross him. The challenge, speeches for which are summarized by -Cornwallis, was on 31 Dec. in the presence-chamber, and until 6 Jan. -Henry kept open table at St. James’s at a cost of £100 a day. With -him as challengers were the Duke of Lennox, the Earls of Arundel and -Southampton, Lord Hay, Sir Thomas Somerset, and Sir Richard Preston. -There were fifty-eight defendants, of whom prizes were adjudged to the -Earl of Montgomery, Thomas Darcy, and Sir Robert Gordon. Each bout -consisted of two pushes with the pike and twelve sword-strokes, and the -young prince gave or received that night thirty-two pushes and about -360 strokes. Drummond of Hawthornden, who called his elegy on Henry -_Tears on the Death of Moeliades_, explains the name as an anagram, -_Miles a Deo_. - - _A Challenge at Tilt. 1 Jan. 1614_ - -1616. A Challenge at Tilt, at a Marriage. [Part of F_{1} where it -follows upon the mask _Love Restored_ (q.v.), and the type is perhaps -arranged so as to suggest a connexion, which can hardly have existed.] - -_Editions_ in _Works_ and by Nichols, _James_ (1828), -ii. 716. - -On the day after the marriage, two Cupids, as pages of the bride and -bridegroom, quarrelled and announced the tilt. On 1 Jan. each came in -a chariot, with a company of ten knights, of whom the Bride’s were -challengers, and introduced and followed the tilting with speeches. -Finally, Hymen resolved the dispute. - -This tilt was on 1 Jan. 1614, after the wedding of the Earl of Somerset -on 26 Dec. 1613, as is clearly shown by a letter of Chamberlain (Birch, -i. 287). The bride’s colours were murrey and white, the bridegroom’s -green and yellow. The tilters included the Duke of Lennox, the -Earls of Rutland, Pembroke, Montgomery, and Dorset, Lords Chandos, -Scrope, Compton, North, Hay, Norris, and Dingwall, Lord Walden and his -brothers, and Sir Henry Cary. - - _Lost Entertainment_ - -When James dined with the Merchant Taylors on 16 July 1607 (cf. ch. -iv), Jonson wrote a speech of eighteen verses, for recitation by an -Angel of Gladness. This ‘pleased his Majesty marvelously well’, but -does not seem to have been preserved (Nichols, _James_, ii. 136; Clode, -i. 276). - - -FRANCIS KINWELMERSHE (>1577–?1580). - -A Gray’s Inn lawyer, probably of Charlton, Shropshire, verses by whom -are in _The Paradise of Dainty Devices_ (1576). - - _Jocasta. 1566_ - -Translated with George Gascoigne (q.v.). - - -THOMAS KYD (1558–94). - -Kyd was baptized on 6 Nov. 1558. His father, Francis Kyd, was a London -citizen and a scrivener. John Kyd, a stationer, may have been a -relative. Thomas entered the Merchant Taylors School in 1565, but there -is no evidence that he proceeded to a university. It is possible that -he followed his father’s profession before he drifted into literature. -He seems to be criticized as translator and playwright in Nashe’s -Epistle to Greene’s _Menaphon_ in 1589 (cf. App. C), and a reference -there has been rather rashly interpreted as implying that he was the -author of an early play on Hamlet. About the same time his reputation -was made by _The Spanish Tragedy_, which came, with _Titus Andronicus_, -to be regarded as the typical drama of its age. Ben Jonson couples -‘sporting Kyd’ with ‘Marlowe’s mighty line’ in recording the early -dramatists outshone by Shakespeare. Towards the end of his life Kyd’s -relations with Marlowe brought him into trouble. During the years -1590–3 he was in the service of a certain noble lord for whose players -Marlowe was in the habit of writing. The two sat in the same room -and certain ‘atheistic’ papers of Marlowe’s got mixed up with Kyd’s. -On 12 May 1593 Kyd was arrested on a suspicion of being concerned in -certain ‘lewd and mutinous libels’ set up on the wall of the Dutch -churchyard; the papers were discovered and led to Marlowe (q.v.) being -arrested also. Kyd, after his release, wrote to the Lord Keeper, Sir -John Puckering, to repudiate the charge of atheism and to explain away -his apparent intimacy with Marlowe. It is not certain who the ‘lord’ -with whom the two writers were connected may have been; possibly -Lord Pembroke or Lord Strange, for whose players Marlowe certainly -wrote; possibly also Henry Radcliffe, fourth Earl of Sussex, to whose -daughter-in-law Kyd dedicated his translation of _Cornelia_, after -his disgrace, in 1594. Before the end of 1594 Kyd had died intestate -in the parish of St. Mary Colchurch, and his parents renounced the -administration of his goods. - - _Collection_ - -1901. F. S. Boas, _The Works of T. K._ [Includes _1 Jeronimo_ and -_Soliman and Perseda_.] - -_Dissertations_: K. Markscheffel, _T. K.’s Tragödien_ (1886–7, -_Jahresbericht des Realgymnasiums zu Weimar_); A. Doleschal, -_Eigenthümlichkeiten der Sprache in T. K.’s Dramen_ (1888), _Der -Versbau in T. K.’s Dramen_ (1891); E. Ritzenfeldt, _Der Gebrauch des -Pronomens, Artikels und Verbs bei T. K._; G. Sarrazin, _T. K. und sein -Kreis_ (1892, incorporating papers in _Anglia_ and _E. S._); J. Schick, -_T. K.’s Todesjahr_ (1899, _Jahrbuch_, xxxv. 277); O. Michael, _Der -Stil in T. K.’s Originaldramen_ (1905, _Berlin diss._); C. Crawford, -_Concordance to the Works of T. K._ (1906–10, _Materialien_, xv); F. C. -Danchin, _Études critiques sur C. Marlowe_ (1913, _Revue Germanique_, -ix. 566); _T. L. S._ (June, 1921). - - _The Spanish Tragedy, c. 1589_ - -_S. R._ 1592, Oct. 6 (Hartwell). ‘A booke whiche is called the -_Spanishe tragedie_ of Don Horatio and Bellmipeia.’ _Abel Jeffes_ -(Arber, ii. 621). [Against the fee is a note ‘Debitum hoc’. -Herbert-Ames, _Typographical Antiquities_, ii. 1160, quotes from a -record in Dec. 1592 of the Stationers’ Company, not given by Arber: -‘Whereas Edw. White and Abell Jeffes have each of them offended, viz. -E. W. in having printed the Spanish tragedie belonging to A. J. And A. -J. in having printed the Tragedie of Arden of Kent, belonginge to E. W. -It is agreed that all the bookes of each impression shalbe confiscated -and forfayted according to thordonances to thuse of the poore of the -company ... either of them shall pay for a fine 10_s._ a pece.’] - -N.D. The Spanish Tragedie, Containing the lamentable end of Don -Horatio, and Bel-Imperia: with the pittiful death of olde Hieronimo. -Newly corrected, and amended of such grosse faults as passed in the -first impression. _Edward Allde for Edward White._ [Induction. Greg, -_Plays_, 61, and Boas, xxvii, agree in regarding this as the earliest -extant edition. Boas suggests that either it may be White’s illicit -print, or, if that print was the ‘first impression’, a later one -printed for him by arrangement with Jeffes.] - -1594. _Abell Jeffes, sold by Edward White._ - -_S. R._ 1599, Aug. 13. Transfer ‘salvo iure cuiuscunque’ from Jeffes to -W. White (Arber, iii. 146). - -1599. _William White._ - -_S. R._ 1600, Aug. 14. Transfer to Thomas Pavier (Arber, iii. 169). - -1602.... Newly corrected, amended, and enlarged with new additions of -the Painters part, and others, as it hath of late been diuers times -acted. _W. White for Thomas Pavier._ - -1602 (colophon 1603); 1610 (colophon 1611); 1615 (two issues); 1618; -1623 (two issues); 1633. - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–4} (1744–1874, v), and by T. Hawkins (1773, -_O. E. D._ ii), W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ i), J. M. Manly (1897, -_Specimens_, ii), J. Schick (1898, _T. D._; 1901, _Litterarhistorische -Forschungen_, xix). _Dissertations_: J. A. Worp, _Die Fabel der Sp. -T._ (1894, _Jahrbuch_, xxix, 183); G. O. Fleischer, _Bemerkungen über -Thomas Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy_ (1896). - -Kyd’s authorship of the play is recorded by Heywood, _Apology_, 45 -(cf. App. C, No. lvii). The only direct evidence as to the date is Ben -Jonson’s statement in the Induction to _Bartholomew Fair_ (1614), ‘He -that will swear _Ieronimo_ or _Andronicus_ are the best plays yet, -shall pass unexcepted at here as a man whose judgment shows it is -constant, and hath stood still these five and twenty or thirty years’. -This yields 1584–9. Boas, xxx, argues for 1585–7; W. Bang in _Englische -Studien_, xxviii. 229, for 1589. The grounds for a decision are slight, -but the latter date seems to me the more plausible in the absence of -any clear allusion to the play in Nashe’s (q.v.) _Menaphon_ epistle of -that year. - -Strange’s men revived _Jeronymo_ on 14 March 1592 and played it -sixteen times between that date and 22 Jan. 1593. I agree with Greg -(_Henslowe_, ii. 150, 153) that by _Jeronymo_ Henslowe meant _The -Spanish Tragedy_, and that the performances of it are distinguishable -from those which the company was concurrently giving of a related piece -called _Don Horatio_ or ‘the comedy of Jeronimo’, which is probably -not to be identified with the extant anonymous _1 Jeronimo_ (q.v.). -On 7 Jan. 1597 the play was revived by the Admiral’s and given twelve -times between that date and 19 July. Another performance, jointly with -Pembroke’s, took place on 11 Oct. Finally, on 25 Sept. 1601 and 22 June -1602, Henslowe made payments to Jonson, on behalf of the Admiral’s, -for ‘adicyons’ to the play. At first sight, it would seem natural to -suppose that these ‘adicyons’ are the passages (II. v. 46–133; III. ii. -65–129; III. xii^a. 1–157; IV. iv. 168–217) which appear for the first -time in the print of 1602. But many critics have found it difficult -to see Jonson’s hand in these, notably Castelain, 886, who would -assign them to Webster. And as Henslowe marked the play as ‘n. e.’ in -1597, it is probable that there was some substantial revision at that -date. There is a confirmation of this view in Jonson’s own mention -of ‘the old Hieronimo (as it was first acted)’ in the induction to -_Cynthia’s Revels_ (1600). Perhaps the 1597 revival motived Jonson’s -quotation of the play by the mouth of Matheo in _E. M. I._ I. iv, and -in _Satiromastix_, 1522, Dekker suggests that Jonson himself ‘took’st -mad Ieronimoes part, to get service among the Mimickes’. Lines from -the play are also recited by the page in _Poetaster_, III. iv. 231. In -the Induction, 84, to Marston’s _Malcontent_ (1604) Condell explains -the appropriation of that play by the King’s from the Chapel with -this retort, ‘Why not Malevole in folio with us, as well as Jeronimo -in decimo sexto with them’. Perhaps _1 Jeronimo_ is meant; in view of -the stage history of _The Spanish Tragedy_, as disclosed by Henslowe’s -diary, the King’s could hardly have laid claim to it. - -The play was carried by English actors to Germany (Boas, xcix; -Creizenach, xxxiii; Herz, 66, 76), and a German adaptation by Jacob -Ayrer is printed by Boas, 348, and with others in German and Dutch, in -R. Schönwerth, _Die niederländischen und deutschen Bearbeitungen von -T. K.’s Sp. T._ (1903, _Litterarhistorische Forschungen_, xxvi). - - _Cornelia. 1593_ - -_S. R._ 1594, Jan. 26 (Dickins). ‘A booke called Cornelia, Thomas Kydd -beinge the Authour.’ _Nicholas Ling and John Busbye_ (Arber, ii. 644). - -1594. Cornelia. _James Roberts for N. L. and John Busby._ [‘Tho. Kyd’ -at end of play.] - -1595. Pompey the Great, his fair Corneliaes Tragedie. Effected by her -Father and Husbandes downe-cast, death, and fortune. Written in French, -by that excellent Poet Ro: Garnier; and translated into English by -Thomas Kid. _For Nicholas Ling._ [A reissue of the 1594 sheets -with a new title-page.] - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^4, iv. 5 (1874) and by H. Gassner (1894). - -A translation of the _Cornélie_ (1574) of Robert Garnier, reissued -in his _Huit Tragédies_ (1580). In a dedication to the Countess of -Sussex Kyd expressed his intention of also translating the _Porcie_ -(1568) of the same writer, but this he did not live to do. He speaks of -‘bitter times and privy broken passions’ endured during the writing of -_Cornelia_ which suggests a date after his arrest on 12 May 1593. - - _Lost and Doubtful Plays_ - - _The ‘Ur-Hamlet’_ - -_Dissertations_: J. Corbin, _The German H. and Earlier English -Versions_ (1896, _Harvard Studies_, v); J. Schick, _Die Entstehung des -H._ (1902, _Jahrbuch_, xxxviii. xiii); M. B. Evans, _Der bestrafte -Brudermord, sein Verhältniss zu Shakespeare’s H._ (1902); K. Meier -(1904, _Dresdner Anzeiger_); W. Creizenach, _Der bestrafte Brudermord -and its Relation to Shakespeare’s H._ (1904, _M. P._ ii. 249), _Die -vorshakespearesche Hamlettragödie_ (1906, _Jahrbuch_, xlii. 76); A. E. -Jack, _Thomas Kyd and the Ur-Hamlet_ (1905, _M. L. A._ xx. 729); J. W. -Cunliffe, _Nash and the Earlier Hamlet_ (1906, _M. L. A._ xxi. 193); J. -Allen, _The Lost H. of K._ (1908, _Westminster Review_); J. Fitzgerald, -_The Sources of the H. Tragedy_ (1909); M. J. Wolff, _Zum Ur-Hamlet_ -(1912, _E. S._ xlv. 9); J. M. Robertson, _The Problem of Hamlet_ (1919). - -The existence of a play on Hamlet a decade or more before the end -of the sixteenth century is established by Henslowe’s note of its -revival by the Admiral’s and Chamberlain’s on 11 June 1594 (cf. Greg, -_Henslowe_, ii. 164), and some corroborative allusions, but its -relationship to Shakespeare’s play is wholly conjectural. The possible -coupling of ‘Kidde’ and ‘Hamlet’ in Nashe’s epistle to _Menaphon_ has -led to many speculations as to Kyd’s authorship and as to the lines -on which the speculators think he would have treated the theme. Any -discussion of these is matter for an account of _Hamlet_. - -Kyd’s hand has also been sought in _Arden of Feversham_, _Contention -of York and Lancaster_, _Edward III_, _1 Jeronimo_, _Leire_, _Rare -Triumphs of Love and Fortune_, _Soliman and Perseda_, _Taming of A -Shrew_, and _True Tragedy of Richard III_ (cf. ch. xxiv), and in -Shakespeare’s _Titus Andronicus_. - - -MAURICE KYFFIN (?-1599). - -A Welshman by birth, he left the service of John Dee, with whom he -afterwards kept up friendly relations, on 25 Oct. 1580 (_Diary_, -10, 15, 48). His epistles suggest that in 1587 he was tutor to Lord -Buckhurst’s sons. In 1592 he was vice-treasurer in Normandy. His -writings, other than the translation, are unimportant. - - _Andria of Terence > 1587_ - -1588. Andria The first Comoedie of Terence, in English. A furtherance -for the attainment vnto the right knowledge, & true proprietie, of -the Latin Tong. And also a commodious meane of help, to such as -haue forgotten Latin, for their speedy recouering of habilitie, to -vnderstand, write, and speake the same. Carefully translated out of -Latin, by Maurice Kyffin. _T. E. for Thomas Woodcocke._ [Epistle by -Kyffin to Henry and Thomas Sackville; commendatory verses by ‘W. -Morgan’, ‘Th. Lloid’, ‘G. Camdenus’, ‘Petrus Bizarus’, ‘R. Cooke’; -Epistle to William Sackville, dated ‘London, Decemb. 3, 1587’, signed -‘Maurice Kyffin’; Preface to the Reader; Preface by Kyffin to all young -Students of the Latin Tongue, signed ‘M. K.’; Argument.] - -_S. R._ 1596, Feb. 9. Transfer of Woodcock’s copies to Paul Linley -(Arber, iii. 58). - -_S. R._ 1597, Apr. 21 (Murgetrode). ‘The second Comedy of Terence -called Eunuchus.’ _Paul Lynley_ (Arber, iii. 83). - -_S. R._ 1600, June 26. Transfer of ‘The first and second commedie of -Terence in Inglishe’ from Paul Linley to John Flasket (Arber, iii. 165). - -Presumably the _Andria_ is the ‘first’ comedy of the 1600 transfer, and -if so the lost _Eunuchus_ may also have been by Kyffin. The _Andria_ is -in prose; Kyffin says he had begun seven years before, nearly finished, -and abandoned a version in verse. - - -JOHN LANCASTER (_c._ 1588). - -A Gray’s Inn lawyer, one of the devisers of dumb-shows and director for -the _Misfortunes of Arthur_ of Thomas Hughes (q.v.) in 1588. - - -SIR HENRY LEE (1531–1611). - -[The accounts of Lee in _D. N. B._ and by Viscount Dillon in _Bucks., -Berks. and Oxon. Arch. Journ._, xii (1906) 65, may be supplemented from -Aubrey, ii. 30, J. H. Lea, _Genealogical Notes on the Family of Lee of -Quarrendon_ (_Genealogist_, n.s. viii-xiv), and F. G. Lee in _Bucks. -Records_, iii. 203, 241; iv. 189, _The Lees of Quarrendon_ (_Herald and -Genealogist_, iii. 113, 289, 481), and _Genealogy of the Family of Lee_ -(1884).] - -Lee belonged to a family claiming a Cheshire origin, which had long -been settled in Bucks. From 1441 they were constables and farmers of -Quarrendon in the same county, and the manor was granted by Henry -VIII to Sir Robert Lee, who was Gentleman Usher of the Chamber and -afterwards Knight of the Body. His son Sir Anthony married Margaret, -sister of Sir Thomas Wyatt, the poet. Their son Henry was born in -1531, and Aubrey reports the scandal that he was ‘supposed brother to -Elizabeth’. He was page of honour to the King, and by 1550 Clerk of -the Armoury. He was knighted in 1553. By Sept. 1575 he was Master of -the Game at Woodstock (Dasent, ix. 23), and by 1577 Lieutenant of the -manor and park (Marshall, _Woodstock_, 160), holding ‘le highe lodge’ -and other royal houses in the locality. Probably he was concerned with -the foundation of Queen’s Day (cf. ch. i) in 1570, which certainly -originated near Oxford, and when the annual tilting on this day at -Whitehall was instituted, Lee acted as Knight of the Crown until his -retirement in 1590. He used as his favourite device a crowned pillar. -He took some part in the military enterprises of the reign, and in -1578 became Master of the Armoury. In 1597 he was thought of as -Vice-Chamberlain, and on 23 April was installed as K.G. He was a great -sheep-farmer and encloser of land, and a great builder or enlarger of -houses, including Ditchley Hall, four or five miles from Woodstock, in -the parish of Spelsbury, where he died on 12 Feb. 1611. By his wife, -Anne, daughter of William Lord Paget, who died in 1590, he had two -sons and a daughter, who all predeceased him. His will of 6 Oct. 1609 -provides for the erection of a tomb in Quarrendon Chapel near his own -for ‘M^{rs}. Ann Vavasor alias Finch’. There are no tombs now, but the -inscriptions on Lee’s tomb and on a tablet in the chancel, also not -preserved, are recorded. The former says: - - ‘In courtly justs his Soveraignes knight he was’, - -and the latter adds: - - ‘He shone in all those fayer partes that became his profession - and vowes, honoring his highly gracious Mistris with reysing - those later Olympiads of her Courte, justs and tournaments ... - wherein still himself lead and triumphed.’ - -The writer is William Scott, who also, with Richard Lee, witnessed -the will. Anne Vavasour does not in fact appear to have been buried -at Quarrendon. Aubrey describes her as ‘his dearest deare’, and says -that her effigy was placed at the foot of his on the tomb, and that the -bishop threatened to have it removed. Anne’s tomb was in fact defaced -as early as 1611. Anne was daughter of Sir Henry and sister of Sir -Thomas Vavasour of Copmanthorpe, Yorks. She was a new maid of honour -who ‘flourished like the lily and the rose’ in 1590 (Lodge, ii. 423). -Another Anne Vavasour came to Court as ‘newly of the beddchamber’ -after being Lady Bedford’s ‘woman’, about July 1601 (Gawdy, 112, -conjecturally dated; cf. vol. iv, p. 67). Anne Clifford tells us that -‘my cousin Anne Vavisour’ was going with her mother Lady Cumberland and -Lady Warwick and herself to meet Queen Anne in 1603, and married Sir -Richard Warburton the same year (Wiffen, ii. 69, 72). The Queen is said -to have visited Sir Henry and his mistress at a lodge near Woodstock -called ‘Little Rest’, now ‘Lee’s Rest’, in 1608. After Lee’s death his -successor brought an action against Anne and her brother for illegal -detention of his effects (_5 N. Q._ iii. 294), and the feud was -still alive and Anne had added other sins to her score in 1618, when -Chamberlain wrote (Birch, ii. 86): - - ‘M^{rs}. Vavasour, old Sir Henry Lee’s woman, is like to be - called in question for having two husbands now alive. Young - Sir Henry Lee, the wild oats of Ireland, hath obtained the - confiscation of her, if he can prove it without touching her - life.’ - -Aubrey’s story that Lee’s nephew was disinherited in favour of ‘a -keeper’s sonne of Whitchwood-forest of his owne name, a one-eied young -man, no kinne to him’, is exaggerated gossip. Lee entailed his estate -on a second cousin. - -I have brought together under Lee’s name two entertainments and -fragments of at least one other, which ought strictly to be classed -as anonymous, but with which he was certainly concerned, and to which -he may have contributed some of the ‘conceiptes, Himmes, Songes & -Emblemes’, of which one of the fragments speaks. - - _The Woodstock Entertainment. Sept. 1575_ - -[_MS._] _Royal MS._ 18 A. xlviii (27). ‘The Tale of Hemetes the -Heremyte.’ [The tale is given in four languages, English, Latin, -Italian, and French. It is accompanied by pen-and-ink drawings, and -preceded by verses and an epistle to Elizabeth. The latter is dated -‘first of January, 1576’ and signed ‘G. Gascoigne’. The English text -is, with minor variations, that of the tale as printed in 1585. Its -authorship is not claimed by Gascoigne, who says that he has ‘turned -the eloquent tale of _Hemetes the Heremyte_ (wherw^{th} I saw yo^r -lerned judgment greatly pleased at Woodstock) into latyne, Italyan and -frenche’, and contrasts his own ignorance with ‘thaucto^{rs} skyll’.] - -_S. R._ 1579, Sept. 22. ‘A paradox provinge by Reason and Example that -Baldnes is muche better than bushie heare.’ _H. Denham_ (Arber, ii. -360). - -1579. A Paradoxe, Proving by reason and example, that Baldnesse is much -better than bushie haire.... Englished by Abraham Fleming. Hereunto is -annexed the pleasant tale of Hemetes the Heremite, pronounced before -the Queenes Majestie. Newly recognized both in Latine and Englishe, by -the said A. F. _H. Denham._ [Contains the English text of the Tale -and Gascoigne’s Latin version.] - -1585. _Colophon_: ‘Imprinted at London for Thomas Cadman, 1585.’ -[Originally contained a complete description of an entertainment, -of which the tale of Hemetes only formed part; but sig. A, with the -title-page, is missing. The unique copy, formerly in the Rowfant -library, is now in the B.M. The t.p. is a modern type-facsimile, based -on the head-line and colophon (McKerrow, _Bibl. Evidence_, 306).] - -_Editions_ (_a_) from 1579, by J. Nichols, _Eliz._ i. 553 (1823), and -W. C. Hazlitt, _Gascoigne_, ii. 135 (1870); (_b_) from _MS._ by J. -W. Cunliffe, _Gascoigne_, ii. 473 (1910); (_c_) from 1585, by A. W. -Pollard (1910, partly printed 1903) and J. W. Cunliffe (1911, _M. L. -A._ xxvi. 92). - -Gascoigne’s manuscript is chiefly of value as fixing the locality of -the entertainment, which is not mentioned in the mutilated print of -1585. The date can hardly be doubtful. Elizabeth spent considerable -periods at Woodstock in 1572, 1574, and 1575, but it so happens that -only in 1575 was she there on the 20th of a month (_vide infra_ and -App. B). Moreover, Laurence Humphrey’s _Oratio_ delivered at Woodstock -on 11 Sept. 1575 (Nichols, i. 590) refers to the entertainment in the -phrase ‘an ... Gandina spectacula ... dabit’. The description takes -the form of a letter from an eyewitness, evidently not the deviser, -and professing ignorance of Italian; not, therefore, Gascoigne, as -pointed out by Mr. Pollard. At the beginning of sig. B, Hemetes, a -hermit, has evidently just interrupted a fight between Loricus and -Contarenus. He brings them, with the Lady Caudina, to a bower, where -Elizabeth is placed, and tells his Tale, of which the writer says, -‘hee shewed a great proofe of his audacity, in which tale if you marke -the woords with this present world, or were acquainted with the state -of the deuises, you should finde no lesse hidden then vttered, and no -lesse vttered then shoulde deserue a double reading ouer, euen of those -(with whom I finde you a companion) that haue disposed their houres to -the study of great matters’. The Tale explains how the personages have -come together. Contarenus loved Caudina, daughter of Occanon Duke of -Cambia. At Occanon’s request, an enchantress bore him away, and put him -in charge of the blind hermit, until after seven years he should fight -the hardiest knight and see the worthiest lady in the world. Caudina, -setting out with two damsels to seek him, met at the grate of Sibilla -with Loricus, a knight seeking renown as a means to his mistress’s -favour. Sibilla bade them wander, till they found a land in all things -best, and with a Princess most worthy. Hemetes himself has been blinded -by Venus for loving books as well as a lady, and promised by Apollo the -recovery of his sight, where most valiant knights fight, most constant -lovers meet, and the worthiest lady looks on. Obviously it is all a -compliment to the worthiest lady. Thus the Tale ends. The Queen is -now led to the hermit’s abode, an elaborate sylvan banqueting-house, -built on a mound forty feet high, roofed by an oak, and hung with -pictures and posies of ‘the noble or men of great credite’, some of -which the French ambassador made great suit to have. Here Elizabeth was -visited by ‘the Queen of the Fayry drawen with 6 children in a waggon -of state’, who presented her with an embroidered gown. Couplets or -‘posies’ set in garlands were also given to the Queen, to the Ladies -Derby, Warwick, Hunsdon, Howard, Susan and Mary Vere, and to Mistresses -Skidmore, Parry, Abbington, Sidney, Hopton, Katherine Howard, Garret, -Bridges, Burrough, Knowles, and Frances Howard. After a speech from -Caudina, Elizabeth departed, as it was now dark, well pleased with her -afternoon, and listening to a song from an oak tree as she went by. -A somewhat cryptic passage follows. Elizabeth is said to have left -‘earnest command that the whole in order as it fell, should be brought -her in writing, which being done, as I heare, she vsed, besides her -owne skill, the helpe of the deuisors, & how thinges were made I know -not, but sure I am her Maiesty hath often in speech some part hereof -with mirth at the remembrance.’ Then follows a comedy acted on ‘the 20 -day of the same moneth’, which ‘was as well thought of, as anye thing -ever done before her Maiestie, not onely of her, but of the rest: in -such sort that her Graces passions and other the Ladies could not [? -but] shew it selfe in open place more than euer hath beene seene’. The -comedy, in 991 lines of verse, is in fact a sequel to the Tale. In it -Occanon comes to seek Caudina, who is persuaded by his arguments and -the mediation of Eambia, the Fairy Queen, to give up her lover for her -country’s sake. - -Pollard suggests Gascoigne as the author of the comedy, but of this -there is no external evidence. He also regards the intention of the -whole entertainment as being the advancement of Leicester’s suit. -Leicester was no doubt at Woodstock, even before the Queen, for he -wrote her a letter from there on 4 Sept. (_S. P. D. Eliz_. cv. 36); -but the undated letter which Pollard cites (cv. 38), and in which -Leicester describes himself as ‘in his survey to prepare for her -coming’, probably precedes the Kenilworth visit. Pollard dates it 6 -Sept., but Elizabeth herself seems to have reached Woodstock by that -date. Professor Cunliffe, on the other hand, thinks that the intention -was unfavourable to Leicester’s suit, and thus explains the stress -laid on Caudina’s renunciation of her lover for political reasons. I -doubt if there is any reference to the matter at all; it would have -been dangerous matter for a courtly pen. Doubtless the writer of the -description talks of ‘audacity’, in the Tale, not the comedy. But has -he anything more in mind than Sir Henry Lee, whom we are bound to find, -here as elsewhere, in Loricus, and his purely conventional worship of -Elizabeth? - - _The Tilt Yard Entertainment. 17 Nov. 1590_ - -There are two contemporary descriptions, viz.: - -1590. Polyhymnia Describing, the Honourable Triumph at Tylt, before her -Maiestie, on the 17 of Nouember last past, being the first day of the -three and thirtith yeare of her Highnesse raigne. With Sir Henrie Lea, -his resignation of honour at Tylt, to her Maiestie, and receiued by the -right honorable, the Earle of Cumberland. _R. Jones._ [Dedication by -George Peele to Lord Compton on verso of t.p.] - -1602. W. Segar, Honor, Military and Ciuill, Book iii, ch. 54, ‘The -Originall occasions of the yeerely Triumphs in England’. - -Segar’s account is reproduced by Nichols, _Eliz._ iii. 41, and both -in the editions of Peele (q.v.) by Dyce and Bullen. A manuscript copy -with variants from the Q. is at St. John’s College, Oxford (F. S. Boas -in _M. L. R._ xi. 300). _Polyhymnia_ mainly consists of a blank verse -description and eulogy of the twenty-six tilters, in couples according -to the order of the first running of six courses each, viz. Sir Henry -Lee and the Earl of Cumberland, Lord Strange and Thomas Gerrard, Lord -Compton and Henry Nowell, Lord Burke and Sir Edward Denny, the Earl of -Essex and Fulk Greville, Sir Charles Blount and Thomas Vavasor, Robert -Carey and William Gresham, Sir William Knowles and Anthony Cooke, Sir -Thomas Knowles and Sir Philip Butler, Robert Knowles and Ralph Bowes, -Thomas Sidney and Robert Alexander, John Nedham and Richard Acton, -Charles Danvers and Everard Digby. The colours and in some cases the -‘device’ or ‘show’ are indicated. Lee is described as - - Knight of the crown, in rich embroidery, - And costly fair caparison charged with crowns, - O’ershadowed with a withered running vine, - As who would say, ‘My spring of youth is past’, - In corselet gilt of curious workmanship. - -Strange entered ‘in costly ship’, with the eagle for his device; Essex - - In stately chariot full of deep device, - Where gloomy Time sat whipping on the team, - Just back to back with this great champion. - -Blount’s badge was the sun, Carey’s a burning heart, Cooke’s a hand and -heart, - - And Life and Death he portray’d in his show. - -The three Knowles brothers bore golden boughs. A final section of the -poem describes how, after the running, Sir Henry Lee, ‘knight of the -Crown’, unarmed himself in a pavilion of Vesta, and petitioned the -Queen to allow him to yield his ‘honourable place’ to Cumberland, to -whom he gave his armour and lance, vowing to betake himself to orisons. - -Segar gives a fuller account of Lee’s fantasy. He had vowed, ‘in the -beginning of her happy reigne’, to present himself yearly in arms -on the day of Elizabeth’s accession. The courtiers, incited by his -example, had yearly assembled, ‘not vnlike to the antient Knighthood -della Banda in Spaine’, but in 1590, ‘being now by age ouertaken’, -Lee resigned his office to Cumberland. The ceremony took place ‘at -the foot of the staires vnder her gallery-window in the Tilt-yard at -Westminster’, where Elizabeth sat with the French ambassador, Viscount -Turenne. A pavilion, representing the Temple of the Vestal Virgins, -arose out of the earth. Within was an altar, with gifts for the queen; -before the door a crowned pillar, embraced by an eglantine, and bearing -a complimentary inscription. As the knights approached, ‘M. Hales her -maiesties seruant’ sang verses beginning: - - My golden locks time hath to siluer turned. - -The vestals then gave the Queen a veil and a cloak and safeguard, -the buttons of which bore the ‘emprezes’ or ‘badges’ of many nobles, -friends of Lee, each fixed to an embroidered pillar, the last being -‘like the character of _&c._’ Finally Lee doffed his armour, presented -Cumberland, armed and horsed him, and himself donned a side-coat of -black velvet and a buttoned cap of the country fashion. ‘After all -these ceremonies, for diuers dayes hee ware vpon his cloake a crowne -embrodered, with a certaine motto or deuice, but what his intention -therein was, himselfe best knoweth.’ - -The Queen appointed Lee to appear yearly at the exercises, ‘to see, -suruey, and as one most carefull and skilfull to direct them’. Segar -dwells on Lee’s virtues and valour, and concludes by stating that the -annual actions had been performed by 1 Duke, 19 Earls, 27 Barons, 4 -Knights of the Garter, and above 150 other Knights and Esquires. - -On 20 Nov. 1590 Richard Brakinbury wrote to Lord Talbot (Lodge, -ii. 419): ‘These sports were great, and done in costly sort, to her -Majesty’s liking, and their great cost. To express every part, with -sundry devices, is more fit for them that delight in them, than for me, -who esteemeth little such vanities, I thank God.’ - -P. A. Daniel (_Athenaeum_ for 8 Feb. 1890) notes that a suit of armour -in Lord Hothfield’s collection, which once belonged to Cumberland and -is represented in certain portraits of him, is probably the identical -suit given him by Lee, as it bears a monogram of Lee’s name. - -There has been some controversy about the authorship of the verses sung -by ‘M. Hales’, who was Robert Hales, a lutenist. They appear, headed ‘A -Sonnet’, and unsigned, on a page at the end of _Polyhymnia_, and have -therefore been ascribed to Peele. The evidence, though inconclusive, is -better than the wanton conjecture which led Mr. Bond to transfer them -to Lyly (_Works_, i. 410). But a different version in _Rawl. Poet. MS._ -148, f. 19, is subscribed ‘q^d S^r Henry Leigh’, and some resemblances -of expression are to be found in other verses assigned to Lee in R. -Dowland, _Musicall Banquet_ (1610), No. 8 (Bond, i. 517; Fellowes, -459). It is not impossible that Lee himself may have been the author. -One of the pieces in the _Ferrers MS._ (_vide_ p. 406 _infra_) refers -to his ‘himmes & songes’. If the verses, which also appear anonymously -in J. Dowland, _First Booke of Songs or Ayres_ (1597, Fellowes, 418), -are really Lee’s, Wyatt’s nephew was no contemptible poet. Finally, -there are echoes of the same theme in yet another set of anonymous -verses in J. Dowland, _Second Book of Airs_ (1600, Fellowes, 422), -which are evidently addressed to Lee. - - _The Second Woodstock Entertainment, 20 Sept. 1592, and - Other Fragments_ - -[_MSS._] (_a_) _Ferrers MS._, a collection made by Henry Ferrers of -Baddesley Clinton, Warwickshire (1549–1633). - -(_b_) _Inner Temple Petyt MS._ 538, 43, ff. 284–363. - -[A collection of verses by Lady Pembroke, Sir John Harington, Francis -Bacon (q.v.) and others, bound as part of a composite MS.] - -(_c_) Viscount Dillon kindly informs me that a part of the -entertainment, dated ‘20 Sept.’, is in his possession. - -_Editions_ (_Ferrers MS._ only) by W. Hamper, _Masques: Performed -before Queen Elizabeth_ (1820), and in _Kenilworth Illustrated_ (1821), -Nichols, _Eliz._^2 iii. 193 (1828), and R. W. Bond, _Lyly_, i. 412, 453 -(1902). - -The Ferrers MS. seems to contain ten distinct pieces, separated from -each other only by headings, to which I have prefixed the numbers. - -(i) ‘A Cartell for a Challeng.’ - -Three ‘strange forsaken knightes’ offer to maintain ‘that Loue is worse -than hate, his Subiectes worse than slaues, and his Rewarde worse than -naught: And that there is a Ladie that scornes Loue and his power, of -more vertue and greater bewtie than all the Amorouse Dames that be -at this day in the worlde’. This cannot be dated. Sir Robert Carey -(_Memoirs_, 33) tilted as a ‘forsaken knight’ on 17 Nov. 1593 (not -1592, as stated by Brotanek, 60), but he was not a challenger, and was -alone. The tone resembles that of Sir Henry Lee, and if he took part, -the date must be earlier than 1590. - -(ii) ‘Sir Henry Lee’s challenge before the Shampanie.’ - -A ‘strange knight that warres against hope and fortune’ will maintain -the cause of Despair in a green suit. - -Hamper explained ‘Shampanie’ as ‘the lists or field of contention, from -the French _campagne_’; but Segar, _Honor, Military and Ciuill_, 197, -records, from an intercepted letter of ‘Monsieur de Champany ... being -ambassador in England for causes of the Low Countreys’, an occasion -on which Sir Henry Lee, ‘the most accomplished cavaliero I had euer -seene’, broke lances with other gentlemen in his honour at Greenwich. -M. de Champagny was an agent of the native Flemish Catholics, and -visited England in 1575 and 1585 (Froude, x. 360; xii. 39). As his -letter named ‘Sir’ C. Hatton, who was knighted in 1578, the visit of -1585 must be in question. The Court was at Greenwich from March to July -of that year. - -(iii) ‘The Supplication of the Owld Knight.’ - -A speech to the ‘serveres of this English Holiday, or rather Englandes -Happie Daye’, in which a knight disabled by age, ‘yet once (thowe -unwoorthie) your fellowe in armes, and first celebrator, in this kinde, -of this sacred memorie of that blessed reigne’, begs them to ‘accepte -to your fellowshippe this oneley sonne of mine’. - -This is evidently a speech by Lee, on some 17 Nov. later than 1590. -Lee’s own sons died in childhood; probably the ‘son’ introduced was a -relative, but possibly only a ‘son’ in chivalry. - -(iv) ‘The Message of the Damsell of the Queene of Fayries.’ - -An ‘inchanted knight’ sends the Queen an image of Cupid. She is -reminded how ‘at the celebrating the joyfull remembraunce of the most -happie daye of your Highnes entrance into Gouerment of this most -noble Islande, howe manie knightes determined, not far hence, with -boulde hartes and broken launces, to paye there vowes and shewe theire -prowes’. The ‘inchanted knight’ could not ‘chardge staffe, nor strike -blowe’, but entered the jousts, and bore the blows of others. - -If this has reference to the first celebration of 17 Nov., it may -be of near date to the Woodstock Entertainment of 1575 in which the -fairy queen appeared. The knight, ‘full hardie and full haples’, is -enchanted, but is not said to be old. - -(v) ‘The Olde Knightes Tale.’ - -‘Not far from hence, nor verie long agoe,’ clearly in 1575, ‘the fayrie -Queene the fayrest Queene saluted’, and the pleasures included ‘justes -and feates of armed knightes’, and ‘enchaunted pictures’ in a bower. -The knight was bidden by the fairy queen to guard the pictures and keep -his eyes on the crowned pillar. He became ‘a stranger ladies thrall’, -neglected this duty, and was cast into a deadly sleep. Now he is freed, -apparently through the intervention of Elizabeth, to whom the verses -are addressed. - -(vi) ‘The Songe after Dinner at the two Ladies entrance.’ - -Celebrates the setting free by a prince’s grace, of captive knights and -ladies, and bids farewell to inconstancy. - -(vii) ‘The Ladies Thankesgeuing for theire Deliuerie from Unconstancie.’ - -A speech to the Queen, in the same vein as (vi), followed by a dialogue -between Li[berty], or Inconstancy, and Constancy. This is datable in -1592 from another copy printed in _The Phoenix Nest_ (1593), with -the title ‘An Excellent Dialogue betweene Constancie and Inconstancie: -as it was by speech presented to her maiestie, in the last Progresse -at Sir Henrie Leighes house’. Yet another copy, in _Inner Temple -Petyt MS._ 538, 43, f. 299. ‘A Dialogue betweene Constancie and -Inconstancie spoken before the Queenes Majestie at Woodstock’ is -ascribed to ‘Doctor Edes’. - -(viii) ‘The last Songe.’ - -A rejoicing on the coming of Eliza, with references to constancy and -inconstancy, the aged knight, and the pillar and crown. - -(ix) ‘The second daies woorke where the Chaplayne maketh this - Relation.’ - -An Oration to the Queen by the chaplain of Loricus, ‘an owlde Knight, -now a newe religiouse Hermite’. The story of Loricus was once told [in -1575] ‘by a good father of his owne coate, not farr from this coppies’. -Once he ‘rann the restles race of desire.... Sometymes he consorted -with couragious gentelmen, manifesting inward joyes by open justes, the -yearly tribute of his dearest Loue. Somtimes he summoned the witnesse -of depest conceiptes, Himmes & Songes & Emblemes, dedicating them to -the honor of his heauenlye mistres’. Retiring, through envy and age, -to the country, he found the speaker at a homely cell, made him his -chaplain, and built for their lodging and that of a page ‘the Crowne -Oratory’, with a ‘Piller of perpetual remembraunce’ as his device -on the entrance. Here he lies, at point of death, and has addressed -his last testament to the Queen. This is in verse, signed ‘Loricus, -columnae coronatae custos fidelissimus’, and witnessed by ‘Stellatus, -rectoriae coronatae capellanus’, and ‘Renatus, equitis coronatae servus -obseruantissimus’. - -(x) ‘The Page bringeth tydings of his Maister’s Recouerie & presenteth - his Legacie.’ - -A further address to the Queen, with a legacy in verse of the whole -Mannor of Loue, signed by Loricus and witnessed by Stellatus and -Renatus. - -This exhausts the _Ferrers MS._, but I can add from the _Petyt -MS._ f. 300^v-- - -(xi) ‘The melancholie Knights complaint in the wood.’ - -This, like (vii), is ascribed in the MS. to ‘Doctor Edes’. It consists -of 35 lines in 6 stanzas of 6 lines each (with one line missing) and -begins: - - What troupes are theis, which ill aduised, presse - Into this more than most vnhappie place. - -Allusions to the freeing of enchanted knights and ladies and to -constancy and inconstancy connect it closely with (vi)-(viii). - -Obviously most of these documents, and therefore probably all, belong -to devices presented by Sir Henry Lee. But they are of different dates, -and not demonstrably in chronological order. A single occasion accounts -for (vi)-(viii) and (xi), and a single occasion, which the mention of -‘the second daie’ suggests may have been the same, for (ix) and (x); -and probably Mr. Bond is justified in regarding all these as forming -part with (vii) of the entertainment at Lee’s house in the progress of -1592. But I do not see his justification for attaching (iv) and (v) to -them, and I think that these are probably fragments of the Woodstock -Entertainment of 1575, or not far removed from that in time. Nor has -he any evidence for locating the entertainment of 1592 at Quarrendon, -which was only one of several houses belonging to Sir Henry Lee, and -could not be meant by the ‘coppies’ near Woodstock of (ix). It was -doubtless, as the Petyt MS. version of (vii) tells us, at Woodstock, -either at one of Lee’s lodges, or at Ditchley, during the royal visit -to Woodstock of 18–23 Sept. 1592. I learn from Viscount Dillon that -a MS. of part of this entertainment, dated 20 Sept., is still at -Ditchley. Finally, Bond’s attribution of all the pieces (i)-(x) to Lyly -is merely guesswork. Hamper assigned them to George Ferrers, probably -because the owner of his MS. was a Ferrers. George Ferrers did in fact -help in the Kenilworth Entertainment of 1575, and might therefore -have helped in that at Woodstock; but he died in 1579, too early for -(vi)-(xi). No doubt (vii) and (xi) are by Richard Edes (q.v.). He may -have written the whole of this Woodstock Entertainment. On the other -hand, a phrase in (ix) suggests that Lee may have penned some of his -own conceits. Brotanek, 62, suggests that the two ladies of (vi) are -Lee’s wife and his mistress Anne Vavasour, and that Elizabeth came -to Lee’s irregular household to set it in order. This hardly needs -refuting, but in fact Lee’s wife died in 1590 and his connexion with -Anne Vavasour was probably of later date. - - -ROBERT LEE. - -For his career as an actor, see ch. xv. - -He may have been, but was not necessarily, the author of _The Miller_ -which the Admiral’s bought from him for £1 on 22 Feb. 1598 (Greg, -_Henslowe_, ii. 191). - - -THOMAS LEGGE (1535–1607). - -Of Norwich origin, Legge entered Corpus Christi, Cambridge, in 1552, -and took his B.A. in 1557, his M.A. in 1560, and his LL.D. in 1575. -After migration to Trinity and Jesus, he had become Master of Caius -in 1573. In 1593 he was Vice-Chancellor, and in that capacity took -part in the negotiations of the University with the Privy Council for -a restraint of common plays in Cambridge (_M. S. C._ i. 200). His -own reputation as a dramatist is acknowledged by Meres, who in 1598 -placed him among ‘our best for Tragedie’, and added that, ‘as M. Anneus -Lucanus writ two excellent Tragedies, one called _Medea_, the other -_de Incendio Troiae cum Priami calamitate_: so Doctor _Leg_ hath penned -two famous tragedies, y^e one of _Richard the 3_, the other of _The -destruction of Ierusalem_’. - - _Richardus Tertius. March 1580_ - -[_MSS._] _Cambridge Univ. Libr. MS._ M^m iv. 40, ‘Thome Legge legum -doctoris Collegij Caiogonevilensis in Academia Cantabrigiensi magistri -ac Rectoris Richardus tertius Tragedia trivespera habita Collegij divi -Johannis Evangeliste Comitiis Bacchelaureorum Anno Domini 1579 Tragedia -in tres acciones diuisa.’ [_Argumentum_ to each _Actio_; Epilogue.] - -_Emmanuel, Cambridge, MS._ 1. 3. 19, with date ‘1579’ and actor-list. - -_Clare, Cambridge, MS._ Kk, 3, 12, with date ‘1579’. - -_Caius, Cambridge, MS._ 62, ‘tragoedia trium vesperum habita in -collegio Divi Johannis Evangelistae, Comitiis Bacchalaureorum Anno -1573.’ - -_Bodl. Tanner MS._ 306, including first _Actio_ only, with -actor-list and note, ‘Acted in St. John’s Hall before the Earle of -Essex’, to which has been apparently added later, ‘17 March, 1582’. - -_Bodl. MS._ 29448, dated α, φ, π, γ (= 1583). - -_Harl. MS._ 6926, a transcript by Henry Lacy, dated 1586. - -_Harl. MS._ 2412, a transcript dated 1588. - -_Hatton MS._ (cf. _Hist. MSS._ i. 32). - -_Editions_ by B. Field (1844, _Sh. Soc._) and W. C. Hazlitt (1875, -_Sh. L._ ii. 1).--_Dissertation_: G. B. Churchill, _Richard III bis -Shakespeare_ (1897, 1900). - -The names in the actor-lists, which agree, confirm those MSS. which -date a production in March 1580 (Boas, 394), and as Essex left -Cambridge in 1581, the date in the _Tanner MS._, in so far as it -relates to a performance before him, is probably an error. It does not -seem so clear to me that the _Caius MS._ may not point to an earlier -production in 1573. And it is quite possible that there may have been -revivals in some or all of the later years named in the MSS. The -reputation of the play is indicated, not only by the notice of it by -Meres (_vide supra_), but also by allusions in Harington’s _Apologie -of Poetrie_ (1591); cf. App. C, No. xlv. and Nashe’s _Have With You -to Saffron Walden_ (1596, _Works_, iii. 13). It may even, directly or -indirectly, have influenced _Richard III_. The argument to the first -_Actio_ is headed ‘Chapman, Argumentum primae actionis’, but it seems -difficult to connect George Chapman with the play. - - _Lost Play_ - - _The Destruction of Jerusalem_ - -Meres calls this tragedy ‘famous’. Fuller, _Worthies_ (1662), ii. 156, -says that ‘Having at last refined it to the purity of the publique -standard, some Plageary filched it from him, just as it was to be -acted’. Apparently it was in English and was printed, as it appears -in the lists of Archer and Kirkman (Greg, _Masques_, lxii). It can -hardly have been the _Jerusalem_ revived by Strange’s in 1592 (Greg, -_Henslowe_, ii. 155). Can any light be thrown on Fuller’s story by the -fact that in 1584 a ‘new Play of the Destruction of Jerusalem’ was -adopted by the city of Coventry as a craft play in place of the old -Corpus Christi cycle, and a sum of £13 6_s._ 8_d._ paid to John Smythe -of St. John’s, Oxford, ‘for hys paynes for writing of the tragedye’ -(_Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 361; H. Craig, _Coventry Corpus Christi Plays_ -(_E. E. T. S._), 90, 92, 93, 102, 103, 109)? - - -THOMAS LODGE (_c._ 1557–1625). - -Lodge, who uses the description ‘gentleman’, was son of Sir Thomas -Lodge, a Lord Mayor of London. His elder brother, William, married -Mary, daughter of Thomas Blagrave, Clerk of the Revels (cf. ch. iii). -He entered Merchant Taylors in 1571, Trinity College, Oxford, in 1573, -whence he took his B.A. in 1577, and Lincoln’s Inn in 1578. In 1579 -(cf. App. C, No. xxiii) he plunged into controversy with a defence -of the stage in reply to Stephen Gosson’s _Schoole of Abuse_. Gosson -speaks slightingly of his opponent as ‘hunted by the heavy hand of -God, and become little better than a vagrant, looser than liberty, -lighter than vanity itself’, and although Lodge took occasion to defend -his moral character from aspersion, it is upon record that he was -called before the Privy Council ‘to aunswere certen maters to be by -them objected against him’, and was ordered on 27 June 1581 to give -continued attendance (Dasent, xiii. 110). By 1583 he had married. His -literary work largely took the form of romances in the manner of Lyly -and Greene. _Rosalynde: Euphues’ Golden Legacy_, published (S. R. 6 -Oct. 1590) on his return from a voyage to Terceras and the Canaries -with Captain Clarke, is typical and was Shakespeare’s source for _As -You Like It_. His acknowledged connexion with the stage is slight; and -the attempt of Fleay, ii. 43, to assign to him a considerable share in -the anonymous play-writing of his time must be received with caution, -although he was still controverting Gosson in 1583 (cf. App. C, No. -xxxv), and too much importance need not be attached to his intention -expressed in _Scylla’s Metamorphosis_ (S. R. 22 Sept. 1589): - - To write no more of that whence shame doth grow, - Or tie my pen to penny knaves’ delight, - But live with fame, and so for fame to write. - -He is less likely than Nashe to be the ‘young Juvenal, that biting -satirist, that lastly with me together writ a Comedy’ of Greene’s -_Groats-worth of Wit_ epistle in 1592 (cf. App. C, No. xlviii). I -should not cavil at the loose description of _A Looking Glass for -London and England_ as a comedy; but ‘biting satirist’ hardly suits -Lodge; and at the time of Greene’s last illness he was out of England -on an expedition led by Thomas Cavendish to South America and the -Pacific, which started on 26 Aug. 1591 and returned on 11 June 1593. -After his return Lodge essayed lyric in _Phillis_ (1593) and satire -in _A Fig for Momus_ (1595); but he cannot be shown to have resumed -writing for the stage, although the Dulwich records make it clear -that he had relations with Henslowe, who had in Jan. 1598 to satisfy -the claims which Richard Topping, a tailor, had made against him -before three successive Lord Chamberlains, as Lodge’s security for a -long-standing debt (Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 44, 172). Lodge himself -was then once more beyond the seas. One of the documents was printed by -Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_, 45, with forged interpolations intended -to represent Lodge as an actor, for which there is no other evidence. -Subsequently Lodge took a medical degree at Avignon, was incorporated -at Oxford in 1602, and obtained some reputation as a physician. He also -became a Catholic, and had again to leave the country for recusancy, -but was allowed to return in Jan. 1610 (cf. F. P. Wilson in _M. L. R._ -ix. 99). About 1619 he was engaged in legal proceedings with Alleyn, -and for a time practised in the Low Countries, returning to London -before his death in 1625. Small, 50, refutes the attempts of Fleay, -i. 363, and Penniman, _War_, 55, 85, to identify him with Fungoso in -_E. M. O._ and Asotus in _Cynthia’s Revels_. Fleay, ii. 158, 352, adds -Churms and Philomusus in the anonymous _Wily Beguiled_ and _Return from -Parnassus_. - - _Collection_ - -1878–82. E. Gosse, _The Works of Thomas Lodge_ (_Hunterian Club_). -[Introduction reprinted in E. Gosse, _Seventeenth Century Studies_ -(1883).] - -_Dissertations_: D. Laing, _L.’s Defence of Poetry, Music, and Stage -Plays_ (1853, _Sh. Soc._); C. M. Ingleby, _Was T. L. an Actor?_ -(1868) and _T. L. and the Stage_ (1885, _6 N. Q._ xi, 107, 415); R. -Carl, _Ueber T. L.’s Leben und Werke_ (1887, _Anglia_, x. 235); E. C. -Richard, _Ueber T. L.’s Leben und Werke_ (1887, _Leipzig diss._). - - _The Wounds of Civil War. c. 1588_ - -_S. R._ 1594, May 24. ‘A booke intituled the woundes of Civill warre -lively sett forthe in the true Tragedies of Marius and Scilla.’ _John -Danter_ (Arber, ii. 650). - -1594. The Wounds of Ciuill War. Liuely set forth in the true Tragedies -of Marius and Scilla. As it hath beene publiquely plaide in London, by -the Right Honourable the Lord high Admirall his Seruants. Written by -Thomas Lodge Gent. _John Danter._ - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{3, 4} (1825–75) and by J. D. Wilson (1910, _M. -S. R._). - -The play contains a clear imitation of Marlowe’s _Tamburlaine_ in -the chariot drawn by four Moors of Act III, and both Fleay, ii. 49, -and Ward, i. 416, think that it was written shortly after its model, -although not on very convincing grounds. No performance of it is -recorded in Henslowe’s diary, which suggests a date well before 1592. - - _A Looking Glass for London and England, c. 1590_ - - _With_ Robert Greene (q.v.). - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -Lodge’s hand has been sought in _An Alarum for London_, _Contention -of York and Lancaster_, _George a Greene_, _Leire_, _Mucedorus_, -_Selimus_, _Sir Thomas More_, _Troublesome Reign of King John_, and -_Warning for Fair Women_ (cf. ch. xxiv), and in Greene’s _James IV_ and -Shakespeare’s _Henry VI_. - - -JANE, LADY LUMLEY (_c._ 1537–77). - -Jane, daughter of Henry Fitzalan, 12th Earl of Arundel, married John, -Lord Lumley, _c._ 1549. - - _Iphigenia_ (?) - -[_MS._] _Brit. Mus. MS. Reg._ 15 A. ix, ‘The doinge of my Lady Lumley -dowghter to my L. Therle of Arundell ... [f. 63] The Tragedie of -Euripides called Iphigeneia translated out of Greake into Englisshe.’ - -_Editions_ by H. H. Child (1909, _M. S. R._) and G. Becker (1910, -_Jahrbuch_, xlvi. 28). - -The translation is from the _Iphigenia in Aulis_. It is likely to be -pre-Elizabethan, but I include it here, as it is not noticed in _The -Mediaeval Stage_. - - -THOMAS LUPTON (?-?). - -Several miscellaneous works by Lupton appeared during 1572–84. He may -be the ‘Mr. Lupton’ whom the Corporation of Worcester paid during the -progress of 1575 (Nichols, i. 549) ‘for his paynes for and in devising -[and] instructing the children in their speeches on the too Stages’. - - _All For Money. 1558 < > 77_ - -_S. R._ 1577, Nov. 25. ‘An Enterlude intituled all for money.’ _Roger -Ward_ (Arber, ii. 321). - -1578. A Moral and Pitieful Comedie, Intituled, All for Money. Plainly -representing the manners of men, and fashion of the world noweadayes. -Compiled by T. Lupton. _Roger Ward and Richard Mundee._ - -_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1851, _Literature of Sixteenth and -Seventeenth Centuries_), E. Vogel (1904, _Jahrbuch_, xl. 129), J. S. -Farmer (1910, _T. F. T._). - -A final prayer for the Queen who ‘hath begon godly’ suggests an -earlier date than that of Lupton’s other recorded work. Fleay, ii. 56, -would identify the play with _The Devil and Dives_ named in the -anonymous _Histriomastix_, but Dives only appears once, and not -with Satan. - - -JOHN LYLY (1554?-1606). - -Lyly was of a gentle Hampshire family, the grandson of William, high -master of St. Paul’s grammar school, and son of Peter, a diocesan -official at Canterbury, where he was probably born some seventeen -years before 8 Oct. 1571, when he matriculated from Magdalen College, -Oxford. He took his B.A. in 1573 and his M.A. in 1575, after a vain -attempt in 1574 to secure a fellowship through the influence of -Burghley. He went to London and dwelt in the Savoy. By 1578, when he -published _Euphues_, _The Anatomy of Wit_, he was apparently in the -service of Lord Delawarr, and by 1580 in that of Burghley’s son-in-law, -Edward, Earl of Oxford. It is a pleasing conjecture that he may have -been the author of ‘the two prose books played at the Belsavage, -where you shall find never a word without wit, never a line without -pith, never a letter placed in vain’, thus praised in _The Schoole of -Abuse_ (1579) of his fellow euphuist, Stephen Gosson. He incurred the -enmity of Gabriel Harvey by suggesting to Oxford that he was aimed at -in the _Speculum Tuscanismi_ of Harvey’s _Three Letters_ (1580). In -1582 he had himself incurred Oxford’s displeasure, but the trouble -was surmounted, and about 1584 he held leases in the Blackfriars (cf. -ch. xvii), one at least of which he obtained through Oxford, for the -purposes of a theatrical speculation, in the course of which he took to -Court a company which bore Oxford’s name, but was probably made up of -boys from the Chapel and St. Paul’s choirs. Presumably the speculation -failed, for in June 1584 Lyly, who on 22 Nov. 1583 had married Beatrice -Browne of Mexborough, Yorks., was in prison for debt, whence he was -probably relieved by a gift from Oxford, in reward for his service, -of a rent-charge which he sold for £250. His connexion with the stage -was not, however, over, for he continued to write for the Paul’s -boys until they stopped playing about 1591. Harvey calls Lyly the -‘Vicemaster of Paules and the Foolemaster of the Theatre’. From this -it has been inferred that he held an ushership at the Paul’s choir -school. But ‘vice’ is a common synonym for ‘fool’ and ‘vicemaster’, -like ‘foolemaster’, probably only means ‘playwright’. Nothing written -by Lyly for the Theater in particular or for any adult stage is known -to exist, but he seems to have taken part with Nashe in the retorts of -orthodoxy during 1589 and 1590 to the Martin Marprelate pamphleteers, -probably writing the tract called _Pappe with a Hatchett_ (1589), and -he may have been responsible for some of the plays which certainly -formed an element in that retort. Lyly’s ambitions were in the -direction of courtly rather than of academic preferment. He seems to -have had some promise of favour from Elizabeth about 1585 and to have -been more definitely ‘entertained her servant’ as Esquire of the Body, -probably ‘extraordinary’, in or about 1588, with a hint to ‘aim his -courses at the Revels’, doubtless at the reversion of the Mastership, -then held by Edmund Tilney. Mr. R. W. Bond bases many conjectures about -Lyly’s career on a theory that he actually held the post of Clerk -Comptroller in the Revels Office, but the known history of the post -(cf. ch. iii) makes this impossible. From 1596 he is found living in -the parish of St. Bartholomew the Less. He seems to have ceased writing -plays for some while in 1590, and may be the ‘pleasant Willy’ spoken -of as ‘dead of late’ and sitting ‘in idle Cell’ in Spenser’s _Tears -of the Muses_ (1591), although it is possible that Tarlton (q.v.) is -intended. But _The Woman in the Moon_ at least is of later date, and it -is possible that both the Chapel and the Paul’s boys were again acting -his old plays by the end of the century. In 1595 he was lamenting the -overthrow of his fortunes, and by about 1597 the reversion of the -Mastership of the Revels had been definitely promised to George Buck. -There exist several letters written by Lyly to the Queen and to Sir -Robert Cecil between 1597 and 1601, in which he complains bitterly of -the wrong done him. Later letters of 1603 and 1605 suggest that at -last he had obtained his reward, possibly something out of the Essex -forfeitures for which he was asking in 1601. In any case, he did not -live to enjoy it long, as the register of St. Bartholomew’s the Less -records his burial on 30 Nov. 1606. - - _Collections_ - -_S. R._ 1628, Jan. 9 (by order of a full court). ‘Sixe playes of Peter -Lillyes to be printed in one volume ... viz^t. Campaste, Sapho, and -Phao. Galathea: Endimion Midas and Mother Bomby.’ _Blount_ (Arber, iv. -192). [‘Peter’ is due to a confusion with Lyly’s brother, a chaplain of -the Savoy, who had acted as licenser for the press.] - -1632. Sixe Court Comedies. Often Presented and Acted before Queene -Elizabeth, by the Children of her Maiesties Chappell, and the Children -of Paules. Written by the onely Rare Poet of that Time. The Witie, -Comicall, Facetiously-Quicke and vnparalelld: Iohn Lilly, Master of -Arts. _William Stansby for Edward Blount._ [Epistles to Viscount Lumley -and to the Reader, both signed ‘Ed. Blount’. This edition adds many -songs not in the Qq, and W. W. Greg (_M. L. R._ i. 43) argues that -they are not by Lyly, but mid-seventeenth-century work and possibly by -Dekker.] - -1858. F. W. Fairholt, _The Dramatic Works of J. L._ 2 vols. (_Library -of Old Authors_). - -1902. R. W. Bond, _The Complete Works of J. L._ 3 vols. - -_Dissertations_: H. Morley, _Euphuism_ (1861, _Quarterly Review_, -cix); W. L. Rushton, _Shakespeare’s Euphuism_ (1871); R. F. Weymouth, -_On Euphuism_ (1870–2, _Phil. Soc. Trans._); C. C. Hense, _J. L. und -Shakespeare_ (1872–3, _Jahrbuch_, vii. 238; viii. 224); F. Landmann, -_Der Euphuismus, sein Wesen, seine Quelle, seine Geschichte_ (1881), -_Shakespeare and Euphuism_ (1880–5, _N. S. S. Trans._ 241); J. Goodlet, -_Shakespeare’s Debt to J. L._ (1882, _E. S._ v. 356); K. Steinhäuser, -_J. L. als Dramatiker_ (1884); J. M. Hart, _Euphuism_ (1889, _Ohio -College Trans._); C. G. Child, _J. L. and Euphuism_ (1894); J. D. -Wilson, _J. L._ (1905); W. W. Greg, _The Authorship of the Songs in -L.’s Plays_ (1905, _M. L. R._ i. 43); A. Feuillerat, _J. L._ (1910); F. -Brie, _L. und Greene_ (1910, _E. S._ xlii. 217). - - _Campaspe. 1584_ - -(_a_) 1584. A moste excellent Comedie of Alexander, Campaspe, and -Diogenes. Played before the Queenes Maiestie on twelfe day at night -by her Maiesties Children and the Children of Poules. _For Thomas -Cadman._ [Huth Collection. Prologue and Epilogue at the Blackfriars; -Prologue and Epilogue at Court. Running title, ‘A tragical Comedie of -Alexander and Campaspe’.] - -(_b_) 1584. Campaspe, Played ... on newyeares day at night, by her -Maiesties Children.... _For Thomas Cadman._ [Dyce Collection.] - -(_c_) 1584. Campaspe, Played ... on newyeares day at night, by her -Maiesties Childrẽ.... _For Thomas Cadman._ [B.M.; Bodleian.] - -1591. Campaspe, Played ... on twelfe day.... _Thomas Orwin for William -Broome._ - -_S. R._ 1597, Apr. 12 (in full court). ‘Sapho and Phao and Campaspe ... -the which copies were Thomas Cadmans.’ _Joan Broome_ (Arber, iii. 82). - -1601, Aug. 23 (in full court). ‘Copies ... which belonged to Mystres -Brome ... viz. Sapho and Phao, Campaspe, Endimion, Mydas, Galathea.’ -_George Potter_ (Arber, iii. 191). - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–3} (1825, ii), and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. -D._ i), J. M. Manly (1897, _Specimens_, ii. 273), G. P. Baker (1903, -_R. E. C._)--_Dissertations_: R. Sprenger, _Zu J. L.’s C._ (1892, _E. -S._ xvi. 156); E. Koeppel, _Zu J. L.’s A. und C._ (1903, _Archiv_, cx). - -The order of the 1584 prints is not quite clear; (_c_) follows (_b_), -but the absence of any collation of (_a_) leaves its place conjectural. -I conjecture that it came first, partly because a correction in the -date of Court performance is more likely to have been made after one -inaccurate issue than after two, partly because its abandoned t.p. -title serves as running title in all three issues. I do not think -the reversion to ‘twelfe day’ in 1591, when the facts may have been -forgotten, carries much weight. If so, the Court production was on a -1 Jan., and although the wording of the t.p. suggests, rather than -proves, that it was 1 Jan. in the year of publication, this date fits -in with the known facts of Lyly’s connexion with the Blackfriars -(cf. ch. xvii). The _Chamber Accounts_ (App. B) give the performers -on this day as Lord Oxford’s servants, but I take this company to -have been a combination of Chapel and Paul’s children (cf. chh. xii, -xiii). Fleay, ii. 39, and Bond, ii. 310, with imperfect lists of Court -performances before them, suggest 31 Dec. 1581, taking ‘newyeares day -at night’, rather lamely, for New Year’s Eve. So does Feuillerat, 574, -but I am not sure that his view will have survived his Blackfriars -investigations. In any case, the play must have been written later than -Jan. 1580, as Lyly uses Sir T. North’s English translation of Plutarch, -of which the preface is dated in that month. In a prefatory note by N. -W. to S. Daniel, _The Worthy Tract of Paulus Jovius_ (1585), that work -is commended above ‘Tarlton’s toys or the silly enterlude of Diogenes’ -(Grosart, _Daniel_, iv. 8). - - _Sapho and Phao. 3 Mar. 1584_ - -_S. R._ 1584, Apr. 6. ‘Yt is graunted vnto him yat yf he gett ye -comedie of Sappho laufully alowed vnto him, then none of this cumpanie -shall interrupt him to enjoye yt’ (_in margin_ ‘Lyllye’). _Thomas -Cadman_ (Arber, ii. 430). - -1584. Sapho and Phao, Played beefore the Queenes Maiestie on -Shrouetewsday, by her Maiesties Children, and the Boyes of Paules. -_Thomas Dawson for Thomas Cadman._ [Prologues ‘at the Black fryers’ and -‘at the Court’, and Epilogue.] - -1591. _Thomas Orwin for William Broome._ - - _S. R._ 1597, Apr. 12 } - 1601, Aug. 23 } _vide supra_ s.v. _Campaspe_. - -I date the Court production on the Shrove-Tuesday before the S. R. -entry, on which day Oxford’s boys, whom I regard as made up of Chapel -and Paul’s boys, played under Lyly (cf. App. B). Fleay, ii. 40, Bond, -ii. 367, and Feuillerat, 573, prefer Shrove-Tuesday (27 Feb.) 1582. - - _Galathea. 1584 < > 88_ - -_S. R._ 1585, Apr. 1. ‘A Commoedie of Titirus and Galathea’ (no fee -recorded). _Gabriel Cawood_ (Arber, ii. 440). - -1591, Oct. 4 (Bp. of London). ‘Three Comedies plaied before her -maiestie by the Children of Paules thone called Endimion, thother -Galathea and thother Midas.’ _Widow Broome_ (Arber, ii. 596). - -1592. Gallathea. As it was playde before the Queenes Maiestie at -Greenewiche, on Newyeeres day at Night. By the Chyldren of Paules. -_John Charlwood for Joan Broome._ [Prologue and Epilogue.] - -The only performance by Paul’s, on a 1 Jan. at Greenwich, which can be -referred to in the t.p. is that of 1588 (cf. App. B), and in III. iii. -41 is an allusion to the approaching year _octogesimus octavus_, which -would of course begin on 25 March 1588. Fleay, ii. 40, and Feuillerat, -575, accept this date. Bond, ii. 425, prefers 1586 or 1587, regardless -of the fact that the New Year plays in these years were by the Queen’s -men. A phrase in V. iii. 86 proves it later than _Sapho and Phao_. But -if, as seems probable, the 1585 entry in the Stationers’ Register was -of this play, the original production must have been at least as early -as 1584–5, and that of 1588 a revival. - - _Endymion. 1588_ - -_S. R._ 1591, Oct. 4. _Vide supra_ s.v. _Galathea_. - -1591. Endimion, The Man in the Moone. Playd before the Queenes Maiestie -at Greenewich on Candlemas Day at night, by the Chyldren of Paules. -_John Charlwood for Joan Broome._ [Epistle by the Printer to the -Reader; Prologue and Epilogue.] - -_Editions_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ ii), G. P. Baker (1894) -and W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertations_: N. J. Halpin, -_Oberon’s Vision in M. N. D. Illustrated by a Comparison with L.’s -E._ (1843, _Sh. Soc._); J. E. Spingarn, _The Date of L.’s E._ (1894, -_Athenaeum_, ii. 172, 204); P. W. Long, _The Purport of L.’s E._ (1909, -_M. L. A._ xxiv. 1), _L.’s E., an Addendum_ (1911, _M. P._ viii. 599). - -The prologue and epilogue were evidently for the Court. The epistle -describes this as the first of certain comedies which had come into -the printer’s hands ‘since the plays in Pauls were dissolved’. Baker, -lxxxiii, suggested a date of composition in the autumn of 1579, while -Spingarn, Bond, iii. 11, and Feuillerat, 577, take the Candlemas of the -t.p. to be that of 1586, but the only available Candlemas performance -by the Paul’s boys is that of 1588 (cf. App. B). With Long I find no -conviction in the attempts of Halpin, Baker, Bond, and Feuillerat to -trace Elizabeth’s politics and amours in the play. If Lyly had meant -half of what they suggest, he would have ruined his career in her -service at the outset. - - _Midas. 1589–90_ - -_S. R._ 1591, Oct. 4. _Vide supra_, s.v. _Galathea_. - -1592. Midas. Plaied before the Queenes Maiestie upon Twelfe day at -night. By the Children of Paules. _Thomas Scarlet for J. B._ [Prologue -‘in Paules’.] - -_Edition_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ i). - -Internal allusions suggest a date as late as 1589, and the Twelfth -Night of the t.p. must therefore be 6 Jan. 1590. Fleay, ii. 42, and -Bond, iii. 111, accept this date. Feuillerat, 578, prefers 6 Jan. 1589, -because Gabriel Harvey alludes to the play in his _Advertisement to -Pap-Hatchet_, dated 5 Nov. 1589. But there was no Court performance -on that day, and Harvey may have seen the play ‘in Paules’. - - _Mother Bombie. 1587 < > 90_ - -_S. R._ 1594, June 18. ‘A booke intituled mother Bumbye beinge an -enterlude.’ _Cuthbert Burby_ (Arber, ii. 654). - -1594. Mother Bombie. As it was sundrie times plaied by the Children of -Powles. _Thomas Scarlet for Cuthbert Burby._ - -1598. _Thomas Creede for Cuthbert Burby._ - -_Edition_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ i). - -The play doubtless belongs to the Paul’s series of 1587–90. It seems -hardly possible to date it more closely. Feuillerat, 578, thinks it -later in style than _Midas_. - - _Love’s Metamorphosis. 1589–90_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1600, Nov. 25 (Pasfield). ‘A booke Called Loves metamorphesis -wrytten by master John Lylly and playd by the Children of Paules.’ -_William Wood_ (Arber, iii. 176). - -1601. Loves Metamorphosis. A Wittie and Courtly Pastorall. Written by -M^r Iohn Lyllie. First playd by the Children of Paules, and now by the -Children of the Chapell. _For William Wood._ - -F. Brie (_E. S._ xlii. 222) suggests that the play borrowed from -Greene’s _Greenes Metamorphosis_ (S. R. 9 Dec. 1588). Probably the -Paul’s boys produced it _c._ 1589–90, and the Chapel revived it in -1600–1. - - _The Woman in the Moon. 1590 < > 5_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1595, Sept. 22. ‘A booke intituled a woman in the moone.’ -_Robert Fynche_ (Arber, iii. 48). - -1597. The Woman in the Moone. As it was presented before her Highnesse. -By Iohn Lyllie Maister of Arts. _William Jones._ [Prologue.] - -The prologue says: - - Remember all is but a poet’s dream, - The first he had in Phoebus holy bower, - But not the last, unless the first displease. - -This has been taken as indicating that the play was Lyly’s first; but -it need only mean that it was his first in verse. All the others are -in prose. The blank verse is that of the nineties, rather than that -of the early eighties. There is nothing to show who were the actors, -but it is not unlikely that, after the plays in Paul’s were dissolved, -Lyly tried his hand in a new manner for a new company. Feuillerat, 232, -580, suggests that Elizabeth may have taken the satire of women amiss -and that the ‘overthwartes’ of Lyly’s fortunes of which he complained -in Jan. 1595 may have been the result. He puts the date, therefore, in -1593–4. - - _Doubtful Work_ - -Lyly has been suggested as the author of _Maid’s Metamorphosis_ and -_A Warning for Fair Women_ (cf. ch. xxiv) and of several anonymous -entertainments and fragments of entertainments (ibid., and _supra_, -s.vv. Cecil, Clifford, Lee). - - -LEWIS MACHIN (_fl. c._ 1608). - -Nothing is known of Machin’s personality. He is probably the L. M. who -contributed ‘eglogs’ to the _Mirrha_ (1607) of the King’s Revels actor -William Barksted (q.v.). A Richard Machin was an actor in Germany, -1600–6. There is no traceable connexion between either Richard or Lewis -and Henry Machyn the diarist. - -Machin collaborated with Gervase Markham in _The Dumb Knight_ -(q.v.). - -The anonymous _Every Woman in Her Humour_ and _Fair Maid of the -Exchange_ have also been ascribed to him (cf. ch. xxiv). - - -GERVASE MARKHAM (_c._ 1568–1637). - -There were two Gervase Markhams, as to both of whom full details are -given in C. R. Markham, _Markham Memorials_ (1913). The dramatist was -probably the third son of Robert Markham of Cotham, Notts., a soldier -and noted horseman, whose later life was devoted to an industrious -output of books, verses, romance, translations, and treatises on -horsemanship, farming, and sport. He was, said Jonson to Drummond in -1619, ‘not of the number of the faithfull, i.e. Poets, and but a base -fellow’ (Laing, 11). Fleay, ii. 58, suggested, on the basis of certain -phrases in his _Tragedy of Sir Richard Grenville_ (1595), which has a -dedication, amongst others, to the Earl of Southampton, that he might -be the ‘rival poet’ of Shakespeare’s _Sonnets_. The other Gervase -Markham was of Sedgebrook and later of Dunham, Notts., and is not known -to have been a writer. C. W. Wallace thinks he has found a third in -an ‘adventurer’ whose wagers with actors and others on the success -of an intended walk to Berwick in 1618 led to a suit in the Court of -Requests (_Jahrbuch_, xlvi. 345). But as he, like Markham of Cotham, -had served in Ireland, the two may conceivably be identical, although -the adventurer had a large family, and it is not known that Markham of -Cotham had any. Markham of Dunham, who had also served in Ireland, had -but two bastards. Conceivably Markham wrote for the Admiral’s in 1596–7 -(cf. vol. ii, p. 145). Beyond the period dealt with, he collaborated -with William Sampson in _Herod and Antipater_ (1622) acted by the -Revels company at the Red Bull. - - _The Dumb Knight. 1607–8_ - -_S. R._ 1608, Oct. 6 (Buck). ‘A playe of the Dumbe Knight.’ _John -Bache_ (Arber, iii. 392). - -1610. Nov. 19. Transfer from Bache to Robert Wilson (Arber, iii. 449). - -1608. The dumbe Knight. A pleasant Comedy, acted sundry times by the -children of his Maiesties Reuels. Written by Iaruis Markham. _N. Okes -for J. Bache._ [Epistle to Reader, signed ‘Lewes Machin’. There were -two reissues of 1608 with altered t.ps. Both omit the ascription -to Markham. One has ‘A historicall comedy’; the other omits the -description.] - -1633. _A. M. for William Sheares._ - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–4} (1744–1875) and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. -D._ ii).--_Dissertation_: J. Q. Adams, _Every Woman in Her Humour and -The Dumb Knight_ (1913, _M. P._ x. 413). - -The Epistle says that ‘Rumour ... hath made strange constructions -on this Dumb Knight’, and that ‘having a partner in the wrong whose -worth hath been often approved ... I now in his absence make this -apology, both for him and me’. Presumably these ‘constructions’ led to -the withdrawal of Markham’s name from the title-page. Fleay, ii. 58, -assigned him the satirical comedy of the underplot, but Adams points -out that Markham’s books reveal no humour, and that the badly linked -underplot was probably inserted by Machin. It borrows passages from the -anonymous unprinted _Every Woman in Her Humour_ (q.v.). The production -of a King’s Revels play is not likely to be before 1607, but Herz, 102, -thinks that an earlier version underlies the _Vom König in Cypern_ of -Jacob Ayrer, who died 1605. A later German version also exists, and was -perhaps the _Philole und Mariana_ played at Nuremberg in 1613. - - -CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE (1564–93). - -Marlowe, whose name was also spelt Marley and Marlin, was the son of -John and Catherine Marlowe of Canterbury. He was born 6 Feb. 1564. John -Marlowe was a shoemaker and subsequently became parish clerk of St. -Mary’s. He entered the King’s School, Canterbury, in 1579 and in March -1581 matriculated with a pension on Abp. Parker’s foundation at Corpus -Christi or Benet’s College, Cambridge. He took his B.A. in 1584 and -his M.A. in 1587. In this year he probably began his literary career -in London, with _Tamburlaine_. A ballad, printed by Collier, which -represents him as a player and breaking his leg in a lewd scene on the -stage of the Curtain, is now discredited. There are satirical allusions -to him in the preface to the _Perimedes_ (S. R. 29 March 1588) and in -the _Menaphon_ (23 Aug. 1589) of Robert Greene, but it is very doubtful -whether, as usually assumed, Nashe had him especially in mind when -he criticized certain tragic poets of the day in his epistle to the -latter pamphlet (cf. App. C, No. xlii). On 1 Oct. 1588 ‘Christofer -Marley, of London, gentleman,’ had to give bail to appear at the -next Middlesex Sessions. The exact nature of the charge is unknown; -but it cannot be doubted that his personal reputation, even in the -free-living Elizabethan London, did not stand high. He is clearly -the ‘famous gracer of tragedians’ reproved for atheism in Greene’s -_Groats-worth of Wit_ (1592) and it is probably to him that Chettle -alludes in his apology when he says, ‘With neither of them that take -offence was I acquainted and with one of them I care not if I never -be’ (cf. App. C, Nos. xlviii, xlix). The charge of atheism doubtless -arose from Marlowe’s association with the group of freethinkers which -centred round Sir Walter Raleigh. In 1593 these speculative tendencies -brought him into trouble. About 1591, while writing for the players of -a certain lord, as yet unidentified, he had shared a room with Thomas -Kyd (q.v.), who was then in the service of the same lord. Certain -theological notes of his got amongst Kyd’s papers and were found there -when Kyd was arrested on a charge of libel on 12 May 1593. On 18 May -the Privy Council sent a messenger to the house of Thomas Walsingham, -at Scadbury in Kent, to arrest Marlowe, and on 20 May he was ordered to -remain in attendance on the Council. There exists a ‘Note’ drawn up at -this time by one Richard Baines or Bame, containing a report of some -loose conversation of Marlowe’s which their Lordships could hardly be -expected to regard as anything but blasphemous. But, so far as Marlowe -was concerned, the proceedings were put a stop to by his sudden death. -The register of St. Nicholas, Deptford, records that he was ‘slain -by Francis Archer’ and buried there on 1 June 1593. Francis Meres’s -_Palladis Tamia_ (1598) tells us that he was ‘stabbed to death by a -bawdy servingman, a rival of his in his lewde love’. Somewhat different -versions of the story are given by Thomas Beard, _The Theater of God’s -Judgments_ (1597), and William Vaughan, _The Golden Grove_ (1600), both -of whom use Marlowe’s fate to point the moral against atheism. There -are some rather incoherent allusions to the event in verses affixed -by Gabriel Harvey to his _A New Letter of Notable Contents_, which is -dated 16 Sept. 1593: - - Sonet - - Gorgon, or the Wonderfull yeare - - ... The fatall yeare of yeares is Ninety Three: - ... Weepe Powles, thy Tamberlaine voutsafes to dye. - - L’envoy - - The hugest miracle remaines behinde, - The second Shakerley Rash-swash to binde. - - * * * * * - - The Writer’s Postscript; or a friendly Caveat to the Second - Shakerley of Powles. - - Slumbring I lay in melancholy bed - Before the dawning of the sanguin light: - When Eccho shrill, or some Familiar Spright, - Buzzed an Epitaph into my hed. - - Magnifique Mindes, bred of Gargantuas race. - In grisly weedes His Obsequies waiment - Whose Corps on Powles, whose mind triumph’d on Kent, - Scorning to bate Sir Rodomont an ace. - - I mus’d awhile: and having mus’d awhile, - Iesu, (quoth I) is that Gargantua minde - Conquerd, and left no Scanderbeg behinde? - Vowed he not to Powles A Second bile? - What bile or kibe (quoth that same early Spright) - Have you forgot the Scanderbegging wight? - - Glosse - - Is it a Dreame? or is it the Highest Minde - That ever haunted Powles, or hunted winde, - Bereaft of that same sky-surmounting breath, - That breath, that taught the Tempany to swell? - He, and the Plague contested for the game: - - * * * * * - - The grand Dissease disdain’d his toade Conceit, - And smiling at his tamberlaine contempt, - Sternely struck-home the peremptory stroke.... - -Harvey seems to have thought in error that Marlowe died of the plague. -I do not infer from the allusions to ‘Powles’ that Marlowe wrote for -the Paul’s boys; but rather that _Tamburlaine_, like Nashe’s pamphlets, -was sold by the booksellers in St. Paul’s Churchyard. The ‘second -Shakerley’ is certainly Nashe. Surely ‘Scanderbeg’, who is ‘left -behinde’, must also be Nashe, and I do not see how Fleay, ii. 65, draws -the inference that Marlowe was the author of the lost play entered on -the Stationers’ Register by Edward Allde on 3 July 1601 as ‘the true -historye of George Scanderbarge, as yt was lately playd by the right -honorable the Earle of Oxenford his servantes’ (Arber, iii. 187). There -is much satire both of Marlowe and of Nashe in the body of _A New -Letter_ (Grosart, _Harvey_, i. 255). - - _Collections_ - -1826. [G. Robinson] _The Works of C. M._ 3 vols. - -1850. A. Dyce, _The Works of C. M._ 3 vols. [Revised 1858, and in 1 -vol. 1865, &c.] - -1870. F. Cunningham, _The Works of C. M._ - -1885. A. H. Bullen, _The Works of C. M._ 3 vols. - -1885–9. H. Breymann and A. Wagner, _C. M. Historisch-kritische -Ausgabe._ 3 parts. [_Tamburlaine_, _Dr. Faustus_, _Jew of Malta_ only -issued.] - -1887. H. Ellis, _The Best Plays of C. M._ (_Mermaid Series_). -[_Tamburlaine_, _Dr. Faustus_, _Jew of Malta_, _Edward II_.] - -1910. C. F. Tucker Brooke, _The Works of C. M._ [Larger edition in -progress.] - -1912. W. L. Phelps. _Marlowe_ [_M. E. D._]. [_Tamburlaine_, _Dr. -Faustus_, _Jew of Malta_, _Edward II_.] - -_Dissertations_: H. Ulrici, _C. M. und Shakespeare’s Verhältniss zu -ihm_ (1865, _Jahrbuch_, i. 57); J. Schipper, _De versu Marlowii_ -(1867); T. Mommsen, _M. und Shakespeare_ (1886); A. W. Verity, _M.’s -Influence on Shakespeare_ (1886); E. Faligan, _De Marlovianis Fabulis_ -(1887); O. Fischer, _Zur Charakteristik der Dramen M.’s_ (1889); J. G. -Lewis, _C. M.: Outlines of his Life and Works_ (1891); F. S. Boas, -_New Light on M._ (1899, _Fortnightly Review_, lxxi, 212); J. H. -Ingram, _C. M. and his Associates_ (1904); H. Jung, _Das Verhältniss -M.’s zu Shakespeare_ (1904); W. L. Courtney, _C. M._ (_Fortnightly -Review_, 1905, ii. 467, 678); A. Marquardsen, _C. M.’s Kosmologie_ -(1905, _Jahrbuch_, xli. 54); J. Le G. Brereton, _The Case of Francis -Ingram_ (_Sydney Univ. Publ._ v); G. C. Moore Smith, _Marlowe at -Cambridge_ (1909, _M. L. R._ iv. 167); F. C. Danchin, _Études critiques -sur C. M._ (1912–13, _Revue Germanique_, viii. 23; ix. 566); C. -Crawford, _The Marlowe Concordance_ (1911, _Materialien_, xxxiv, pt. i -only); F. K. Brown, _M. and Kyd_ (_T. L. S._, 2 June, 1921). - - _Tamburlaine. c. 1587_ - -_S. R._ 1590, Aug. 14 (Hartwell). ‘The twooe commicall discourses of -Tomberlein the Cithian shepparde.’ _Richard Jones_ (Arber, ii. 558). - -1590. Tamburlaine the Great. Who, from a Scythian Shephearde by his -rare and wonderfull Conquests became a most puissant and mightye -Monarque. And (for his tyranny, and terrour in Warre) was tearmed, The -Scourge of God. Deuided into two Tragicall Discourses, as they were -sundrie times shewed vpon Stages in the Citie of London, By the right -honorable the Lord Admyrall, his seruantes. Now first, and newlie -published. _Richard Jones_ [8vo]. [Epistle to the Readers, signed ‘R. -I. Printer’; Prologues to both Parts. See Greg, _Plays_, 66; _Masques_, -cxxv. Ingram, 281, speaks of two 4tos and one 8vo of 1590, probably -through some confusion.] - -1592. _R. Jones._ [Greg, _Masques_, cxxv, thinks that the date may have -been altered in the B.M. copy from 1593. Langbaine mentions an edition -of 1593.] - -1597. [An edition apparently known to Collier; cf. Greg, _Masques_, -cxxv.] - -1605. _For Edward White._ [Part i.] - -1606. _E. A. for E. White._ [Part ii.] - -_Editions_ by A. Wagner (1885) and K. Vollmöller (1885) and of Part i -by W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertations_: C. H. Herford, -_The Sources of M.’s T._ (_Academy_, 20 Oct. 1883); L. Frankel, _Zum -Stoffe von M.’s T._ (1892, _E. S._ xvi. 459); E. Köppel in _Englische -Studien_, xvi. 357; E. Hübner, _Der Einfluss von M.’s Tamburlaine auf -die zeitgenössischen und folgenden Dramatiker_ (_Halle diss._ 1901); F. -G. Hubbard, _Possible Evidence for the Date of T._ (1918, _M. L. A._ -xxxiii. 436). - -There is no real doubt as to Marlowe’s authorship of _Tamburlaine_, -but the direct evidence is very slight, consisting chiefly of Greene’s -(q.v.) _Perimedes_ coupling of ‘that atheist Tamburlan’ with ‘spirits -as bred of Merlin’s race’, and Harvey’s allusion to its author as dying -in 1593. Thomas Heywood, in his prologue to _The Jew of Malta_, speaks -of Alleyn’s performance in the play. The entry printed by Collier in -Henslowe’s _Diary_ of a payment to Dekker in 1597 ‘for a prolog to -Marloes tambelan’ is a forgery (Warner, 159; Greg, _Henslowe_, i. -xxxix). The Admiral’s produced ‘Tamberlan’ on 30 Aug. 1594. Henslowe -marks the entry ‘j’, which has been taken as equivalent to ‘n. e.’, -Henslowe’s symbol for a new play, and as pointing to a revision of -the play. I feel sure, however (cf. _M. L. R._ iv. 408), that ‘j’ only -means ‘First Part’. ‘Tamberlen’ was given fifteen times from 30 Aug. -1594 to 12 Nov. 1595, and the ‘2 pt. of tamberlen’ seven times from -19 Dec. 1594 to 13 Nov. 1595 (Henslowe, ii. 167). Tamburlaine’s cage, -bridle, coat, and breeches are included in the inventories of the -Admiral’s men in 1598 (_Henslowe Papers_, 116). - -Greene’s _Perimedes_ reference suggests 1587 or early 1588 as the -probable date of _Tamburlaine_. In his preface to the 1590 edition -Richard Jones says that he has omitted ‘some fond and frivolous -gestures’, but does not say whether these were by the author of the -tragic stuff. The numerous references to the play in contemporary -literature often indicate its boisterous character; e.g. T. M. _The -Black Book_ (Bullen, _Middleton_, viii. 25), ‘The spindle-shank -spiders ... went stalking over his head as if they had been conning of -Tamburlaine’; T. M. _Father Hubburd’s Tales_ (ibid. viii. 93), ‘The -ordnance playing like so many Tamburlaines’. - - _Dr. Faustus, c. 1588_ - -_S. R._ 1592, Dec. 18. Herbert-Ames, _Typographical Antiquities_, ii. -1160, records the following decision of the Stationers’ Company not -printed by Arber, ‘If the book of D^r. Faustus shall not be found in -the Hall Book entered to R^d. Oliff before Abell Jeffes claymed the -same, which was about May last, That then the said copie shall remayne -to the said Abell his proper copie from the tyme of his first clayme’. -[This can hardly refer to the prose _History of Faustus_, of which the -earliest extant, but probably not the first, edition was printed by T. -Orwin for Edward White in 1592.] - -1601, Jan. 7 (Barlowe). ‘A booke called the plaie of Doctor Faustus.’ -_Thomas Bushell_ (Arber, iii. 178). - -1610, Sept. 13. Transfer from Bushell to John Wright of ‘The tragicall -history of the horrible life and Death of Doctor Faustus, written by C. -M.’ (Arber, iii. 442). - -1604. The tragicall History of D. Faustus. As it hath bene Acted by the -Right Honorable the Earle of Nottingham his seruants. Written by Ch. -Marl. _V. S. for Thomas Bushell._ - -1609. _G. E. for John Wright._ - -1616. _For John Wright._ [An enlarged and altered text.] - -1619.... With new Additions. _For John Wright._ - -1620; 1624; 1631. - -1663.... Printed with New Additions as it is now Acted. With several -New Scenes, together with the Actors names. _For W. Gilbertson._ [A -corrupt text.] - -Breymann mentions an edition of 1611 not now known, and Heinemann -quotes from foreign writers mentions of editions of 1622, 1626, 1636, -1651, 1690 (1884, _Bibliographer_). - -_Editions_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ i), A. Reidl (N.D. -[1874]), W. Wagner (1877), A. W. Ward (1878, 1887, 1891, 1901), Anon. -(1881, Zurich), H. Morley (1883), H. Breymann (1889), I. Gollancz -(1897, _T. D._), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._), J. S. Farmer -(1914, _S. F. T._).--_Dissertations_: G. Herzfeld, _Zu M.’s Dr. F._ -(1905, _Jahrbuch_, xli. 206); H. R. O. De Vries, _Die Überlieferung -und Entstehungsgeschichte von M.’s Dr. F._ (1909); K. R. Schröder, -_Textverhältnisse und Entstehungsgeschichte von M.’s F._ (1909); R. -Rohde, _Zu M.’s D. F._ (1913, _Morsbach-Festschrift_); P. Simpson, _The -1604 Text of M.’s D. F._ (1921, _Essays and Studies_, vii); with much -earlier literature summarized in Ward’s edition, to which also (1887, -ed. 2) Fleay’s excursus on _The Date and Authorship of Dr. F._ was -contributed. - -The Admiral’s men played ‘Docter ffostose’ for Henslowe twenty-four -times from 2 Oct. 1594 to Oct. 1597 (Henslowe, ii. 168). Their 1598 -inventories include ‘j dragon in fostes’ (_Henslowe Papers_, 118). -Alleyn (q.v.) played the title-rôle. The entry printed by Collier -from Henslowe’s _Diary_ of a payment to Dekker on 20 Dec. 1597 ‘for -adycyons to ffostus’ is a forgery (Warner, 159; Greg, _Henslowe_, i. -xxxix), but Henslowe did pay £4 to William Bird and Samuel Rowley ‘for -ther adicyones in doctor fostes’ on 22 Nov. 1602 (Henslowe, i. 172). -Probably, therefore, the Admiral’s revived the play about 1602–3. These -additions are doubtless the comic passages which appear for the first -time in the 1616 text, although that may also contain fragments of the -original text omitted from the 1,485 lines of 1604. The source of the -play seems to be the German _Faustbuch_ (1587) through the English -_History of Dr. Johann Faustus_, of which an edition earlier than the -extant 1592 one is conjectured. A probable date is 1588–9. On 28 Feb. -1589 ‘a ballad of the life and deathe of Doctor Faustus the great -Cungerer’ was entered on S. R. (Arber, ii. 516). There are apparent -imitations of the play in _Taming of A Shrew_ (q.v.). - -The reference in _The Black Book_ (_vide infra_) can hardly be taken as -evidence that the original production was at the Theatre. - -Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 168) gives some support to the view of Fleay -(Ward, clxvii) that Marlowe is only responsible for part even of the -1604 text, and that the rest, including the comic matter, may have been -contributed by Dekker. But he doubts whether Dekker worked upon the -play before the date of a revision in 1594, for which there is some -evidence, such as an allusion in xi. 46 to Dr. Lopez. Fleay thought -Dekker to have been also an original collaborator, which his age hardly -permits. - -The play seems to have formed part of the English repertories in -Germany in 1608 and 1626 (Herz, 66, 74). - -It became the centre of a curious _mythos_, which was used to point -a moral against the stage (cf. ch. viii). Of this there are several -versions: - -(_a_) 1604. T. M. _The Black Book_ (Bullen, _Middleton_, viii. 13), -‘Hee had a head of hayre like one of my Diuells in Dr. Faustus when the -old Theater crackt and frighted the audience.’ - -(_b_) 1633. Prynne, _Histriomastix_, f. 556, ‘The visible apparition -of the Devill on the stage at the Belsavage Play-house, in Queen -Elizabeths dayes (to the great amazement both of the actors and -spectators) while they were there prophanely playing the History of -Faustus (the truth of which I have heard from many now alive, who well -remember it) there being some distracted with that feareful sight.’ - -(_c_) N.D. ‘J. G. R.’ from manuscript note on ‘the last page of a book -in my possession, printed by Vautrollier’ (1850, _2 Gent. Mag._ xxxiv. -234), ‘Certaine Players at Exeter, acting upon the stage the tragical -storie of Dr. Faustus the Conjurer; as a certain nomber of Devels kept -everie one his circle there, and as Faustus was busie in his magicall -invocations, on a sudden they were all dasht, every one harkning other -in the eare, for they were all perswaded, there was one devell too -many amongst them; and so after a little pause desired the people to -pardon them, they could go no further with this matter; the people -also understanding the thing as it was, every man hastened to be first -out of dores. The players (as I heard it) contrarye to their custome -spending the night in reading and in prayer got them out of the town -the next morning.’ - -(_d_) _c._ 1673. John Aubrey, _Natural History and Antiquities of -Surrey_ (1718–19), i. 190, ‘The tradition concerning the occasion of -the foundation [of Dulwich College] runs thus: that Mr. Alleyne, being -a Tragedian and one of the original actors in many of the celebrated -Shakespear’s plays, in one of which he played a Demon, with six others, -and was in the midst of the play surpriz’d by an apparition of the -Devil, which so work’d on his Fancy, that he made a Vow, which he -perform’d at this Place’. - - _The Jew of Malta, c. 1589_ - -_S. R._ 1594, May 17. ‘The famouse tragedie of the Riche Jewe of -Malta.’ _Nicholas Ling and Thomas Millington_ (Arber, ii. 650). [On 16 -May ‘a ballad intituled the murtherous life and terrible death of the -riche Jew of Malta’ had been entered to John Danter.] - -1632, Nov. 20 (Herbert). ‘A Tragedy called the Jew of Malta.’ -_Nicholas Vavasour_ (Arber, iv. 288). - -1633. The Famous Tragedy of the Rich Iew of Malta. As it was played -before the King and Queene, in his Majesties Theatre at White-Hall, by -her Majesties Servants at the Cockpit. Written by Christopher Marlo. -_I. B. for Nicholas Vavasour._ [Epistle to Thomas Hammon of Gray’s -Inn, signed ‘Tho. Heywood’; Prologues and Epilogues at Court and at -Cockpit by Heywood; Prologue by Machiavel as presenter.] - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{2, 3}, viii (1780–1827), and by W. Scott (1810, -_A. B. D._ i), Reynell and Son (publ. 1810), S. Penley (1813), A. -Wagner (1889), and W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertations_: -J. Kellner, _Die Quelle von M.’s J. of M._ (1887, _E. S._ x. 80); M. -Thimme, _M.’s J. of M._ (1921). - -An allusion in Marlowe’s prologue to the death of the Duc de Guise -gives a date of performance later than 23 Dec. 1588. Strange’s men -gave the play for Henslowe seventeen times from 26 Feb. 1592 to 1 Feb. -1593. Probably it belonged to Henslowe, as it was also played for him -by Sussex’s men on 4 Feb. 1594, by Sussex and the Queen’s together on -3 and 8 April 1594, by the Admiral’s on 14 May 1594, by either the -Admiral’s or the Chamberlain’s on 6 and 15 June 1594, and thirteen -times by the Admiral’s from 25 June 1594 to 23 June 1596 (Henslowe, ii. -151). The 1598 inventories of the latter company include ‘j cauderm for -the Jewe’ (_Henslowe Papers_, 118). On 19 May 1601 Henslowe advanced -them money to buy ‘things’ for a revival of the play (Henslowe, i. -137). Heywood’s epistle and Cockpit prologue name Marlowe and Alleyn -as writer and actor of the play. Fleay, i. 298, suggests that Heywood -wrote the Bellamira scenes (III. i; IV. iv, v; V. i), the motive of -which he used for the plot of his _Captives_, and Greg agrees that the -play shows traces of two hands, one of which may be Heywood’s. The -Dresden repertory of 1626 included a ‘Tragödie von Barabas, Juden von -Malta’, but this was not necessarily the play ‘von dem Juden’ given by -English actors at Passau in 1607 and Graz in 1608 (Herz, 66, 75). - - _Edward the Second. c. 1592_ - -_S. R._ 1593, July 6 (Judson). ‘A booke, Intituled The troublesom -Reign and Lamentable Death of Edward the Second, king of England, with -the tragicall fall of proud Mortymer.’ _William Jones_ (Arber, ii. -634). - -1593? [C. F. Tucker Brooke (1909, _M. L. N._ xxiv. 71) suggests that a -manuscript t.p. dated 1593 and sig. A inserted in Dyce’s copy of 1598 -may be from a lost edition, as they contain textual variants.] - -1594. The troublesome raigne and lamentable death of Edward the second, -King of England: with the tragicall fall of proud Mortimer. As it was -sundrie times publiquely acted in the honourable citie of London, by -the right honourable the Earl of Pembroke his servants. Written by -Chri. Marlow. Gent. _For William Jones._ - -1598. _Richard Bradocke for William Jones._ [With an additional scene.] - -1612. _For Roger Barnes._ - -1622.... As it was publikely Acted by the late Queenes Maiesties -Servants at the Red Bull in S. Iohns streete.... _For Henry Bell._ - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–3}, ii (1744–1825), and by W. Scott (1810, _A. -B. D._ i), W. Wagner (1871), F. G. Fleay (1873, 1877), O. W. Tancock -(1877, etc.), E. T. McLaughlin (1894), A. W. Verity (1896, _T. D._), -and W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertations_: C. Tzschaschel, -_M.’s Edward II und seine Quellen_ (1902, _Halle diss._); M. Dahmetz, -_M.’s Ed. II und Shakespeares Rich. II_ (1904). - -Pembroke’s men seem only to have had a footing at Court in the winter -of 1592–3, and this is probably the date of the play. Greg (_Henslowe_, -ii. 224) suggests that it may have had some ‘distant connexion’ with -Chettle and Porter’s _The Spencers_ and an anonymous _Mortimer_ of the -Admiral’s men in 1599 and 1602 respectively. But I think _Mortimer_ is -a slip of Henslowe’s for _Vortigern_. - - _The Massacre at Paris. 1593_ - -[_MS._] Collier, ii. 511, prints a fragment of a fuller text than that -of the edition, but it is suspect (cf. Tucker Brooke, 483). - -N.D. The Massacre at Paris: With the Death of the Duke of Guise. As it -was plaide by the right honourable the Lord high Admirall his Seruants. -Written by Christopher Marlow. _E. A. for Edward White._ - -Strange’s men produced ‘the tragedey of the gvyes’ as ‘n.e.’ on 26 Jan. -1593. The Admiral’s men also played it for Henslowe as ‘the Gwies’ or -‘the masacer’ ten times from 21 June to 27 Sept. 1594. Possibly in Nov. -1598 and certainly in Nov. 1601 Henslowe advanced sums for costumes -for a revival of the play by the Admiral’s. The insertion by Collier -of Webster’s name in one of these entries is a forgery and whether -the lost _Guise_ of this writer (q.v.) bore any relation to Marlowe’s -play is wholly unknown. On 18 Jan. 1602 Henslowe paid Alleyn £2 for -the ‘boocke’ of ‘the massaker of france’ on behalf of the company -(Henslowe, i. xlii; ii. 157). For the offence given in France by this -play, cf. ch. x. - - _Dido Queen of Carthage > 1593_ - - _With_ Thomas Nashe. - -1594. The Tragedie of Dido Queene of Carthage: Played by the Children -of her Maiesties Chappell. Written by Christopher Marlowe, and Thomas -Nash. Gent. _Widow Orwin for Thomas Woodcock._ - -_S. R._ 1600, June 26. Transfer from Paul Lynley to John Flasket, -‘Cupydes Journey to hell with the tragedie of Dido’ (Arber, iii. 165). -[Perhaps another book.] - -_Editions_ in _Old English Drama_ (1825, ii), by J. S. Farmer (1914, -_S. F. T._), and with _Works_ of Nashe.--_Dissertations_: J. Friedrich, -_Didodramen des Dolce, Jodelle, und M._ (1888); B. Knutowski, _Das -Dido-Drama von M. und Nash_ (1905, _Breslau diss._). - -Tanner, _Bibl. Britanniae_ (1748), says, ‘Petowius in praefatione ad -secundam partem Herois et Leandri multa in Marlovii commendationem -adfert; hoc etiam facit Tho. Nash in _Carmine Elegiaco tragediae -Didonis praefixo in obitum Christoph. Marlovii_, ubi quatuor eius -tragediarum mentionem facit, necnon et alterius _de duce Guisio_’. The -existence of this elegy is confirmed by Warton, who saw it either in -1734 or 1754 (_Hist. Eng. Poet._ iv. 311; cf. McKerrow, ii. 335). It -was ‘inserted immediately after the title-page’, presumably not of all -copies, as it is not in the three now known. Whether Nashe’s own share -in the work was as collaborator, continuator, or merely editor, remains -uncertain. Fleay, ii. 147, gives him only I. i. 122 to end, III. i, ii, -iv; IV. i, ii, v; Knutowski regards him as responsible for only a few -trifling passages. As, moreover, the play has affinities both to early -and to late work by Marlowe, it cannot be dated. Beyond its title-page -and that of the anonymous _Wars of Cyrus_ there is nothing to point -to any performances by the Chapel between 1584 and 1600. It is true -that Tucker Brooke, 389, says, ‘The one ascertained fact concerning -the history of this company during the ten years previous to 1594 -seems to be that they acted before the Queen at Croydon in 1591, under -the direction of N. Giles, and Mr. Fleay assumes, apparently with no -further evidence, that _Dido_ was presented on this ‘occasion’. But -this only shows what some literary historians mean by an ‘ascertained -fact’. A company played _Summers Last Will and Testament_ (q.v.) at -Croydon in 1592 and said that they had not played for a twelvemonth. -But the Queen was not present, and they are not known to have been -the Chapel, whose master was not then Nathaniel Giles. Nor did they -necessarily play twelve months before at Croydon; and if they did, -there is nothing to show that they played _Dido_. There is nothing to -connect the play with the Admiral’s _Dido and Aeneas_ of 1598 (Greg, -_Henslowe_, ii. 189). - - _Lust’s Dominion. c. 1600_ (?) - -1657. Lusts Dominion; Or, The Lascivious Queen. A Tragedie. Written by -Christopher Marlowe, Gent. _For F. K., sold by Robert Pollard._ - -_Editions_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ i) and in Dodsley^4, xiv -(1875). - -The attribution of the play, as it stands, to Marlowe is generally -rejected. Fleay, i. 272, supported by Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 211), -suggests an identification with _The Spanish Moor’s Tragedy_, which -Day, Dekker, and Haughton were writing for the Admiral’s in Feb. 1600, -although the recorded payment does not show that this was finished. -They think that a play in which Marlowe had a hand may perhaps underlie -it, and attempt, not wholly in agreement with each other, to distribute -the existing scenes amongst the collaborators. - - _Lost Play_ - - _The Maiden’s Holiday_ - -Entered on the Stationers’ Register on 8 April 1654 (Eyre, i. 445) -by Moseley as ‘A comedie called The Maidens Holiday by Christopher -Marlow & John Day’, and included in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (_3 -Library_, ii. 231) as ‘The Mayden Holaday by Chri[~s]. Marlowe’. - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -Marlowe’s hand has been sought in _An Alarum for London_, _Contention -of York and Lancaster_, _Edward III_, _Locrine_, _Selimus_, _Taming of -A Shrew_, and _Troublesome Reign of King John_ (cf. ch. xxiv), and in -Shakespeare’s _Titus Andronicus_, _Henry VI_, and _Richard III_. - - -JOHN MARSTON (_c._ 1575–1634). - -Marston was son of John Marston, a lawyer of Shropshire origin, who had -settled at Coventry, and his Italian wife Maria Guarsi. He matriculated -at Brasenose College, Oxford, aged 16, on 4 Feb. 1592, and took his -degree on 6 Feb. 1594. He joined the Middle Temple, and in 1599 his -father left law-books to him, ‘whom I hoped would have profited by -them in the study of the law but man proposeth and God disposeth’. -He had already begun his literary career, as a satirist with _The -Metamorphosis of Pygmalion’s Image and Certain Satires_ (1598) and -_The Scourge of Villainy_ (1598). For these he took the pseudonym -of W. Kinsayder. Small, 64, has refuted the attempts to find in them -attacks on Jonson, and H. C. Hart (_9 N. Q._ xi. 282, 342) has made -it plausible that by ‘Torquatus’ was meant, not Jonson, but Gabriel -Harvey. This view is now accepted by Penniman (_Poetaster_, xxiii). On -28 Sept. 1599 Henslowe paid £2, on behalf of the Admiral’s, for ‘M^r -Maxton the new poete’. The interlineated correction ‘M^r Mastone’ is -a forgery (Greg, _Henslowe_, i. xlii; ii. 206), but probably Marston -was the poet. The title of the play was left blank, and there was no -further payment. It seems clearer to me than it does to Dr. Greg that -the £2 was meant to make up a complete sum of £6 10_s._ for _The King -of Scots_, and that Marston was the ‘other Jentellman’ who collaborated -with Chettle, Dekker, and Jonson on that lost play. The setting up -of the Paul’s boys in 1599 saved Marston from Henslowe. For them he -successively revised the anonymous _Histriomastix_ (q.v.), wrote the -two parts of _Antonio and Mellida_ and _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_, -helped Dekker with _Satiromastix_, and finally wrote _What You Will_. -This probably accounts for all his dramatic work during Elizabeth’s -reign. In the course of it he came into conflict with Jonson, who told -Drummond in 1619 (according to the revision of the text of Laing, -20, suggested by Penniman, _War_, 40, and Small, 3) that ‘He had -many quarrells with Marston, beat him, and took his pistol from him, -wrote his Poetaster on him; the beginning of them were, that Marston -represented him in the stage’. Marston’s representation of Jonson as -Chrysoganus in _Histriomastix_ was complimentary, that as Brabant -senior in _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_ offensive; and it was doubtless -the latter that stirred Jonson to retaliate on Marston, perhaps as -Hedon in _Cynthia’s Revels_, certainly as Crispinus in _The Poetaster_. -Marston’s final blow was with Lampatho Doria in _What You Will_. When -the theatres reopened in 1604 Marston seems to have left the Paul’s -boys and taken a share in the syndicate formed to exploit the Queen’s -Revels, for whom the rest of his plays were written. He was now on -friendly terms with Jonson, to whom he dedicated his _Malcontent_ and -for whose _Sejanus_ he wrote congratulatory verses. Possibly further -friction arose over the unfortunate collaboration of Jonson, Marston, -and Chapman in _Eastward Ho!_, for the chief indiscretion in which -Marston seems to have been responsible, and may have stimulated a -sarcasm on Jonson in the Epistle to _Sophonisba_. In 1608 Marston’s -career as a dramatist abruptly terminated. An abstract of the Privy -Council Register has the brief note on 8 June, ‘John Marston committed -to Newgate’ (F. P. Wilson from _Addl. MS._ 11402, f. 141, in _M. L. -R._ ix. 99). I conjecture that he was the author of the Blackfriars -play (cf. ch. xii, s.v. Chapel) which hit at James’s explorations -after Scottish silver. He disappeared, selling his interest in the -Blackfriars company, then or in 1605, to Robert Keysar, and leaving -_The Insatiate Countess_ unfinished. He had taken orders by 10 Oct. -1616 when he obtained the living of Christchurch, Hampshire. This he -resigned on 13 Sept. 1631. In 1633 he was distant from London, but died -on 25 June 1634 in Aldermanbury parish. He had married Mary, probably -the daughter of William Wilkes, one of James’s chaplains, of whom -Jonson said in 1619 (Laing, 16) that ‘Marston wrott his Father-in-lawes -preachings, and his Father-in-law his Commedies’. If we trust the -portrait of Crispinus in _The Poetaster_, he had red hair and little -legs. A letter from Marston to Sir Gervase Clifton, endorsed ‘Poet -Marston’, is calendared in _Hist. MSS. Various Coll._ vii. 389; it is -undated, but must, from the names used, be of 1603–8. - - _Collections_ - -1633. Tragedies and Comedies collected into one volume. Viz. 1. Antonio -and Mellida. 2. Antonio’s Revenge. 3. The Tragedie of Sophonisba. 4. -What You Will. 5. The Fawne. 6. The Dutch Courtezan. _A. M. for William -Sheares._ [Epistle to Viscountess Falkland, signed ‘William Sheares’.] - -1633. The Workes of Mr. Iohn Marston, Being Tragedies and Comedies, -Collected into one Volume. _For William Sheares._ [Another issue.] - -1856. J. O. Halliwell, _The Works of John Marston_. 3 vols. [Contains -all the works, except _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_.] - -1879. A. B. Grosart, _The Poems of John Marston_. [Contains -_Pygmalion’s Image_ and the satires.] - -1887. A. H. Bullen, _The Works of John Marston_. 3 vols. [Contains all -the works, except _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_.] - -_Dissertations_: W. von Scholten, _Metrische Untersuchungen zu -Marston’s Trauerspielen_ (1886, _Halle diss._); P. Aronstein, _John -Marston als Dramatiker_ (_E. S._ xx. 377; xxi. 28); W. v. Wurzbach, -_John Marston_ (1897, _Jahrbuch_, xxxiii. 85); C. Winckler, _John -Marston’s litterarische Anfänge_ (1903, _Breslau diss._) and _Marston’s -Erstlingswerke und ihre Beziehungen zu Shakespeare_ (1904, _E. S._ -xxxiii. 216). - - PLAYS - - _Antonio and Mellida. 1599_ - -_S. R._ 1601, Oct. 24. ‘A booke called The ffyrst and second partes -of the play called Anthonio and Melida provided that he gett laufull -licence for yt.’ _Matthew Lownes and Thomas Fisher_ (Arber, iii. 193). - -1602. The History of Antonio and Mellida. The first part. As it hath -beene sundry times acted, by the Children of Paules. Written by I. M. -_For Mathew Lownes and Thomas Fisher._ [Epistle to Nobody, signed ‘J. -M.’, Induction, Prologue, and Epilogue.] - -1602. Antonio’s Reuenge. The second part. As it hath beene sundry times -acted, by the children of Paules. Written by I. M. _For Thomas Fisher._ -[Prologue.] - -_Editions_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ ii) and W. W. Greg (1921, -_M. S. R._). - -In V. i of Part i a painter brings in two pictures, one dated ‘Anno -Domini, 1599’, the other ‘Aetatis suae 24’. I agree with Small, 92, -that these are probably real dates and that the second indicates -Marston’s own age. As he must have completed his twenty-fourth year -by 3 Feb. 1600 at latest, Part i was probably produced in 1599. The -prologue of Part ii speaks of winter as replacing summer, and probably -therefore Part i is to be dated in the summer, and Part ii in the early -winter of 1599. Clearly the painter scene cannot, as Fleay, ii. 75, -suggests, be motived by a casual allusion to a painter in _Cynthia’s -Revels_ (F_{1}) 2673 or the painter scene added on revision to Kyd’s -_Spanish Tragedy_, since both are later. The ‘armed Epilogue’ of Part -i seems to me clearly a criticism of the armed prologue of Jonson’s -_Poetaster_ (1601); it may have been an addition of 1601. Part ii, -prol. 13, 23, calls the theatre ‘round’ and ‘ring’. - - _What You Will. 1601_ - -_S. R._ 1607, Aug. 6 (Buck). ‘A commedie called What you will.’ _Thomas -Thorp_ (Arber, iii. 358). - -1607. What You Will. By Iohn Marston. _G. Eld for Thomas Thorpe._ -[Induction and Prologue.] - -_Edition_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ ii).--_Dissertation_: F. -Holthausen, _Die Quelle von Marston’s W. Y. W._ (1905, _Jahrbuch_, xli. -186). - -Bullen, Fleay, ii. 76, Small, 101, and Aronstein agree in regarding -the play as written in 1601 by way of answer to _Cynthia’s Revels_, -and they are probably right. Small shows that, in spite of the fact -that Quadratus calls Lampatho Doria a ‘Don Kynsader’ (II. i. 134), -Lampatho must stand for Jonson, and Quadratus to some extent for -Marston himself. Perhaps Simplicius Faber is the unidentified Asinius -Bubo of _Satiromastix_. Both Fleay and Small think that the play has -been revised before publication, partly because of confusion in the -names of the characters, and partly because of the absence of the kind -of Marstonian language which Jonson satirized. Small goes so far as to -suggest that the seventeen untraceable words vomited by Crispinus in -_The Poetaster_ came from _What You Will_, and that Marston rewrote -the play and eliminated them. The rest of Fleay’s conjectures about -the play seem to me irresponsible. If the play dates from 1601, it -may reasonably be assigned to the Paul’s boys. The induction, with -its allusions to the small size of the stage and the use of candles, -excludes the possibility of an adult theatre. - - _The Dutch Courtesan. 1603–4_ - -_S. R._ 1605, June 26. ‘A booke called the Dutche Curtizan, as yt was -latelie presented at the Blackeffryers Provyded that he gett sufficient -Aucthoritie before yt be prynted.’ _John Hodgettes_ (Arber, iii. 293). -[A further note, ‘This is alowed to be printed by Aucthoritie from -Master Hartwell’.] - -1605. The Dutch Courtezan. As it was played in the Blacke-Friars. by -the Children of her Maiesties Reuels. Written by Iohn Marston, _T. P. -for John Hodgets_. [Prologue.] - -_S. R._ 1613, April 19. Transfer to Hodgettes of Eleazer Edgar’s -interest in the play (Arber, iii. 520). - -As a Queen’s Revels play, this must have been on the stage at least -as late as 1603, and the clear proof of Crawford, ii. 1, that several -passages are verbal imitations of Florio’s translation of Montaigne, -published in that year, make it difficult to put it earlier, although -Wallace, ii. 75, says that he has evidence, which he does not give, -for production in 1602. On the other hand, C. R. Baskervill (_M. L. -A._ xxiv. 718) argues that the plot influenced that of _The Fair Maid -of Bristow_, which was performed at Court during the winter of 1603–4. -The play is referred to with _Eastward Ho!_ (q.v.) as bringing trouble -on Marston by A. Nixon, _The Black Year_ (1606). It was revived for -the Court by the Lady Elizabeth’s on 25 Feb. 1613, under the name of -_Cockle de Moye_ from one of the characters, and repeated on 12 Dec. -1613 (cf. App. B). - - _The Malcontent. 1604_ - -_S. R._ 1604, July 5 (Pasfield). ‘An Enterlude called the Malecontent, -Tragicomoedia.’ _William Aspley and Thomas Thorpe_ (Arber, iii. 266, -268). [Entry made on the wrong page and re-entered.] - -1604. The Malcontent. By Iohn Marston. _V. S. for William Aspley._ -[Two editions. Inscription ‘Beniamino Jonsonio, poetae elegantissimo, -gravissimo, amico suo, candido et cordato, Iohannes Marston, Musarum -alumnus, asperam hanc suam Thaliam D.D.’ and Epistle to Reader.] - -1604. The Malcontent. Augmented by Marston. With the Additions played -by the Kings Maiesties servants. Written by Ihon Webster. _V. S. for -William Aspley._ [A third edition, with the Induction, which is headed -‘The Induction to the Malcontent, and the additions acted by the Kings -Maiesties servants. Written by Iohn Webster’, and the insertions I. i. -146–88, 195–212, 256–303; I. iii; II. ii. 34, 57–71; III. i. 33–156; -IV. ii. 123–37; V. i; V. ii. 10–39, 164–94, 212–26; V. iii. 180–202.] - -_Editions_ by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ ii) and W. A. Neilson (1911, -_C. E. D._); and with _Works_ of Webster (q.v.).--_Dissertation_: E. -E. Stoll, _John Webster_ (1905), 55, and _Shakspere, Marston, and the -Malcontent Type_ (1906, _M. P._ iii. 281). - -The induction, in which parts are taken by Sly, Sinklo, Burbadge, -Condell, and Lowin, explains the genesis of the enlarged edition. - - _Sly._ ... I would know how you came by this play? - - _Condell._ Faith, sir, the book was lost; and because ’twas - pity so good a play should be lost, we found it and play it. - - _Sly._ I wonder you would play it, another company having - interest in it. - - _Condell._ Why not Malevole in folio with us, as Jeronimo - in decimosexto with them? They taught us a name for our play; we - call it _One for Another_. - - _Sly._ What are your additions? - - _Burbadge._ Sooth, not greatly needful; only as your salad - to your great feast, to entertain a little more time, and to - abridge the not-received custom of music in our theatre. - -Stoll, 57, rightly argues that Small, 115, is not justified in ignoring -the evidence of the title-page and assigning the insertions, as well -as the induction, to Webster rather than Marston. On the other hand, -I think he himself ignores the evidence of Burbadge’s speech in the -induction, when he takes the undramatic quality of the insertions as -proof that Marston did not write them first in 1604, but revived them -from his original text, which the boy actors had shortened. He puts -this original text in 1600, because of the allusion in one of the -insertions (I. iii. 20) to a ‘horn growing in the woman’s forehead -twelve years since’. This horn was described in a pamphlet of 1588. I -do not share his view that ‘twelve’ must be a precise and not a round -number. Sly says in the induction: - - ‘This play hath beaten all your gallants out of the feathers: - Blackfriars hath almost spoiled Blackfriars for feathers.’ - -It is clear therefore that the original actors were the Blackfriars -boys, and there is nothing else to suggest a connexion between Marston -and these boys during Elizabeth’s reign. Small, 115, points out a -reference to the Scots in V. iii. 24 which should be Jacobean. I -think that this is Marston’s first play for the Queen’s Revels after -the formation of the syndicate early in 1604, and that the revision -followed later in the same year. It is not necessary to assume that the -play was literally ‘lost’ or that Marston was not privy to the adoption -of it by the King’s. Importance is attached to the date by parallels to -certain plays of Shakespeare, where Stoll thinks that Shakespeare was -the borrower. I do not see how it can be so. The epilogue speaks of the -author’s ‘reformed Muse’ and pays a compliment to ‘another’s happier -Muse’ and forthcoming ‘Thalia’, perhaps Jonson’s _Volpone_. - - _The Fawn. 1604 < > 6_ - -_S. R._ 1606, March 12. ‘A playe called the ffaune provided that -he shall not put the same in prynte before he gett alowed lawfull -aucthoritie.’ _William Cotton_ (Arber, iii. 316). - -1606. Parasitaster, Or The Fawne, As it hath bene diuers times -presented at the blacke Friars, by the Children of the Queenes -Maiesties Reuels. Written by Iohn Marston. _T. P. for W. C._ [Epistle -to the Equal Reader, signed ‘Jo. Marston’, Prologue, and Epilogue.] - -1606.... and since at Paules.... And now corrected of many faults, -which by reason of the Author’s absence were let slip in the first -edition. _T. P. for W. C._ [A further Epistle to the Reader states that -the writer has ‘perused this copy’ and is about to ‘present ... to you’ -the tragedy of _Sophonisba_.] - -Modern edition by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ ii). - -As a Queen’s Revels play, this must date from 1604 or 1605; presumably -it was transferred to Paul’s by Edward Kirkham, when he took charge -of them for the Christmas of 1605–6. Small, 116, refutes Aronstein’s -suggested allusion to Jonson’s _Volpone_ of 1605 or 1606. Bolte, -_Danziger Theater_, 177, prints from a seventeenth-century Dantzig MS. -a German play, _Tiberius von Ferrara und Annabella von Mömpelgart_, -which is in part derived from _The Fawn_ (Herz, 99). If, as the titles -suggest, the performances of _Annabella, eines Hertzogen Tochter von -Ferrara_ at Nördlingen in 1604, of _Annabella, eines Markgraffen -Tochter von Montferrat_ at Rothenburg in 1604, and of _Herzog von -Ferrara_ at Dresden in 1626 (Herz, 65, 66), indicate intermediate -links, _The Fawn_ cannot be later than 1604. Yet I find it impossible -not to attach some value to the argument of Stoll, _Webster_, 17, for -a date later than the execution of Sir Everard Digby on 30 Jan. 1606 -(Stowe, _Annales_, 881), which appears to be alluded to in IV. i. 310, -‘Nay, heed me, a woman that will thrust in crowds,--a lady, that, being -with child, ventures the hope of her womb,--nay, gives two crowns -for a room to behold a goodly man three parts alive, quartered, his -privities hackled off, his belly lanched up’. It is true that there -were also quarterings for treason on 29 Nov. 1603 (Stowe, _Annales_, -ed. Howes, 831), but these were in Winchester; also that contemporary -notices, such as that in Stowe and the narratives in J. Morris, -_Catholics under James I_, 216, and in _Somers Tracts_ (1809), ii. -111, which describes the victims as ‘proper men, in shape’, afford no -confirmation of indecent crowds in 1606, but the cumulative effect -of the quadruple allusions here, in Day’s _Isle of Gulls_ (q.v.), -in Sharpham’s _Fleir_ (q.v.), and in Middleton’s _Michaelmas Term_ -(q.v.) is pretty strong. The passage quoted by Crawford, ii. 40, from -Montaigne is hardly particular enough to explain that in the _Fawn_. I -do not like explaining discrepancies by the hypothesis of a revision, -but if Kirkham revived the _Fawn_ at Paul’s in 1606, he is not unlikely -to have had it written up a bit. The epistle refers to ‘the factious -malice and studied detractions’ of fellow-dramatists, perhaps an echo -of Marston’s relations with Jonson and Chapman over _Eastward Ho!_ - - _The Wonder of Women_, or _Sophonisba_. _1606_ - -_S. R._ 1606, March 17 (Wilson). ‘A booke called the wonder of woemen, -or the Tragedie of Sophonisba, &c.’ _Eleazar Edgar_ (Arber, iii. 316). - -1606. The Wonder of Women Or the Tragedie of Sophonisba, as it hath -beene sundry times Acted at the Blacke-Friers. Written by Iohn Marston. -_John Windet._ [Epistle to the General Reader by the author, but -unsigned, Argumentum, Prologue, and Epilogue.] - -_S. R._ 1613, April 19. Transfer from Edgar to John Hodgettes (Arber, -iii. 521). - -The mention of Blackfriars without the name of a company points to a -performance after Anne’s patronage had been withdrawn from the Revels -boys, late in 1605 or early in 1606, not, as Fleay, ii. 79, suggests, -to one by the Chapel in 1602–3. Some features of staging (cf. ch. xxi) -raise a suspicion that the play may have been taken over from Paul’s. -The resemblance of the title to that of _Wonder of a Woman_ produced by -the Admiral’s in 1595 is probably accidental. The epistle glances at -Jonson’s translations in _Sejanus_ (1603). - - _The Insatiate Countess. c. 1610_ - -1613. The Insatiate Countesse. A Tragedie: Acted at White-Fryers. -Written by Iohn Marston. _T. S. for Thomas Archer._ - -1616. _N. O. for Thomas Archer._ - -1631.... Written by William Barksteed. _For Hugh Perrie._ - -1631.... Written by Iohn Marston. _I. N. for Hugh Perrie._ [A reissue.] - -_Dissertation_: R. A. Small, _The Authorship and Date of the Insatiate -Countess_ in _Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature_, v -(_Child Memorial Volume_), 277. - -It is generally supposed that Marston began the play and that Barksted -(q.v.) finished it. Two lines (V. ii. 244–5) appear verbatim in -Barksted’s _Mirrha_ (1607). Small traces several other clear parallels -with both _Mirrha_ and _Hiren_, as well as stylistic qualities pointing -to Barksted rather than to Marston, and concludes that the play is -Barksted’s on a plot drafted by Marston. It may be conjectured that -Marston left the fragment when he got into trouble for the second time -in 1608, and that the revision was more probably for the Queen’s Revels -at Whitefriars in 1609–11 than for the conjoint Queen’s Revels and -Lady Elizabeth’s in 1613. Hardly any of the suggestions on the play in -Fleay, ii. 80, bear analysis. - - _Lost Plays_ - -On _The King of Scots_, _vide supra_. Rogers and Ley’s list of 1656 -(Greg, _Masques_, lxxii) ascribes to Marston a _Guise_, which other -publishers’ lists transfer to Webster (q.v.). Collier, _Memoirs of -Alleyn_, 154, assigns to Marston a _Columbus_, on the basis of a -forgery. - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -Marston doubtless had a hand in revising the anonymous _Histriomastix_ -and in _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_, and attempts have been made -to find him in _An Alarum for London_, _Charlemagne_, _London -Prodigal_, _Puritan_ (cf. ch. xxiv), and as a collaborator in Dekker’s -_Satiromastix_. - - MASKS - - _Ashby Entertainment. Aug. 1607_ - -[_MSS._] (_a_) _Bridgewater House_, with title, ‘The honorable Lorde & -Lady of Huntingdons Entertainment of their right Noble Mother Alice: -Countesse Dowager of Darby the first night of her honors arrivall att -the house of Ashby’. [Verses to Lady Derby signed ‘John Marston’; -includes a mask of Cynthia and Ariadne.] - -(_b_) _B.M. Sloane_ 848, f. 9. [Speech of Enchantress only, with date -Aug. 1607.] - -_Extracts_ in H. J. Todd, _Works of Milton_, v. 149 (1801), and -Nichols, _James_, ii. 145 (1828). - -On arrival, in the park, at an ‘antique gate’ with complimentary -inscriptions, were speeches by Merimna an enchantress, and Saturn; at -the top of the stairs to the great chamber another speech by Merimna -and a gift of a waistcoat. - -Later in the great chamber was a mask by four knights and four -gentlemen, in carnation and white, and vizards like stars, representing -sons of Mercury, with pages in blue, and Cynthia and Ariadne as -presenters. A traverse ‘slided away’, and disclosed the presenters -on clouds. Later a second traverse ‘sank down’, and the maskers -appeared throned at the top of a wood. They danced ‘a new measure’, -then ‘presented their shields’, and took out the ladies for measures, -galliards, corantos and lavoltas. ‘The night being much spent’, came -their ‘departing measure’. - -At departure were an eclogue by a shepherd and a nymph, and a gift of a -cabinet by Niobe in the little park. - - _Mountebank’s Mask. 1618_ (?) - -The ascription to Marston of this Gray’s Inn mask rests on an -unverifiable assertion by Collier (cf. Bullen, _Marston_, iii. 418; -Brotanek, 356), and the known dates of Marston’s career render it -extremely improbable. - - -JOHN MASON (1581–2--?). - -The degree boasted on his title-page leads to the identification of -Mason as a son of Richard Mason, priest, of Cavendish, Suffolk, and -pupil of Bury St. Edmunds school, who matriculated from Caius College, -Cambridge, as a sizar at the age of fourteen on 6 July 1596, and took -the degree of B.A. in 1601 and M.A. in 1606 from St. Catharine’s Hall. -He was a member of the King’s Revels syndicate in 1608, and nothing -further is known of him, since the combination of names is too common -to justify his identification with the schoolmaster of Camberwell, -Surrey, whose school-play is described in _Princeps Rhetoricus_ (1648; -cf. C. S. Northup in _E. S._ xlv. 154). - - _The Turk. 1607–8_ - -_S. R._ 1609, March 10 (Segar). ‘A booke called The tragedy of the -Turke with the death of Borgias by John Mason gent.’ _John Busby_ -(Arber, iii. 403). - -1610. The Turke. A Worthie Tragedie. As it hath bene diuers times acted -by the Children of his Maiesties Reuels. Written by Iohn Mason Maister -of Artes. _E. A. for John Busbie._ [Prologue and Epilogue.] - -1632. An excellent Tragedy of Mulleasses the Turke, and Borgias -Governour of Florence. Full of Interchangeable variety; beyond -expectation.... _T. P. for Francis Falkner._ - -_Edition_ by J. Q. Adams (1913, _Materialien_, -xxxvii).--_Dissertation_: G. C. Moore Smith, _John Mason and -Edward Sharpham_ (1913, _M. L. R._ viii. 371). - -As a King’s Revels play this may be put in 1607–8. An earlier date has -been thought to be indicated by _Eastward Ho!_ (1605), II. ii. 41, -‘_Via_, the curtaine that shaddowed Borgia’, but if the reference is -to a play, Borgia may well have figured in other plays. A play ‘Vom -Turcken’ was taken by Spencer to Nuremberg in 1613 (Herz, 66). - - -CHARLES MASSEY. - -For his career as an actor, cf. ch. xv. - -He apparently wrote _Malcolm King of Scots_ for the Admiral’s, to -which he belonged, in April 1602, and began _The Siege of Dunkirk, -with Alleyn the Pirate_ in March 1603. Neither play survives. - - -PHILIP MASSINGER (1583–1640). - -Massinger, baptized at Salisbury on 24 Nov. 1583, was son of Arthur -Massinger, a confidential servant of Henry, 2nd Earl of Pembroke. He -entered at St. Alban Hall, Oxford, and left without a degree in 1606. -Little is known of him for some years thereafter. He is conjectured to -have become a Catholic and thus to have imperilled his relations with -the Herbert family, at any rate until the time of Philip, the 4th earl, -who was certainly his patron. He was buried at St. Saviour’s on 18 -March 1640 and left a widow. The greater part of his dramatic career, -to which all his independent plays belong, falls outside the scope of -this notice, but on 4 July 1615 he gave a joint bond with Daborne for -£3 to Henslowe, and some undated correspondence probably of 1613 shows -that he was collaborating in one or more plays with Daborne, Field, and -Fletcher. - - _Collections_ - -T. Coxeter (1759), J. M. Mason (1779), W. Gifford (1805), H. Coleridge -(1840, 1848, 1851), F. Cunningham (1871, 3 vols.). [These include _The -Old Law_, _The Fatal Dowry_, and _The Virgin Martyr_, but not any plays -from the Beaumont and Fletcher Ff.] - - _Selections_ - -1887–9. A. Symons, _The Best Plays of P. M._ 2 vols. (_Mermaid -Series_). [Includes _The Fatal Dowry_ and _The Virgin Martyr_.] - -1912. L. A. Sherman, _P. M._ (_M. E. D._). - -_Dissertations_: S. R. Gardiner, _The Political Element in M._ (1876, -_N. S. S. Trans._ 314); J. Phelan, _P. M._ (1879–80, _Anglia_, ii. 1, -504; iii. 361); E. Koeppel, _Quellenstudien zu den Dramen G. Chapman’s, -P. M.’s und J. Ford’s_ (1897, _Q. F._ lxxxii); W. von Wurzbach, _P. M._ -(1899–1900, _Jahrbuch_, xxxv. 214, xxxvi. 128); C. Beck, _P. M. The -Fatal Dowry_ (1906); A. H. Cruickshank, _Philip Massinger_ (1920). - -It is doubtful how far Massinger’s dramatic activity began before 1616. -For ascriptions to him, s.v. Beaumont and Fletcher (_Captain_, _Cupid’s -Revenge_, _Coxcomb_, _Scornful Lady_, _Honest Man’s Fortune_, _Faithful -Friends_, _Thierry and Theodoret_, _T. N. K._, _Love’s Cure_), Anthony -Brewer (_The Lovesick King_), and _Second Maiden’s Tragedy_ (ch. xxiv). -It has also been suggested that a _Philenzo and Hypollita_ and an -_Antonio and Vallia_, ascribed to him in late records, but not extant, -may represent revisions of early work by Dekker (q.v.). - - -FRANCIS MERBURY (_c._ 1579). - -At the end of the epilogue to the following play is written ‘Amen, -quoth fra: Merbury’. The formula may denote only a scribe, but a -precisely similar one denotes the author in the case of Preston’s -_Cambyses_ (q.v.). - - _A Marriage between Wit and Wisdom. c. 1579_ - -[_MS._] _Brit. Mus. Addl. MS._ 26782, formerly _penes_ Sir Edward -Dering. - -_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1846, _Sh. Soc._), J. S. Farmer (1909, -_T. F. T._). - -The MS. has a title-page, with the date 1579, an arrangement of the -parts for six actors and the title ‘The ---- of a Marige betweene wit -and wisdome very frutefull and mixed full of pleasant mirth as well -for The beholders as the Readers or hearers neuer before imprinted’. -There are nine Scenes in two Acts, with a Prologue and Epilogus. The -characters are almost wholly allegorical. Idleness is ‘the vice’. The -stage-directions mention a ‘stage’. Halliwell prints the mutilated -word left blank in the title above as ‘Contract’, no doubt rightly. -Conceivably the play was in fact printed in 1579, as ‘Mariage of wit -and wisdome’ is in Rogers and Ley’s play-list of 1656 (Greg, _Masques_, -lxxxvii). - -The play might be identical with the lost Paul’s moral of _The Marriage -of Mind and Measure_ (cf. App. B), which also belongs to 1579. Fleay, -ii. 287, 294, infers from a not very conclusive reference to a ‘King’ -in sc. iv that it dates from the time of Edward VI. He also identifies -it with the _Hit Nail o’ th’ Head_ named in _Sir Thomas More_ (q.v.) -because that phrase is quoted in the Epilogus, curiously disregarding -the fact that the _Sir Thomas More_ list names the play under its -existing title as distinct from _Hit Nail o’ th’ Head_. Most of the -plays in the _Sir Thomas More_ list seem to be pre-Elizabethan; cf. -_Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 200. - - -THOMAS MIDDLETON (_c._ 1570–1627). - -Thomas Middleton was a Londoner and of a gentle family. The date of -his birth can only be roughly conjectured from the probability that -he was one of two Thomas Middletons who entered Gray’s Inn in 1593 -and 1596, and of his earlier education nothing is known. His first -work was _The Wisdom of Solomon Paraphrased_ (1597), and he may be -the T. M. of _The Black Book_ (1604) and other pamphlets in prose and -verse. He appears as a dramatist, possibly as early as 1599 in _The -Old Law_ and certainly in Henslowe’s diary during 1602, writing an -unnamed play for Worcester’s men, and for the Admiral’s _Caesar’s Fall -or The Two Shapes_ with Dekker (q.v), Drayton, Munday, and Webster, -and by himself, _Randal Earl of Chester_, and a prologue and epilogue -to Greene’s _Friar Bacon_ (q.v.). This work is all lost, but by 1604 -he had also collaborated with Dekker for the Admiral’s in the extant -_Honest Whore_. From 1602, if not from 1599, to the end of their career -in 1606 or 1607, he was also writing diligently for the Paul’s boys. I -think he is referred to with their other ‘apes and guls’, Marston and -Dekker, in Marston’s _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_ (1600), IV. 40: - - How like you _Musus_ fashion in his carriage? - O filthilie, he is as blunt as _Paules_. - -Brabant, the speaker, represents Jonson, who told Drummond in 1619 -that he was ‘not of the number of the Faithfull, i. e. _Poets_, and but -a base fellow’ (Laing, 12). Occasional plays for several companies and -the beginnings of employment in city pageantry occupied 1607–16, and -to later periods belong a fruitful partnership with William Rowley for -Prince Charles’s men, and some slight share in the heterogeneous mass -of work that passes under the names of Beaumont and Fletcher. He also -wrote a few independent plays, of which _A Game at Chess_ (1624) got -him into political trouble. At some time before 1623 a few lines of his -got interpolated into the text of _Macbeth_ (cf. _Warwick_ edition, p. -164). In 1620 he obtained a post as Chronologer to the City. He married -Maria Morbeck, had a son Edward, and dwelt at Newington Butts, where he -was buried on 4 July 1627. - - _Collections_ - -1840. A Dyce, _Works of T. M._ 5 vols. - -1885–6. A. H. Bullen, _Works of T. M._ 8 vols. [Omits _The Honest -Whore_.] - -1887–90. H. Ellis, _The Best Plays of T. M._ 2 vols. (Mermaid Series). -[Includes _Trick to Catch the Old One_, _Chaste Maid in Cheapside_, -_Widow_, _Roaring Girl_, _Mayor of Queenborough_, and later plays.] - -_Dissertations_: J. Arnheim, _T. M._ (1887, _Archiv_, lxxviii. 1, -129, 369); P. G. Wiggin, _An Inquiry into the Authorship of the -Middleton-Rowley Plays_ (1897, _Radcliffe College Monographs_, ix); -H. Jung, _Das Verhältniss T. M.’s zu Shakspere_ (1904, _Münchener -Beiträge_, xxix). - - PLAYS - - _The Old Law. 1599_ - -1656. The Excellent Comedy, called The Old Law; Or A new way to please -you. By Phil. Massenger. Tho. Middleton. William Rowley. Acted before -the King and Queene at Salisbury House, and at severall other places, -with great Applause. Together with an exact and perfect Catalogue -of all the Playes, with the Authors Names, and what are Comedies, -Tragedies, Histories, Pastoralls, Masks, Interludes, more exactly -Printed than ever before. _For Edward Archer._ - -_Editions_ with Massinger’s _Works_ (q.v.).--_Dissertation_: E. E. -Morris, _On the Date and Composition of T. O. L._ (_M. L. A._ xvii. 1). - -It is generally supposed that in some form the play dates from 1599, -as in III. i. 34 a woman was ‘born in an. 1540, and now ’tis 99’. Of -the three authors only Middleton can then have been writing. Morris, -after elaborate study of the early work and the versification of all -three, concludes that Rowley (_c._ 1615) and Massinger (_c._ 1625) -successively revised an original by Middleton. The Paul’s plays began -in 1599, but it cannot be assumed that this was one of them. Stork, 48, -doubts the 1599 date and is inclined to assume collaboration between -the three writers _c._ 1615. - - _Blurt Master Constable. 1601–2_ - -_S. R._ 1602, June 7. ‘A Booke called Blurt Master Constable. _Edward -Aldee_ (Arber, iii. 207). - -1602. Blurt Master Constable. Or The Spaniards Night-walke. As it hath -bin sundry times priuately acted by the Children of Paules. _For Henry -Rocket._ - -_Edition_ [by W. R. Chetwood] in _A Select Collection of Old Plays_ -(1750). - -Bullen suggests that V. iii. 179, ‘There be many of your countrymen in -Ireland, signior’, said to a Spaniard, reflects the raid of Spaniards -in Sept. 1601. They were taken at Kinsale in June 1602. A parallel in -III. i. 104 with _Macbeth_, II. ii. 3, cannot be taken with Fleay, ii. -90, as proof of posteriority. - - _The Phoenix. 1603–4_ - -_S. R._ 1607, May 9 (Buck). ‘A Booke called The Phenix.’ _Arthur -Johnson_ (Arber, iii. 348). - -1607. The Phoenix, As It hath beene sundry times Acted by the Children -of Paules. And presented before his Maiestie. _E. A. for A. I._ - -1630. _T. H. for R. Meighen._ - -The only available performance before James was on 20 Feb. 1604, and -the imitation of _Volpone_ (1605) suggested by Fleay, ii. 92, is not -clear enough to cause any difficulty. Knights are satirized in I. vi. -150, II. iii. 4, and there is an allusion to the unsettled state of -Ireland in I. v. 6. - - _A Trick to Catch the Old One. 1604 < > 6_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1607, Oct. 7 (Buck). ‘Twoo plaies ... thother A trick to catche -the old one.’ _George Eld_ (Arber, iii. 360). - -1608. A Trick to Catch the Old One. As it hath beene lately Acted, by -the Children of Paules. _George Eld._ - -1608.... As it hath beene often in Action, both at Paules, and the -Black Fryers. Presented before his Maiestie on New yeares night last. -Composed by T. M. _G. E. sold by Henry Rockett._ [Another issue.] - -1616.... By T. Middleton. _George Eld for Thomas Langley._ - -_Editions_ in _O. E. D._ (1830, iii) and by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. -P._ v) and W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._). - -The date of Q_{1} is doubtless 1608/9 and the Court performance that by -the Children of Blackfriars on 1 Jan. 1609. They must have taken the -play over from Paul’s when these went under in 1606 or 1607. The title -is probably proverbial, and therefore the phrase ‘We are in the way to -catch the old one’ in _Isle of Gulls_, II. v, hardly enables us to date -the play with Fleay, ii. 92, before Day’s, which was in Feb. 1606. - - _A Mad World, my Masters. 1604 < > 6_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1608, Oct. 4. ‘A Booke called A Mad World (my Maysters).’ -_Walter Burre and Eleazar Edgar_ (Arber, iii. 391). [The licenser -is Segar, ‘Deputy of Sir George Bucke’.] - -1608. A Mad World, My Masters. As it hath bin lately in Action by the -Children of Paules. Composed by T. M. _H. B. for Walter Burre._ - -_S. R._ 1613, April 19. Transfer to John Hodgettes of Edgar’s share -(Arber, iii. 520). - -1640.... A Comedy. As it hath bin often Acted at the Private House in -Salisbury Court, by her Majesties Servants.... _For J. S., sold by -James Becket._ [Epistle to Reader, signed ‘J. S.’] - -_Edition_ by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ ii). - -The epistle says ‘it is full twenty years since it was written’, which -is absurd. A pamphlet of the same title by Breton in 1603, hits at the -Jacobean knightings in I. i. 64, II. v. 41, and the Family of Love -in I. ii. 73, and the disappearance of Paul’s in 1606 or 1607 are -the only indications of date. In Acts IV and V the duplicate names -Once-Ill-Brothel, Hargrave-Harebrain, Shortrod-Harebrain suggest -revision. - - _Michaelmas Term. 1606_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1607, May 15 (Buck). ‘A Comedy called Mychaelmas terme.’ -_Arthur Johnson_ (Arber, iii. 349). - -1607. Michaelmas Terme. As it hath been sundry times acted by the -Children of Paules. _For A. I._ [Induction.] - -1630.... Newly corrected. _T. H. for R. Meighen._ - -Allusions in II. iii. 226, 376 to the presence of women at a quartering -for treason may suggest, as in the case of Marston’s _Fawn_ (q.v.), a -date after that of 30 Jan. 1606. There is no reference in II. i. 63 to -the leap-year of 1604, as suggested by Fleay, ii. 91. Knightings are -satirized in I. i. 191; III. i. 46. - - _Your Five Gallants. 1607_ - -_S. R._ 1608, March 22 (Buck). ‘A Plaie called the ffyve Wittie -Gallantes as it hath ben acted by the Children of the Chappell.’ -_Richard Bonyon_ (Arber, iii. 372). - -N.D. Your fiue Gallants. As it hath beene often in Action at the -Blacke-friers. Written by T. Middleton. _For Richard Bonian._ -[Induction with ‘Presenter or Prologue’ in dumb-show.] - -This may have been in preparation for Paul’s when they ceased playing -and taken over by Blackfriars. In any case a reference to closure for -plague in IV. ii. 29 and to fighting with a windmill (like Don -Quixote) in IV. viii. 7 fit in with a date in 1607. - - _The Family of Love. 1604 < > 7_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1607, Oct. 12 (Buck). ‘A playe called the family of Loue as -yt hath bene Lately acted by the Children of his Maiesties Reuelles.’ -_John Browne and John Helme_ (Arber, iii. 360). - -1608. The Famelie of Love. Acted by the Children of his Maiesties -Reuells. _For John Helmes._ [Epistle to Reader, Prologue, Epilogue.] - -The prologue apologizes that ‘expectation’ hath not ‘filled the general -round’. The King’s Revels can hardly have existed before 1607. Fleay, -ii. 94, thinks that they inherited the play from Paul’s and assigns -it to 1604 ‘when the Family of Love were such objects of public -attention’. His chief reason is that the epistle regrets that the play -was ‘not published when the general voice of the people had sealed -it for good, and the newness of it made it much more desired than at -this time’. It had ‘passed the censure of the stage with a general -applause’. This epistle is clearly by the author, who says ‘it was -in the press before I had notice of it, by which means some faults -may escape in the printing’. I agree that there must have been some -interval between production and publication. But there is no special -virtue in the date 1604. References to the Family of Love are to be -found in _Sir Giles Goosecap_ (_1601–3_), II. i. 263; _Dutch Courtesan_ -(_1603–4_), I. i. 156, I. ii. 18; _Mad World, My Masters_ (_1604–6_), -I. ii. 73; _Isle of Gulls_ (_1606_), p. 26; _Every Woman in Her Humour_ -(?), p. 316. The sect was well known in England as early as 1574–81, -when an act was passed for its suppression. It petitioned James _c._ -1604 and was answered in _A Supplication of the Family of Love_, -printed at Cambridge in 1606. On its history, cf. Fuller, _Church -History_ (1868), iii. 239; F. Nippold, _Heinrich Niclaes und das Haus -der Liebe_ (1862, _Z. f. Hist. Theol._); R. Barclay, _Inner Life of the -Religious Societies of the Commonwealth_ (1876), 25; A. C. Thomas, _The -Family of Love_ (1893); R. M. Jones, _Studies in Mystical Religion_ -(1909), 428; E. B. Daw, _Love Feigned and Unfeigned_ (1917, _M. L. A._ -xxxii. 267). - - _The Roaring Girl. c. 1610._ - - _With_ Dekker (q.v.). - - _A Chaste Maid in Cheapside. 1611._ - -_S. R._ 1630, April 8 (Herbert). ‘A play called The Chast Mayd of -Chepeside.’ _Constable_ (Arber, iv. 232). - -1630. A Chast Mayd in Cheape-side. A Pleasant conceited Comedy neuer -before printed. As it hath beene often acted at the Swan on the -Banke-side by the Lady Elizabeth her Seruants By Thomas Midelton Gent. -_For Francis Constable._ - -It is not known where the Lady Elizabeth’s played during 1611–13, -and it may very well have been at the Swan. Nor is there anything -improbable in the suggestion of Fleay, 186, that this is the _Proud -Maid’s Tragedy_ acted by them at Court on 25 Feb. 1612 (App. B). - - _No Wit, no Help, like a Woman’s. 1613_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1653, Sept. 9. ‘No witt, no helpe like a Woman. Mr. Tho. -Midleton.’ _H. Moseley._ (Eyre, i. 428). - - { Wit } - 1657. No { Help } like a Womans. A Comedy. By Tho. Middleton, - Gent. _For Humphrey Moseley._ [Prologue and Epilogue.] - -The text represents a revival by Shirley in 1638, but Fleay, ii. 96, -refers the original to 1613 as in III. i. 286 a character, after -referring to the almanac for 1638, says he has ‘proceeded in five and -twenty such books of astronomy’. Bullen accepts the date, but I feel no -confidence in the argument. Stork, 47, attempts to trace Rowley’s hand. - - _The Widow_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1652, Apr. 12 (Brent). ‘A play called The Widdow, written by -John Fletcher & Tho: Middleton gent.’ _Moseley_ (Eyre, i. 394). - -1652. The Widdow A Comedie. As it was Acted at the private House in -Black Fryers, with great Applause, by His late Majesties Servants. -Written by Ben: Jonson John Fletcher. Tho: Middleton. Gent. Printed -by the Originall Copy. _For Humphrey Moseley._ [Epistle to Reader by -Alexander Gough. Prologue and Epilogue.] - -Bullen places this ‘from internal evidence’ _c._ 1608–9, but thinks -it revised at a later date, not improbably by Fletcher, although he -cannot discover either Jonson’s hand or, ‘unless the songs be his’, -Fletcher’s. Allusions to ‘a scornful woman’ (I. ii. 104) and to ‘yellow -bands’ as ‘hateful’ (V. i. 52) are consistent with a date _c._ 1615–16. - - _The Mayor of Quinborough_ (?) - -[_MS._] A copy of the play, said to be ‘of no great antiquity’, is -described in an appendix to _Wit and Wisdom_ (_Sh. Soc._), 85. - -_S. R._ 1646, Sept. 4 (Langley). ‘Maior of Quinborough.’ _Robinson and -Moseley_ (Eyre, i. 244). - -1661, Feb. 13. ‘A Comedie called the Maior of Quinborough, By Tho: -Middleton. _Henry Herringham_ (Eyre, ii. 288). - -1661. The Mayor of Quinborough: A Comedy. As it hath been often Acted -with much Applause at Black Fryars, By His Majesties Servants. Written -by Tho. Middleton. _For Henry Herringham._ [Epistle to Gentlemen.] - -There is a mention (V. i. 112) of Fletcher’s _Wild-Goose Chase_ -(1621), and the introduction of a ‘rebel Oliver’ suggests a much later -date. But Bullen thinks this an old play revised, and Fleay, ii. 104, -attempts to identify it with an anonymous play called both _Vortigern_ -and _Hengist_ (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 181) which was produced by the -Admiral’s on 4 Dec. 1596 and bought by the same company from Alleyn in -1601. There is not, however, much to support a theory that Middleton -was writing for the stage so early as 1596. Stork, 46, thinks that -Middleton and Rowley revised the older play _c._ 1606, ‘at a time when -plays of ancient Britain were in vogue’. - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -Middleton’s hand has been sought in _Birth of Merlin_, _Puritan_, -and _Second Maiden’s Tragedy_ (cf. ch. xxiv) and in _Wit at Several -Weapons_ of the Beaumont (q.v.) and Fletcher series. - - _Lost Mask_ - - _Mask of Cupid. 4 Jan. 1614_ - -Writing to Carleton on 5 Jan. 1614 of the festivities at the Earl -of Somerset’s wedding (Birch, i. 288; cf. s.v. Campion, _Mask of -Squires_), Chamberlain notes that the King had called on the City to -entertain the bridal pair, which they had done, though reluctantly, on -4 Jan. in Merchant Taylors’ hall, with a supper, a play and a mask, -and a banquet. Howes in Stowe, _Annales_, 1005, says there were ‘2 -seuerall pleasant maskes & a play’. Bullen, _Middleton_, i. xxxix, -gives from the City _Repertory_, xxxi. 2, f. 239^v, an order of 18 -Jan. 1614 for payment to Thomas Middleton in respect of the ‘late -solemnities at Merchant Tailors’ Hall’ for ‘the last Mask of Cupid and -other shows lately made’ by him. - - ENTERTAINMENTS - - _Running Stream Entertainment. 29 Sept. 1613_ - -1613. The Manner of his Lordships [Sir Thomas Middleton’s] -Entertainment on Michaelmas day last, being the day of his Honorable -Election, together with the worthy Sir Iohn Swinarton, Knight, then -Lord Maior, the Learned and Iuditious, Sir Henry Montague, Maister -Recorder, and many of the Right Worshipfull the Aldermen of the Citty -of London. At that most Famous and Admired Worke of the Running Streame -from Amwell Head, into the Cesterne neere Islington, being the sole -Inuention, Cost, and Industry of that Worthy Maister Hugh Middleton, -of London Goldsmith, for the generall good of the Citty. By T. M. -_Nicholas Okes._ [Appended to reissue of _The Triumphs of Truth_.] - - _The Triumphs of Truth. 29 Oct. 1613_ - -_S. R._ 1613, Nov. 3. ‘A booke called the tryumphs of truth of all -the showes pagiantes Chariots &c. on the Lord Maiours Day octobris 29, -1613.’ _Nicholas Okes_ (Arber, iii. 536). - -1613. The Triumphs of Truth. A Solemnity vnparalleld for Cost, Art, -and Magnificence, at the Confirmation and Establishment of that Worthy -and true Nobly-minded Gentleman, Sir Thomas Middleton, Knight; in the -Honorable Office of his Maiesties Lieuetenant, the Lord Maior of the -thrice Famous Citty of London. Taking Beginning at his Lordships going, -and proceeding after his Returne from receiuing the Oath of Maioralty -at Westminster, on the Morrow next after Simon and Iudes day, October -29. 1613. All the Showes, Pageants, Chariots; Morning, Noone, and -Night-Triumphes. Directed, Written, and redeem’d into Forme, from the -Ignorance of some former times, and their Common Writer, by Thomas -Middleton. _Nicholas Okes._ - -1613.... Shewing also his Lordships Entertainment on Michaelmas day -last, ... [etc.]. _Nicholas Okes._ [Reissue, with _Running Stream -Entertainment_ added.] - -_Edition_ in Nichols, _James_ (1828), ii. 679, with _Running Stream_. - - _Civitatis Amor. 4 Nov. 1616_ - -1616. Ciuitatis Amor. The Cities Loue. An entertainement by water, at -Chelsey, and Whitehall. At the ioyfull receiuing of that Illustrious -Hope of Great Britaine, the High and Mighty Charles, To bee created -Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornewall, Earle of Chester, &c. Together -with the Ample Order and Solemnity of his Highnesse creation, as it -was celebrated in his Maiesties Palace of Whitehall on Monday, the -fourth of Nouember, 1616. As also the Ceremonies of that Ancient and -Honourable Order of the Knights of the Bath; And all the Triumphs -showne in honour of his Royall Creation. _Nicholas Okes for Thomas -Archer._ [Middleton’s name follows the account of the ‘entertainment’.] - - -ALEXANDER MONTGOMERY (_c._ 1556–_c._ 1610). - -A Scottish poet (cf. _D. N. B._) who has been suggested as the author -of _Philotus_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - -ROGER MORRELL (_c._ 1597). - -Possibly the author of the academic _Hispanus_ (cf. App. K). - - -RICHARD MULCASTER (_c._ 1530–1611). - -A contributor to the Kenilworth entertainment (cf. ch. xxiv, C). For -his successive masterships of Merchant Taylors and St. Paul’s, see ch. -xii. - - -ANTHONY MUNDAY (_c._ 1553–1633). - -Anthony was son of Christopher Munday, a London Draper. He ‘first was -a stage player’ (_A True Report of ... M. Campion_, 1582), but in -Oct. 1576 was apprenticed for eight years to John Allde, stationer. -Allde went out of business about 1582, and Munday never completed his -apprenticeship, probably because his ready pen found better profit in -the purveyance of copy for the trade. He began by a journey to Rome -in 1578–9, and brought back material for a series of attacks upon -the Jesuits, to one of which _A True Report of ... M. Campion_ is an -answer. According to the anonymous author, Munday on his return to -England ‘did play extempore, those gentlemen and others whiche were -present, can best giue witnes of his dexterity, who being wery of his -folly, hissed him from his stage. Then being thereby discouraged, he -set forth a balet against playes, but yet (o constant youth) he now -beginnes againe to ruffle upon the stage’. For the ballad there is some -corroborative evidence in a S. R. entry of 10 Nov. 1580 (cf. App. C, -No. xxvi), which, however, does not name Munday, and it is a possible -conjecture that he also wrote the _Third Blast of Retrait from Plaies_ -issued in the same year (cf. App. C, No. xxvii). If so, he was already, -before 1580, doing work as a playwright; but of this, with the doubtful -exception of the anonymous _Two Italian Gentlemen_ (q.v.), there is no -other evidence for another fifteen years. His experiences as an actor -may have been with the company of the Earl of Oxford, whose ‘servant’ -he calls himself in his _View of Sundry Examples_ (1580). From 1581 -he was employed by Topcliffe and others against recusants, and as a -result became, possibly by 1584 and certainly by 1588, a Messenger -of the Chamber. He still held this post in 1593, and was employed -as a pursuivant to execute the Archbishop of Canterbury’s warrants -against Martin Marprelate in 1588. J. D. Wilson (_M. L. R._ iv. 489) -suggests that he may also have taken a hand in the literary and -dramatic controversy, as ‘Mar-Martin, John a Cant: his hobbie-horse’, -who ‘was to his reproche, newly put out of the morris, take it how -he will; with a flat discharge for euer shaking his shins about a -maypole againe while he liued’ (_Protestation of Martin Marprelate_, -_c._ Aug. 1589). Certainly Munday’s official duties did not interfere -with his literary productiveness, as translator of romances, maker of -ballads, lyrist, and miscellaneous writer generally. He is traceable, -chiefly in Henslowe’s diary, as a busy dramatist for the Admiral’s men -during various periods between 1594 and 1602, and there is no reason -to suppose that his activities were limited to these years. Meres in -1598 includes him amongst ‘the best for comedy’, with the additional -compliment of ‘our best plotter’. But he was evidently a favourite mark -for the satire of more literary writers, who depreciated his style and -jested at his functions as a messenger. Small, 172, has disposed of -attempts to identify him with the Deliro or the Puntarvolo of _E. M. -O._, the Amorphus of _Cynthia’s Revels_, the In-and-In Medley of the -_Tale of a Tub_, and the Timothy Tweedle of the anonymous _Jack Drum’s -Entertainment_. But he may reasonably be taken for the Poet Nuntius -of _E. M. I._ and the Antonio Balladino of _The Case is Altered_ -(q.v.); and long before Jonson took up the game, an earlier writer had -introduced him as the Posthaste of the anonymous _Histriomastix_ (c. -1589). Posthaste suggests the formation of Sir Oliver Owlet’s men, and -acts as their poet (i. 124). He writes a _Prodigal Child_ at 1_s._ a -sheet (ii. 94). He will teach the actors to play ‘true Politicians’ -(i. 128) and ‘should be employd in matters of state’ (ii. 130). He -is always ready to drink (i. 162; ii. 103, 115, 319; vi. 222), and -claims to be a gentleman, because ‘he hath a clean shirt on, with -some learning’ (ii. 214). He has written ballads (v. 91; vi. 235). -The players jeer at ‘your extempore’ (i. 127), and he offers to do a -prologue extempore (ii. 121), and does extemporize on a theme (ii. -293). He writes with - - no new luxury or blandishment - But plenty of Old Englands mothers words (ii. 128). - -The players call him, when he is late for rehearsal, a ‘peaking -pageanter’, and say ‘It is as dangerous to read his name at a play -door, as a printed bill on a plague door’ (iv. 165). The whole portrait -seems to be by the earlier author; Marston only adds a characteristic -epithet in ‘goosequillian Posthast’ (iii. 187). But it agrees closely -with the later portraits by Jonson, and with the facts of Munday’s -career. I do not think that ‘pageanter’ means anything more than -play-maker. But from 1605 onwards Munday was often employed by city -companies to devise Lord Mayor’s pageants, and it has been supposed -that he had been similarly engaged since 1592 on the strength of a -claim in the 1618 edition of John Stowe’s _Survey of London_, which he -edited, that he had been ‘six and twenty years in sundry employments -for the City’s service’. But there were other civic employments, and it -is doubtful (cf. ch. iv) how far there were pageants during the last -decade of Elizabeth’s reign for Munday to devise. On the title-pages of -his pageants he describes himself as a ‘Cittizen and Draper of London’. -The Corporation’s welcome at the creation of Henry as Prince of Wales -in 1610 (cf. ch. iv) also fell to him to devise. How long he continued -to write plays is unknown. He had several children in St. Giles’s, -Cripplegate, between 1584 and 1589, and was buried on 10 Aug. 1633 at -St. Stephen’s, Coleman Street. - -_Dissertations_: J. D. Wilson, _A. M., Pamphleteer and Pursuivant_ -(1909, _M. L. R._ iv. 484); W. W. Greg, _Autograph Plays by A. M._ -(1913, _M. L. R._ viii. 89); M. St. C. Byrne, _The Date of A. M.’s -Journey to Rome_ (1918, _3 Library_, ix. 106), _The Shepherd Tony--a -Recapitulation_ (1920, _M. L. R._ xv. 364), _A. M. and his Books_ -(1921, _4 Library_, i. 225); E. M. Thompson, _The Autograph MSS. of A. -M._ (1919, _Bibl. Soc. Trans._ xiv. 325). - - PLAYS - - _John a Kent and John a Cumber. 1594_ - -[_MS._] Autograph MS. in possession of Lord Mostyn, with title ‘The -Booke of John a Kent and John a Cumber’, and at end the signature -‘Anthony Mundy’, and in another hand the date ‘---- Decembris 1596’. A -mutilation of the paper has removed the day of the month and possibly -some memorandum to which the date was appended. The wrapper is in part -formed of a vellum leaf of which another part was used for _Sir Thomas -More_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - -_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1851, _Sh. Soc._) and J. S. Farmer (1912, -_T. F. T._). - -The date has been misread ‘1595’. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 172) agrees -with Fleay, ii. 114, that the play, of which the scene is at West -Chester, must be _The Wise Man of West Chester_, produced by the -Admiral’s on 3 Dec. 1594 and played to 18 July 1597. Their inventory -of 1598 (_Henslowe Papers_, 117) includes ‘Kentes woden leage’. This -is not required by the extant text, but two or three leaves of the -MS. appear to be missing. If the identification is correct, it is not -easy to see how the MS. can be earlier than 1594, although Sir E. -M. Thompson’s warning that the date of 1596 may be a later addition -is justified. On 19 Sept. 1601 the Admiral’s bought the book from -Alleyn. Greg further suggests that _Randal Earl of Chester_, written by -Middleton for the same company in Oct. and Nov. 1602, may have been a -‘refashioning’ of the earlier play, in which Randal is a character. - - _The Downfall of Robert Earl of Huntingdon. 1598_ - -_S. R._ 1600, Dec. 1. ‘The Downe falle of Robert Erle of Huntingdone -after Called Robin Hood.’ _Leake_ (Arber, iii. 176). - -1601. The Downfall of Robert, Earle of Huntington, Afterward called -Robin Hood of merrie Sherwodde: with his loue to chaste Matilda, the -Lord Fitzwaters daughter, afterwardes his faire Maide Marian. Acted by -the Right Honourable, the Earle of Notingham, Lord high Admirall of -England, his seruants. _For William Leake._ [Induction.] - -_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1833, _Five Old Plays_), in Dodsley^4 viii -(1874), and by J. S. Farmer (1913, _S. F. T._).--_Dissertation_: A. -Ruckdeschel, _Die Quellen des Dramas ‘The Downfall and Death of Robert, -Earle of Huntington, otherwise called Robin Hood’_ (1897). - -Henslowe paid Munday £5 on behalf of the Admiral’s for ‘the firste -parte of Robyne Hoode’ on 15 Feb. 1598. From 20 Feb. to 8 March he paid -Munday and Chettle sums amounting to £5 in all for a ‘seconde parte’, -called in the fullest entry ‘seconde parte of the downefall of earlle -Huntyngton surnamed Roben Hoode’. The books and apparel and properties -are in the Admiral’s inventories of March 1598 (_Henslowe Papers_, 114, -115, 120, 121). Both parts were licensed for performance on 28 March. -On 18 Nov. he paid Chettle 10_s._ for ‘the mendynge of’ the first part, -and on 25 Nov., apparently, another 10_s._ ‘for mendinge of Roben Hood -for the corte’. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 190) suggests that the last -payment was for the second part, and that the two Court performances by -the Admiral’s at Christmas 1598 are of these plays. However this may -be, Henslowe’s _1, 2 Robin Hood_ are doubtless the extant _Downfall_ -and _Death_. There is an allusion in _The Downfall_, IV. ii, to the -‘merry jests’ of an earlier play, which may be _The Pastoral Comedy of -Robin Hood and Little John_, entered in S. R. on 14 May 1594, but not -now known. Fleay, ii. 114, thinks that Chettle, besides revising some -of Munday’s scenes, added the Induction and the Skeltonic rhymes. - - _The Death of Robert Earl of Huntingdon. 1598_ - - _With_ Chettle. - -_S. R._ 1600, Dec. 1. ‘The Death of Robert Earle of Huntingdon with the -lamentable trogidye of Chaste Mathilda.’ _Leake_ (Arber, iii. 176). - -1601. The Death of Robert, Earle of Huntington. Otherwise called Robin -Hood of merrie Sherwodde: with the lamentable Tragedie of chaste -Matilda, his faire maid Marian, poysoned at Dunmowe by King Iohn. Acted -by the Right Honourable, the Earle of Notingham, Lord high Admirall of -England, his seruants. _For William Leake._ [_Epilogue._] - -_Editions_ and _Dissertation_ with _The Downfall_ (q.v.). - -This is a sequel to _The Downfall_ (q.v.). Fleay, ii. 115, gives Munday -the scenes dealing with Robin Hood’s death and Chettle those dealing -with Maid Marian’s. The play contains discrepancies, but Henslowe’s -entries afford no evidence that Munday revised Chettle’s work, as Fleay -thinks. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 191) points out that Davenport borrowed -much of his _King John and Matilda_ (1655) from _The Death_. - - _1 Sir John Oldcastle. 1599_ - - _With_ Drayton (q.v.), Hathway, and Wilson. - - _Lost Plays_ - -The following is a complete list of the plays in which Henslowe’s diary -shows Munday to have written between 1597 and 1602. All were for the -Admiral’s: - -(i) _Mother Redcap._ - -With Drayton, Dec. 1597–Jan. 1598. - -(ii), (iii) _1, 2 Robin Hood._ - -_Vide supra._ - -(iv) _The Funeral of Richard Cœur-de-Lion._ - -With Chettle, Drayton, and Wilson, June 1598, probably as a sequel to -_Robin Hood_ (cf. Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 190). - -(v) _Valentine and Orson._ - -With Hathway (q.v.), July 1598. - -(vi) A ‘comodey for the corte’, for the completion of which Drayton was -surety, Aug. 1598, but the entry is cancelled, and presumably the play -was not finished, unless it is identical with (vii). - -(vii) _Chance Medley._ - -With Chettle or Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson, Aug. 1598. - -(viii), (ix) _1, 2 Sir John Oldcastle._ - -With Drayton (q.v.), Hathway, and Wilson, Oct.–Dec. 1599. - -(x) _Owen Tudor._ - -With Drayton, Hathway, and Wilson, Jan. 1600, but apparently not -finished. - -(xi) _1 Fair Constance of Rome._ - -With Dekker, Drayton, Hathway, and Wilson, June 1600. - -(xii) _1 Cardinal Wolsey._ - -With Chettle, Drayton, and Smith, Aug.–Nov. 1601. - -(xiii) _Jephthah._ - -With Dekker, May 1602. - -(xiv) _Caesar’s Fall, or The Two Shapes._ - -With Dekker, Drayton, Middleton, and Webster, May 1602. - -(xv) _The Set at Tennis._ - -Dec. 1602. The payment, though in full, was only £3; it was probably, -therefore, a short play, and conceivably identical with the ‘[sec]ond -part of fortun[es Tenn?]is’ of which a ‘plot’ exists (cf. ch. xxiv) -and intended to piece out to the length of a normal performance -the original _Fortune’s Tennis_ written by Dekker (q.v.) as a -‘curtain-raiser’ for the Fortune on its opening in 1600. [This is -highly conjectural.] - -Munday must clearly have had a hand in _Sir Thomas More_, which is -in his writing, and has been suggested as the author of _Fedele and -Fortunio_ and _The Weakest Goeth to the Wall_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - ENTERTAINMENTS - - _The Triumphs of Reunited Britannia. 29 Oct. 1605_ - -N.D. The Triumphes of re-vnited Britania. Performed at the cost and -charges of the Right Worship: Company of the Merchant Taylors, in honor -of Sir Leonard Holliday kni: to solemnize his entrance as Lorde Mayor -of the Citty of London, on Tuesday the 29. of October. 1605. Deuised -and Written by A. Mundy, Cittizen and Draper of London. _W. Jaggard._ - -_Edition_ in Nichols, _James_ (1828), i. 564. - - _London’s Love to Prince Henry. 31 May 1610_ - -See ch. xxiv. - - _Chryso-Thriambos. 29 Oct. 1611_ - -1611. Chruso-thriambos. The Triumphes of Golde. At the Inauguration of -Sir Iames Pemberton, Knight, in the Dignity of Lord Maior of London: -On Tuesday, the 29. of October. 1611. Performed in the harty loue, and -at the charges of the Right Worshipfull, Worthy, and Ancient Company -of Gold-Smithes. Deuised and Written by A. M. Cittizen and Draper of -London. _William Jaggard._ - - _Himatia Poleos. 29 Oct. 1614_ - -1614. Himatia-Poleos. The Triumphs of olde Draperie, or the rich -Cloathing of England. Performed in affection, and at the charges of the -right Worthie and first honoured Companie of Drapers: at the enstalment -of Sr. Thomas Hayes Knight, in the high office of Lord Maior of London, -on Satturday, being the 29. day of October. 1614. Deuised and written -by A. M. Citizen and Draper of London. _Edward Allde._ - - _Metropolis Coronata. 30 Oct. 1615_ - -1615. Metropolis Coronata, The Triumphes of Ancient Drapery: or, Rich -Cloathing of England, in a second Yeeres performance. In Honour of -the aduancement of Sir Iohn Iolles, Knight, to the high Office of -Lord Maior of London, and taking his Oath for the same Authoritie, -on Monday, being the 30. day of October. 1615. Performed in heartie -affection to him, and at the bountifull charges of his worthy Brethren -the truely Honourable Society of Drapers, the first that receiued such -Dignitie in this Citie. Deuised, and written, by A. M. Citizen, and -Draper of London. _George Purslowe._ - -_Edition_ in Nichols, _James_, iii. 107. - - _Chrysanaleia. 29 Oct. 1616_ - -_S. R._ 1616, Oct. 29. ‘A booke called the golden Fishing of the showes -of Sir John Leman Lord Maiour.’ _George Purslowe_ (Arber iii. 597). - -1616. Chrysanaleia: The Golden Fishing: Or, Honour of Fishmongers. -Applauding the aduancement of Mr. Iohn Leman, Alderman, to the dignitie -of Lord Maior of London. Taking his Oath in the same authority at -Westminster, on Tuesday, being the 29. day of October. 1616. Performed -in hearty loue to him, and at the charges of his worthy Brethren, the -ancient, and right Worshipfull Company of Fishmongers. Deuised and -written by A. M. Citizen and Draper of London. _George Purslowe._ - -_Editions_ in Nichols, iii. 195, and by J. G. Nichols (1844, 1869) with -reproductions of drawings for the pageant in the possession of the -Fishmongers. - - _Doubtful Entertainment_ - -The _Campbell_ mayoral pageant of 1609 (q.v.) has been ascribed to -Munday. - - -ROBERT NAILE (_c._ 1613). - -Probable describer of the Bristol entertainment of Queen Anne in 1613 -(cf. ch. xxiv, C). - - -THOMAS NASHE (1507–>1601). - -Nashe was baptized at Lowestoft, Suffolk, in Nov. 1567, the son of -William Nashe, minister, of a Herefordshire family. He matriculated -from St. John’s, Cambridge, on 13 Oct. 1582, took his B.A. in 1586, -and left the University probably in 1588. According to the _Trimming_ -(Harvey, iii. 67), he ‘had a hand in a Show called Terminus & non -terminus, for which his partener in it was expelled the Colledge: but -this foresaid Nashe played in it (as I suppose) the Varlet of Clubs; -which he acted with such naturall affection, that all the spectators -tooke him to be the verie same’. He went to London, and his first book, -_The Anatomie of Absurditie_, was entered in S. R. on 19 Sept. 1588. In -actual publication it was anticipated by an epistle ‘To the Gentlemen -Students of Both Universities’, which he prefixed to the _Menaphon_ -(1589) of Robert Greene (cf. App. C, No. xlii). This contains some -pungent criticism of actors, with incidental depreciation of certain -illiterate dramatists, among whom is apparently included Kyd, coupled -with praise of Peele, and of other ‘sweete gentlemen’, who have -‘tricked vp a company of taffata fooles with their feathers’. Evidently -Nashe had joined the London circle of University wits, and henceforth -lived, partly by his pen, as dramatist and pamphleteer, and partly by -services rendered to various patrons, amongst whom were Lord Strange, -Sir George Carey, afterwards Lord Hunsdon, and Archbishop Whitgift. -His connexion with this last was either the cause or the result of his -employment, with other literary men, notably Lyly, in opposition to -the anti-episcopalian tracts of Martin Marprelate and his fellows. His -precise share in the controversy is uncertain. He has been credited -with _An Almond for a Parrot_, with a series of writings under the name -of Pasquil, and with other contributions, but in all cases the careful -analysis of McKerrow, v. 49, finds the evidence quite inconclusive. - -McKerrow, too, has given the best account (v. 65) of Nashe’s quarrel -with Gabriel and Richard Harvey. This arose out of his association -as an anti-Martinist with Lyly, between whom and Gabriel there was -an ancient feud. It was carried on, in a vein of scurrilous personal -raillery on both sides, from 1590 until it was suppressed as a public -scandal in 1599. One of the charges against Nashe was his friendship -with, and in the Harveian view aping of, Robert Greene, with whom, -according to Gabriel’s _Four Letters_ (_Works_, i. 170), Nashe took -part in the fatal banquet of pickled herrings and Rhenish which -brought him to his end. Nashe repudiated the charge of imitation, and -spoke of Greene in _Have With You to Saffron Walden_ (iii. 132), as -‘subscribing to mee in anything but plotting Plaies, wherein he was -his crafts master’. Unless _Dido_ is early work, no play written by -Nashe before Greene’s death on 3 Sept. 1592 is known to us. But he is -pretty clearly the ‘young Iuuenall, that byting Satyrist, that lastly -with mee together writ a Comedie’ of Greene’s posthumous _Groats-worth_ -(cf. App. C, No. xlviii), and the tone of his own Defence of Plays in -_Pierce Penilesse_ of 1592 (cf. App. C, No. xlvi) as compared with -that of the _Menaphon_ epistle suggests that he had made his peace -with the ‘taffata fooles’. His one extant unaided play belongs to -the autumn of 1592, and was apparently for a private performance at -Croydon. Internal evidence enables us to date in Aug.–Oct. 1596, and -to ascribe to Nashe, in spite of the fact that his name at the foot is -in a nineteenth-century writing, a letter to William Cotton (McKerrow, -v. 192, from _Cott. MS. Julius C._ iii, f. 280) which shows that he -was still writing for the stage and gives valuable evidence upon the -theatrical crisis of that year (App. D, No. cv). To 1597 belongs the -misadventure of _The Isle of Dogs_, which sent Nashe in flight to Great -Yarmouth, and probably ended his dramatic career. He is mentioned as -dead in C. Fitzgeffrey, _Affaniae_ (1601). - - _Collections_ - -1883–5. A. B. Grosart, _The Complete Works of T. N._ 6 vols. (_Huth -Library_). - -1904–10. R. B. McKerrow, _The Works of T. N._ 5 vols. - - PLAYS - - _Summer’s Last Will and Testament. 1592_ - -_S. R._ 1600, Oct. 28 (Harsnett). ‘A booke called Sommers last Will -and testament presented by William Sommers.’ _Burby and Walter Burre_ -(Arber, iii. 175). - -1600. A Pleasant Comedie, called Summers last will and Testament. -Written by Thomas Nash. _Simon Stafford for Walter Burre._ [Induction, -with Prologue and Epilogue.] - -_Edition_ in Dodsley^{3–4} (1825–74).--_Dissertations_: B. Nicholson, -_The Date of S. L. W. and T._ (_Athenaeum_, 10 Jan. 1891); F. G. Fleay -_Queen Elizabeth, Croydon and the Drama_ (1898). - -The play was intended for performance on the ‘tyle-stones’ and in the -presence of a ‘Lord’, to whom there are several other references, in -one of which he is ‘your Grace’ (ll. 17, 205, 208, 587, 795, 1897, -1925). There are also local references to ‘betweene this and Stretham’ -(l. 202), to ‘Dubbers hill’ near Croydon (l. 621), to Croydon itself -(ll. 1830, 1873), and to ‘forlorne’ Lambeth (l. 1879). The conclusion -seems justified that ‘this lowe built house’ (l. 1884) was the palace -of Archbishop Whitgift at Croydon. - -There was a plague ‘in this latter end of summer’ (l. 80); which had -been ‘brought in’ by the dog-days (l. 656), and had led to ‘want of -terme’ and consequent ‘Cities harm’ in London (l. 1881). Summer -accuses Sol of spiting Thames with a ‘naked channell’ (l. 545) and Sol -lays it on the moon (l. 562): - - in the yeare - Shee was eclipst, when that the Thames was bare. - -Two passages refer to the Queen as on progress. Summer says (l. 125): - - Haruest and age haue whit’ned my greene head: - - * * * * * - - This month haue I layne languishing a bed, - Looking eche hour to yeeld my life and throne; - And dyde I had in deed vnto the earth, - But that _Eliza_, Englands beauteous Queene, - On whom all seasons prosperously attend, - Forbad the execution of my fate, - Vntill her ioyfull progresse was expir’d. - For her doth Summer liue, and linger here. - -And again, at the end of the play (l. 1841): - - Vnto _Eliza_, that most sacred Dame, - Whom none but Saints and Angels ought to name, - All my faire dayes remaining I bequeath, - To waite vpon her till she be returnd. - Autumne, I charge thee, when that I am dead, - Be prest and seruiceable at her beck, - Present her with thy goodliest ripened fruites. - -The plague and absence of term from London might fit either 1592 or -1593 (cf. App. E), but I agree with McKerrow, iv. 418, that the earlier -year is indicated. In 1593 the plague did not begin in the dog-days, -nor did Elizabeth go on progress. And it is on 6 Sept. 1592 that -Stowe (1615), 764, records the emptying of Thames. I may add a small -confirmatory point. Are not ‘the horses lately sworne to be stolne’ (l. -250) those stolen by Germans in the train of Count Mompelgard between -Reading and Windsor and referred to in _Merry Wives_, IV. v. 78. The -Count came to Windsor on 19 Aug. 1592 (Rye, xcix). Now I part company -with Mr. McKerrow, who thinks that, although the play was written in -1592, it may have been revised for performance before Elizabeth in -a later year, perhaps at her visit to Whitgift on 14 Aug. 1600. His -reasons are three: (_a_) Sol’s reference to the Thames seems to date -it in a year earlier than that in which he speaks; (_b_) the seasonal -references suggest August, while Stowe’s date necessitates September at -earliest, and the want of term points to October; (_c_) the references -to Elizabeth imply her presence. I think there is something in (_a_), -but not much, if the distinction between actual and dramatic time is -kept in mind. As to (_b_), the tone of the references is surely to a -summer prolonged beyond its natural expiration for Eliza’s benefit, -well into autumn, and in such a year the fruits of autumn, which in -this country are chiefly apples, will be on the trees until October. -As to (_c_), I cannot find any evidence of the Queen’s presence at -all. Surely she is on progress elsewhere, and due to ‘return’ in the -future. I may add that Elizabeth was at Croydon in the spring of 1593, -and that it would, therefore, have been odd to defer a revival for her -benefit until another seven years had elapsed. The 1592 progress came -to an end upon 9 Oct. and I should put the performance not long before. -When Q_{1} of _Pierce Penilesse_ (S. R. 8 Aug. 1592) was issued, Nashe -was kept by fear of infection ‘with my Lord in the Countrey’, and the -misinterpretations of the pamphlet which he deprecates in the epistle -to Q_{2} (McKerrow, i. 154) are hinted at in a very similar protest (l. -65) in the play. - -The prologue is spoken by ‘the greate foole _Toy_’ (ll. 10, 1945), -who would borrow a chain and fiddle from ‘my cousin Ned’ (l. 7), also -called ‘Ned foole’ (l. 783). The epilogue is spoken (l. 1194) and -the songs sung (ll. 117, 1871) by boys. Will Summer (l. 792) gives -good advice to certain ‘deminitiue urchins’, who wait ‘on my Lords -trencher’; but he might be speaking either to actors or to boys in the -audience. The morris (l. 201) dances ‘for the credit of Wostershire’, -where Whitgift had been bishop. The prompter was Dick Huntley (l. 14), -and Vertumnus was acted by Harry Baker (l. 1567). There is a good deal -of Latin in the text. On the whole, I think that the play was given -by members of Whitgift’s household, which his biographer describes -as ‘a little academy’. The prologue (l. 33) has ‘So fares it with vs -nouices, that here betray our imperfections: we, afraid to looke on -the imaginary serpent of Enuy, paynted in mens affections, haue ceased -to tune any musike of mirth to your eares this twelue-month, thinking -that, as it is the nature of the serpent to hisse, so childhood and -ignorance would play the goslings, contemning and condemning what they -vnderstood not’. This agrees curiously in date with the termination -of the Paul’s plays. Whitgift might have entertained the Paul’s boys -during the plague and strengthened them for a performance with members -of his own household. But would they call themselves ‘nouices’? - - _Dido, Queen of Carthage > 1593_ - - _With_ Marlowe (q.v.). - - _Lost Plays_ - - _Terminus et non Terminus. 1586 < > 8_ - -_Vide supra._ McKerrow, v. 10, thinks that the name of Nashe’s alleged -part may be a jest, and points out that the identification by Fleay, -ii. 124, of the play, of which nothing more is known, with the ‘London -Comedie’ of the _Cards_ referred to in Harington’s _Apology_ (cf. App. -C, No. xlv) is improbable. - - _The Isle of Dogs. 1597_ - -Meres, _Palladis Tamia_ (S. R. 7 Sept. 1598), writes: - - ‘As _Actaeon_ was wooried of his owne hounds: so is _Tom Nash_ - of his _Isle of Dogs_. Dogges were the death of _Euripedes_, - but bee not disconsolate gallant young _Iuuenall_, _Linus_, - the sonne of _Apollo_ died the same death. Yet God forbid that - so braue a witte should so basely perish, thine are but paper - dogges, neither is thy banishment like _Ouids_, eternally to - conuerse with the barbarous _Getes_. Therefore comfort thy - selfe sweete _Tom_, with _Ciceros_ glorious return to Rome, & - with the counsel _Aeneas_ giues to his seabeaten soldiors.’ - -We learn something more from _Nashes Lenten Stuffe_ (S. R. 11 Jan. -1599), where he tells us that he is sequestered from the wonted means -of his maintenance and exposed to attacks on his fame, through ‘the -straunge turning of the Ile of Dogs from a commedie to a tragedie -two summers past, with the troublesome stir which hapned aboute it’, -and goes on to explain the ‘infortunate imperfit Embrion of my idle -houres, the Ile of Dogs before mentioned ... was no sooner borne but -I was glad to run from it’; which is what brought him to Yarmouth. In -a marginal note he adds ‘An imperfit Embrion I may well call it, for -I hauing begun but the induction and first act of it, the other foure -acts without my consent, or the least guesse of my drift or scope, by -the players were supplied, which bred both their trouble and mine to’ -(McKerrow, iii. 153). Of this there is perhaps some confirmation in the -list of writings on the cover of the _Northumberland MS._ which records -the item, not now extant in the MS., ‘Ile of doges frmn^t by Thomas -Nashe inferior plaiers’. This MS. contains work by Bacon (q.v.), and -if the entry is not itself based on _Lenten Stuffe_, it may indicate -that Bacon was professionally concerned in the proceedings to which -the play gave rise. McKerrow, v. 31, points out that the evidence is -against the suggestion in the _Trimming of Thomas Nashe_ (S. R. 11 -Oct. 1597) that Nashe suffered imprisonment for the play. The Privy -Council letter of 15 Aug. 1597 (cf. App. D, No. cxi) was no doubt -intended to direct his apprehension, but, as I pointed out in _M. L. -R._ iv. 410, 511, the actor and maker of plays referred to therein -as actually in prison must have been Ben Jonson, who was released by -the Council on 3 Oct. 1597 (cf. App. D, No. cxii). The connexion of -Jonson (q.v.) with the _Isle of Dogs_ is noted in _Satiromastix_. With -him the Council released Gabriel Spencer and Robert Shaw, and the -inference is that the peccant company was Pembroke’s (q.v.) at the -Swan on Bankside. The belief that it was the Admiral’s at the Rose -only rests on certain forged interpolations by Collier in Henslowe’s -diary. These are set out by Greg (_Henslowe_, i. xl). The only genuine -mention of the affair in the diary is the provision noted in the -memorandum of Borne’s agreement of 10 Aug. 1597 that his service is to -begin ‘imediatly after this restraynt is recaled by the lordes of the -counsell which restraynt is by the meanes of playinge the Ieylle of -Dooges’ (_Henslowe_, i. 203). The restraint was ordered by the Privy -Council on 28 July 1597 (App. D, No. cx), presumably soon after the -offence, the nature of which is only vaguely described as the handling -of ‘lewd matters’. Perhaps it is possible, at any rate in conjecture, -to be more specific. By dogs we may take it that Nashe meant men. The -idea was not new to him. In _Summer’s Last Will and Testament_ he makes -Orion draw an elaborate parallel between dogs and men, at the end of -which Will Summer says that he had not thought ‘the ship of fooles -would haue stayde to take in fresh water at the Ile of dogges’ (l. -779). But there is nothing offensive to authority here. Nashe returns -to the question of his indiscretion in more than one passage of _Lenten -Stuffe_, and in particular has a diatribe (McKerrow, iii. 213) against -lawyers who try to fish ‘a deepe politique state meaning’ out of what -contains no such thing. ‘Talke I of a beare, O, it is such a man that -emblazons him in his armes, or of a woolfe, a fox, or a camelion, any -lording whom they do not affect it is meant by.’ Apparently Nashe was -accused of satirizing some nobleman. But this was not the only point -of attack. ‘Out steps me an infant squib of the Innes of Court ... -and he, to approue hymselfe an extrauagant statesman, catcheth hold -of a rush, and absolutely concludeth, it is meant of the Emperor of -Ruscia, and that it will vtterly marre the traffike into that country -if all the Pamphlets bee not called in and suppressed, wherein that -libelling word is mentioned.’ I do not suppose that Nashe had literally -called the Emperor of Russia a rush in _The Isle of Dogs_, but it is -quite possible that he, or Ben Jonson, had called the King of Poland -a pole. On 23 July 1597, just five days before the trouble, a Polish -ambassador had made representations in an audience with Elizabeth, -apparently about the question, vexed in the sixteenth as in the -twentieth century, of contraband in neutral vessels, and she, scouring -up her rusty old Latin for the purpose, had answered him in very -round terms. The matter, to which there are several allusions in the -Cecilian correspondence (Wright, _Eliz._ ii. 478, 481, 485), gave some -trouble, and any mention of it on the public stage might well have been -resented. A letter of Robert Beale in 1592 (McKerrow, v. 142) shows -that the criticisms of Nashe’s _Pierce Penilesse_ had similarly been -due to his attack upon the Danes, with which country the diplomatic -issues were much the same as with Poland. In _Hatfield MSS._ vii. 343 -is a letter of 10 Aug. 1597 to Robert Cecil from Richard (misdescribed -in the Calendar as Robert) Topcliffe, recommending an unnamed bearer -as ‘the first man that discovered to me that seditious play called The -Isle of Dogs’. - - _Doubtful Play_ - -Nashe has been suggested as a contributor to _A Knack to Know a Knave_ -(cf. ch. xxiv). - - -THOMAS NELSON. - -The pageant-writer is probably identical with the stationer of the same -name, who is traceable in London during 1580–92 (McKerrow, 198). - - _Allot Pageant. 29 Oct. 1590_ - -1590. The Deuice of the Pageant: Set forth by the Worshipfull Companie -of the Fishmongers, for the right honourable Iohn Allot: established -Lord Maior of London, and Maior of the Staple for this present Yeere of -our Lord 1590. By T. Nelson. _No imprint._ - -Speeches by the riders on the Merman and the Unicorn, and by Fame, -the Peace of England, Wisdom, Policy, God’s Truth, Plenty, Loyalty -and Concord, Ambition, Commonwealth, Science and Labour, Richard the -Second, Jack Straw, and Commonwealth again, representing Sir William -Walworth, who was evidently the chief subject of the pageant. - -_Edition_ by W. C. Hazlitt (1886, _Antiquary_, xiii. -54).--_Dissertation_: R. Withington, _The Lord Mayor’s Show for 1590_ -(1918, _M.L.N._ xxxiii. 8). - - -ALEXANDER NEVILLE (1544–1614). - -Translator of Seneca (q.v.). - - -THOMAS NEWTON (_c._ 1542–1607). - -Translator of Seneca (q.v.). - - -RICHARD NICCOLS (1584–1616?). - -This writer of various poetical works and reviser in 1610 of _The -Mirror for Magistrates_ may have been the writer intended by the S. -R. entry to Edward Blount on 15 Feb. 1612 of ‘A tragedye called, The -Twynnes tragedye, written by Niccolls’ (Arber, iii. 478). No copy is -known, and it is arbitrary of Fleay, ii. 170, to ‘suspect’ a revival -of it in William Rider’s _The Twins_ (1655), which had been played at -Salisbury Court. - - -HENRY NOEL (_ob._ 1597). - -A younger son of Andrew Noel of Dalby on the Wolds, Leicestershire, -whose personal gifts and extravagance enabled him to make a -considerable figure as a Gentleman Pensioner at Court. He may have been -a fellow author with Robert Wilmot (q.v.) of _Gismond of Salerne_, -although he has not been definitely traced as a member of the Inner -Temple, by whom the play was produced. - - -THOMAS NORTON (1532–84). - -Norton was born in London and educated at Cambridge and the Inner -Temple. In 1571 he became Remembrancer of the City of London, and also -sat in Parliament for London. Apparently he is distinct from the Thomas -Norton who acted from 1560 as counsel to the Stationers’ Company. He -took part in theological controversy as a Calvinist, and was opposed -to the public stage (cf. App. D, No. xxxi). In 1583 he escaped with -some difficulty from a charge of treason. His first wife, Margaret, was -daughter, and his second, Alice, niece of Cranmer. - - _Ferrex and Porrex_, or _Gorboduc_. _28 Jan. 1562_ - -_S. R._ 1565–6. ‘A Tragdie of Gorboduc where iij actes were Wretten by -Thomas Norton and the laste by Thomas Sackvyle, &c.’ _William Greffeth_ -(Arber, i. 296). - -1565, Sept. 22. The Tragedie of Gorboduc, Where of three Actes were -wrytten by Thomas Nortone, and the two laste by Thomas Sackuyle. -Sett forthe as the same was shewed before the Quenes most excellent -Maiestie, in her highnes Court of Whitehall, the .xviij. day of -Ianuary, Anno Domini .1561. By the Gentlemen of Thynner Temple in -London. _William Griffith._ [Argument; Dumb-Shows.] - -N.D. [_c._ 1571] The Tragidie of Ferrex and Porrex, set forth without -addition or alteration but altogether as the same was shewed on stage -before the Queenes Maiestie, about nine yeares past, _viz._, the xviij -day of Ianuarie 1561, by the gentlemen of the Inner Temple. Seen and -allowed, &c. _John Day._ [Epistle by ‘The P. to the Reader’.] - -1590. _Edward Allde for John Perrin._ [Part of _The Serpent of -Division_.] - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–3} (1744–1825), and by Hawkins (1773, _O. -E. D._ ii), W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ i), W. D. Cooper (1847, _Sh. -Soc._), R. W. Sackville-West, _Works of Sackville_ (1859), L. T. -Smith (1883), J. M. Manly (1897, _Spec._ ii. 211), J. S. Farmer -(1908, _T. F. T._), J. W. Cunliffe and H. A. Watt (1912, _E. E. C. -T._).--_Dissertations_: E. Köppel (_E. S._ xvi. 357); Koch, _F. und P._ -(1881, _Halle diss._); H. A. Watt, _G.; or F. and P._ (1910, _Wisconsin -Univ. Bulletin_, 351). - -Day’s epistle says that the play was ‘furniture of part of the grand -Christmasse in the Inner Temple first written about nine yeares agoe -by the right honourable Thomas now Lorde Buckherst, and by T. Norton, -and after shewed before her Maiestie, and neuer intended by the authors -therof to be published’. But one W. G. printed it in their absence, -‘getting a copie therof at some yongmans hand that lacked a litle money -and much discretion’. Machyn, 275, records on 18 Jan. 1561 ‘a play in -the quen hall at Westmynster by the gentyll-men of the Tempull, and -after a grett maske, for ther was a grett skaffold in the hall, with -grett tryhumpe as has bene sene; and the morow after the skaffold was -taken done’. Fleay, ii. 174, doubts Norton’s participation--Heaven -knows why. - -Malone (_Var._ iii. 32) cites the unreliable Chetwood for a performance -of _Gorboduc_ at Dublin Castle in 1601. - -For the Inner Temple Christmas of 1561, at which Robert Dudley was -constable-marshal and Christopher Hatton master of the game, cf. -_Mediaeval Stage_, i. 415. It was presumably at the mask of 18 Jan. -that Hatton danced his way into Elizabeth’s heart. - - -THOMAS NUCE (_ob._ 1617). - -Translator of Seneca (q.v.). - - -OWEN AP JOHN (_c._ 1600). - -A late sixteenth-century MS. (_Peniarth MS._ 65 = _Hengwrt MS._ 358) -of _The Oration of Gwgan and Poetry_ is calendared as his in _Welsh -MSS._ (_Hist. MSS. Comm._), i. 2. 454, and said to be ‘in the form of -interludes’. He may be merely the scribe. - - -PHILIP PARSONS (1594–1653). - -Fellow of St. John’s, Oxford, and later Principal of Hart Hall (_D. N. -B._), and author of the academic _Atalanta_ (cf. App. K). - - -MERCURIUS (?) PATEN (_c._ 1575). - -Gascoigne names a ‘M. [Mr.] Paten’ as a contributor to the Kenilworth -entertainment (cf. ch. xxiv, C.). He might be the Patten described in -_D. N. B._ as rector of Stoke Newington (but not traceable in Hennessy) -and author of an anonymous _Calendars of Scripture_ (1575). But I -think he is more likely to have been Mercurius, son of William Patten, -teller of the exchequer and lord of the manor of Stoke Newington, -who matriculated at Trinity, Cambridge, in 1567 and was Blue Mantle -pursuivant in 1603 (_Hist. of Stoke Newington_ in _Bibl. Top. Brit._ -ii; _Admissions to T. C. C._ ii. 70). - - -GEORGE PEELE (_c._ 1557–96). - -As the son of James Peele, clerk of Christ’s Hospital and himself a -maker of pageants (vol. i, p. 136; _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 166), George -entered the grammar school in 1565, proceeded thence to Broadgates -Hall, Oxford, in 1571, and became a student of Christ Church in 1574, -taking his B.A. in 1577 and his M.A. in 1579. In Sept. 1579 the court -of Christ’s Hospital required James Peele ‘to discharge His howse -of his sonne George Peele and all other his howsold which have bene -chargable to him’. This perhaps explains why George prolonged his -residence at Oxford until 1581. In that year he came to London, and -about the same time married. His wife’s business affairs brought him -back to Oxford in 1583 and in a deposition of 29 March he describes -himself as aged 25. During this visit he superintended the performance -before Alasco at Christ Church on 11 and 12 June of the _Rivales_ and -_Dido_ of William Gager, who bears testimony to Peele’s reputation as -wit and poet in two sets of Latin verses _In Iphigeniam Georgii Peeli -Anglicanis versibus redditam_ (Boas, 166,180). Presumably the rest of -his life was spent in London, and its wit and accompanying riot find -some record in _The Merry Conceited Jests of George Peele_ (S. R. 14 -Dec. 1605: text in Bullen and in Hazlitt, _Jest Books_, ii. 261, and -Hindley, i), although this is much contaminated with traditional matter -from earlier jest books. It provided material for the anonymous play of -_The Puritan_ (1607), in which Peele appeared as George Pyeboard. His -fame as a dramatist is thus acknowledged in Nashe’s epistle to Greene’s -_Menaphon_ (1589): - - ‘For the last, though not the least of them all, I dare commend - him to all that know him, as the chief supporter of pleasance - now living, the Atlas of poetry, and _primus verborum artifex_; - whose first increase, the Arraignment of Paris, might plead to - your opinions his pregnant dexterity of wit and manifold variety - of invention, wherein (_me iudice_) he goeth a step beyond all - that write.’ - -Some have thought that Peele is the - - Palin, worthy of great praise, - Albe he envy at my rustic quill, - -of Spenser’s _Colin Clout’s Come Home Again_ (1591). It seems difficult -to accept the suggestions of Sarrazin that he was the original both of -Falstaff and of Yorick. An allusion in a letter to Edward Alleyn (cf. -ch. xv) has unjustifiably been interpreted as implying that Peele was -actor as well as playwright, and Collier accordingly included his name -in a forged list of housekeepers at an imaginary Blackfriars theatre -of 1589 (cf. vol. ii, p. 108). He was, however, clearly one of the -three of his ‘quondam acquaintance’ to whom Greene (q.v.) addressed -the attack upon players in his _Groats-worth of Wit_ (1592). In 1596 -Peele after ‘long sickness’ sent a begging letter by his daughter to -Lord Burghley, with a copy of his _Tale of Troy_. He was buried as a -‘householder’ at St. James’s, Clerkenwell, on 9 Nov. 1596 (_Harl. Soc. -Registers_, xvii. 58), having died, according to Meres’s _Palladis -Tamia_, ‘by the pox’. He can, therefore, hardly be the Peleus of _Birth -of Hercules_ (1597 <). - - _Collections_ - -1828–39. A. Dyce. 3 vols. - -1861, 1879. A. Dyce. 1 vol. [With Greene.] - -1888. A. H. Bullen. 2 vols. - -_Dissertations_: R. Lämmerhirt, _G. P. Untersuchungen über sein Leben -und seine Werke_ (1882); L. Kellner, _Sir Clyomon and Sir Clamides_ -(1889, _E. S._ xiii. 187); E. Penner, _Metrische Untersuchungen zu -P._ (1890, _Archiv_, lxxxv. 269); A. R. Bayley, _P. as a Dramatic -Artist_ (_Oxford Point of View_, 15 Feb. 1903); G. C. Odell, _P. as -a Dramatist_ (1903, _Bibliographer_, ii); E. Landsberg, _Der Stil in -P.’s sicheren und zweifelhaften dramatischen Werken_ (1910, _Breslau -diss._); G. Sarrazin, _Zur Biographie und Charakteristik von G. P._ -(1910, _Archiv_, cxxiv. 65); P. H. Cheffaud, _G. P._ (1913). - - PLAYS - - _The Arraignment of Paris, c. 1584_ - -1584. The Araygnement of Paris A Pastorall. Presented before the -Queenes Maiestie, by the Children of her Chappell. _Henry Marsh._ -[Prologue and Epilogue.] - -_Editions_ by O. Smeaton (1905, _T. D._) and H. H. Child (1910, _M. S. -R._).--_Dissertation_: F. E. Schelling, _The Source of P.’s A. of P._ -(1893, _M. L. N._ viii. 206). - -Fleay, ii. 152, assigns the play to 1581 on the assumption that the -Chapel stopped playing in 1582. But they went on to 1584. Nashe’s -allusion (_vide supra_) and the ascription of passages from the play to -‘Geo. Peele’ in _England’s Helicon_ (1600) fix the authorship. - - _The Battle of Alcazar, c. 1589_ - -[_MS._] _Addl. MS._ 10449, ‘The Plott of the Battell of Alcazar’. -[Probably from Dulwich. The fragmentary text is given by Greg, -_Henslowe Papers_, 138, and a facsimile by Halliwell, _The Theatre -Plats of Three Old English Dramas_ (1860).] - -1594. The Battell of Alcazar, fought in Barbarie, betweene Sebastian -king of Portugall, and Abdelmelec king of Marocco. With the death of -Captaine Stukeley. As it was sundrie times plaid by the Lord high -Admirall his seruants. _Edward Allde for Richard Bankworth_. [Prologue -by ‘the Presenter’ and dumb-shows.] - -_Edition_ by W. W. Greg (1907, _M. S. R._). - -Interest in Sebastian was aroused in 1589 by the expedition of Norris -and Drake to set Don Antonio on the throne of Portugal. This started on -18 April, and Peele wrote _A Farewell_, in which is a reference to this -amongst other plays (l. 20, ed. Bullen, ii. 238): - - Bid theatres and proud tragedians, - Bid Mahomet’s Poo and mighty Tamburlaine, - King Charlemagne, Tom Stukeley and the rest, - Adieu. - -There are some possible but not very clear allusions to the Armada -in the play. From 21 Feb. 1592 to 20 Jan. 1593 Strange’s men played -fourteen times for Henslowe _Muly Mollocco_, by which this play, in -which Abdelmelec is also called Muly Mollocco, is probably meant (Greg, -_Henslowe_, ii. 149). The ‘plot’ must belong to a later revival by the -Admiral’s, datable, since both Alleyn and Shaw acted in it, either in -Dec. 1597 or in 1600–2 (cf. ch. xiii). - -The authorship has been assigned to Peele, both on stylistic evidence -and because ll. 467–72 appear over his name in R. A.’s _England’s -Parnassus_ (1600), but R. A. has an error in at least one of his -ascriptions to Peele, and he ascribes l. 49 of this play to Dekker -(Crawford, _E. P._ xxxv. 398, 474; _M. S. C._ i. 101). - - _Edward I > 1593_ - -_S. R._ 1593, Oct. 8. ‘An enterlude entituled the Chronicle of Kinge -Edward the firste surnamed Longeshank with his Retourne out of the -Holye Lande, with the lyfe of Leublen Rebell in Wales with the sinkinge -of Quene Elinour.’ _Abel Jeffes_ (Arber, ii. 637). - -1593. The Famous Chronicle of king Edwarde the first, sirnamed Edwarde -Longshankes, with his returne from the holy land. Also the life of -Lleuellen, rebell in Wales. Lastly, the sinking of Queene Elinor, who -sunck at Charingcrosse, and rose againe at Potters-hith now named -Queenehith. _Abel Jeffes, sold by William Barley._ [At end, ‘Yours. By -George Peele, Maister of Artes in Oxenford’.] - -1599. _W. White._ - -_Edition_ by W. W. Greg (1911, _M. S. R._).--_Dissertations_: W. -Thieme, _P.’s Ed. I und seine Quellen_ (1903, _Halle diss._); E. -Kronenberg, _G. P.’s Ed. I_ (1903, _Jena diss._). - -Fleay, ii. 157, makes the date 1590–1, on the ground that lines are -quoted from _Polyhymnia_ (1590). A theory that Shakespeare acted in the -play is founded on ll. 759–62, where after Baliol’s coronation Elinor -says: - - Now, brave John Baliol, Lord of Galloway - And King of Scots, shine with thy golden head! - Shake thy spears, in honour of his [i.e. Edward’s] name, - Under whose royalty thou wearest the same. - -This is not very convincing. - -A play called _Longshank, Longshanks_, and _Prince Longshank_ was -played fourteen times by the Admiral’s, from 29 Aug. 1595 to 14 -July 1596. It is marked ‘ne’, and unless there had been substantial -revision, can hardly be Peele’s play. ‘Longe-shanckes sewte’ is in -the Admiral’s inventory of 10 March 1598. On 8 Aug. 1602 Alleyn sold -the book of the play to the Admiral’s with another for £4. (Greg, -_Henslowe_, ii. 176; _Henslowe Papers_, 113.) - - _David and Bethsabe > 1594_ - -_S. R._ 1594, May 14. ‘A booke called the book of David and Bethsaba.’ -_Adam Islip_ (Arber, ii. 649). [Islip’s name is cancelled and Edward -White’s substituted.] - -1599. The Love of King David and Fair Bethsabe. With the Tragedie of -Absalon. As it hath ben divers times plaied on the stage. Written by -George Peele. _Adam Islip._ [Prologue.] - -_Editions_ by T. Hawkins (1773, _O. E. D._ ii), J. M. Manly -(1897, _Specimens_, ii. 419), and W. W. Greg (1912, _M. S. -R._).--_Dissertations_: B. Neitzel (1904, _Halle diss._); M. -Dannenberg, _Die Verwendung des biblischen Stoffes von David und -Bathseba im englischen Drama_ (1905, _Königsberg diss._). - -Fleay, ii. 153, dates the play _c._ 1588 on the ground of some not -very plausible political allusions. The text as it stands looks like a -boildown of a piece, perhaps of a neo-miracle type, written in three -‘discourses’. It had choruses, of which two only are preserved. One -is ll. 572–95 (at end of sc. iv of _M. S. R._ ed.). The other (ll. -1646–58; _M. S. R._ sc. xv) headed ‘Chorus 5’, contains the statement: - - this storie lends vs other store, - To make a third discourse of Dauids life, - -and is followed by a misplaced fragment of a speech by Absalon. - -In Oct. 1602 Henslowe (ii. 232) laid out money for Worcester’s on poles -and workmanship ‘for to hange Absolome’; but we need not assume a -revival of Peele’s play. - - _The Old Wive’s Tale. 1591 < > 4_ - -_S. R._ 1595, Apr. 16. ‘A booke or interlude intituled a pleasant -Conceipte called the owlde wifes tale.’ _Ralph Hancock_ (Arber, ii. -296). - -1595. The Old Wiues Tale. A pleasant conceited Comedie, played by the -Queenes Maiesties players. Written by G. P. _John Danter, sold by Ralph -Hancock and John Hardie._ - -_Editions_ by F. B. Gummere (1903, _R. E. C._), W. W. Greg -(1908, _M. S. R._), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._), F. R. Cady -(1916).--_Dissertation_: H. Dutz, _Der Dank des Tödten in der -englischen Literatur_ (1894). - -The Queen’s men had presumably produced the play by 1594, when they -left London. Peele borrowed some lines and the name Sacrapant from -Greene’s _Orlando Furioso_ (1591). The hexameters of Huanebango are a -burlesque of Gabriel Harvey. - - _Lost Plays_ - - _Iphigenia. c. 1579_ - -A translation of one of the two plays of Euripides, probably written at -Oxford, is only known by some laudatory verses of William Gager, _In -Iphigeniam Georgii Peeli Anglicanis versibus redditam_, printed by -Bullen, i. xvii. - - _Hunting of Cupid > 1591_ - -_S. R._ 1591, July 26 (Bp. of London). ‘A booke intituled the Huntinge -of Cupid wrytten by George Peele, Master of Artes of Oxeford. Provyded -alwayes that yf yt be hurtfull to any other Copye before lycenced, then -this to be voyde.’ _Richard Jones_ (Arber, ii. 591). - -Probably the play--I suppose it was a play--was printed, as Drummond -of Hawthornden includes jottings from ‘The Huntinge of Cupid by George -Peele of Oxford. Pastoral’ amongst others from ‘Bookes red anno 1609 be -me’, and thereby enables us to identify extracts assigned to Peele in -_England’s Parnassus_ (1600) and _England’s Helicon_ (1600) as from the -same source. The fragments are all carefully collected by W. W. Greg in -_M. S. C._ i. 307. - - _The Turkish Mahomet and Hiren the Fair Greek > 1594_ - -The _Merry Conceited Jests_ (Bullen, ii. 394) gives this as the title -of a ‘famous play’ of Peele’s. Conceivably it, rather than Greene’s -_Alphonsus_ (q.v.), may be the ‘Mahomet’s Poo’ of Peele’s _Farewell_ of -1589 (_vide supra_, s.v. _Battle of Alcazar_). An Admiral’s inventory -of 10 March 1598 includes ‘owld Mahemetes head’. The Admiral’s had -played _Mahomet_ for Henslowe from 16 Aug. 1594 to 5 Feb. 1595, and a -play called _The Love of a Grecian Lady_ or _The Grecian Comedy_ from -5 Oct. 1594 to 10 Oct. 1595. In Aug. 1601 Henslowe bought _Mahemett_ -from Alleyn, and incurred other expenses on the play for the Admiral’s -(Henslowe, ii. 167; _Henslowe Papers_, 116). Possibly all the three -titles of 1594–5 stand for Peele’s play. Jacob Ayrer wrote a play on -the siege of Constantinople and the loves of Mahomet and Irene. This -may have had some relation on the one hand to Peele’s, and on the other -to a play of the siege of Constantinople used by Spencer (cf. ch. xiv) -in Germany during 1612–14 (Herz, 73). Pistol’s ‘Have we not Hiren -here?’ (_2 Hen. IV_, II. iv. 173) is doubtless from the play. - - _The Knight of Rhodes_ - -This also is described in the _Merry Jests_ (cf. ch. xxiv, s.v. -_Soliman and Perseda_). - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -Peele’s hand has been sought in nearly every masterless play of his -epoch: _Alphonsus of Germany_, _Captain Thomas Stukeley_, _Clyomon -and Clamydes_, _Contention of York and Lancaster_, _George a Greene_, -_Henry VI_, _Histriomastix_, _Jack Straw_, _Troublesome Reign of King -John_, _Knack to Know a Knave_, _Leire_, _Locrine_, _Mucedorus_, -_Soliman and Perseda_, _Taming of A Shrew_, _True Tragedy of Richard -III_, _Wily Beguiled_, _Wisdom of Dr. Dodipoll_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - ENTERTAINMENTS - - _Dixie Pageant. 29 Oct. 1585_ - -1585. The Device of the Pageant borne before Woolstone Dixi Lord Maior -of the Citie of London. An. 1585. October 29. _Edward Allde._ [At end, -‘Done by George Peele, Master of Arts in Oxford’.] - -_Editions_ in Nichols, _Eliz._ (1823), ii. 446, and F. W. Fairholt, -_Lord Mayor’s Pageants_ (1843, _Percy Soc._ xxxviii). - - _Polyhymnia. 17 Nov. 1590_ - -See s.v. Lee. - - _Descensus Astreae. 29 Oct. 1591_ - -1591. Descensus Astreae. The Deuice of a Pageant, borne before M. -William Web, Lord Maior of the Citie of London on the day he tooke his -oath; beeing the 29. of October. 1591. Wherevnto is annexed A Speech -deliuered by one clad like a Sea Nymph, who presented a Pinesse on the -water brauely rigd and mand, to the Lord Maior, at the time he tooke -Barge to go to Westminster. Done by G. Peele Maister of Arts in Oxford. -_For William Wright._ - -_Edition_ in F. W. Fairholt, _Lord Mayor’s Pageants_ (1843, _Percy -Soc._ xxxviii). - - _Anglorum Feriae. 1595_ - -[_MS._] _Brit. Mus. Addl. MS._ 21432 (autograph). ‘Anglorum Feriae, -Englandes Hollydayes, celebrated the 17th of Novemb. last, 1595, -beginninge happyly the 38 yeare of the raigne of our soveraigne ladie -Queene Elizabeth. By George Peele M^r of Arte in Oxforde.’ - -_S. R._ 1595, Nov. 18. ‘A newe Ballad of the honorable order of the -Runnynge at Tilt at Whitehall the 17. of November in the 38 yere of -her maiesties Reign.’ _John Danter_ (Arber, iii. 53). [This is not -necessarily Peele’s poem.] - -_Edition_ by R. Fitch (n.d. _c._ 1830). - -This is a blank-verse description of tilting, like _Polyhymnia_; on the -occasion, cf. s.v. Bacon. - - _Lost Entertainment. 1588_ - -_S. R._ 1588, Oct. 28. ‘Entred for his copie vppon Condicon that it -maye be lycenced, ye device of the Pageant borne before the Righte -honorable Martyn Calthrop lorde maiour of the Cytie of London the 29th -daie of October 1588 George Peele the Authour.’ _Richard Jones_ (Arber, -ii. 504). - -In the _Merry Conceited Jests_ it is said that Peele had ‘all the -oversight of the pageants’ (Bullen, ii. 381). - - _Doubtful Entertainment_ - -For the ascription to Peele of a Theobalds entertainment in 1591, see -s.v. Cecil. - - -JOHN PENRUDDOCK (_c._ 1588). - -The Master ‘Penroodocke’, who was one of the directors for the -_Misfortunes of Arthur_ of Thomas Hughes (q.v.) in 1588, was presumably -John Penruddock, one of the readers of Gray’s Inn in 1590, and the John -who was admitted to the inn in 1562 (J. Foster, _Admissions to Gray’s -Inn_). - - -WILLIAM PERCY (1575–1648). - -Percy was third son of Henry Percy, eighth Earl of Northumberland, and -educated at Gloucester Hall, Oxford. He was a friend of Barnabe Barnes, -and himself published _Sonnets to the Fairest Coelia_ (1594). His life -is obscure, but in 1638 he was living in Oxford and ‘drinking nothing -but ale’ (_Strafford Letters_, ii. 166), and here he died in 1648. - - PLAYS - -[_MS._] Autograph formerly in collection of the Duke of Devonshire, -with t.p. ‘Comædyes and Pastoralls ... By W. P. Esq.... Exscriptum Anno -Salutis 1647’. [Contains, in addition to the two plays printed in 1824, -the following: - - _Arabia Sitiens, or A Dream of a Dry Year_ (1601). - _The Aphrodysial, or Sea Feast_ (1602). - _Cupid’s Sacrifice, or a Country’s Tragedy in Vacuniam_ (1602). - _Necromantes, or The Two Supposed Heads_ (1602).] - -[_Edition_] 1824. The Cuck-Queanes and Cuckolds Errants or The -Bearing down the Inne. A Comædye. The Faery Pastorall, or Forrest -of Elves. By W. P. Esq. (_Roxburghe Club_). [Preface by [Joseph] -H[aslewood].]--_Dissertations_: C. Grabau, _Zur englischen Bühne um -1600_ (1902, _Jahrbuch_, xxxviii. 230); V. Albright, _P.’s Plays -as Proof of the Elizabethan Stage_ (1913, _M. P._ xi. 237); G. F. -Reynolds, _W. P. and his Plays_ (1914, _M. P._ xii. 241). - -Percy’s authorship appears to be fixed by a correspondence between an -epigram in the MS. to Charles Fitzgeffrey with one _Ad Gulielmum -Percium_ in _Fitzgeoffridi Affaniae_ (1601), sig. D 2. 6. - -_The Cuck-Queanes and Cuckolds Errants_ is dated 1601 and _The Faery -Pastorall_ 1603. The other plays are unprinted and practically unknown, -although Reynolds gives some account of _The Aphrodysial._ There are -elaborate stage-directions, which contain several references to Paul’s, -for which the plays, whether in fact acted or not, were evidently -intended, as is shown by an author’s note appended to the manuscript -(cf. ch. xii, s.v. Paul’s). - -I feel some doubt as to the original date of these plays. It seems -to me just conceivable that they were originally produced by the -Paul’s boys before 1590, and revised by Percy after 1599 in hopes of -a revival. Some of the s.ds. are descriptive in the past tense (cf. -ch. xxii), which suggests actual production. The action of _C. and C. -Errant_ is during the time of the Armada, but the composition must be -later than the death of Tarlton, as his ghost prologizes. Here the -author notes, ‘Rather to be omitted if for Powles, and another Prologue -for him to be brought in Place’. _Faery Pastoral_ uses (p. 97) the date -‘1647’; it is in fairy time, but points to some revision when the MS. -was written. There are alternative final scenes, with the note, ‘Be -this the foresayd for Powles, For Actors see the Direction at later end -of this Pastorall, which is separate by itself, Extra Olens, as they -say’. Similarly in _Aphrodysial_ a direction for beards is noted ‘Thus -for Actors; for Powles without’, and another s.d. is ‘Chambers (noise -supposd for Powles) For Actors’. A reference to ‘a showre of Rose-water -and confits, as was acted in Christ Church in Oxford, in Dido and -Aeneas’ is a reminiscence of Gager’s play of 12 June 1583, and again -makes a seventeenth-century date seem odd. - - -PETER (?) PETT (_c._ 1600). - -Henslowe’s diary records a payment of £6 on 17 May 1600 for the -Admiral’s ‘to pay Will: Haulton [Haughton] and Mr. Pett in full -payment of a play called straunge newes out of Poland’. Fleay, i. -273, says: ‘Pett is not heard of elsewhere. Should it not be Chett., -_i.e._ Chettle? The only Pett I know of as a writer is Peter Pett, who -published _Time’s journey to seek his daughter Truth_, in verse, 1599.’ -To which Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 213, replies: ‘Henslowe often has Cett -for Chettle, which is even nearer, but only where he is crowded for -room and he never applies to him the title of Mr.’ - - -JOHN PHILLIP (> 1570–> 1626). - -John Phillip or Phillips was a member of Queens’ College, Cambridge, -and author of various ballads, tracts, and elegies, published between -1566 and 1591. I do not know whether he may be the ‘Phelypes’, who was -apparently concerned with John Heywood and a play by Paul’s (q.v.) -in 1559. A John Phillipps, this or another, is mentioned (1619) as a -brother-in-law in the will of Samuel Daniel (_Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. -157). - -_Dissertation_: W. W. Greg, _J. P._--_Notes for a Bibliography_ -(1910–13, _3 Library_, i. 302, 395; iv. 432). - - _Patient Grissell. 1558–61_ - -_S. R._ 1565–6. ‘An history of meke and pacyent gresell.’ _Thomas -Colwell_ (Arber, i. 309). - -1568–9. ‘The history of payciente gresell &c.’ _Thomas Colwell_ (Arber, -i. 385). - -N.D. The Commodye of pacient and meeke Grissill, Whearin is declared, -the good example, of her patience towardes her husband: and lykewise, -the due obedience of Children, toward their Parentes. Newly. Compiled -by Iohn Phillip. Eight persons maye easely play this Commody.... -_Thomas Colwell._ [Preface; Epilogue, followed by ‘Finis, qd. Iohn -Phillipp’.] - -_Edition_ by R. B. McKerrow and W. W. Greg (1909, _M. S. R._). - -The characters include Politic Persuasion, the ‘Vice’. Elizabeth -is mentioned as Queen in the epilogue, and a reference (51) to the -‘wethercocke of Paules’ perhaps dates before its destruction in 1561. - - -JOHN PICKERING (_c._ 1567–8). - -Brie records several contemporary John Pickerings, but there is nothing -to connect any one of them with the play. - - _Horestes. 1567–8_ - -1567. A Newe Enterlude of Vice Conteyninge, the Historye of Horestes, -with the cruell reuengment of his Father’s death, vpon his one naturtll -Mother. By John Pikeryng.... The names deuided for VI to playe.... -_William Griffith._ [On the back of the t.p. is a coat of arms which -appears to be a slight variant of that assigned by Papworth and Morant, -_Ordinary of British Armorials_, 536, to the family of Marshall. -Oddly enough, there was a family of this name settled at Pickering -in Yorkshire, but they, according to G. W. Marshall, _Miscellanea -Marescalliana_, i. 1; ii. 2, 139, had quite a different coat.] - -_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1866, _Illustrations of Old English -Literature_), A. Brandl (1898, _Q. W. D._), J. S. Farmer (1910, _T. F. -T._).--_Dissertation_: F. Brie, _Horestes von J. P._ (1912, _E. S._ -xlvi. 66). - -The play has a Vice, and ends with prayer for Queen Elizabeth and the -Lord Mayor of ‘this noble Cytie’. Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 449, thinks it -too crude to be the Court _Orestes_ of 1567–8, but the coincidence of -date strongly suggests that it was. - - -JOHN POOLE (?). - -Possible author of _Alphonsus, Emperor of Germany_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - -HENRY PORTER (_c._ 1596–9). - -Porter first appears in Henslowe’s diary as recipient of a payment of -£5 on 16 Dec. 1596 and a loan of £4 on 7 March 1597, both on account of -the Admiral’s. It may be assumed that he was already writing for the -company, who purchased five plays, wholly or partly by him, between May -1598 and March 1599. Meres, in his _Palladis Tamia_ of 1598, counts -him as one of ‘the best for Comedy amongst vs’. He appears to have -been in needy circumstances, and borrowed several small sums from the -company or from Henslowe personally (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 304). On -28 Feb. 1599, when he obtained £2 on account of _Two Merry Women of -Abingdon_, ‘he gaue me his faythfulle promysse that I shold haue alle -the boockes w^{ch} he writte ether him sellfe or w^{th} any other’. On -16 April 1599, in consideration of 1_s._ he bound himself in £10 to -pay Henslowe a debt of 25_s._ on the following day, but could not meet -his obligation. Porter is not traceable as a dramatist after 1599. His -extant play, on the title-page of which he is described as ‘Gent.’, -suggests a familiarity with the neighbourhood of Oxford, and I see -no _a priori_ reason why he should not be the Henry Porter, son of -a London gentleman, who matriculated from Brasenose on 19 June 1589 -(Boase and Clark, ii. 2, 170), or the Henricus Porter, apparently a -musician, of John Weever’s _Epigrammes_ (1599), v. 24, or the Henry -Porter of Christ Church who became B.Mus. in July 1600 (Wood, _Fasti -Oxon._ i. 284), or the Henry Porter who was a royal sackbut on 21 June -1603 (Nagel, 36), or the Henry Porter whose son Walter became Gentleman -of the Chapel Royal on 5 Jan. 1616 and has left musical works (_D. -N. B._). Gayley’s argument to the contrary rests on the unfounded -assumption that the musician could not have been writing Bankside plays -during the progress of his studies for his musical degree. - - _The Two Angry Women of Abingdon > 1598_ - -1599. The Pleasant Historie of the two angrie women of Abington. -With the humorous mirthe of Dicke Coomes and Nicholas Prouerbes, two -Seruingmen. As it was lately playde by the right Honorable the Earle -of Nottingham, Lord High Admirall, his seruants. By Henry Porter Gent. -_For Joseph Hunt and William Ferbrand._ [Prologue. Greg shows this to -be Q_{1}.] - -1599. _For William Ferbrand._ - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^4 (1874), and by G. M. Gayley (1903, _R. E. C._ -i), J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._), W. W. Greg (1912, _M. S. R._). - -The play shows no signs of being a sequel, and is presumably the First -Part, to which Porter wrote a Second Part (_vide infra_) in the winter -of 1598–9. It was an Admiral’s play, and therefore one would expect -to find it in Henslowe’s very full, if not absolutely exhaustive, -chronicle of the company’s repertory. Of the plays named as his by -Henslowe, _Love Prevented_ seems the only likely title. But he was in -the pay of the company before the diary began to record the authorship -of plays, and Part i may therefore be among the anonymous plays of -1596–7 or an earlier season. Gayley suggests _The Comedy of Humours_, -produced 11 May 1597, but that is more plausibly identified with -Chapman’s _Humorous Day’s Mirth_ (q.v.). Another possibility is _Woman -Hard to Please_, produced 27 Jan. 1597. - - _Lost Plays_ - -Henslowe’s diary records the following plays for the Admiral’s men, in -which Porter had a hand in 1598 and 1599: - -(i) _Love Prevented._ - -May 1598. _Vide Two Angry Women of Abingdon, supra._ - -(ii) _Hot Anger Soon Cold._ - -With Chettle and Jonson, Aug. 1598. - -(iii) _2 Two Angry Women of Abingdon._ - -Dec. 1598–Feb. 1599. - -(iv) _Two Merry Women of Abingdon._ - -Feb. 1599. - -(v) _The Spencers._ - -With Chettle, March 1599. - - -THOMAS POUND (1538?-1616?). - -Pound was of Beaumonds in Farlington, Hants, the son of William Pound -and Anne Wriothesley, daughter of Thomas, first Earl of Southampton. -William Pound had a brother Anthony, whose daughter Honora married -Henry, fourth Earl of Sussex (_V. H. Hants_, iii. 149; _Harl. Soc._ -lxiv. 138; Berry, _Hants Genealogies_, 194; _Recusant Rolls_ in -_Catholic Record Soc._ xviii. 278, 279, 330, 334). Thomas was in youth -a Winchester boy, a Lincoln’s Inn lawyer, and a courtier of repute. -About 1570 he left the world and became a fervent Catholic, and the -record of his recusancy, of his relations with the Jesuit order, which -he probably joined, of the help he gave to Edmund Campion, and of his -long life of imprisonment and domiciliary restraint is written in H. -Morus, _Historia Missionis Anglicanae Societatis Jesu_ (1660); D. -Bartoli, _Dell’ Istoria della Compagnia di Gesu: L’Inghilterra_ (1667); -N. Sanders and E. Rishton, _De Origine Schismatis Anglicani_ (1586); -M. Tanner, _Societas Jesu Apostolorum Imitatrix_ (1694); R. Simpson in -_2 Rambler_ (1857), viii. 29, 94; H. Foley, _Records of the English -Province of the Society of Jesus_, iii (1878), 567; J. H. Pollen, -_English Catholics in the Reign of Elizabeth_ (1920), 333 _sqq._ I -am only concerned with his worldly life and his quitting of it. As a -Winchester _alumnus_, he is said to have delivered a Latin speech of -welcome to Elizabeth (Bartoli, 51), presumably at her visit of 1560 -(App. A), but he can hardly still have been a schoolboy; perhaps he -was at New College. He had already been entered at Lincoln’s Inn on 16 -Feb. 1560 (_Adm. Reg._ i. 66), and it was on behalf of Lincoln’s Inn -that he wrote and pronounced two mask orations which are preserved in -_Bodl. Rawl. Poet. MS._ 108, ff. 24, 29, whence they are described in -E. Brydges, _British Bibliographer_, ii. 612. Both seem to have been -before Elizabeth (cf. vol. i, p. 162, and App. A). The first, at the -wedding of his cousin Henry, Earl of Southampton, in Feb. 1566, is -headed in the manuscript ‘The copye of an oration made and pronounced -by Mr. Pownde of Lyncolnes Inne, with a brave maske out of the same -howse, all one greatte horses att the mariage off the yonge erle -of South hampton to the Lord Mountagues dawghter abowt Shrouetyde -1565’. The second, at the wedding on 1 July 1566 of another cousin, -Frances Radcliffe, is similarly headed ‘The copye of an oration made -and pronounced by Mr. Pownd of Lincolnes Inne, with a maske att y^e -marriage of y^e Earl of Sussex syster to Mr. Myldmaye off Lyncolnes -Inne 1566’. From this, which is in rhyming quatrains, Brydges quotes -119 lines; they are of no merit. In 1580 Pound wrote from his prison at -Bishop’s Stortford to Sir Christopher Hatton (_S. P. D. Eliz._ cxlii. -20) commending a petition to the Queen, ‘for her poeticall presents -sake, which her Majesty disdayned not to take at poore Mercuries hands, -if you remember it, at Killiegeworth Castle’. The reference must be to -the Kenilworth visit of 1568, rather than 1573 or 1575, for soon after -Thomas Pound’s days of courtly masking came to an abrupt end. The story -is told in Morus, 46: - -‘Natales Christi dies, ut semper solemnes, ita anno sexagesimo quarto -fuere celeberrimi; dabantur in Curia ludi apparatissimi Thoma Pondo -instructore. Inter saltandum, nudam eius manum manu nuda prensat -Regina, tum ei caput, abrepto Leicestrie Comitis pileo, ipsa tegit, ne -ex vehementi motu accensus subito refrigeraretur. Imposita ei videbatur -laurea: cum (secundo eandem saltationis formam flagitante Regina) -celerrime de more uno in pede circumuolitans, pronus concidit; Plausu -in risum mutato, surge, inquit Regina, Domine Taure; ea voce commotus, -surrexit quidem; at flexo ad terram poplite, vulgatum illud latine -prolocutus, _sic transit gloria mundi_, proripuit se, et non longo -interuallo Aulam spesque fallaces deseruit, consumptarum facultatum et -violatae Religionis praemium ludibrium consecutus.’ - -There is a little difficulty as to the date. Morus puts it in 1564, -but goes on to add that Pound was in his thirtieth year, and he was -certainly born in 1538 or 1539. And Bartoli, 51, followed by Tanner, -480, gives 1569, citing, probably from Jesuit archives, a letter -written by Pound himself on 3 June 1609. No doubt 1569, which may mean -either 1568–9 or 1569–70, is right. - - -THOMAS PRESTON (> 1569–1589 <). - -A Thomas Preston entered King’s, Cambridge, from Eton in 1553, and -became Fellow in 1556, taking his B.A. in 1557 and his M.A. in 1561. At -Elizabeth’s visit in 1564 he disputed with Thomas Cartwright before her -in the Philosophy Act, and also played in _Dido_, winning such favour -that she called him her ‘scholar’ and gave him a pension of £20 a year -from the privy purse (Cunningham, xx; Nichols, _Eliz._ i. 270; Fuller, -_Cambridge_, 137; Wordsworth, _Ecclesiastical Memorials_, iv. 322). He -held his fellowship at King’s until 1581. In 1583 a newswriter reported -him to be ‘withdrawen into Scotland as a malcontent and there made much -of by the King’ (Wright, _Eliz._ ii. 215). In 1584 he became Master -of Trinity Hall, and in 1589 was Vice-Chancellor. In 1592, with other -Heads of Houses, he signed a memorial to Burghley in favour of the stay -of plays at Cambridge (_M. S. C._ i. 192). It seems to me incredible -that he should, as is usually taken for granted, have been the author -of _Cambyses_, about which there is nothing academic, and I think that -there must have been a popular writer of the same name, responsible for -the play, and also for certain ballads of the broadside type, of which -_A Lamentation from Rome_ (Collier, _Old Ballads_, _Percy Soc._) was -printed in 1570, and _A Ballad from the Countrie, sent to showe how we -should Fast this Lent_ (_Archiv_, cxiv. 329, from _Bodl. Rawl. Poet. -MS._ 185) is dated 1589. Both are subscribed, like _Cambyses_, ‘Finis -Quod Thomas Preston’. A third was entered on S. R. in 1569–70 as ‘A -geliflower of swete marygolde, wherein the frutes of tyranny you may -beholde’. - -A Thomas Preston is traceable as a quarterly waiter at Court under -Edward VI (_Trevelyan Papers_, i. 195, 200, 204; ii. 19, 26, 33), and -a choirmaster of the same name was ejected from Windsor Chapel as a -recusant about 1561 (cf. ch. xii). - - _Cambyses > 1570_ - -_S. R._ 1569–70. ‘An enterlude a lamentable Tragedy full of pleasaunt -myrth.’ _John Allde_ (Arber, i. 400). - -N.D. [1569–84]. A Lamentable Tragedie, mixed full of pleasant mirth, -containing the life of Cambises King of Percia ... By Thomas Preston. -_John Allde._ [Arrangement of parts for eight actors; Prologue; -Epilogue, with prayer for Queen and Council. At end, ‘Amen, quod Thomas -Preston’.] - -N.D. [1584–1628]. _Edward Allde._ - -_Editions_ by T. Hawkins (1773, _O. E. D._ i), in Dodsley^4, iv (1874), -and by J. M. Manly (1897, _Specimens_, ii), and J. S. Farmer (1910, _T. -F. T._). - -Line 1148 mentions Bishop Bonner whose ‘delight was to shed blood’, and -Fleay, 64, therefore dates the play 1569–70, as Bonner died 5 Sept. -1569. But he may merely be put in the past as an ex-bishop. Three comic -villains, Huf, Ruf, and Snuf, are among the characters, and chronology -makes it possible that the play was the _Huff, Suff, and Ruff_ (cf. -App. A) played at Court during Christmas 1560–1. Preston may, however, -have borrowed these characters, as Ulpian Fulwell borrowed Ralph -Roister, from an earlier play. - - _Doubtful Play_ - -Preston has been suggested as the author of _Sir Clyomon and Clamydes_ -(cf. ch. xxiv). - - -DANIEL PRICE (1581–1631). - -A student of Exeter College, Oxford, who became chaplain to Prince -Henry (_D. N. B._), and described his _Creation_ in 1610 (cf. ch. xxiv, -C). - - -RICHARD (?) PUTTENHAM (_c._ 1520–1601). - -The author of _The Arte of English Poesie_ (1589; cf. App. C, No. xli) -claims to have written three plays, no one of which is extant. He -analyses at length the plot of his ‘Comedie entituled _Ginecocratia_’ -(Arber, 146), in which were a King, Polemon, Polemon’s daughter, and -Philino. He twice cites his ‘enterlude’, _Lustie London_ (Arber, 183, -208), in which were a Serjeant, his Yeoman, a Carrier, and a Buffoon. -And he twice cites his ‘enterlude’, _The Woer_ (Arber, 212, 233), in -which were a Country Clown, a Young Maid of the City, and a Nurse. - -The author of _The Arte_ is referred to by Camden in 1614 (cf. -Gregory Smith, ii. 444) as ‘Maister Puttenham’, and by E. Bolton, -_Hypercritica_ (_c._ 1618), with the qualification ‘as the Fame is’, as -‘one of her Gentlemen Pensioners, Puttenham’. H. Crofts, in his edition -(1880) of Sir Thomas Elyot’s _The Governour_, has shown that this is -more likely to have been Richard, the elder, than George, the younger, -son of Robert Puttenham and nephew of Sir Thomas Elyot. Neither -brother, however, can be shown to have been a Gentleman Pensioner, and -Collier gives no authority for his statement that Richard was a Yeoman -of the Guard. Richard was writing as far back as the reign of Henry -VIII, and the dates of his plays are unknown. - - -WILLIAM RANKINS (> 1587–1601 <). - -The moralist who published _A Mirrour of Monsters_ (1587), _The English -Ape_ (1588), and _Seven Satires_ (1598) is, in spite of the attack -on plays (cf. App. C, No. xxxviii) in the first of these, probably -identical with the dramatist who received payment from Henslowe on -behalf of the Admiral’s for the following plays during 1598–1601: - -(i) _Mulmutius Dunwallow._ - -Oct. 1598, £3, ‘to by a boocke’, probably an old one. - -(ii) _Hannibal and Scipio._ - -With Hathway, Jan. 1601. - -(iii) _Scogan and Skelton._ - -With Hathway, Jan.–Mar. 1601. - -(iv) _The Conquest of Spain by John of Gaunt._ - -With Hathway, Mar.–Apr. 1601, but never finished, as shown by a letter -to Henslowe from S. Rowley, bidding him let Hathway ‘haue his papars -agayne’ (_Henslowe Papers_, 56). - -Rankins has also been suggested as the author of _Leire_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - -THOMAS RICHARDS (_c._ 1577). - -A possible author of _Misogonus_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - -HENRY ROBERTS (_c._ 1606). - -A miscellaneous writer (_D. N. B._) who described the visit of the -King of Denmark to England (cf. ch. xxiv, C). The stationer of the same -name, who printed the descriptions, may be either the author or his son -(McKerrow, 229). - - -JOHN ROBERTS (_c._ 1574). - -A contributor to the Bristol Entertainment of Elizabeth (cf. ch. xxiv, -C). - - -ROBINSON. - -Henslowe paid £3 on behalf of the Admiral’s men on 9 Sept. 1602 ‘vnto -M^r. Robensone for a tragedie called Felmelanco’. Later in the month he -paid two sums amounting to another £3 to Chettle, for ‘his tragedie’ of -the same name. The natural interpretation is that Chettle and Robinson -co-operated, but Fleay, i. 70, rather wantonly says, ‘Robinson was, -I think, to Chettle what Mrs. Harris was to Mrs. Gamp’, and Greg, -_Henslowe_, ii. 224, while not agreeing with Fleay, ‘It is, however, -unlikely that he had any hand in the play. Probably Chettle had again -pawned his MS.’ - -Dates make it improbable that this Robinson was the poet Richard -Robinson whose lost ‘tragedy’ _Hemidos and Thelay_ is not likely to -have been a play (cf. App. M). - - -SAMUEL ROWLEY (?-1624). - -For Rowley’s career as an Admiral’s and Prince’s man, cf. ch. xv. - - _Dr. Faustus_ - -For the additions by Rowley and Bird in 1602, cf. s.v. Marlowe. - - _When You See Me, You Know Me. 1603 < > 5_ - -_S. R._ 1605, Feb. 12, ‘Yf he gett good alowance for the enterlude of -King Henry the 8th before he begyn to print it. And then procure the -wardens handes to yt for the entrance of yt: He is to haue the same for -his copy.’ _Nathanaell Butter_ (Arber, iii. 283). [No fee recorded.] - -1605. When you see me, You know me. Or the famous Chronicle Historie of -King Henry the eight, with the birth and vertuous life of Edward Prince -of Wales. As it was playd by the high and mightie Prince of Wales his -seruants. By Samuell Rowly, seruant to the Prince. _For Nathaniel -Butter._ - -1613; 1621; 1632. - -_Editions_ by K. Elze (1874) and J. S. Farmer (1912, _S. F. -T._).--_Dissertation_: W. Zeitlin, _Shakespeare’s King Henry the Eighth -and R.’s When You See Me_ (1881, _Anglia_, iv. 73). - - _The Noble Soldier_ - -Probably with Day and Dekker (q.v.). - - _Lost Plays_ - - (a) _Plays for the Admiral’s, noted in Henslowe’s diary._ - -_Judas._ With W. Bird, Dec. 1601, possibly a completion of the play of -the same name left unfinished by Haughton (q.v.) in 1600. - -_Joshua._ Sept. 1602. - - (b) _Plays for the Palsgrave’s, licensed by Sir Henry Herbert_ - (Chalmers, _S. A._ 214–17; Herbert, 24, 26, 27). - -27 July 1623, _Richard III_. - -29 Oct. 1623, _Hardshifte for Husbands_. - -6 Apr. 1624, _A Match or No Match_. - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -H. D. Sykes, _The Authorship of The Taming of A Shrew, etc._ (1920, -_Sh. Association_), argues, on the basis of a comparison of phraseology -with _When You See Me, You Know Me_ and some of the additions to _Dr. -Faustus_, for Rowley’s authorship of (_a_) _The Famous Victories_, -(_b_) the prose scenes of _A Shrew_, (_c_) the clowning passages in -Greene’s _Orlando Furioso_, (_d_) the prose scenes of _Wily Beguiled_. -He suggests that the same collaborator, borrowing first from Marlowe -and then from Kyd, may have supplied the verse scenes both of _A Shrew_ -and of _Wily Beguiled_. There is no external evidence to connect Rowley -with the Queen’s, and he only becomes clearly traceable with the -Admiral’s in 1598, but Mr. Sykes has certainly made out a stylistic -case which deserves consideration. - - -WILLIAM ROWLEY (?-1625 <). - -Of Rowley’s origin and birth nothing is known. He first appears as -collaborator in a play of Queen Anne’s men in 1607, and, although he -may have also acted with this company, there is no evidence of the -fact. His name is in the patent of 30 March 1610 for the Duke of York’s -men with that of Thomas Hobbes, to whom his pamphlet _A Search for -Money_ (1609, _Percy Soc. ii_.) is dedicated. He acted as their payee -from 1610 to 1615, and they played his _Hymen’s Holiday or Cupid’s -Vagaries_, now lost, in 1612. _A Knave in Print_ and _The Fool without -Book_, entered as his on 9 Sept. 1653 (Eyre, i. 428), might be their -anonymous two-part _Knaves_ of 1613. He contributed an epitaph on -Thomas Greene of the Queen’s to Cooke’s _Greene’s Tu Quoque_ (1614). -From 1615 to March 1616 the Prince’s men seem to have been merged in -the Princess Elizabeth’s. They then resumed their identity at the Hope, -and with them Rowley is traceable as an actor to 1619 and as a writer, -in collaboration with Thomas Middleton (q.v.), Thomas Ford, and Thomas -Heywood, until 1621. In 1621 he wrote an epitaph upon one of their -members, Hugh Attwell, apparently as his ‘fellow’. It was still as a -Prince’s man that he received mourning for James on 17 March 1625. But -in 1621 and 1622 he was writing, with Middleton and alone, for the -Lady Elizabeth’s at the Cockpit, and in 1623 both writing and acting -in _The Maid of the Mill_ for the King’s men, and prefixing verses to -Webster’s _Duchess of Malfi_, which belonged to the same company. He -had definitely joined the King’s by 24 June 1625 when his name appears -in their new patent, and for them his latest play-writing was done. In -addition to what was published under his name, he is generally credited -with some share in the miscellaneous collection of the Beaumont and -Fletcher Ff. His name is not in an official list of King’s men in -1629, but the date of his death is unknown. A William Rowley married -Isabel Tooley at Cripplegate in 1637, but the date hardly justifies the -assumption that it was the dramatist. - -_Dissertations_: P. G. Wiggin, _An Inquiry into the Authorship of the -Middleton-Rowley Plays_ (1897, _Radcliffe College Monographs_, ix); C. -W. Stork, _William Rowley_ (1910, _Pennsylvania Univ. Publ._ xiii, with -texts of _All’s Lost for Lust_ and _A Shoemaker a Gentleman_). - - _A Shoemaker a Gentleman, c. 1608_ - -_S. R._ 1637, Nov. 28 (Weekes). ‘A Comedie called A Shoomaker is a -gentleman with the life and death of the Criple that stole the weather -cocke of Pauls, by William Rowley.’ _John Okes_ (Arber, iv. 400). - -1638. A Merrie and Pleasant Comedy: Never before Printed, called A -Shoomaker a Gentleman. As it hath beene sundry Times Acted at the Red -Bull and other Theatres, with a general and good Applause. Written by -W. R. Gentleman. _I. Okes, sold by Iohn Cooper._ [Epistle by Printer to -Gentlemen of the Gentle Craft.] - -_Edition_ by C. W. Stork (1910). - -The epistle says that the play was still often acted, and ‘as Plaies -were then, some twenty yeares agone, it was in the fashion’. This -dating and the mention of the Red Bull justify us in regarding it as an -early play for Queen Anne’s men. - - _A New Wonder, A Woman Never Vexed_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1631, Nov. 24 (Herbert). ‘A booke called A new wonder or a -woman neuer vext (a Comedy) by William Rowley.’ _Constable_ (Arber, iv. -266). - -1632. A new Wonder, A Woman never vext. A pleasant conceited Comedy: -sundry times Acted: never before printed. Written by William Rowley, -one of his Maiesties Servants. _G. P. for Francis Constable._ - -Fleay, ii, 102, and Greg (_H._ ii. 177) suggest revision by Rowley -of the Admiral’s _Wonder of a Woman_ (1595), perhaps by Heywood -(q.v.); Stork, 26, early work for Queen Anne’s men, under Heywood’s -influence. - - _A Match at Midnight_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1633, Jan. 15 (Herbert). ‘A Play called A Match at midnight.’ -_William Sheares_ (Arber, iv. 291). - -1633. A Match at Midnight A Pleasant Comœdie: As it hath been Acted -by the Children of the Revells. Written by W. R. _Aug. Mathewes for -William Sheares._ - -Fleay, 203 and ii. 95, treats the play, without discussion, as written -by Middleton and Rowley for the Queen’s Revels _c._ 1607. Bullen, -_Middleton_, i. lxxxix, and Stork, 17, concur as to the date, the -former regarding it as Middleton’s revised _c._ 1622 by Rowley, -the latter as practically all Rowley’s. These views are evidently -influenced by the mention of the Children of the Revels on the -title-page. Wiggin, 7, noting allusions to the battle of Prague in -1620 and _Reynard the Fox_ (1621), thinks it alternatively possible -that Rowley wrote it under Middletonian influence for one of the later -Revels companies _c._ 1622. There was no doubt a company of Children of -the Revels in 1622–3 (Murray, i. 198), but the name on a t.p. of 1633 -would naturally refer to the still later company of 1629–37 (Murray, i. -279). - - _The Birth of Merlin_ (?) - -1662. The Birth of Merlin: Or, The Childe hath found his Father. As it -hath been several times Acted with great Applause. Written by William -Shakespear, and William Rowley. _Tho. Johnson for Francis Kirkman and -Henry Marsh._ - -_Editions_ by T. E. Jacob (1889), J. S. Farmer (1910, _T. F. T._), and -with _Sh. Apocrypha_.--_Dissertations_: F. A. Howe, _The Authorship of -the B. of M._ (1906, _M. P._ iv. 193); W. Wells, _The B. of M._ (1921, -_M. L. R._ xvi. 129). - -Kirkman’s attribution to Shakespeare and Rowley was first made in his -play-list of 1661 (Greg, _Masques_, liii). It is generally accepted -for Rowley, but not for Shakespeare. But Fleay, _Shakespeare_, 289, -on a hint of P. A. Daniel, gave Rowley a collaborator in Middleton, -and later (ii. 105) treated the play as a revision by Rowley of the -_Uther Pendragon_ produced by the Admiral’s on 29 April 1597. This -view seems to rest in part upon the analogous character of _The -Mayor of Quinborough_. Howe thinks that Rowley worked up a sketch by -Middleton later than 1621, and attempts a division of the play on this -hypothesis. But Stork, _Rowley_, 58, thinks that Rowley revised _Uther -Pendragon_ or some other old play about 1608. F. W. Moorman (_C. H._ v. -249) suggests Dekker, and Wells Beaumont and Fletcher. - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -The ascription to Rowley on the t.p. of _The Thracian Wonder_ is not -generally accepted. His hand has been sought in _The Captain_, _The -Coxcomb_, and _Wit at Several Weapons_ (cf. s.v. Beaumont) and in -_Troublesome Reign of King John_ (cf. ch. xxiv) and _Pericles_. - - -MATTHEW ROYDON (> 1580–1622 <). - -The reference to his ‘comike inuentions’ in Nashe’s _Menaphon_ epistle -of 1589 (App. C, No. xlii) suggests that he wrote plays. - - -GEORGE RUGGLE (1575–1622). - -Ruggle entered St. John’s, Cambridge, from Lavenham grammar school, -Suffolk, in 1589, migrated to Trinity, where he took his B.A. in 1593 -and his M.A. in 1597, and became Fellow of Clare Hall in 1598. He -remained at Cambridge until 1620, shortly before his death. - - _Ignoramus. 8 March 1615_ - -[_MSS._] _Bodl. Tanner MS._ 306, with actor-list; _Harl. MSS._ 6869 -(fragmentary); and others. - -_S. R._ 1615, April 18 (Nidd). ‘Ignoramus Comœdia provt Cantabrigie -acta coram Jacobo serenissimo potentissimo magnae Britanniae rege.’ -_Walter Burre_ (Arber, iii. 566). - -1630. Ignoramus. Comœdia coram Regia Majestate Jacobi Regis Angliae, -&c. _Impensis I. S._ [Colophon] _Excudebat T. P._ [Prologus Prior. -Martii 8. Anno 1614; Prologus Posterior. Ad secundum Regis adventum -habitus, Maii 6, 1615; Epilogus.] - -1630.... Secunda editio auctior & emendatior. _Typis T. H. Sumptibus G. -E. & J. S._ [Macaronic lines, headed ‘Dulman in laudem Ignorami’.] - -1658.... Autore M^{ro} Ruggle, Aulae Clarensis A.M. - -1659, 1668, 1707, 1731, 1736, 1737. - -_Edition_ by J. S. Hawkins (1787). - -Chamberlain, describing to Carleton James’s visit to Cambridge in -March 1615, wrote (Birch, i. 304): ‘The second night [8 March] was a -comedy of Clare Hall, with the help of two or three good actors from -other houses, wherein David Drummond, on a hobby-horse, and Brakin, the -recorder of the town, under the name of Ignoramus, a common lawyer, -bore great parts. The thing was full of mirth and variety, with many -excellent actors; among whom the Lord Compton’s son, though least, -yet was not worst, but more than half marred by extreme length.’ -On 31 March he told Carleton (Birch, i. 360) of the Oxford satires -on the play, and of a possible second visit by the King, unless he -could persuade the actors to visit London. And on 20 May he wrote to -him (Birch, i. 363): ‘On Saturday last [13 May], the King went again -to Cambridge, to see the play “Ignoramus”, which has so nettled the -lawyers, that they are almost out of all patience.’ He adds that rhymes -and ballads had been written by the lawyers, and answered. Specimens -of the ‘flytings’ to which the play gave rise are in Hawkins, xxxvii, -xlii, cvii, 259. Fuller, _Church History_ (1655), x. 70, reports a -story that the irritation caused to the lawyers also led to John -Selden’s demonstration of the secular origin of tithes. The authorship -of _Ignoramus_ is indicated by the entry in a notice of the royal visit -printed (Hawkins, xxx) from a manuscript in the library of Sir Edward -Dering: - - ‘On Wednesday night, 2, _Ignoramus_, the lawyer, _Latine_, and - part _English_, composed by M^r. _Ruggle_, _Clarensis_.’ - -_Ignoramus_ was largely based on the _Trappolaria_ (1596) of -Giambattista Porta, into which Ruggle introduced his satire of the -Cambridge recorder, Francis Brackyn, who had already been the butt of -_3 Parnassus_. - - _Doubtful and Lost Plays_ - -There is no justification for ascribing to Ruggle _Loiola_ (1648), -which is by John Hacket, but Hawkins, lxxii, cites from a note made in -a copy of _Ignoramus_ by John Hayward of Clare Hall, _c._ 1741: - - ‘N.B. M^r. Geo. Ruggle wrote besides two other comedies, _Re - vera_ or _Verily_, and _Club Law_, to expose the puritans, not - yet printed. MS.’ - -_Club Law_ (cf. ch. xxiv) has since been recovered. - - -THOMAS SACKVILLE (1536–1608). - -Thomas Sackville became Lord Buckhurst in 1567 and Earl of Dorset in -1604. He is famous in literature for his contributions to ed. 2 (1559) -of _A Mirror for Magistrates_, and in statesmanship as Lord Treasurer -under Elizabeth and James I. - - _Ferrex and Porrex_, or _Gorboduc_. _1562_ - - _With_ Thomas Norton (q.v.). - - -GEORGE SALTERNE (> 1603). - -Author of the academic _Tomumbeius_ (cf. App. K). - - -JOHN SAVILE (_c._ 1603). - -Describer of the coming of James I to England (cf. ch. xxiv, C). - - -ROBERT SEMPILL (_c._ 1530–95). - -A Scottish ballad writer (_D. N. B._) and a suggested author of -_Philotus_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - -SENECAN TRANSLATIONS (1559–81). - - _Troas_ (Jasper Heywood) - -_S. R._ 1558–9. ‘A treates of Senaca.’ _Richard Tottel_ (Arber, i. 96). - -1559. The Sixt Tragedie of the most graue and prudent author Lucius, -Anneus, Seneca, entituled Troas, with diuers and sundrye addicions -to the same. Newly set forth in Englishe by Iasper Heywood studient -in Oxenforde. _Richard Tottel. Cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum._ -[Epistle to Elizabeth by Heywood; Preface to the Readers; Preface to -the Tragedy.] - -1559. _Richard Tottel._ [Another edition (B. M. G. 9440).] - -N.D. [_c._ 1560]. _Thomas Powell for George Bucke._ - - _Thyestes_ (Jasper Heywood) - -1560, March 26. The seconde Tragedie of Seneca entituled Thyestes -faithfully Englished by Iasper Heywood, fellow of Alsolne College in -Oxforde. [_Thomas Powell_?] ‘_in the hous late Thomas Berthelettes_’. -[Verse Epistle to Sir John Mason by Heywood; The Translator to the -Book; Preface.] - - _Hercules Furens_ (Jasper Heywood) - -1561. Lucii Annei Senecae Tragedia prima quae inscribitur Hercules -furens.... The first Tragedie of Lucius Anneus Seneca, intituled -Hercules furens, newly pervsed and of all faultes whereof it did before -abound diligently corrected, and for the profit of young schollers so -faithfully translated into English metre, that ye may se verse for -verse tourned as farre as the phrase of the english permitteth By -Iasper Heywood studient in Oxford. _Henry Sutton._ [Epistle to William, -Earl of Pembroke, by Heywood; Argument; Latin and English texts.] - - _Oedipus_ (Alexander Neville) - -_S. R._ 1562–3. ‘A boke intituled the lamentable history of the prynnce -Oedypus &c.’ _Thomas Colwell_ (Arber, i. 209). - -1563, April 28. The Lamentable Tragedie of Oedipus the Sonne of Laius -Kyng of Thebes out of Seneca. By Alexander Neuyle. _Thomas Colwell._ -[Epistles to Nicholas Wotton by Neville, and to the Reader.] - - _Agamemnon_ (John Studley) - -_S. R._ 1565–6. ‘A boke intituled the eighte Tragide of Senyca.’ -_Thomas Colwell_ (Arber, i. 304). - -1566. The Eyght Tragedie of Seneca. Entituled Agamemnon. Translated out -of Latin into English, by Iohn Studley, Student in Trinitie Colledge -in Cambridge. _Thomas Colwell._ [Commendatory Verses by Thomas Nuce, -William R., H. C., Thomas Delapeend, W. Parkar, T. B.; Epistle to Sir -William Cecil, signed ‘Iohn Studley’; Preface to the Reader.] - - _Medea_ (John Studley) - -_S. R._ 1565–6. ‘A boke intituled the tragedy of Seneca Media by John -Studley of Trenety Colledge in Cambryge.’ _Thomas Colwell_ (Arber, i. -312). - -1566. The seuenth Tragedie of Seneca, Entituled Medea: Translated out -of Latin into English, by Iohn Studley, Student in Trinitie Colledge -in Cambridge. _Thomas Colwell._ [Epistle to Francis, Earl of Bedford, -signed ‘Iohn Studley’; Preface to Reader; Commendatory Verses by W. P.; -Argument.] - - _Octavia_ (Thomas Nuce) - - _Hercules Oetaeus_ (John Studley) - -_S. R._ 1566–7. ‘A boke intituled the ix^{th} and x^{th} tragide of -Lucious Anneas oute of the laten into englesshe by T. W. fellowe of -Pembrek Hall, in Chambryge.’ _Henry Denham_ (Arber, i. 327). - -1570–1. ‘iij^{de} part of Herculus Oote.’ _Thomas Colwell_ (Arber, i. -443). - -N.D. The ninth Tragedie of Lucius Anneus Seneca called Octavia. -Translated out of Latine into English, by T. N. Student in Cambridge. -_Henry Denham._ [Epistles to Robert Earl of Leicester, signed ‘T. N.’, -and to the Reader.] - -This is B.M. C. 34, e. 48. C. Grabau in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xliii. 310, -says that a copy in the Irish sale of 1906 was of an unknown edition, -possibly of 1566. - - _Hippolytus_ (John Studley) - -_S. R._ 1566–7. ‘The iiij^{th} parte Seneca Workes.’ _Henry Denham_ -(Arber, i. 336). - -31 Aug. 1579. Transfer from Denham to Richard Jones and John Charlwood -(Arber, ii. 359). - - _The Ten Tragedies. 1581_ - -_S. R._ 1580–1. ‘Senecas Tragedies in Englishe.’ _Thomas Marsh_ (Arber, -ii. 396). - -1581. Seneca his Tenne Tragedies, Translated into Englysh. _Thomas -Marsh._ [Epistle to Sir Thomas Heneage by Thomas Newton. Adds -_Thebais_, by Thomas Newton, and, if not already printed, as S. -R. entries in 1566–7 and 1570–1 suggest, _Hercules Oetaeus_ and -_Hippolytus_, by John Studley. The _Oedipus_ of Neville is a revised -text.] - -_Reprint_ of 1581 collection (1887, _Spenser Soc._), and editions -of Studley’s _Agamemnon_ and _Medea_, by E. M. Spearing (1913, -_Materialien_, xxxviii), and of Heywood’s _Troas_, _Thyestes_, -and _Hercules Furens_, by H. de Vocht (1913, _Materialien_, -xli).--_Dissertations_: J. W. Cunliffe, _The Influence of S. on -Elizabethan Tragedy_ (1893); E. Jockers, _Die englischen S.-Übersetzer -des 16. Jahrhunderts_ (1909, _Strassburg diss._); E. M. Spearing, _The -Elizabethan ‘Tenne Tragedies of S.’_ (1909, _M. L. R._ iv. 437), _The -Elizabethan Translation of S.’s Tragedies_ (1912), _A. N.’s Oedipus_ -(1920, _M. L. R._ xv. 359); F. L. Lucas, _S. and Elizabethan Tragedy_ -(1922). - -Of the translators, Jasper Heywood (1535–98) became Fellow of All -Souls, Oxford, in 1558. He was son of John Heywood the dramatist, and -uncle of John Donne. In 1562 he became a Jesuit, and left England, to -return as a missionary in 1581. He was imprisoned during 1583–5 and -then expelled. John Studley (_c._ 1547–?) entered Trinity, Cambridge, -in 1563 and became Fellow in 1567. Alexander Neville (1544–1614) took -his B.A. in 1560 at Cambridge. He became secretary successively to -Parker, Grindal, and Whitgift, archbishops of Canterbury, and produced -other literary work, chiefly in Latin. Thomas Nuce (_ob._ 1617) was -Fellow of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, in 1562, and became Canon of Ely -in 1585. Thomas Newton (_c._ 1542–1607) migrated in 1562 from Trinity, -Oxford, to Queens’, Cambridge, but apparently returned to his original -college later. About 1583 he became Rector of Little Ilford, Essex. He -produced much unimportant verse and prose, in Latin and English, and -was a friend of William Hunnis (q.v.). - -For a fragment of another translation of _Hercules Oetaeus_, cf. s.v. -Elizabeth. Archer’s play-list of 1656 contains the curious entry ‘Baggs -Seneca’, described as a tragedy. Of this Greg, _Masques_, li, can make -nothing. - - -WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (1564–1616). - -No adequate treatment of Shakespeare’s life and plays is possible -within the limits of this chapter. I have therefore contented myself -with giving the main bibliographical data, in illustration of the -chapters on the companies (Strange’s, Pembroke’s, Chamberlain’s, and -King’s) and the theatres (Rose, Newington Butts, Theatre, Curtain, -Globe, Blackfriars) with which he was or may have been concerned. I -follow the conjectural chronological order adopted in my article on -Shakespeare in the 11th ed. of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_. - - _Collections_ - -[1619]. It is probable that the 1619 editions of _Merry Wives of -Windsor_ (Q_{2}), _Pericles_ (Q_{4}), and the apocryphal _Yorkshire -Tragedy_ were intended to form part of a collection of plays ascribed -to Shakespeare, and that the ‘1600’ editions of _Midsummer Night’s -Dream_ (Q_{2}) and _Merchant of Venice_ (Q_{2}) bearing the name of -the printer Roberts, the ‘1600’ edition of the apocryphal _Sir John -Oldcastle_ bearing the initials T. P., the ‘1608’ edition of _Henry V_ -(Q_{3}), the ‘1608’ edition of _King Lear_ (Q_{2}) lacking the name of -the ‘Pide Bull’ shop, and the undated edition of _The Whole Contention -of York and Lancaster_ were all also printed in 1619 for the same -purpose. The printer seems to have been William Jaggard, with whom was -associated Thomas Pavier, who held the copyright of several of the -plays. Presumably an intention to prefix a general title-page is the -explanation of the shortened imprints characteristic of these editions. -The sheets of _The Whole Contention_ and _Pericles_ have in fact -continuous signatures; but the plan seems to have been modified, and -the other plays issued separately. The bibliographical evidence bearing -on this theory is discussed by W. W. Greg, W. Jaggard, A. W. Pollard, -and A. H. Huth in _2 Library_, ix. 113, 381; x. 208; and _3 Library_, -i. 36, 46; ii. 101; and summed up by A. W. Pollard, _Shakespeare Folios -and Quartos_, 81. Confirmatory evidence is adduced by W. J. Niedig, -_The Shakespeare Quartos of 1619_ (_M. P._ viii. 145) and _False Dates -on Shakespeare Quartos_ (1910, _Century_, 912). - -_S. R._ 1623, Nov. 8 (Worrall). ‘Master William Shakspeers Comedyes -Histories, and Tragedyes soe manie of the said Copies as are not -formerly entred to other men. viz^t Comedyes The Tempest The two -gentlemen of Verona Measure for Measure The Comedy of Errors As you -like it All’s well that ends well Twelfe Night The winters tale -Histories The thirde parte of Henry ye Sixt Henry the eight Tragedies -Coriolanus Timon of Athens Julius Caesar Mackbeth Anthonie and -Cleopatra Cymbeline’ _Blounte and Isaak Jaggard_ (Arber, iv. 107). -[This entry covers all the plays in F_{1} not already printed, except -_Taming of the Shrew_, _King John_, and _2, 3 Henry VI_, which were -doubtless regarded from the stationer’s point of view as identical -with the _Taming of A Shrew_, _Troublesome Reign of King John_, and -_Contention of York and Lancaster_, on which they were based. The -‘thirde parte of Henry ye Sixt’ is of course the hitherto unprinted _1 -Henry VI_.] - -[F_{1}] 1623. M^{r}. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & -Tragedies Published according to the True Originall Copies. By _Isaac -Iaggard and Ed. Blount_. [Colophon] _Printed_ [by W. Jaggard] _at the -charges of W. Jaggard, Ed. Blount, I. Smethweeke, and W. Aspley_. -[Verses to the Reader, signed B[en] I[onson]; Portrait signed ‘Martin -Droeshout sculpsit London’; Epistles to the Earls of Pembroke and -Montgomery and to the great Variety of Readers, both signed ‘Iohn -Heminge, Henry Condell’; Commendatory Verses signed ‘Ben: Ionson’, -‘Hugh Holland’, ‘L. Digges’, ‘I. M.’; ‘The Names of the Principall -Actors in all these Playes’; ‘A Catalogue of the seuerall Comedies, -Histories, and Tragedies contained in this Volume’.] - -_S. R._ 1627, June 19 [on or after]. Transfer from Dorothy widow -of Isaac Jaggard to Thomas and Richard Cotes of ‘her parte in -Schackspheere playes’ (Arber, iv. 182). - -_S. R._ 1630, Nov. 16. Transfer from Blount to Robert Allot by note -dated 26 June 1630 of his ‘estate and right’ in the sixteen plays of -the 1623 entry (Arber, iv. 243). - -[F_{2}] 1632. _Thomas Cotes, for John Smethwick, William Aspley, -Richard Hawkins, Richard Meighen and Robert Allot._ [So colophon: -there are t.ps. with separate imprints by Cotes for each of the five -booksellers.] - -[F_{3}] 1663. _For Philip Chetwinde._ [For the second issue of 1664, -with _Pericles_ and six apocryphal plays added, cf. p. 203.] - -[F_{4}] 1685. _For H. Herringman_ (and others). - -Of later editions the most valuable for literary history are those -by E. Malone, revised by J. Boswell (1821, the _Third Variorum -Shakespeare_, 21 vols.); W. A. Wright (1891–3, the _Cambridge -Shakespeare_, 9 vols.); F. J. Furnivall and others (1885–91, the -_Shakespeare Quarto Facsimiles_, 43 vols.); H. H. Furness (1871–1919, -the _New Variorum Shakespeare_, 18 plays in 19 vols. issued); E. -Dowden and others (1899–1922, the _Arden Shakespeare_); A. T. Q. -Couch and J. D. Wilson (1921–2, the _New Shakespeare_, 5 vols. -issued). Of dissertations I can only note, for biography, J. O. -Halliwell-Phillipps, _Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare_ (1890, ed. -9), and S. Lee, _A Life of William Shakespeare_ (1922, new ed.), and -for bibliography, S. Lee, _Facsimile of F_{1} from the Chatsworth copy_ -(1902, with census of copies, added to in _2 Library_, vii. 113), W. -W. Greg, _The Bibliographical History of the First Folio_ (1903, _2 -Library_, iv. 258), A. W. Pollard, _Shakespeare Folios and Quartos_ -(1909) and _Shakespeare’s Fight with the Pirates_ (1920), A. W. Pollard -and H. C. Bartlett, _A Census of Shakespeare’s Plays in Quarto_ (1916), -and H. C. Bartlett, _Mr. William Shakespeare_ (1922). - - _1 Henry VI. 1592_ - -[F_{1}] 1623. The first Part of Henry the Sixt. - - _2, 3 Henry VI. 1592_ (?) - -_S. R._ No original entry. [Probably these plays were regarded from a -stationer’s point of view as identical with the anonymous _Contention -of York and Lancaster_ (q.v.), on which they were based. Pavier had -acquired rights over these from Millington in 1602.] - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Second Part of Henry the Sixt, with the death of the -Good Duke Humfrey. The Third Part of Henry the Sixt, with the death of -the Duke of Yorke. - -_S. R._ 1626, Aug. 4. Transfer from Mrs. Pavier to Edward Brewster and -Robert Birde of ‘Master Paviers right in Shakesperes plaies or any of -them’ (Arber, iv. 164). - -_S. R._ 1630, Nov. 8. Transfer from Bird to Richard Cotes of ‘Yorke and -Lancaster’ (Arber, iv. 242). - - _Richard III. 1592–3_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1597, Oct. 20 (Barlowe). ‘The tragedie of Kinge Richard the -Third with the death of the Duke of Clarence.’ _Andrew Wise_ (Arber, -iii. 93). - -[Q_{1}] 1597. The Tragedy of King Richard the third. Containing, His -treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pittiefull murther -of his iunocent nephewes: his tyrannical vsurpation: with the whole -course of his detested life, and most deserued death. As it hath -beene lately Acted by the Right honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his -seruants. _Valentine Sims for Andrew Wise._ - -[Q_{2}] 1598.... By William Shakespeare. _Thomas Creede for Andrew -Wise._ - -[Q_{3}] 1602.... Newly augmented.... _Thomas Creede for Andrew Wise._ -[There is no augmentation.] - -_S. R._ 1603, June 25. Transfer from Andrew Wise to Mathew Lawe (Arber, -iii. 239). - -[Q_{4}] 1605. _Thomas Creede, sold by Mathew Lawe._ - -[Q_{5}] 1612.... As it hath beene lately Acted by the Kings Maiesties -seruants.... _Thomas Creede, sold by Mathew Lawe._ - -[Q_{6}] 1622. _Thomas Purfoot, sold by Mathew Law._ - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Tragedy of Richard the Third: with the Landing of -Earle Richmond, and the Battell at Bosworth Field. [_Running Title_, -The Life and Death of Richard the Third. From Q_{1}-Q_{2}-Q_{3}-Q_{4} -(+ Q_{3})-Q_{5}-Q_{6}, with corrections.] - -[Q_{7}] 1629. _John Norton, sold by Mathew Law._ - -[Q_{8}] 1634. _John Norton._ - - _Comedy of Errors. 1593_ (?) - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Comedie of Errors. - - _Titus Andronicus. 1594_ - -_S. R._ 1594, Feb. 6. ‘A Noble Roman historye of Tytus Andronicus.’ -_John Danter_ (Arber, ii. 644). - -[Q_{1}] 1594. The most Lamentable Romaine Tragedie of Titus Andronicus: -As it was Plaide by the Right Honourable the Earle of Darbie, Earle of -Pembrooke and Earle of Sussex their Seruants. _John Danter, sold by -Edward White and Thomas Millington._ - -[Q_{2}] 1600.... As it hath sundry times beene playde by the Right -Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke, the Earle of Darbie, the Earle of -Sussex, and the Lorde Chamberlaine theyr Seruants. _I[ames] R[oberts] -for Edward White._ - -_S. R._ 1602, April 19. Transfer ‘saluo iure cuiuscunque’ from Thomas -Millington to Thomas Pavier (Arber, iii. 204). - -[Q_{3}] 1611. _For Edward White._ - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Lamentable Tragedy of Titus Andronicus. [From -Q_{1}-Q_{2}-Q_{3}, with addition of III. ii.] - -_S. R._ 1626, Aug. 4. Transfer from Mrs. Pavier of interest to Edward -Brewster and Robert Bird (Arber, iv. 164). - - _The Taming of The Shrew. 1594_ - -_S. R._ No entry. [Probably the play was regarded from the point of -view of copyright as identical with the anonymous _Taming of A Shrew_ -(q.v.), on which it was based.] - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Taming of the Shrew. - -[Q_{1}] 1631. A wittie and pleasant comedie called The Taming of -the Shrew. As it was acted by his Maiesties Seruants at the Blacke -Friers and the Globe. Written by Will. Shakespeare. _W. S. for Iohn -Smethwicke._ - - _Love’s Labour’s Lost. 1594_ (?) - -_S. R._ No original entry. - -[Q_{1}] 1598. A Pleasant Conceited Comedie Called, Loues labors lost. -As it was presented before her Highnes this last Christmas. Newly -corrected and augmented By W. Shakespere. _W[illiam] W[hite] for -Cutbert Burby._ - -_S. R._ 1607. Jan. 22. Transfer from Burby to Nicholas Ling (Arber, -iii. 337). - -_S. R._ 1607, Nov. 19. Transfer from Ling to John Smethwick (Arber, -iii. 365). - -[F_{1}] 1623. Loues Labour’s lost. [From Q_{1}.] - -[Q_{2}] 1631.... As it was Acted by his Maiesties Seruants at the -Blacke-Friers and the Globe.... _W[illiam] S[tansby] for John -Smethwicke._ - - _Romeo and Juliet. 1594–5_ (?) - -_S. R._ No original entry. - -[Q_{1}] 1597. An Excellent conceited Tragedie of Romeo and Iuliet, As -it hath been often (with great applause) plaid publiquely, by the right -Honourable the L. of Hunsdon his Seruants. _John Danter._ - -[Q_{2}] 1599.... Newly corrected, augmented, and amended: ... _Thomas -Creede for Cuthbert Burby._ [Revised and enlarged text.] - -_S. R._ 1607, Jan. 22. Transfer by direction of a court from Burby to -Nicholas Ling (Arber, iii. 337). - -_S. R._ 1607, Nov. 19. Transfer from Ling to John Smethwick (Arber, -iii. 365). - -[Q_{3}] 1609.... by the King’s Maiesties Seruants at the Globe.... _For -Iohn Smethwick._ - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Tragedie of Romeo and Iuliet. [From Q_{2}-Q_{3}.] - -[Q_{4}] N.D. _For Iohn Smethwicke._ [Two issues.] - -[Q_{5}] 1637. _R. Young for John Smethwicke._ - - _A Midsummer Night’s Dream. 1595_ - -_S. R._ 1600, Oct. 8 (Rodes). ‘A booke called A mydsommer nightes -Dreame.’ _Thomas Fisher_ (Arber, iii. 174). - -[Q_{1}] 1600. A Midsommer nights dreame. As it hath beene sundry times -publickely acted, by the Right honourable, the Lord Chamberlaine his -seruants. Written by William Shakespeare. _For Thomas Fisher._ - -[Q_{2}] [1619]. ‘_Printed by Iames Roberts, 1600._’ [On the evidence -for printing with false date by William Jaggard, cf. Pollard, 81.] - -[F_{1}] 1623. A Midsommer Nights Dreame. [From Q_{2}.] - -On the possible date and occasion of performance, cf. my paper in -_Shakespeare Homage_ (1916). - - _The Two Gentlemen of Verona. 1595_ (?) - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Two Gentlemen of Verona. - - _King John. 1595_ (?) - -_S. R._ No entry. [Probably the play was regarded, from a stationer’s -point of view, as identical with the anonymous _Troublesome Reign of -King John_ (q.v.), on which it was based.] - -[F_{1}] 1623. The life and Death of King John. - - _Richard II. 1595–6_ - -_S. R._ 1597, Aug. 29. ‘The Tragedye of Richard the Second.’ _Andrew -Wise_ (Arber, iii. 89). - -[Q_{1}] 1597. The Tragedie of King Richard the second. As it hath beene -publikely acted by the right Honourable the Lorde Chamberlaine his -Seruants. _Valentine Simmes for Andrew Wise._ - -[Q_{2}] 1598.... By William Shakespeare. _Valentine Simmes for Andrew -Wise._ - -[Q_{3}] 1598. _Valentine Simmes, for Andrew Wise._ [White coll.] - -_S. R._ 1603, June 25. Transfer from Andrew Wise to Mathew Lawe (Arber, -iii. 239). - -[Q_{4}] 1608.... With new additions of the Parliament Sceane, and the -deposing of King Richard. As it hath been lately acted by the Kinges -Maiesties seruantes, at the Globe. _W[illiam] W[hite] for Mathew Law._ -[Two issues with distinct t.ps., of which one only has the altered -title. Both include the added passage IV. i. 154–318.] - -[Q_{5}] 1615. _For Mathew Law._ - -[F_{1}] 1623. The life and death of King Richard the Second. [From -Q_{1}-Q_{2}-Q_{3}-Q_{4}-Q_{5}, with corrections.] - -[Q_{6}] 1634. _Iohn Norton._ - - _The Merchant of Venice. 1596_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1598, July 22. ‘A booke of the Marchaunt of Venyce or otherwise -called the Jewe of Venyce, Prouided that yt bee not prynted by the said -James Robertes or anye other whatsoeuer without lycence first had from -the Right honorable the lord Chamberlen.’ _James Robertes_ (Arber, iii. -122). - -_S. R._ 1600, Oct. 28. Transfer from Roberts to Thomas Heyes (Arber, -iii. 175). - -[Q_{1}] 1600. The most excellent Historie of the Merchant of Venice. -With the extreame crueltie of Shylocke the Iewe towards the sayd -Merchant, in cutting a iust pound of his flesh: and the obtayning of -Portia by the choyse of three chests. As it hath been diuers times -acted by the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants. Written by William -Shakespeare. _I[ames] R[oberts] for Thomas Heyes._ - -[Q_{2}] [1619]. ‘_Printed by J. Roberts, 1600._’ [On the evidence for -printing with false date by William Jaggard, cf. Pollard, 81.] - -_S. R._ 1619, July 8. Transfer from Thomas to Laurence Heyes -(Arber, iii. 651). - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Merchant of Venice. [From Q_{1}.] - -[Q_{3}] 1637. _M. P[arsons?] for Laurence Hayes._ - -[Q_{3}] 1652. _For William Leake._ [Reissue.] - -_S. R._ 1657, Oct. 17. Transfer from Bridget Hayes and Jane Graisby to -William Leake (Eyre, ii. 150). - - _1 Henry IV. 1596–7_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1598, Feb. 25 (Dix). ‘A booke intituled The historye of -Henry the iiij^{th} with his battaile of Shrewsburye against Henry -Hottspurre of the Northe with the conceipted mirthe of Sir John -ffalstoff.’ _Andrew Wise_ (Arber, iii. 105). - -[Q_{1}] 1598. The History of Henrie the Fourth; With the battell -at Shrewsburie, betweene the King and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed -Henrie Hotspur of the North. With the humorous conceits of Sir Iohn -Falstalffe. _P[eter] S[hort] for Andrew Wise._ - -[Q_{2}] 1599.... Newly corrected by W. Shakespeare. _S[imon] S[tafford] -for Andrew Wise._ - -_S. R._ 1603, June 25. Transfer from Wise to Mathew Law (Arber, iii. -239). - -[Q_{3}] 1604. _Valentine Simmes for Mathew Law._ - -[Q_{4}] 1608. _For Mathew Law._ - -[Q_{5}] 1613. _W[illiam] W[hite] for Mathew Law._ - -[Q_{6}] 1622. _T[homas] P[urfoot], sold by Mathew Law._ - -[F_{1}] 1623. The First Part of Henry the Fourth, with -the Life and Death of Henry Sirnamed Hot-spurre. [From -Q_{1}-Q_{2}-Q_{3}-Q_{4}-Q_{5}.] - -[Q_{7}] 1632. _John Norton, sold by William Sheares._ - -[Q_{8}] 1639. _John Norton, sold by Hugh Perry._ - - _2 Henry IV. 1597–8_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1600, Aug. 23. ‘The second parte of the history of Kinge -Henry the iiij^{th} with the humours of Sir John ffalstaff; wrytten by -master Shakespere.’ _Andrew Wise and William Aspley_ (Arber, iii. -170). - -[Q] 1600. The Second part of Henrie the fourth, continuing to his -death, and coronation of Henrie the fift. With the humours of sir -Iohn Falstaffe, and swaggering Pistoll. As it hath been sundrie times -publikely acted by the right honourable, the Lord Chamberlaine his -seruants. Written by William Shakespeare. _V[alentine] S[immes] for -Andrew Wise and William Aspley._ [Two issues, the first of which omits -III. i.] - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Second Part of Henry the Fourth, Containing his -Death: and the Coronation of King Henry the Fift. [Distinct text from -Q.] - - _Much Ado About Nothing. 1598_ (?) - -_S. R._ [1600], Aug. 4. ‘The commedie of muche A doo about nothing a -booke ... to be staied’ (Arber, iii. 37). - -_S. R._ 1600, Aug. 23. ‘Muche a Doo about nothinge.’ _Andrew Wise and -William Aspley_ (Arber, iii. 170). - -[Q] 1600. Much adoe about Nothing. As it hath been sundrie times -publikely acted by the right honourable, the Lord Chamberlaine his -seruants. Written by William Shakespeare. _V[alentine] S[immes] for -Andrew Wise and William Aspley._ - -[F_{1}] 1623. Much adoe about Nothing. [From Q, with corrections.] - - _Henry V. 1599_ - -_S. R._ No original entry. [Possibly the play was regarded from a -stationer’s point of view as identical with the anonymous _Famous -Victories of Henry V_ (q.v.) entered by Creede on 14 May 1594.] - -_S. R._ [1600], Aug. 4. ‘Henry the ffift, a booke ... to be staied’ -(Arber, iii. 37). - -[Q_{1}] 1600. The Chronicle History of Henry the fift, With his battell -fought at Agin Court in France. Togither with Auntient Pistoll. As -it hath bene sundry times playd by the Right honorable the Lord -Chamberlaine his seruants. _Thomas Creede for Tho. Millington and Iohn -Busby._ - -_S. R._ 1600, Aug. 14. Transfer to Thomas Pavier, with other ‘thinges -formerlye printed and sett over to’ him (Arber, iii. 169). - -[Q_{2}] 1602. _Thomas Creede for Thomas Pauier._ - -[Q_{3}] [1619]. ‘_Printed for T. P. 1608._’ [On the evidence for -printing with false date by William Jaggard, cf. Pollard, _F. and Q._ -81.] - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Life of Henry the Fift. [Distinct text from Qq.] - -_S. R._ 1626, Aug. 4. Transfer from Mrs. Pavier to Edward Brewster and -Robert Birde of interest in ‘The history of Henry the fift and the play -of the same’ (Arber, iv. 164). - -_S. R._ 1630, Nov. 8. Transfer from Bird to Richard Cotes of ‘Henrye -the Fift’ and ‘Agincourt’ (Arber, iv. 242). - - _Julius Caesar. 1599_ - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Tragedie of Iulius Cæsar. - - _The Merry Wives of Windsor. 1599–1600_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1602, Jan. 18 (Seton). ‘A booke called An excellent and -pleasant conceited commedie of Sir John ffaulstof and the merry wyves -of Windesor.’ _John Busby._ Transfer the same day from Busby to Arthur -Johnson (Arber, iii. 199). - -[Q_{1}] 1602. A most pleasaunt and excellent conceited Comedie, of -Syr Iohn Falstaffe, and the merrie Wiues of Windsor. Entermixed with -sundrie variable and pleasing humors, of Syr Hugh the Welch Knight, -Iustice Shallow, and his wise Cousin M. Slender. With the swaggering -vaine of Auncient Pistoll, and Corporall Nym. By William Shakespeare. -As it hath bene diuers times Acted by the right Honorable my Lord -Chamberlaines seruants. Both before her Maiestie, and elsewhere. -_T[homas] C[reede] for Arthur Iohnson._ - -[Q_{2}] 1619. _[William Jaggard] for Arthur Johnson._ [On its relation -to other plays printed by Jaggard in 1619, cf. Pollard _F. and Q._ 81.] - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Merry Wiues of Windsor. [Distinct text from Qq.] - -_S. R._ 1630, Jan. 29. Transfer from Johnson to Meighen (Arber, -iv. 227). - -[Q_{3}] 1630. _T. H[arper] for R. Meighen._ - - _As You Like It. 1600_ (?) - -[F_{1}] 1623. As you Like it. - - _Hamlet. 1601_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1602, July 26 (Pasfield). ‘A booke called the Revenge -of Hamlett Prince Denmarke as yt was latelie Acted by the Lord -Chamberleyne his servantes.’ _James Robertes_ (Arber, iii. 212). - -[Q_{1}] 1603, The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet Prince of Denmarke. -By William Shakespeare. As it hath beene diuerse times acted by -his Highnesse seruants in the Cittie of London: as also in the two -Vniuersities of Cambridge and Oxford, and elsewhere. _[Valentine -Simmes] for N[icholas] L[ing] and Iohn Trundell._ - -[Q_{2}] 1604.... Newly imprinted and enlarged to almost as much againe -as it was, according to the true and perfect Coppie.... _I[ames] -R[oberts] for N[icholas] L[ing]._ [Some copies are dated 1605. Distinct -text from Q_{1}.] - -_S. R._ 1607, Nov. 19. Transfer from Ling to John Smethwick (Arber, -iii. 365). - -[Q_{3}] 1611. _For Iohn Smethwicke._ - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke. [Distinct -text from Qq.] - -[Q_{4}] N.D. [after 1611]. _W[illiam] S[tansby] for Iohn Smethwicke._ - -[Q_{5}] 1637. _R. Young for John Smethwicke._ - - _Twelfth Night. 1601–2_ - -[F_{1}] 1623. Twelfe Night, Or what you will. - - _Troilus and Cressida. 1602_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1603, Feb. 7. ‘Master Robertes, Entred for his copie in -full Court holden this day to print when he hath gotten sufficient -aucthority for yt, The booke of Troilus and Cresseda as yt is acted by -my lord Chamberlens Men’ (Arber, iii. 226). - -_S. R._ 1609, Jan. 28 (Segar, ‘deputye to Sir George Bucke’). ‘A booke -called the history of Troylus and Cressida.’ _Richard Bonion and Henry -Walleys_ (Arber, iii. 400). - -[Q] 1609. The Historie of Troylus and Cresseida. As it was acted by the -Kings Maiesties seruants at the Globe. Written by William Shakespeare. -_G. Eld for R. Bonian and H. Walley._ [In a second issue the title -became ‘The Famous Historie of Troylus and Cresseid. Excellently -expressing the beginning of their loues, with the conceited wooing of -Pandarus Prince of Licia’; and an Epistle headed ‘A neuer writer, to an -euer reader. Newes’ was inserted.] - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Tragedie of Troylus and Cressida. [A distinct text -from Q.] - - _All’s Well That Ends Well. 1602_ (?) - -[F_{1}] 1623. All’s Well, that Ends Well. - - _Measure for Measure. 1604_ (?) - -[F_{1}] 1623. Measure, For Measure. - - _Othello 1604_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1621, Oct. 6 (Buck). ‘The Tragedie of Othello, the moore of -Venice.’ _Thomas Walkley_ (Arber, iv. 59). - -[Q_{1}] 1622. The Tragœdy of Othello, The Moore of Venice. As it hath -beene diuerse times acted at the Globe, and at the Black-Friers, by -his Maiesties Seruants. Written by William Shakespeare. _N[icholas] -O[kes] for Thomas Walkley._ [Epistle by the Stationer to the Reader, -signed ‘Thomas Walkley’.] - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Tragedie of Othello, the Moore of Venice. [Distinct -text from Q_{1}] - -_S. R._ 1628, March 1. Transfer from Walkley to Richard Hawkins (Arber, -iv. 194). - -[Q_{2}] 1630. _A. M[athewes] for Richard Hawkins._ - -[Q_{3}] 1655.... The fourth Edition. _For William Leak._ - - _Macbeth. 1605–6_ (?) - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Tragedie of Macbeth. - - _King Lear. 1605–6_ - -_S. R._ 1607, Nov. 26 (Buck). ‘A booke called Master William -Shakespeare his historye of Kinge Lear, as yt was played before the -kinges maiestie at Whitehall vppon Sainct Stephens night at Christmas -Last by his maiesties servantes playinge vsually at the Globe on the -Banksyde.’ _Nathanael Butter and John Busby_ (Arber, iii. 366). - -[Q_{1}] 1608. M. William Shakspeare: His True Chronicle Historie of -the life and death of King Lear and his three Daughters. With the -vnfortunate life of Edgar, sonne and heire to the Earle of Gloster, and -his sullen and assumed humour of Tom of Bedlam: As it was played before -the Kings Maiestie at Whitehall vpon S. Stephans night in Christmas -Hollidayes. By his Maiesties seruants playing vsually at the Gloabe -on the Banckeside. _[Nicholas Okes?] for Nathaniel Butter and are to -be sold at ... the Pide Bull...._ [Sheets freely corrected during -printing.] - -[Q_{2}] [1619]. ‘_Printed for Nathaniel Butter, 1608._’ [On the -evidence for printing with false date by William Jaggard, cf. Pollard, -81.] - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Tragedie of King Lear. [From Q_{1} with corrections.] - -[Q_{3}] 1655. _By Jane Bell._ - - _Antony and Cleopatra. 1606_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1608, May 20 (Buck). ‘A booke Called Anthony and Cleopatra.’ -_Edward Blount_ (Arber, iii. 378). - -_S. R._ 1623, Nov. 8. ‘Anthonie and Cleopatra’, with other playes for -F_{1} [_vide supra_]. _Edward Blount and Isaac Jaggard_ (Arber, iv. -107). - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Tragedie of Anthonie, and Cleopatra. - - _Coriolanus. 1606_ (?) - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Tragedy of Coriolanus. - - _Timon of Athens. 1607_ (?) - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Lyfe of Tymon of Athens. - - _Pericles. 1608_ (?) - -_S. R._ 1608, May 20 (Buck). ‘A booke called The booke of Pericles -prynce of Tyre.’ _Edward Blount_ (Arber, iii. 378). - -[Q_{1}] 1609. The Late, And much admired Play, Called Pericles, Prince -of Tyre. With the true Relation of the whole Historie, aduentures, and -fortunes of the said Prince: As also, The no lesse strange, and worthy -accidents, in the Birth and Life, of his Daughter Mariana. As it hath -been diuers and sundry times acted by his Maiesties Seruants, at the -Globe on the Banck-side. By William Shakespeare. _[William White] for -Henry Gosson._ - -[Q_{2}] 1609. _[William White] for Henry Gosson._ [‘Eneer’ for ‘Enter’ -on A_{2}]. - -[Q_{3}] 1611. _By S[imon] S[tafford]._ - -[Q_{4}] ‘_Printed for T[homas] P[avier] 1619._’ [The signatures are -continuous with those of _The Whole Contention_ printed n.d. in 1619. -Probably the printer was William Jaggard; cf. Pollard, 81.] - -[Q_{5}] 1630. _I. N[orton]for R. B[ird]._ [Two issues.] - -[Q_{6}] 1635. _By Thomas Cotes._ - -[F_{3}] 1664. Pericles Prince of Tyre. [Distinct text from Qq.] - - _Cymbeline. 1609_ (?) - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Tragedie of Cymbeline. - - _The Winter’s Tale. 1610_ (?) - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Winters Tale. - - _The Tempest. 1611_ - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Tempest. - - _Henry VIII. 1613_ (?) - -[F_{1}] 1623. The Famous History of the Life of King Henry the Eight. - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -Besides the seven plays printed in F_{3} (_vide supra_) Shakespeare has -been credited (cf. ch. xxiv) with the authorship of or contributions to -_An Alarum for London_, _Arden of Feversham_, _Fair Em_, _Merry Devil -of Edmonton_, _Troublesome Reign of King John_, _Mucedorus_, _Second -Maiden’s Tragedy_, _Taming of A Shrew_, and perhaps more plausibly, -_Contention of York and Lancaster_, _Edward III_, _Sir Thomas More_, -and _T. N. K._ (cf. s.v. Beaumont). - - _Lost Plays_ - -Meres includes ‘Loue Labours Wonne’ in his list of 1598 (App. C, No. -lii). - -On 9 Sept. 1653 Humphrey Mosely entered in the Stationers’ Register -(Eyre, i. 428), in addition to _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_ with an -ascription to Shakespeare (cf. ch. xxiv): - - ‘The History of Cardenio, by M^r Fletcher & Shakespeare.’ - ‘Henry y^e first, & Hen: the 2^d. by Shakespeare, & Davenport.’ - -On 29 June 1660 he entered (Eyre, ii. 271): - - ‘The History of King Stephen. } - Duke Humphrey, a Tragedy. } by Will: Shakspeare.’ - Iphis & Iantha or a marriage without } - a man, a Comedy. } - -Warburton’s list of burnt plays (_3 Library_, ii. 230) contains: - - ‘Henry y^e 1^{st}. by Will. Shakespear & Rob. Davenport’, - ‘Duke Humphery Will. Shakespear’, - -and in a supplementary list: - - ‘A Play by Will. Shakespear.’ - -Of _Henry II_, _Stephen_, _Duke Humphrey_, and _Iphis and Iantha_ -nothing more is known. - -_Cardenio_ is presumably the play given as ‘Cardenno’ and ‘Cardenna’ -by the King’s men at Court in 1612–13 and again on 8 June 1613 (App. -B). Its theme, from _Don Quixote_, Part I, chh. xxiii-xxxvii, is that -of _Double Falsehood, or the Distressed Lovers_, published in 1728 -by Lewis Theobald as ‘written originally by W. Shakespeare, and now -revised and adapted to the stage by M^r. Theobald’. In 1727 it had been -produced at Drury Lane. Theobald claimed to have three manuscripts, -no one of which is now known. One had formerly, he said, belonged to -Betterton, and was in the handwriting of ‘M^r. _Downes_, the famous -Old Prompter’ (cf. App. I). Another came from a ‘Noble Person’, with a -tradition ‘that it was given by our Author, as a Present of Value, to a -Natural Daughter of his, for whose Sake he wrote it, in the Time of his -Retirement from the Stage’. Theobald is much under suspicion of having -written _Double Falsehood_ himself (cf. T. R. Lounsbury, _The First -Editors of Shakespeare_, 145). - -‘The Historye of Henry the First, written by Damport’ was licensed for -the King’s men on 10 Apr. 1624 (_Var._ iii. 229, 319; Herbert, 27). - - -EDWARD SHARPHAM (1576–1608). - -Edward was the third son of Richard Sharpham of Colehanger in East -Allington, Devonshire, where he was baptized on 22 July 1576. He -entered the Middle Temple on 9 Oct. 1594. He made his will on 22 -Apr. 1608, and was buried on the following day at St. Margaret’s, -Westminster. It may be inferred that he died of plague. Unless he is -the E. S. who wrote _The Discoveries of the Knights of the Post_ -(1597), he is only known by his two plays. There is no justification -for identifying him with the Ed. Sharphell who prefixed a sonnet to -the _Humours Heav’n on Earth_ (1605) of John Davies of Hereford, -calling Davies his ‘beloued Master’, or, consequently, for assuming -that he had been a pupil of Davies as writing-master at Magdalen, -Oxford. - -_Dissertations_: G. C. Moore Smith, _E. S._ (1908, _10 N. Q._ x. 21), -_John Mason and E. S._ (1913, _M. L. R._ viii. 371); M. W. Sampson, -_The Plays of E. S._ (1910, _Studies in Language and Literature in -Celebration of the 70th Birthday of J. M. Hart_, 440). - - _The Fleir. 1606_ - -_S. R._ 1606, May 13. ‘A Comedie called The fleare. Provided that they -are not to printe yt tell they bringe good aucthoritie and licence for -the Doinge thereof.’ _John Trundell and John Busby_ (Arber, iii. 321). - -1606, Nov. 21. Transfer from Trundell to Busby and Arthur Johnson, with -note ‘This booke is aucthorised by Sir George Bucke Master Hartwell and -the wardens’ (Arber, iii. 333). - -1607. The Fleire. As it hath beene often played in the Blacke-Fryers by -the Children of the Reuells. Written by Edward Sharpham of the Middle -Temple, Gentleman. _F. B._ [Epistle to the Reader, by the printer.] - -1610; 1615; 1631. - -_Edition_ by H. Nibbe (1912, _Materialien_, xxxvi). - -The epistle says that the book has been ‘long lookt for’, that the -author is ‘ith’ Country’ and that further ‘Comicall discourses’ from -him are forthcoming. A date after the executions for treason on 30 Jan. -1606 is suggested, as in the case of Marston’s _Fawn_, by ii. 364, ‘I -have heard say, they will rise sooner, and goe with more deuotion to -see an extraordinarie execution, then to heare a Sermon’, and with this -indication allusions to the Union (ii. 258) and _Northward Ho!_ (ii. -397) and resemblances to the _Fawn_ are consistent. - - _Cupid’s Whirligig. 1607_ - -_S. R._ 1607, June 29 (Tylney). ‘A Comedie called Cupids -Whirley-gigge.’ _John Busby and Arthur Johnson_ (Arber, iii. 354). - -1607. Cupid’s Whirligig, As it hath bene sundry times Acted by the -Children of the Kings Majesties Reuels. _E. Allde, sold by A. Johnson._ -[Epistle to Robert Hayman, signed ‘E. S.’] - -1611; 1616; 1630. - -Baker, _Biographia Dramatica_, ii. 146, cites Coxeter as authority for -a false ascription of the play to Shakespeare. But nobody could well -have supposed Shakespeare to be indicated by the initials E. S., for -which there is really no other candidate than Sharpham. The play must -be the further ‘Comicall discourses’ promised by the same publishers in -the epistle to _The Fleir_, and it may be added that Hayman (cf. _D. N. -B._), like Sharpham, was a Devonshire man. The date may be taken to be -1607, as the King’s Revels are not traceable earlier. - - -SAMUEL SHEPPARD (> 1606–1652 <). - -The known work of this miscellaneous writer belongs to 1646–52, and -although it includes a political tract in dramatic form, it is only his -vague claim of a share, possibly as amanuensis, in Jonson’s _Sejanus_ -(q.v.), which suggests that he might be the unknown S. S. whose -initials are on the title-page of _The Honest Lawyer_ (1616). - - -SIR PHILIP SIDNEY (1554–86). - -Both his entertainments were printed for the first time with the third -(1598) edition of the _Arcadia_. - - _The Lady of May. 1579_ (?) - -1598. The Countesse of Pembrokes Arcadia. Written by Sir Philip Sidney -Knight. Now the third time published, with sundry new additions of -the same Author. _For William Ponsonby._ [The description of the -entertainment follows _Astrophel and Stella_ among the ‘new additions’, -beginning at the head of sig. 3 B3^v, without title or date.] - -Reprints in 1599, 1605, 1613, 1621, 1622, 1623, 1627, 1629, 1633, 1638, -1655, 1662, 1674 editions of the _Arcadia_. - -_Editions_ in Nichols, _Elizabeth^{1, 2}_, ii. 94 (1788–1823), and -Collections of Sidney’s _Works_. - -The entertainment was in the Garden. As the Queen entered the grove, -An Honest Man’s Wife of the Country delivered a speech and a written -supplication in verse, for decision of the case of her daughter. Then -came the daughter, chosen May Lady, and haled this way by six Shepherds -on behalf of her lover Espilus and six Foresters on behalf of her -lover Therion. The case was put to the Queen by Laius an old Shepherd, -Rombus a Schoolmaster, and finally the May Lady herself. Espilus, -accompanied by the Shepherds with recorders, and Therion, accompanied -by the Foresters with cornets, sang in rivalry. A ‘contention’ followed -between Dorcas, an old Shepherd, and Rixus, a young Forester, ‘whether -of their fellows had sung better, and whether the estate of shepherds -or foresters were the more worshipful’. Rombus tried to intervene. The -May Lady appealed to the Queen, who decided for Espilus. Shepherds and -Foresters made a consort together, Espilus sang a song, and the May -Lady took her leave. - -Nichols assigns the entertainment to Elizabeth’s Wanstead visit of -1578. But it might also belong to that of 1579, and possibly to that -of 1582. In 1579, but not in 1578, the visit covered May Day. The -references in the text are, however, to the month of May, rather than -to May Day. - - _Pastoral Dialogue, c. 1580_ - -1598. A Dialogue between two Shepherds, Vttered in a Pastorall Show at -Wilton. [Appended to _Arcadia_; cf. _supra_.] - -_Edition_ in A. B. Grosart, _Poems of Sidney_ (1877), ii. 50. - -This dialogue between Dick and Will appears to belong to the series of -poems motived by Sidney’s love for Penelope Devereux. It must therefore -date between August 1577, when Sidney first visited his sister, Lady -Pembroke, at Wilton, and his own marriage on 20 Sept. 1583. There is no -indication that the Queen was present; not improbably the ‘Show’ took -place while Sidney was out of favour at Court, and was living at Wilton -from March to August 1580. - - -JOHN SINGER (?-1603 <). - -On Singer’s career as an actor, see ch. xv. - -On 13 Jan. 1603, about which date he apparently retired from the -Admiral’s, Henslowe paid him £5 ‘for his playe called Syngers -vallentarey’ (Greg, _Henslowe_, i. 173; ii. 226). I think the term -‘vallentarey’ must be used by Henslowe, rightly or wrongly, in the -sense of ‘valedictory’. _Quips on Questions_ (1600), a book of -‘themes’, is not his, but Armin’s (q.v.). - - -WILLIAM SLY (?-1608). - -On Sly’s career as an actor, see ch. xv. - -He has been guessed at as the author of _Thomas Lord Cromwell_ (cf. ch. -xxiv). - - -W. SMITH. - -There are traceable (_a_) Wentworth Smith, who wrote plays for -Henslowe’s companies, the Admiral’s, and Worcester’s during 1601–3 -(_vide infra_) and witnessed the will of W. Haughton in 1605; (_b_) -a W. Smith, who wrote _Hector of Germany_ and _The Freeman’s Honour_ -(_vide infra_); (_c_) a ‘Smith’, whose _Fair Foul One_ Herbert -licensed on 28 Nov. 1623 (Chalmers, _S. A._ 216; Herbert, 26); (_d_) -if Warburton can be trusted, a ‘Will. Smithe’, whose _S^t George for -England_ his cook burnt (_3 Library_, ii. 231). It is possible that -(_a_) and (_b_) may be identical. A long space of time separates (_b_) -and (_c_), and if (_d_) is to be identified with any other, it may -most plausibly be with (_c_). There is nothing to connect any one of -them with the William Smith who published sonnets under the title of -_Chloris_ (1596), or with any other member of this infernal family, and -the ‘W. S.’ of the anonymous _Locrine_ (1595), _Thomas Lord Cromwell_ -(1602), _The Puritan_ (1607) is more probably, in each case, aimed at -Shakespeare. - - _The Hector of Germany, c. 1615_ - -_S. R._ 1615, April 24 (Buck). ‘A play called The Hector of Germany, -or the Palsgraue is a harmeles thinge.’ _Josias Harrison_ (Arber, iii. -566). [The four last words of the title are scored through.] - -1615. The Hector of Germaine, or the Palsgrave, Prime Elector. A -New Play, an Honourable Hystorie. As it hath beene publikely Acted -at the Red Bull, and at the Curtaine, by a Companie of Young Men of -this Citie. Made by W. Smith, with new Additions. _Thomas Creede for -Josias Harrison._ [Epistle to Sir John Swinnerton, signed ‘W. Smith’; -Prologue; after text, ‘Finis. W. Smyth.’ Some copies have a variant -t.p.] - -_Edition_ by L. W. Payne (1906, _Pennsylvania Univ. Publ._). - -The epistle says ‘I have begun in a former Play, called the Freemans -Honour, acted by the Now-Seruants of the Kings Maiestie, to -dignifie the worthy Companie of the Marchantaylors’. If the phrase -‘Now-Seruants’ implies production before 1603, the identification of W. -Smith and Wentworth Smith becomes very probable. The prologue explains -that the Palsgrave is not Frederick, since ‘Authorities sterne brow’ -would not permit ‘To bring him while he lives upon the stage’, and -apologizes for the performance by ‘men of trade’. - - _Lost Plays_ - -Henslowe assigns to Wentworth Smith a share in the following plays: - - _Plays for the Admiral’s, 1601–2_ - -(i) _The Conquest of the West Indies._ - -With Day and Haughton, Apr.–Sept. 1601. - -(ii) _1 Cardinal Wolsey._ - -With Chettle, Drayton, and Munday, Aug.–Nov. 1601. - -(iii), (iv) _1, 2 The Six Clothiers._ - -With Hathway and Haughton, Oct.–Nov. 1601. Apparently Part 2 was not -finished. - -(v) _Too Good to be True._ - -With Chettle and Hathway, Nov. 1601–Jan. 1602. - -(vi) _Love Parts Friendship._ - -With Chettle, May 1602, conjectured to be the anonymous _Trial of -Chivalry_ (q.v.). - -(vii) _Merry as May be._ - -With Day and Hathway, Nov. 1602. - - _Plays for Worcester’s, 1602–3_ - -(viii) _Albere Galles._ - -With Heywood, Sept. 1602, possibly identical with the anonymous -_Nobody and Somebody_ (q.v.). - -(ix) _Marshal Osric._ - -With Heywood, Sept. 1602, conceivably identical with _The Royal King -and the Loyal Subject_, printed (1637) as by Heywood (q.v.). - -(x) _The Three_ (or _Two_) _Brothers_. - -Oct. 1602. - -(xi) _1 Lady Jane._ - -With Chettle, Dekker, Heywood, and Webster, Oct. 1602. It is not -certain that Smith, or any one but Dekker, had a hand in Part 2, -which was apparently not finished. Part 1 is doubtless represented by -the extant _Sir Thomas Wyatt_ of Dekker (q.v.) and Webster, in which -nothing is at all obviously traceable to Smith. - -(xii), (xiii) _1, 2 The Black Dog of Newgate._ - -With Day, Hathway, and another, Nov. 1602–Feb. 1603. - -(xiv) _The Unfortunate General._ - -With Day and Hathway, Jan. 1602. - -(xv) _The Italian Tragedy._ - -March 1603. - - -EDMUND SPENSER (1552–99). - -The only record of Spenser’s dramatic experiments, unless they are -buried amongst the anonymous plays of the Revels Accounts, is to be -found in his correspondence of April 1580 with Gabriel Harvey, who -wrote, ‘I imagine your Magnificenza will hold us in suspense ... for -your nine English Commedies’, and again, ‘I am void of all judgment if -your Nine Comedies, whereunto in imitation of Herodotus, you give the -names of the Nine Muses (and in one mans fancy not unworthily) come -not nearer Ariosto’s Comedies, either for the fineness of plausible -elocution, or the rareness of Poetical Invention, than that Elvish -Queen doth to his Orlando Furioso’ (_Two other Very Commendable -Letters_, in Harvey’s _Works_, i. 67, 95). I can hardly suppose that -the manuscript play of ‘Farry Queen’ in Warburton’s list (_3 Library_, -ii. 232) had any connexion with Spenser’s comedies. - - -ROD. STAFFORD. - -Probably the ‘Rod. Staff.’ who collaborated with Robert Wilmot (q.v.) -in the Inner Temple play of _Gismond of Salerne_. - - -WILLIAM STANLEY, EARL OF DERBY (1561–1642). - -Derby seems to have had players from 1594 to 1618, who presumably acted -the comedies which he was said to be ‘penning’ in June 1599 (cf. ch. -xiii), but none of these can be identified, although the company’s -anonymous _Trial of Chivalry_ (1605) needs an author. A fantastic -theory that his plays were for the Chamberlain’s, and that he wrote -them under the name of William Shakespeare, was promulgated by J. -Greenstreet in _The Genealogist_, n.s. vii. 205; viii. 8, 137, and has -been elaborately developed by A. Lefranc in _Sous le Masque de ‘William -Shakespeare’_ (1919) and later papers in _Le Flambeau_ and elsewhere. -_A Midsummer Night’s Dream_ was not impossibly written for his wedding -on 26 Jan. 1595 (cf. App. A and _Shakespeare Homage_, 154). - - -JOHN STEPHENS (> 1611–1617 <). - -A Gloucester man, who entered Lincoln’s Inn in 1611, but is only known -by his slight literary performances, of which the most important are -his _Essayes_ of 1615 (cf. App. C, No. lx). - - _Cynthia’s Revenge > 1613_ - -1613. Cinthias Revenge: or Maenanders Extasie. Written by John -Stephens, Gent. _For Roger Barnes._ [There are two variant t.ps. of -which one omits the author’s name. Epistle to Io. Dickinson, signed ‘I. -S.’; Epistle to the Reader; Argument; Commendatory Verses, signed ‘F. -C.’, ‘B. I.’, ‘G. Rogers’, ‘Tho. Danet’.] - -_Dissertation_: P. Simpson, _The Authorship and Original Issue of C. -R._ (1907, _M. L. R._ ii. 348). - -The epistle to the reader says that the author’s name is ‘purposly -concealed ... from the impression’, which accounts for the change of -title-page. Stephens claims the authorship in the second edition of -his _Essayes_ (1615). Kirkman (Greg, _Masques_, lxii) was misled into -assigning it to ‘John Swallow’, by a too literal interpretation of F. -C.’s lines: - - One Swallow makes no Summer, most men say, - But who disproues that Prouerbe, made this Play. - - -JOHN STUDLEY (_c._ 1545–_c._ 1590). - -Translator of Seneca (q.v.). - - -ROBERT TAILOR (_c._ 1613). - -Tailor also published settings to _Sacred Hymns_ (1615) and wrote -commendatory verses to John Taylor’s _The Nipping or Snipping of -Abuses_ (1614). - - _Hog Hath Lost His Pearl. 1613_ - -_S. R._ 1614, May 23, 1614 (Taverner and Buck). ‘A play booke called -Hogge hath lost his pearle.’ _Richard Redmer_ (Arber, iii. 547). - -1614. The Hogge hath lost his Pearle. A Comedy. Divers times Publikely -acted, by certaine London Prentices. By Robert Tailor. _For Richard -Redmer._ [Prologue and Epilogue.] - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–4} (1744–1875) and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. -D._ iii). - -Sir H. Wotton wrote to Sir Edmund Bacon (Wotton, ii. 13): ‘On Sunday -last at night, and no longer, some sixteen apprentices (of what sort -you shall guess by the rest of the story) having secretly learnt a -new play without book, intituled _The Hog hath lost his Pearl_, took -up the White-Fryers for their theatre: and having invited thither (as -it should seem) rather their mistresses than their masters; who were -all to enter _per bullettini_ for a note of distinction from ordinary -comedians, towards the end of the play the sheriffs (who by chance had -heard of it) came in (as they say) and carried some six or seven of -them to perform the last act at Bridewel; the rest are fled. Now it -is strange to hear how sharp-witted the City is, for they will needs -have Sir John Swinerton, the Lord Mayor, be meant by the Hog, and the -late Lord Treasurer [Lord Salisbury] by the Pearl.’ Swinnerton was Lord -Mayor in 1612–13. The letter is only dated ‘Tuesday’, but refers to -the departure of the King, which was 22 Feb. 1613, as on the previous -day. This would give the first Sunday in Lent (21 Feb.) for the date -of production. The phrase (I. i) ‘Shrove-Tuesday is at hand’ suggests -14 Feb., but the date originally intended was very likely altered. -The Prologue refers to the difficulties of the producers. The play -had been ‘toss’d from one house to another’. It does not grunt at -‘state-affairs’ or ‘city vices’. There had been attempts to ‘prevent’ -it, but it ‘hath a Knight’s license’, doubtless Sir George Buck’s. In -I. i is some chaff, apparently directed at Garlic and the Fortune, and -an interview between a player and one Haddit, who writes a jig called -_Who Buys my Four Ropes of Hard Onions_ for four angels, and a promise -of a box for a new play. Fleay, ii. 256, identifies Haddit with Dekker, -but his reasons do not bear analysis, and Haddit is no professional -playwright, but a gallant who has run through his fortune. A passage -in Act III (Dodsley, p. 465) bears out the suggestion of satire on the -house of Cecil. - - -RICHARD TARLTON (?-1588). - -On his career as an actor, cf. ch. xv. - - _The Seven Deadly Sins. 1585_ - -[_MS._] _Dulwich MS._ xix, ‘The platt of The secound parte of the Seuen -Deadlie sinns.’ [This was found pasted inside the boards forming the -cover to a manuscript play of the seventeenth century, _The Tell Tale_ -(_Dulwich MS._ xx).] - -The text is given by Malone, _Supplement_ (1780), i. 60; Steevens, -_Variorum_ (1803), iii. 404; Boswell, _Variorum_ (1821), iii. 348; -Collier, iii. 197; Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 129; and a photographic -facsimile by W. Young, _History of Dulwich_ (1889), ii. 5. - -The ‘platt’ names a number of actors and may thereby be assigned -to a revival by the Admiral’s or Strange’s men about 1590 (cf. ch. -xiii). The play consisted of three episodes illustrating Envy, Sloth, -and Lechery, together with an Induction. This renders plausible the -conjecture of Fleay, 83, supported by Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 153, that -it is the _Four Plays in One_ revived by Strange’s for Henslowe on -6 March 1592. And if so, the original two parts may be traceable in -the _Five Plays in One_ and the _Three Plays in One_ of the Queen’s -men in 1585. Tarlton was of course a Queen’s man, and evidence of his -authorship is furnished by Gabriel Harvey, who in his _Four Letters_ -(1592, _Works_, i. 194) attacks Nashe’s _Pierce Penilesse_ (1592) as -‘not Dunsically botched-vp, but right-formally conueied, according -to the stile, and tenour of Tarletons president, his famous play of -the seauen Deadly sinnes; which most deadly, but most liuely playe, I -might haue seene in London; and was verie gently inuited thereunto at -Oxford by Tarleton himselfe’. Nashe defends himself against the charge -of plagiarism in his _Strange News_ (1592, _Works_, i. 304, 318), and -confirms the indication of authorship. - - _Doubtful Play_ - -Tarlton has been suggested as the author of the anonymous _Famous -Victories of Henry V_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - -JOHN TAYLOR (1580–1653). - -Known as the Water Poet. His description of the festivities at the -wedding of Princess Elizabeth in 1613 (cf. ch. xxiv, C) is only one of -innumerable pamphlets in verse and prose, several of which throw light -on stage history. Many of these were collected in his folio _Workes_ -of 1630, reprinted with others of his writings by the Spenser Society -during 1868–78. There is also a collection by C. Hindley (1872). - - -CHARLES TILNEY (_ob._ 1586). - -Said, on manuscript authority alleged by Collier, to be the author of -_Locrine_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - -THOMAS TOMKIS (> 1597–1614 <). - -Tomkis entered Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1597, took his B.A. in -1600 and his M.A. in 1604, and became Fellow of Trinity in the same -year. He has been confused by Fleay, ii. 260, and others with various -members of a musical family of Tomkins. - - _Lingua. 1602 < > 7_ - -_S. R._ 1607, Feb. 23 (Wilson). ‘A Commedie called Lingua.’ _Simon -Waterson_ (Arber, iii. 340). - -1607. Lingua: Or The Combat of the Tongue, And the fiue Senses. For -Superiority. _G. Eld for Simon Waterson._ [Prologue.] - -1617; 1622; n.d.; 1632; 1657. - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–4} (1744–1874) and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. -D._ ii) and J. S. Farmer (1913, _S. F. T._).--_Dissertation_: F. S. -Boas, _Macbeth and L._ (1909, _M. L. R._ iv. 517). - -Winstanley (1687) assigned the play to Antony Brewer, but Sir J. -Harington, in a memorandum printed by F. J. Furnivall from _Addl. -MS._ 27632 in _7 N. Q._ ix. 382, notes ‘The combat of Lingua made by -Thom. Tomkis of Trinity colledge in Cambridge’, and this is rendered -plausible by the resemblance of the play to _Albumazar_. It is clearly -of an academic type. As to the date there is less certainty. G. C. -Moore Smith (_M. L. R._ iii. 146) supports 1602 by a theory that a -compliment (IV. vii) to Queen Psyche is really meant for Elizabeth, -and contains allusions to notable events of her reign. I do not find -his interpretations very convincing, although I should not like to say -that they are impossible. Fleay, ii. 261, starting from a tradition -handed down by the publisher of 1657 that Oliver Cromwell acted in the -play, conjectures that the play formed part of Sir Oliver Cromwell’s -entertainment of James at Hinchinbrook on 27–9 April 1603, and that his -four-year-old nephew took the four-line part of Small Beer (_IV._ v). -Either date would fit in with the remark in _III._ v, ‘About the year -1602 many used this skew kind of language’. Boas, however, prefers a -date near that of publication, on account of similarities to passages -in _Macbeth_. The play was translated as _Speculum Aestheticum_ for -Maurice of Hesse-Cassel in 1613 by Johannes Rhenanus, who probably -accompanied Prince Otto to England in 1611; cf. P. Losch, _Johannes -Rhenanus_ (1895). - - _Albumazar. 1615_ - -_S. R._ 1615, April 28 (Nidd). ‘Albumazar a comedie acted before his -Maiestie at Cambridg 10^o Martii 1614.’ _Nicholas Okes_ (Arber, iii. -566). - -1615. Albumazar. A Comedy presented before the Kings Maiestie at -Cambridge, the ninth of March, 1614. By the Gentlemen of Trinitie -Colledge. _Nicholas Okes for Walter Burre._ [Prologue.] - -1615. _Nicholas Okes for Walter Burre._ [Another edition with the same -t.p.] - -1634.... Newly revised and corrected by a speciall Hand. _Nicholas -Okes._ - -1634. _Nicholas Okes._ - -1668.... As it is now Acted at His Highness the Duke of York’s Theatre. -_For Thomas Dring._ [Prologue by Dryden.] - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–4} (1744–1875) and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. -D._ ii). - -The play is assigned to ‘M^r Tomkis, Trinit.’ in an account of the -royal visit given by S. Pegge from Sir Edward Dering’s MS. in _Gent. -Mag._ xxvi. 224, and a bursar’s account-book for 1615 has the entry, -‘Given M^r. Tomkis for his paines in penning and ordering the Englishe -Commedie at our Masters appoyntment, xx^{ll}’ (_3 N. Q._ xii. 155). -Chamberlain wrote to Carleton (Birch, i. 304) that ‘there was no great -matter in it more than one good clown’s part’. It is an adaptation -of Giambattista Porta’s _L’Astrologo_ (1606). No importance is to be -attached to the suggestion of H. I. in _3 N. Q._ ix. 178, 259, 302, -that Shakespeare was the author and wrote manuscript notes in a copy -possessed by H. I. Dryden regards the play as the model of Jonson’s -_Alchemist_ (1610): - - Subtle was got by our Albumazar, - That Alchymist by our Astrologer. - -Unless Dryden was mistaken, the performance in 1615 was only a revival, -but the payment for ‘penning’ makes this improbable. - - _Doubtful Later Play_ - -G. C. Moore Smith (_M. L. R._ iii. 149) supports the attribution by -Winstanley to Tomkis of _Pathomachia or the Battle of Affections_ -(1630), also called in a running title and in _Bodl. MS. Eng. Misc._ e. -5 _Love’s Load-stone_, a University play of _c._ 1616, in which there -are two references to ‘Madame Lingua’. - - -CYRIL TOURNEUR (?-1626). - -Tourneur, or Turnor, first appears as the author of a satire, _The -Transformed Metamorphosis_ (1600), but his history and relationships -to the Cecils and to Sir Francis Vere suggest that he was connected -with a Richard Turnor who served in the Low Countries as water-bailiff -and afterwards Lieutenant of Brill during 1585–96. His career as a -dramatist was over by 1613, and from December of that year to his death -on 28 Feb. 1626 he seems himself to have been employed on foreign -service, mainly in the Low Countries but finally at Cadiz, where he was -secretary to the council of war under Sir Edward Cecil in 1625. He died -in Ireland and left a widow Mary. - - _Collections_ - -1878. J. C. Collins, _The Plays and Poems of C. T._ 2 vols. - -1888. J. A. Symonds, _Webster and Tourneur_ (_Mermaid -Series_). - -_Dissertations_: G. Goodwin in _Academy_ (9 May 1891); T. Seccombe in -_D. N. B._ (1899). - - _The Atheist’s Tragedy. 1607 < > 11_ - -_S. R._ 1611, Sept. 14 (Buck). ‘A booke called, The tragedy of the -Atheist.’ _John Stepneth_ (Arber, iii. 467). - -1611. The Atheist’s Tragedie: Or The honest Man’s Reuenge, As in diuers -places it hath often beene Acted. Written by Cyril Tourneur. _For John -Stepneth and Richard Redmer._ - -1612. _For John Stepneth and Richard Redmer._ [Another issue.] - -Fleay, ii. 263, attempts to date the play before the close of the siege -of Ostend in 1604, but, as E. E. Stoll, _John Webster_, 210, points -out, this merely dates the historic action and proves nothing as to -composition. Stoll himself finds some plausible reminiscences of _King -Lear_ (1606) and suggests a date near that of publication. - - LOST PLAYS - - _The Nobleman. c. 1612_ - -_S. R._ 1612, Feb. 15 (Buck). ‘A play booke beinge a Trage-comedye -called, The Noble man written by Cyril Tourneur.’ _Edward Blount_ -(Arber, iii. 478). - -1653, Sept. 9. ‘The Nobleman, or Great Man, by Cyrill Tourneur.’ -_Humphrey Moseley_ (Eyre, i. 428). - -The play was acted by the King’s at Court on 23 Feb. 1612 and again -during the winter of 1612–13. Warburton’s list of plays burnt by his -cook (_3 Library_, ii. 232) contains distinct entries of ‘The Great Man -T.’ and ‘The Nobleman T. C. Cyrill Turñuer’. Hazlitt, _Manual_, 167, -says (1892): ‘Dr. Furnivall told me many years ago that the MS. was in -the hands of a gentleman at Oxford, who was editing Tourneur’s Works; -but I have heard nothing further of it. Music to a piece called The -Nobleman is in _Addl. MS. B.M._ 10444.’ - -For _The Arraignment of London_ (1613) v.s. Daborne. - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -Tourneur’s hand has been sought in the _Honest Man’s Fortune_ of the -Beaumont (q.v.) and Fletcher series, and in _Charlemagne_, _Revenger’s -Tragedy_, and _Second Maiden’s Tragedy_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - -NICHOLAS TROTTE (_c._ 1588). - -A Gray’s Inn lawyer, who wrote an ‘Introduction’ for the _Misfortunes -of Arthur_ of Thomas Hughes (q.v.) in 1588. - - -RICHARD VENNAR (_c._ 1555–1615?). - -Vennar (Vennard), who has often been confused with William Fennor, a -popular rhymer, was of Balliol and Lincoln’s Inn, and lived a shifty -life, which ended about 1615 in a debtor’s prison. Its outstanding -feature was the affair of _England’s Joy_, but in 1606 he is said (_D. -N. B._) to have been in trouble for an attempt to defraud Sir John -Spencer of £500 towards the preparation of an imaginary mask under the -patronage of Sir John Watts, the Lord Mayor. - -_England’s Joy. 1602_ - -[_Broadsheet_] The Plot of the Play, called England’s Joy. To be Played -at the Swan this 6 of Nouember, 1602. [No. 98 in collection of Society -of Antiquaries.] - -_Reprints_ by W. Park in _Harleian Miscellany_ (1813), x. 198; S. Lee -(1887, _vide infra_); W. Martin (1913, _vide infra_); W. J. Lawrence -(1913, _vide infra_).--_Dissertations_: S. Lee, _The Topical Side of -the Elizabethan Drama_ (_N. S. S. Trans._ 1887–92, 1); T. S. Graves, -_A Note on the Swan Theatre_ (1912, _M. P._ ix. 431), _Tricks of -Elizabethan Showmen_ (_South Atlantic Quarterly_, April 1915); W. -Martin, _An Elizabethan Theatre Programme_ (1913, _Selborne Magazine_, -xxiv. 16); W. J. Lawrence (ii. 57), _The Origin of the Theatre -Programme_. - -The document appears to be a ‘bill’. It is 12¾ by 7¾ inches, and -contains a synopsis under nine heads, beginning with the civil wars -from Edward III to Mary ‘induct by shew and in Action’, and continuing -with episodes from the reign of Elizabeth, who is England’s Joy. In -sc. viii ‘a great triumph is made with fighting of twelue Gentlemen -at Barriers’, and in sc. ix Elizabeth ‘is taken vp into Heauen, when -presently appeares, a Throne of blessed Soules, and beneath vnder the -Stage set forth with strange fireworkes, diuers blacke and damned -Soules, wonderfully discribed in their seuerall torments’. Apart from -the bill, Vennar must have given it out that the performers were to be -amateurs. Chamberlain, 163, writes to Carleton on 19 Nov. 1602: - - ‘And, now we are in mirth, I must not forget to tell you of - a cousening prancke of one Venner, of Lincolns Inne, that - gave out bills of a famous play on Satterday was sevenight - on the Banckeside, to be acted only by certain gentlemen - and gentlewomen of account. The price at cumming in was two - shillings or eighteen pence at least; and when he had gotten - most part of the mony into his hands, he wold have shewed them - a faire paire of heeles, but he was not so nimble to get up on - horse-backe, but that he was faine to forsake that course, and - betake himselfe to the water, where he was pursued and taken, - and brought before the Lord Chiefe Justice, who wold make - nothing of it but a jest and a merriment, and bounde him over - in five pound to appeare at the sessions. In the meane time - the common people, when they saw themselves deluded, revenged - themselves upon the hangings, curtains, chairs, stooles, walles, - and whatsoever came in theire way, very outragiously, and made - great spoile; there was great store of good companie, and many - noblemen.’ - -Similarly John Manningham in his _Diary_, 82, 93, notes in Nov. 1602, -how - - ‘Vennar, a gent. of Lincolnes, who had lately playd a notable - cunni-catching tricke, and gulled many under couller of a play - to be of gent. and reuerens, comming to the court since in a - blacke suit, bootes and golden spurres without a rapier, one - told him he was not well suited; the golden spurres and his - brazen face uns[uited].’ - -On 27 Nov. he adds, ‘When one said that Vennar the graund connicatcher -had golden spurres and a brazen face, “It seemes”, said R. R. “he hath -some mettall in him.”’ Vennar’s own account of ‘my publique default of -the Swan, where not a collier but cals his deere 12 pense to witnesse -the disaster of the day’ was given many years later in ‘_An Apology_: -Written by Richard Vennar, of Lincolnes Inne, abusively called Englands -Joy. 1614’, printed by Collier in _Illustrations_ (1866), iii. It vies -in impudence with the original offence. He had been in prison and was -in debt, and ‘saw daily offering to the God of pleasure, resident at -the Globe on the Banke-side’. This suggested his show, ‘for which they -should give double payment, to the intent onely, men of ability might -make the purchase without repentance’. He continues: - - ‘My devise was all sorts of musique, beginning with chambers, - the harpe of war, and ending with hounds, the cry of peace, of - which I was doubly provided for Fox and Hare. The report of - gentlemen and gentlewomens actions, being indeed the flagge - to our theater, was not meerely falcification, for I had - divers Chorus to bee spoken by men of good birth, schollers by - profession, protesting that the businesse was meerely abused - by the comming of some beagles upon mee that were none of the - intended kennell: I meane baylifes, who, siezing mee before the - first entrance, spoke an Epilogue instead of a Prologue. This - changed the play into the hunting of the fox, which, that the - world may know for a verity, I heere promise the next tearme, - with the true history of my life, to bee publiquely presented, - to insert, in place of musicke for the actes, all those - intendments prepared for that daies enterteinment.’ - -Later on he says, ‘I presented you with a dumbe show’, and jests on -getting ‘so much mony for six verses’, which, I suppose, means that the -performance was intended to be a spoken one, but was broken off during -the prologue. Apparently the new entertainment contemplated by Vennar -in 1614 was in fact given, not by him but by William Fennor, to whom -John Taylor writes in his _A Cast Over Water_ (1615): - - Thou brag’st what fame thou got’st upon the stage. - Indeed, thou set’st the people in a rage - In playing England’s Joy, that every man - Did judge it worse than that was done at Swan. - - * * * * * - - Upon S. George’s day last, sir, you gave - To eight Knights of the Garter (like a knave), - Eight manuscripts (or Books) all fairelie writ, - Informing them, they were your mother wit: - And you compil’d them; then were you regarded, - And for another’s wit was well rewarded. - All this is true, and this I dare maintaine, - The matter came from out a learned braine: - And poor old _Vennor_ that plaine dealing man, - Who acted England’s Joy first at the Swan, - Paid eight crowns for the writing of these things. - Besides the covers, and the silken strings. - -Robin Goodfellow, in Jonson’s _Love Restored_ (_1612_), calls the -absence of a mask ‘a fine trick, a piece of England’s Joy’, and three -characters in the _Masque of Augurs_ (_1622_) are said to be ‘three -of those gentlewomen that should have acted in that famous matter of -England’s Joy in six hundred and three’--apparently a slip of Jonson’s -as to the exact date. Other allusions to the ‘gullery’ are in Saville, -_Entertainment of King James at Theobalds_ (1603); R. Brathwaite, _The -Poet’s Palfrey_ (_Strappado for the Devil_, ed. J. W. Ebsworth, 160); -J. Suckling, _The Goblins_ (ed. Hazlitt, ii. 52); W. Davenant, _Siege -of Rhodes_, Pt. ii, prol. It may be added that Vennar’s cozenage was -perhaps suggested by traditional stories of similar tricks. One is -ascribed to one Qualitees in _Merry Tales, Wittie Questions and Quick -Answeres_, cxxxiii (1567, Hazlitt, _Jest Books_, i. 145). In this -bills were set up ‘vpon postes aboute London’ for ‘an antycke plaie’ -at Northumberland Place and ‘all they that shoulde playe therin were -gentilmen’. Another is the subject of one of the _Jests_ of George -Peele (Bullen, ii. 389). W. Fennor, _The Compters Commonwealth_ -(1617), 64, tells of an adventure of ‘one M^r. Venard (that went by -the name of Englands Joy)’ in jail, where he afterwards died. - - -EDWARD DE VERE, EARL OF OXFORD (1550–1604). - -Meres (1598) includes the earl in his list of ‘the best for Comedy -amongst vs’ but although Oxford had theatrical servants at intervals -from 1580 to 1602 (cf. ch. xiii), little is known of their plays, and -none can be assigned to him, although the anonymous _The Weakest Goeth -to the Wall_ (1600) calls for an author. J. T. Looney, _Shakespeare -Identified_ (1920), gives him Shakespeare’s plays, many of which were -written after his death. - - -FRANCIS VERNEY (1584–1615). - -Francis, the eldest son of Sir Edmund Verney of Penley, Herts., and -Claydon, Bucks., entered Trinity College, Oxford, in 1600, and was -knighted on 14 March 1604. As a result of family disputes, he left -England about 1608, and became a pirate in the Mediterranean, dying at -Messina on 6 Sept. 1615 (_Verney Memoirs^2_, i. 47). G. C. Moore Smith -(_M. L. R._ iii. 151) gives him the following play. - - _Antipoe. 1603 < > 8_ - -[_MS._] _Bodl. MS._ 31041, ‘The tragedye of Antipoe with other poetical -verses written by mee Nic^o. Leatt Jun. in Allicant In June 1622’, with -Epistles to James and the Reader by ‘Francis Verney’. Presumably Verney -was the author, and Nicolas only a scribe. - - -ANTONY WADESON (_c._ 1601). - -Henslowe made payments to him on behalf of the Admiral’s in June and -July 1601 for a play called _The Honourable Life of the Humorous Earl -of Gloucester, with his Conquest of Portugal_, but these only amounted -to 30_s._, so that possibly the play was not finished. - - _Doubtful Play_ - -The anonymous _Look About You_ (cf. ch. xxiv) has been ascribed to -Wadeson. - - -LEWIS WAGER (_c._ 1560). - -Wager became Rector of St. James Garlickhithe on 28 March 1560. Some -resemblance of his style to that of W. Wager has led to an assumption -that they were related. He was a corrector of books. - - _The Life and Repentance of Mary Magdalene > 1566_ - -_S. R._ 1566–7. ‘An interlude of the Repentaunce of Mary Magdalen.’ -_John Charlwood_ (Arber, i. 335). - -1566. A new Enterlude, neuer before this tyme imprinted, entreating -of the Life and Repentaunce of Marie Magdalene: not only godlie, -learned and fruitefull, but also well furnished with pleasaunt myrth -and pastime, very delectable for those which shall heare or reade -the same. Made by the learned clarke Lewis Wager. _John Charlwood._ -[Prologue.] - -1567. _John Charlwood._ [Probably a reissue. Two manuscript copies in -the Dyce collection seem to be made from this edition.] - -_Editions_ by F. I. Carpenter (1902, 1904, _Chicago Decennial -Publications_, ii. 1) and J. S. Farmer (1908, _T. F. T._). - -A play of Protestant tone, with biblical and allegorical characters, -including ‘Infidelitie the Vice’, intended for four [five] actors. -There is a Prologue, intended for actors who have ‘vsed this feate at -the vniuersitie’ and will take ‘half-pence or pence’ from the audience. -Carpenter dates the play _c._ 1550; but his chief argument that the -prologue recommends obedience ‘to the kyng’ is not very convincing. - -See also W. Wager, s.v. _The Cruel Debtor._ - - -W. WAGER (_c._ 1559). - -Nothing is known of him beyond his plays and the similarity of his name -to that of Lewis Wager (q.v.). Joseph Hunter, _Chorus Vatum_, v. 90, -attempts to identify him with William Gager (q.v.), but this is not -plausible. On the illegitimate extension of W. into William and other -bibliographical confusions about the two Wagers, _vide_ W. W. Greg, -_Notes on Dramatic Bibliographers_ (_M. S. C._ i. 324). - - _The Longer Thou Livest, the More Fool Thou Art. c. 1559_ - -_S. R._ 1568–9. ‘A ballett the lenger thou leveste the more ffoole -thow.’ _Richard Jones_ (Arber, i. 386). - -N.D. A very mery and Pythie Commedie, called The longer thou liuest, -the more foole thou art. A Myrrour very necessarie for youth, and -specially for such as are like to come to dignitie and promotion: As it -maye well appeare in the Matter folowynge. Newly compiled by W. Wager. -_William Howe for Richard Jones._ [Prologue.] - -_Editions_ by Brandl (1900, _Jahrbuch_ xxxvi. 1) and J. S. -Farmer (1910, _S. F. T._). - -A Protestant moral of 1,977 lines, with allegorical characters, -arranged for four actors. Moros enters ‘synging the foote of many -Songes, as fooles were wont’. Elizabeth is prayed for as queen, but the -Catholic domination is still recent. - - _Enough is as Good as a Feast. c. 1560_ - -N.D. A Comedy or Enterlude intituled, Inough is as good as a feast, -very fruteful, godly and ful of pleasant mirth. Compiled by W. Wager. -_By John Allde._ [The t.p. has also ‘Seuen may easely play this -Enterlude’, with an arrangement of parts. The play was unknown until -it appeared in Lord Mostyn’s sale of 1919. The seventeenth-century -publishers’ lists record the title, but without ascription to Wager -(Greg, _Masques_, lxvi).] - -_Edition_ by S. de Ricci (1920, _Huntingdon Reprints_, ii). - -F. S. Boas (_T. L. S._ 20 Feb. 1919) describes the play as ‘a -morality with a controversial Protestant flavour’; at the end Satan -carries off the Vice, Covetouse, on his back. Elizabeth is prayed for. - - _The Cruel Debtor. c. 1565_ - -_S. R._ 1565–6. ‘A ballet intituled an interlude the Cruell Detter by -Wager.’ _Thomas Colwell_ (Arber, i. 307). - -N.D. Fragments. C. iii in Bagford Collection (_Harl. MS._ 5919); D and -D 4(?) formerly in collection of W. B. Scott, now in B.M. (C. 40, e. -48). - -_Editions_ by F. J. Furnivall (1878, _N. S. S. Trans._ 1877–9, 2*) and -W. W. Greg (1911, _M. S. C._ i. 314). - -The speakers are Rigour, Flattery, Simulation, Ophiletis, Basileus, and -Proniticus. - -R. Imelmann in _Herrig’s Archiv_, cxi. 209, would assign these -fragments to Lewis Wager, rather than W. Wager, but the stylistic -evidence is hardly conclusive either way, and there is no other. - - _Lost Play_ - -Warburton’s list of manuscripts burnt by his cook (_3 Library_, ii. -232) includes ’Tis Good Sleeping in A Whole Skin W. Wager’. - - -GEORGE WAPULL (_c._ 1576). - -A George Wapull was clerk of the Stationers’ Company from 29 Sept. 1571 -to 30 May 1575. In 1584–5 the company assisted him with 10_s._ ‘towards -his voyage unto Norembegue’ in America (Arber, i. xliv, 509). - - _The Tide Tarrieth No Man > 1576_ - -_S. R._ 1576, Oct. 22. ‘An Enterlude intituled The tide tariethe noe -man.’ _Hugh Jackson_ (Arber, ii. 303). - -1576. The Tyde taryeth no Man. A Moste Pleasant and merry Commody, -right pythie and full of delight. Compiled by George Wapull. _Hugh -Jackson._ [Prologue.] - -_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1864, _Illustrations of Early English -Literature_, ii), E. Ruhl (1907, _Jahrbuch_, xliii. 1), J. S. Farmer -(1910, _T. F. T._). - -A non-controversial moral, with allegorical and typical characters, -including ‘Courage, the vice’, arranged for four actors. - - -WILLIAM WARNER (_c._ 1558–1609). - -Warner was educated at Magdalen Hall, Oxford, and became an attorney. -His chief work, _Albion’s England_ (1586), was dedicated to Henry Lord -Hunsdon, and his _Syrinx_ (1585) to Sir George Carey, afterwards Lord -Hunsdon. - - _Menaechmi > c. 1592_ - -_S. R._ 1594, June 10. ‘A booke entituled Menachmi beinge A pleasant -and fine Conceyted Comedye taken out of the moste excellent wittie -Poett Plautus chosen purposely from out the reste as leaste harmefull -and yet moste delightfull.’ _Thomas Creede_ (Arber, ii. 653). - -1595. Menaecmi, A pleasant and fine Conceited Comædie, taken out of the -most excellent wittie Poet Plautus: Chosen purposely from out the rest, -as least harmefull, and yet most delightfull. Written in English, by W. -W. _Thomas Creede, sold by William Barley._ [Epistle by the Printer to -the Readers; Argument.] - -_Editions_ by J. Nichols (1779, _Six Old Plays_, i), W. C. Hazlitt -(1875, _Sh. L._ ii. 1), and W. H. D. Rouse (1912, _Sh. Classics_). - -This translation is generally supposed to have influenced the -_Comedy of Errors_. If so, Shakespeare must have had access to it in -manuscript, and it must have been available before _c._ 1592. The -epistle speaks of Warner as ‘having diverse of this Poetes Comedies -Englished, for the use and delight of his private friends, who in -Plautus owne words are not able to understand them’. No others are -known. - - -THOMAS WATSON (_c._ 1557–92). - -An Oxford man, who took no degree, and a lawyer, who did not practise, -Watson became an elegant writer of English and Latin verse. He won the -patronage of Walsingham at Paris in 1581, and became a member of the -literary circle of Lyly and Peele. His most important volume of verse -is the _Hekatompathia_ (1582) dedicated to the Earl of Oxford. At -the time of his death in Sept. 1592 he was in the service of William -Cornwallis, who afterwards wrote to Heneage that he ‘could devise -twenty fictions and knaveryes in a play which was his daily practyse -and his living’ (_Athenaeum_, 23 Aug. 1890). This suggests that the -poet, and not the episcopal author of _Absalon_ (_Mediaeval Stage_, -ii. 458), is the Watson included by Meres in 1598 amongst our ‘best -for Tragedie’. But his plays, other than translations, must, if they -exist, be sought amongst the anonymous work of 1581–92, where it would -be an interesting task to reconstruct his individuality. In _Ulysses -upon Ajax_ (1596) Harington’s anonymous critic says of his etymologies -of Ajax, ‘Faith, they are trivial, the froth of witty Tom Watson’s -jests, I heard them in Paris fourteen years ago: besides what balductum -[trashy] play is not full of them’. In the meantime Oliphant (_M. P._ -viii. 437) has suggested that he may be the author of _Thorny Abbey, -or, The London Maid_, printed by one R. D. with Haughton’s _Grim, the -Collier of Croydon_ in _Gratiae Theatrales_ (1662) and there assigned -to T. W. Oliphant regards _Thorny Abbey_ as clearly a late revision of -an Elizabethan play. - - TRANSLATION - - _Antigone > 1581_ - -_S. R._ 1581, July 31 (Bp. of London). ‘Aphoclis Antigone, Thoma -Watsono interprete.’ _John Wolfe_ (Arber, ii. 398). - -1581. Sophoclis Antigone. Interprete Thoma Watsono I. V. studioso. -Huic adduntur pompae quaedam, ex singulis Tragoediae actis deriuatae; -& post eas, totidem themata sententiis refertissima; eodem Thoma -Watsono Authore. _John Wolf._ [Latin translation. Verses to Philip -Earl of Arundel, signed ‘Thomas Watsonus’. Commendatory Verses by -Stephanus Broelmannus, Ἰωαννης Κωκος, Philip Harrison, Francis Yomans, -Christopher Atkinson, C. Downhale, G. Camden.] - - -JOHN WEBSTER (?-> 1634). - -There is little clue to the personal history of John Webster beyond the -description of him on the title-page of his mayoral pageant _Monuments -of Honour_ (1624) as ‘Merchant Taylor’, and his claim in the epistle to -have been born free of the company. The records of the Merchant Taylors -show that freemen of this name were admitted in 1571, 1576, and 1617, -and that one of them was assessed towards the coronation expenses in -1604. A John Webster, Merchant Taylor, also received an acknowledgement -of a 15_s._ debt from John and Edward Alleyn on 25 July 1591 (Collier, -_Alleyn Papers_, 14). A John Webster married Isabel Sutton at St. -Leonard’s Shoreditch on 25 July 1590, and had a daughter Alice baptized -there on 9 May 1606. It has been taken for granted that none of the -sixteenth-century records can relate to the dramatist, although they -may to his father. This presumably rests on the assumption that he must -have been a young man when he began to write for Henslowe in 1602. -It should, however, be pointed out that a John Webster, as well as a -George Webster, appears amongst the Anglo-German actors of Browne’s -group in 1596 (cf. ch. xiv) and that the financial record in the -_Alleyn Papers_ probably belongs to a series of transactions concerning -the winding up of a theatrical company in which Browne and the Alleyns -had been interested (cf. ch. xiii, s.v. Admiral’s). It is conceivable -therefore that Webster was an older man than has been suspected and had -had a career as a player before he became a playwright. - -Gildon, _Lives of the Poets_ (1698), reports that Webster was parish -clerk of St Andrew’s, Holborn. This cannot be confirmed from parish -books, but may be true. - -As a dramatist, Webster generally appears in collaboration, chiefly -with Dekker, and at rather infrequent intervals from 1602 up to 1624 -or later. In 1602 he wrote commendatory verses for a translation by -Munday, and in 1612 for Heywood’s _Apology for Actors_. In 1613 he -published his elegy _A Monumental Column_ on the death of Prince Henry, -and recorded his friendship with Chapman. His marked tendency to borrow -phrases from other writers helps to date his work. He can hardly be -identified with the illiterate clothworker of the same name, who -acknowledged his will with a mark on 5 Aug. 1625. But he is referred to -in the past in Heywood’s _Hierarchie of the Angels_ (1635), Bk. iv, p. -206, ‘Fletcher and Webster ... neither was but Iacke’, and was probably -therefore dead. - - _Collections_ - -1830. A. Dyce. 4 vols. 1857, 1 vol. [Includes _Malcontent_, _Appius and -Virginia_, and _Thracian Wonder_.] - -1857. W. C. Hazlitt. 4 vols. (_Library of Old Authors_). [Includes -_Appius and Virginia_, _Thracian Wonder_, and _The Weakest Goeth to the -Wall_.] - -1888. J. A. Symonds, _W. and Tourneur_ (_Mermaid Series_). [_The White -Devil_ and _Duchess of Malfi_.] - -1912. A. H. Thorndike, _Webster and Tourneur_. (_N. E. D._) [_White -Devil_, _Duchess of Malfi_, _Appius and Virginia_.] - -_Dissertations_: E. Gosse, _J. W._ (1883, _Seventeenth-Century -Studies_); A. C. Swinburne, _J. W._ (1886, _Studies in Prose and -Poetry_, 1894); C. Vopel, _J. W._ (1888, _Bremen diss._); M. Meiners, -_Metrische Untersuchungen über den Dramatiker J. W._ (1893, _Halle -diss._); W. Archer, _Webster, Lamb, and Swinburne_ (1893, _New Review_, -viii. 96); W. von Wurzbach, _J. W._ (1898, _Jahrbuch_, xxxi. 9); -J. Morris, _J. W._ (_Fortnightly Review_, June 1902); E. E. Stoll, -_J. W._ (1905); L. J. Sturge, _W. and the Law; a Parallel_ (1906, -_Jahrbuch_, xlii, 148); C. Crawford, _J. W. and Sir Philip Sidney_ -(1906, _Collectanea_, i. 20), _Montaigne, W., and Marston: Donne and -W._ (1907, _Collectanea_, ii. 1); F. E. Pierce, _The Collaboration of -W. and Dekker_ (1909, _Yale Studies_, xxxvii); H. D. Sykes, _W. and -Sir Thomas Overbury_ (1613, _11 N. Q._ viii. 221, 244, 263, 282, 304); -A. F. Bourgeois, _W. and the N. E. D._ (1914, _11 N. Q._ ix. 302, 324, -343); R. Brooke, _J. W. and the Elizabethan Drama_ (1916). - - _Sir Thomas Wyatt. 1602_ - -_With_ Chettle, Dekker (q.v.), Heywood, and Smith, for Worcester’s. - - _The Malcontent. 1604_ - -Additions to the play of Marston (q.v.) for the King’s. - - _Westward Ho! 1604_ - -_With_ Dekker (q.v.) for Paul’s. - - _Northward Ho! 1605_ - -_With_ Dekker (q.v.) for Paul’s. - - _Appius and Virginia. c. 1608._ - -_S. R._ 1654, May 13. ‘A play called Appeus and Virginia Tragedy -written by John Webster.’ _Richard Marriott_ (Eyre, i. 448). - -1654. Appius and Virginia. A Tragedy. By Iohn Webster. [_No -imprint._] - -1659. _For Humphrey Moseley._ [A reissue.] - -1679. - -_Edition_ by C. W. Dilke (1814–15, _O. E. P._ v).--_Dissertations_: J. -Lauschke, _John Webster’s Tragödie A. und V. Eine Quellenstudie_ (1899, -_Leipzig diss._); H. D. Sykes, _An Attempt to determine the Date of -Webster’s A. and V._ (1913, _11 N. Q._ vii. 401, 422, 466; viii. 63); -R. Brooke, _The Authorship of the Later A. and V._ (1913, _M. L. R._ -viii. 433), more fully in _John Webster_ (1916); A. M. Clark, _A. and -V._ (1921, _M. L. R._ xvi. 1). - -The play is in Beeston’s list of Cockpit plays in 1639 (_Var._ iii. -159), Webster’s authorship has generally been accepted, but Stoll, -197, who put the play 1623–39, because of resemblances to _Julius -Caesar_ and _Coriolanus_ which he thought implied a knowledge of F_{1}, -traced a dependence upon the comic manner of Heywood. Similarly, Sykes -is puzzled by words which he thinks borrowed from Heywood and first -used by Heywood in works written after Webster’s death. He comes to -the conclusion that Heywood may have revised a late work by Webster. -There is much to be said for the view taken by Brooke and Clark, after -a thorough-going analysis of the problem, that the play is Heywood’s -own, possibly with a few touches from Webster’s hand, and may have been -written, at any date not long after the production of _Coriolanus_ -on the stage (_c._ 1608), for Queen Anne’s men, from whom it would -naturally pass into the Cockpit repertory. - - _The White Devil. 1609 < > 12_ - -1612. The White Divel; Or, The Tragedy of Paulo Giordano Ursini, Duke -of Brachiano, With The Life and Death of Vittoria Corombona the famous -Venetian Curtizan. Acted by the Queenes Maiesties Seruants. Written by -Iohn Webster. _N. O. for Thomas Archer._ (Epistle to the Reader; after -text, a note.) - -1631.... Acted, by the Queenes Maiesties seruants, at the Phœnix, in -Drury Lane. _I. N. for Hugh Perry._ - -1665; 1672. - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–3} (1744–1825) and by W. Scott (1810, _A. -B. D._ iii) and M. W. Sampson (1904, _B. L._).--_Dissertations_: B. -Nicholson, _Thomas Adams’ Sermon on The W. D._ (1881, _6 N. Q._ iii. -166); W. W. Greg, _W.’s W. D._ (1900, _M. L. Q._ iii. 112); M. Landau, -_Vittoria Accorambona in der Dichtung im Verhältniss zu ihrer wahren -Geschichte_ (1902, _Euphorion_, ix. 310); E. M. Cesaresco, _Vittoria -Accoramboni_ (1902, _Lombard Studies_, 131); P. Simpson, _An Allusion -in W._ (1907, _M. L. R._ ii. 162); L. MacCracken, _A Page of Forgotten -History_ (1911); H. D. Sykes, _The Date of W.’s Play, the W. D._ (1913, -_11 N. Q._ vii. 342). - -The epistle apologizes for the ill success of the play, on the ground -that ‘it was acted in so dull a time of winter, presented in so open -and blacke a theater, that it wanted ... a full and understanding -auditory’, and complains that the spectators at ‘that play-house’ -care more for new plays than for good plays. Fleay, ii. 271, dates -the production in the winter of 1607–8, taking the French ambassador -described in III. i. 73 as a performer ‘at last tilting’ to be M. -Goterant who tilted on 24 March 1607, since ‘no other Frenchman’s name -occurs in the tilt-lists. It is nothing to Fleay that Goterant was not -an ambassador, or that the lists of Jacobean tilters are fragmentary, -or that the scene of the play is not England but Italy. Simpson found -an inferior limit in a borrowing from Jonson’s _Mask of Queens_ on 2 -Feb. 1609. I do not find much conviction in the other indications of -a date in 1610 cited by Sampson, xl, or in the parallel with Jonson’s -epistle to _Catiline_ (1611), with which Stoll, 21, supports a date in -1612. The Irish notes which Stoll regards as taken from B. Rich, _A -New Description of Ireland_ (1610), in fact go back to Stanyhurst’s -account of 1577, and though there is a pretty clear borrowing from -Tourneur’s _Atheist’s Tragedy_, that may have been produced some time -before its publication in 1611. Nor was Dekker necessarily referring -to Webster, when he wrote to the Queen’s men in his epistle before _If -this be not a Good Play_ (1612): ‘I wish a _Faire_ and _Fortunate Day_ -to your _Next New-Play_ for the _Makers-sake_ and your _Owne_, because -such _Brave Triumphes_ of _Poesie_ and _Elaborate Industry_, which my -_Worthy Friends Muse_ hath there set forth, deserue a _Theater_ full of -very _Muses_ themselves to be _Spectators_. To that _Faire Day_ I wish -a _Full_, _Free_ and _Knowing Auditor_.’ - -Webster’s own epistle contains his appreciation ‘of other mens worthy -labours; especially of that full and haightned stile of Maister -_Chapman_, the labor’d and understanding workes of Maister _Johnson_, -the no lesse worthy composures of the both worthily excellent Maister -_Beamont_, & Maister _Fletcher_, and lastly (without wrong last to be -named) the right happy and copious industry of M. _Shakespeare_, M. -_Decker_, & M. _Heywood_’. In the final note he commends the actors, -and in particular ‘the well approved industry of my friend Maister -Perkins’. - - _The Duchess of Malfi. 1613–14_ - -1623. The Tragedy of the Dutchesse of Malfy. As it was Presented -priuately, at the Black-Friers; and publiquely at the Globe, By the -Kings Maiesties Seruants. The perfect and exact Coppy, with diuerse -things Printed, that the length of the Play would not beare in -the Presentment. Written by John Webster. _Nicholas Okes for Iohn -Waterson._ [Epistle to George Lord Berkeley, signed ‘John Webster’; -Commendatory Verses, signed ‘Thomas Middletonus Poëta et Chron: -Londinensis’, ‘Wil: Rowley’, ‘John Ford’; ‘The Actors Names. Bosola, -_J. Lowin_. Ferdinand, _1 R. Burbidge_, _2 J. Taylor_. Cardinall, _1 H. -Cundaile_, _2 R. Robinson_. Antonio, _1 W. Ostler_, _2 R. Benfeild_. -Delio, _J. Underwood_. Forobosco, _N. Towley_. Pescara, _J. Rice_. -Silvio, _T. Pollard_. Mad-men, _N. Towley_, _J. Underwood_, _etc._ -Cardinals M^{is}, _J. Tomson_. The Doctor, etc., _R. Pallant_. Duchess, -_R. Sharpe_.’] - -1640; 1678; N.D. - -_Editions_ by C. E. Vaughan (1896, _T. D._), M. W. Sampson (1904, -_B. L._), and W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertations_: -K. Kiesow, _Die verschiedenen Bearbeitungen der Novelle von der -Herzogin von Amalfi des Bandello in den Literaturen des xvi. und xvii. -Jahrhunderts_ (1895, _Anglia_, xvii. 199); J. T. Murray, _The D. of M. -List of the King’s Company_ (1910, _E. D. C._ ii. 146); W. J. Lawrence, -_The Date of the D. of M._ (_Athenaeum_ for 21 Nov. 1919); W. Archer, -_The D. of M._ (_Nineteenth Century_ for Jan. 1920). - -The actor-list records two distinct casts, one before Ostler’s -death on 16 Dec. 1614, the other after Burbadge’s death on 13 March -1619, and before that of Tooley in June 1623. Stoll, 29, quotes the -_Anglopotrida_ of Orazio Busino (cf. the abstract in _V. P._ xv. 134), -which appears to show that the play was on the stage at some date not -very long before Busino wrote on 7 Feb. 1618: - - Prendono giuoco gli Inglesi della nostra religione come di - cosa detestabile, et superstitiosa, ne mai rappresentano - qualsivoglia attione pubblica, sia pura Tragisatiricomica, - che non inserischino dentro uitij, et scelleragini di qualche - religioso catolico, facendone risate, et molti scherni, con lor - gusto, et ramarico de’ buoni, fu appunto veduto dai nostri, in - una Commedia introdur’un frate franciscano, astuto, et ripieno - di varie impietà, cosi d’avaritia come di libidine: et il tutto - poi ruiscì in una Tragedia, facendoli mozzar la vista in scena. - Un altra volta rappresentarono la grandezza d’un cardinale, - con li habiti formali, et proprij molti belli, et ricchi, con - la sua Corte, facendo in scena erger un Altare, dove finse di - far oratione, ordinando una processione: et poi lo ridussero in - pubblico con una Meretrice in seno. Dimostrò di dar il Velleno - ad una sua sorella, per interesse d’honore: et d’ andar in - oltre alla guerra, con depponer prima l’habito cardinalitio - sopra l’altare col mezzo de’ suoi Cappellani, con gravità, et - finalmente si fece cingere la spada, metter la serpa, con tanto - garbo, che niente più: et tutto ciò fanno in sprezzo, delle - grandezze ecclesiastice vilipese, et odiate a morte in questo - Regno. - Di Londra a’ 7 febaio 1618. - -The date of first production may reasonably be put in 1613–14. Crawford -has pointed out the resemblances between the play and _A Monumental -Column_ (1613) and definite borrowings from Donne’s _Anatomy of the -World_ (1612), Chapman’s _Petrarch’s Seven Penitentiall Psalms_ (1612), -and Chapman’s Middle Temple mask of 15 Feb. 1613. Lawrence thinks -that Campion’s mask of 14 Feb. 1613 is also drawn upon. But it is -not impossible that the extant text has undergone revision, in view -of borrowings from the 6th edition (1615) of Sir Thomas Overbury’s -_Characters_, to which Sykes calls attention, and of the apparent -allusion pointed out by Vaughan in I. i. 5 to the purging of the French -Court by Louis XIII after the assassination of Marshall d’Ancre on -14 April 1617. It need not be inferred that this is the ‘enterlude -concerninge the late Marquesse d’Ancre’, which the Privy Council -ordered the Master of Revels to stay on 22 June 1617 (_M. S. C._ i. -376). - - _Later Plays_ - -_The Devil’s Law Case_ (1623). - -_A Cure for a Cuckold_ (1661), with W. Rowley. - -On the authorship and dates of these, cf. Brooke, 250, 255, and H. D. -Sykes in _11 N. Q._ vii. 106; ix. 382, 404, 443, 463. - - _Lost Plays_ - -The following are recorded in Henslowe’s diary: - - For the Admiral’s: - - _Caesar’s Fall or The Two Shapes._ - - With Dekker, Drayton, Middleton, and Munday, May 1602. - - For Worcester’s: - - _Christmas Comes but Once a Year._ - - With Chettle, Dekker, and Heywood, Nov. 1602. - -In the epistle to _The Devil’s Law Case_, Webster says to Sir T. Finch, -‘Some of my other works, as The White Devil, The Duchess of Malfi, -Guise and others, you have formerly seen’, and a _Guise_ is ascribed -to him as a comedy in Archer’s play-list of 1656 and included without -ascription as a tragedy in Kirkman’s of 1661 and 1671 (Greg, _Masques_, -lxxii). Rogers and Ley’s list of 1656 had given it to Marston (q.v.). -Collier forged an entry in Henslowe’s diary meant to suggest that this -was the _Massacre at Paris_ (cf. s.v. Marlowe). - -In Sept. 1624 Herbert licensed ‘a new Tragedy called _A Late Murther of -the Sonn upon the Mother_: Written by Forde, and Webster’ (Herbert, 29). - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -The ascription to Webster on the t.p. of _The Thracian Wonder_ is not -generally accepted. His hand has been suggested in _Revenger’s Tragedy_ -and _The Weakest Goeth to the Wall_. - - -GEORGE WHETSTONE (1544?-87?). - -Whetstone was a Londoner by origin. After a riotous youth, he turned to -literature interspersed with adventure, possibly acting at Canterbury -_c._ 1571 (cf. ch. xv), serving in the Low Countries in 1572–4, the -Newfoundland voyage in 1578–9, and the Low Countries again in 1585–6. -His chief literary associates were Thomas Churchyard and George -Gascoigne. - -After writing his one play, _Promos and Cassandra_, he translated -its source, the 5th Novel of the 8th Decade of Giraldi Cinthio’s -_Hecatomithi_ (1565) in his _Heptameron of Civil Discourses_ (1582). -Both Italian and English are in Hazlitt, _Shakespeare’s Library_ (1875, -iii). Like some other dramatists, Whetstone turned upon the stage, and -attacked it in his _Touchstone for the Time_ (1584; cf. App. C, No. -xxxvi). - - _Promos and Cassandra. 1578_ - -_S. R._ 1578, July 31. ‘The famous historie of Promos and Casandra -Devided into twoe Comicall Discourses Compiled by George Whetstone -gent.’ _Richard Jones_ (Arber, ii. 334). - -1578. The Right Excellent and famous Historye, of Promos and Cassandra; -Deuided into two Commicall Discourses.... The worke of George -Whetstones Gent. _Richard Jones._ [Epistles to his ‘kinsman’ William -Fleetwood, dated 29 July 1578, and signed ‘George Whetstone’, and from -the Printer to the Reader, signed ‘R.I.’; Argument; Text signed ‘G. -Whetstone’; Colophon with imprint and date ‘August 20, 1578’.] - -_Editions_ in _Six Old Plays_, i. 1 (1779), and by W. C. Hazlitt, -_Shakespeare’s Library_, vi. 201 (1875), and J. S. Farmer (1910, _T. -F. T._). There are two parts, arranged in acts and scenes. Whetstone’s -epistle is of some critical interest (cf. App. C, No. xix). In the -_Heptameron_ he says the play was ‘yet never presented upon stage’. -The character of the s.ds. suggests, however, that it was written for -presentation. - - -NATHANIEL WIBURNE (_c._ 1597). - -Possible author of the academic _Machiavellus_ (cf. App. K). - - -GEORGE WILKINS (_fl._ 1604–8). - -Lee (_D. N. B._) after personally consulting the register of St. -Leonard’s Shoreditch, confirms the extract in Collier, iii. 348, of -the burial on 19 Aug. 1603 of ‘George Wilkins, the poet’. It must -therefore be assumed that the date of 9 Aug. 1613 given for the entry -by T. E. Tomlins in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, i. 34, from Ellis’s _History -of Shoreditch_ (1798) is an error, and that the ‘poet’ was distinct -from the dramatist. Nothing is known of Wilkins except that he wrote -pamphlets from _c._ 1604 to 1608, and towards the end of that period -was also engaged in play-writing both for the King’s and the Queen’s -men. A George Wilkins of St. Sepulchre’s, described as a victualler and -aged 36, was a fellow witness with Shakespeare in _Belott v. Mountjoy_ -on 19 June 1612 (C. W. Wallace, _N. U. S._ x. 289). - - _The Miseries of Enforced Marriage. 1607_ - -_S. R._ 1607, July 31 (Buck). ‘A tragedie called the Miserye of -inforced Marriage.’ _George Vyncent_ (Arber, iii. 357). - -1607. The Miseries of Inforst Manage. As it is now playd by his -Maiesties Seruants. By George Wilkins. _For George Vincent._ - -1611; 1629; 1637. - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{2–4} (1780–1874) and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. -D._ ii) and J. S. Farmer (1913, _S. F. T._). - -The play, which was based on the life of Walter Calverley, as given in -pamphlets of 1605, appears to have been still on the stage when it was -printed. An allusion in III. ii to fighting with a windmill implies -some knowledge of Don Quixote, but of this there are other traces by -1607. The Clown is called Robin in II. ii, and Fleay, ii. 276, suggests -that Armin took the part. He comes in singing: - - From London am I come, - Though not with pipe and drum, - -in reference to Kempe’s morris. - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -Wilkins probably wrote Acts I, II of _Pericles_, and it has been -suggested that he also wrote certain scenes of _Timon of Athens_; but -the relation of his work to Shakespeare’s cannot be gone into here. - -The anonymous _Yorkshire Tragedy_ has also been ascribed to him. - - -ROBERT WILMOT (> 1566–91 <). - -A student of the Inner Temple, and afterwards Rector of North Ockendon, -Essex, from 28 Nov. 1582 and of Horndon-on-the-Hill, Essex, from 2 Dec. -1585. William Webbe, _A Discourse of English Poetry_ (ed. Arber, 35), -commends his writing. - - _Tancred and Gismund. 1566_ (?) - -Written with Rod. Staff[ord], Hen[ry] No[el], G. Al. and Chr[istopher] -Hat[ton]. - -[_MSS._] (_a_) _Lansdowne MS._ 786, f. 1, ‘Gismond of Salern in Loue’. - -(_b_) _Brit. Mus. Hargrave MS._ 205, f. 9, ‘The Tragedie of Gismond of -Salerne’. - -[Both MSS. have three sonnets ‘of the Quenes maydes’, and Prologue and -Epilogue.] - -(_c_) A fragment, now unknown, formerly belonging to Milton’s -father-in-law, Richard Powell. - -1591. The Tragedie of Tancred and Gismund. Compiled by the Gentlemen -of the Inner Temple, and by them presented before her Maiestie. Newly -reuiued and polished according to the decorum of these daies. By R. W. -_Thomas Scarlet, sold by R. Robinson._ [Epistles to Lady Mary Peter -and Lady Anne Gray, signed ‘Robert Wilmot’; to R. W. signed ‘Guil. -Webbe’ and dated ‘Pyrgo in Essex August the eighth 1591’; to the Inner -and Middle Temple and other Readers, signed ‘R. Wilmot’; two Sonnets -(2 and 3 of MSS.); Arguments; Prologue; Epilogue signed ‘R. W.’; -Introductiones (dumb-shows). Some copies are dated 1592.] - -_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–4} (1744–1874) and by J. S. Farmer (1912, -_S. F. T._) from 1591, and by A. Brandl (1898, _Q. W. D._) and J. W. -Cunliffe (1912, _E. E. C. T._) and J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._) from -MS.--_Dissertations_: J. W. Cunliffe, _Gismond of Salerne_ (1906, _M. -L. A._ xxi. 435); A. Klein, _The Decorum of These Days_ (1918, _M. L. -A._ xxxiii. 244). - -The MSS. represent the play as originally produced, probably, from an -allusion in one of the sonnets, at Greenwich. The print represents a -later revision by Wilmot, involving much re-writing and the insertion -of new scenes and the dumb-shows. Webbe’s epistle is an encouragement -to Wilmot to publish his ‘waste papers’, and refers to _Tancred_ as -‘framed’ by the Inner Temple, and to Wilmot as ‘disrobing him of -his antique curiosity and adorning him with the approved guise of -our stateliest English terms’. Wilmot’s own Epistle to the Readers -apologizes for the indecorum of publishing a play, excuses it by the -example of Beza’s _Abraham_ and Buchanan’s _Jephthes_, and refers to -‘the love that hath been these twenty-four years betwixt’ himself and -Gismund. This seems to date the original production in 1567. But I -find no evidence that Elizabeth was at Greenwich in 1567. Shrovetide -1566 seems the nearest date at which a play is likely to have been -given there. Wilmot was clearly not the sole author of the original -play; to Act I he affixes ‘_Exegit Rod. Staff._’; to Act II, ‘_Per Hen. -No._’; to Act III, ‘_G. Al._’; to Act IV, ‘_Composuit Chr. Hat._’; to -the Epilogue, ‘_R. W._’ Probably Act V, which has no indication of -authorship, was also his own. - -W. H. Cooke, _Students Admitted to the Inner Temple, 1547–1660_ (1878), -gives the admission of Christopher Hatton in 1559–60, but Wilmot is not -traceable in the list; nor are Hen. No., G. Al., or Rod. Staff. But -the first may be Elizabeth’s Gentleman Pensioner, Henry Noel (q.v.), -and Cunliffe, lxxxvi, notes that a ‘Master Stafford’ was fined £5 for -refusing to act as Marshal at the Inner Temple in 1556–7. - - _Doubtful Play_ - -Hazlitt assigns to Wilmot _The Three Ladies of London_, but the R. W. -of the title-page is almost certainly Robert Wilson (q.v.). - - -ROBERT WILSON (> 1572–1600). - -For Wilson’s career as an actor and a discussion as to whether there -was more than one dramatist of the name, cf. ch. xv. - - _The Three Ladies of London. c. 1581_ - -1584. A right excellent and famous Comœdy called the three Ladies of -London. Wherein is notably declared and set foorth, how by the meanes -of Lucar, Love and Conscience is so corrupted, that the one is married -to Dissimulation, the other fraught with all abhomination. A perfect -patterne for all Estates to looke into, and a worke right worthie to -be marked. Written by R. W. as it hath been publiquely played. _Roger -Warde._ [Prologue. At end of play ‘Paule Bucke’ (an actor; cf. ch. xv).] - -1592. _John Danter._ - -_Editions_ by J. P. Collier, _Five Old Plays_ (1851, _Roxb. Club_), in -Dodsley^4 (1874), vi, and by J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._). - -The stylistic resemblance of this to the next two plays justifies -the attribution to Wilson, although Hazlitt suggests Wilmot. Gosson -describes the play in 1582 (_P. C._ 185) together with a play in answer -called _London Against the Three Ladies_, but does not indicate whether -either play was then in print. In B ii Peter’s pence are dated as ‘not -muche more than 26 yeares, it was in Queen Maries time’. As the Act -reviving Peter’s pence was passed in the winter of 1554–5, the play was -probably written in 1581. - - _The Three Lords and Three Ladies of London. c. 1589_ - -_S. R._ 1590, July 31 (Wood). ‘A comodie of the plesant and statelie -morrall of the Three lordes of London.’ _Richard Jones_ (Arber, ii. -556). - -1590. The Pleasant and Stately Morall, of the three Lordes and three -Ladies of London. With the great Joy and Pompe, Solempnized at their -Mariages: Commically interlaced with much honest Mirth, for pleasure -and recreation, among many Morall obseruations and other important -matters of due regard. By R. W. _R. Jones._ [Woodcut, on which cf. -_Bibl. Note_ to ch. xviii; ‘Preface’, i.e. prologue.] - -_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1851, _Five Old Plays_), in Dodsley^4, vi. -371 (1874), and by J. S. Farmer (1912, _T. F. T._).--_Dissertation_: H. -Fernow, _The 3 L. and 3 L. By R. W._ (1885, _Hamburg programme_). - -Fleay, ii. 280, fixes the date by the allusions (C, C^v) to the recent -death of Tarlton (q.v.) in Sept. 1588. - - _The Cobbler’s Prophecy > 1594_ - -_S. R._ 1594, June 8. ‘A booke intituled the Coblers prophesie.’ -_Cuthbert Burby_ (Arber, ii. 653). - -1594. The Coblers Prophesie. Written by Robert Wilson, Gent. _John -Danter for Cuthbert Burby._ - -_Editions_ by W. Dibelius (1897, _Jahrbuch_, xxxiii. 3), J. S. Farmer -(1911, _T. F. T._), and A. C. Wood (1914, _M. S. R._). - -The general character of this play, with its reference (i. 36) to an -audience who ‘sit and see’ and its comfits cast, suggests the Court -rather than the popular stage. - - _Doubtful Plays_ - -Wilson’s hand has been sought in _Clyomon and Clamydes_, _Fair Em_, -_Knack to Know a Knave_, _Pedlar’s Prophecy_ (cf. ch. xxiv). - - _Lost Plays_ - -_Short and Sweet_ (_c._ 1579). _Vide Catiline’s Conspiracy_ (_infra_). - -The following is a complete list of plays for the Admiral’s men in -which a share is assigned to Wilson by Henslowe: - -(i, ii) _1, 2, Earl Godwin and his Three Sons._ - -With Chettle, Dekker, and Drayton, March-June 1598. - -(iii) _Pierce of Exton._ - -With Chettle, Dekker, and Drayton, April, 1598; but apparently -unfinished. - -(iv) _1 Black Bateman of the North._ - -With Chettle, Dekker, and Drayton, May 1598. - -(v) _2 Black Bateman of the North._ - -With Chettle, June 1598. - -(vi) _Funeral of Richard Cœur-de-Lion._ - -With Chettle, Drayton, and Munday, June 1598. - -(vii) _The Madman’s Morris._ - -With Dekker and Drayton, July 1598. - -(viii) _Hannibal and Hermes._ - -With Dekker and Drayton, July 1598. - -(ix) _Pierce of Winchester._ - -With Dekker and Drayton, July–Aug. 1598. - -(x) _Chance Medley._ - -With Chettle or Dekker, Drayton, and Munday, Aug. 1598. - -(xi) _Catiline’s Conspiracy._ - -With Chettle, Aug. 1598; but apparently not finished; unless the fact -that the authors only received one ‘earnest’ of £1 5_s._ was due to the -play being no more than a revision of Wilson’s old _Short and Sweet_, -which Lodge (cf. App. C, No. xxiii) contrasts about 1579 with Gosson’s -play on Catiline. - -(xii, xiii) _1, 2 Sir John Oldcastle._ - -With Drayton (q.v.), Hathaway, and Munday, Oct.–Dec. 1599. - -(xiv) _2 Henry Richmond._ - -Nov. 1599, apparently with others, as shown by Robert Shaw’s order for -payment (Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 49), on which a scenario of one act -is endorsed. - -(xv) _Owen Tudor._ - -With Drayton, Hathaway, and Munday, Jan. 1600; but apparently not -finished. - -(xvi) _1 Fair Constance of Rome._ - -June 1600. The Diary gives the payments as made to Dekker, Drayton, -Hathaway, and Munday, but a letter of 14 June from Robert Shaw (Greg, -_Henslowe Papers_, 55) indicates that Wilson had a fifth share. - - -ANTHONY WINGFIELD (_c._ 1550–1615). - -Possible author of the academic _Pedantius_ (cf. App. K). - - -NATHANIEL WOODES (?). - -A minister of Norwich, only known as author of the following play. - - _The Conflict of Conscience. > 1581_ - -1581. An excellent new Commedie Intituled: The Conflict of Conscience. -Contayninge, A most lamentable example, of the dolefull desperation of -a miserable worldlinge, termed, by the name of Philologus, who forsooke -the trueth of God’s Gospel, for feare of the losse of lyfe, & worldly -goods. Compiled, by Nathaniell Woodes, Minister, in Norwich. _Richard -Bradocke._ [Prologue.] - -_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1851, _Five Old Plays_), in Dodsley^4, vi. -29 (1874), and by J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._). - -The characters are allegorical, typical and personal and arranged for -six actors ‘most convenient for such as be disposed either to shew this -Comedie in private houses or otherwise’. Philologus is Francis Spiera, -a pervert to Rome about the middle of the sixteenth century. The play -is strongly Protestant, and is probably much earlier than 1581. It is -divided into a prologue and acts and scenes. Act VI is practically an -epilogue. - - -HENRY WOTTON (1568–1639). - -Izaak Walton (_Reliquiae Wottonianae_, 1651) tells us that, while a -student at Queen’s College, Oxford, in 1586, Wotton ‘was by the chief -of that College, persuasively enjoined to write a play for their -private use;--it was the Tragedy of Tancredo--which was so interwoven -with sentences, and for the method and exact personating those -humours, passions, and dispositions, which he proposed to represent, -so performed, that the gravest of that society declared, he had, in a -slight employment, given an early and a solid testimony of his future -abilities’. - - -CHRISTOPHER WREN (1591–1658). - -Author of the academic _Physiponomachia_ (cf. App. K). - - -ROBERT YARINGTON (_c._ 1601?). - -Nothing is known of Yarington, but this is hardly sufficient reason for -denying him the ascription of the title-page. - - _Two Lamentable Tragedies. 1594 < > 1601_ - -1601. Two Lamentable Tragedies. The one, of the murder of Maister -Beech a Chaundler in Thames-streete, and his boye, done by Thomas -Merry. The other of a young childe murthered in a Wood by two Ruffins, -with the consent of his Vnckle. By Rob. Yarington. _For Mathew Lawe._ -[Running title, ‘Two Tragedies in One.’ Induction.] - -_Editions_ by A. H. Bullen (1885, _O. E. P._ iv) and J. S. Farmer -(1913, _S. F. T._).--_Dissertation_: R. A. Law, _Y.’s T. L. T._ (1910, -_M. L. R._ v. 167). - -This deals in alternate scenes with (_a_) the murder of Beech by -Merry on 23 Aug. 1594, and (_b_) a version, with an Italian setting, -of the Babes in the Wood, on which a ballad, with a Norfolk setting, -was licensed in 1595. Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 208, following a hint of -Fleay, ii. 285, connects the play with Henslowe’s entries of payments, -on behalf of the Admiral’s, (i) of £5 in Nov. and Dec. 1599 to Day -and Haughton for _Thomas Merry_ or _Beech’s Tragedy_, (ii) of 10_s._ -in Nov. 1599 and 10_s._ in Sept. 1601 to Chettle for _The Orphan’s -Tragedy_, and (iii) of £2 to Day in Jan. 1600 for an Italian tragedy. -He supposes that (ii) and (iii) were the same play, that it was -finished, and that in 1601 Chettle combined it with (i), possibly -dropping out Day’s contributions to both pieces. Yarington he dismisses -as a scribe. In the alternate scenes of the extant version he discerns -distinct hands, presumably those of Haughton and Chettle respectively. -Law does not think that there are necessarily two hands at all, finds -imitation of _Leire_ (1594) in scenes belonging to both plots, and -reinstates Yarington. Oliphant (_M. P._ viii. 435) boldly conjectures -that ‘Rob. Yarington’ might be a misreading of ‘W^m Haughton’. Bullen -thought that this play, _Arden of Feversham_, and _A Warning for Fair -Women_ might all be by the same hand. - - -CHRISTOPHER YELVERTON (_c._ 1535–1612). - -Yelverton entered Gray’s Inn in 1552. He is mentioned as a poet in -Jasper Heywood’s verses before Thomas Newton’s translation (1560) of -Seneca’s _Thyestes_, and wrote an epilogue to the Gray’s Inn _Jocasta_ -of Gascoigne (q.v.) and Kinwelmershe in 1566. He also helped to devise -the dumb-shows for the Gray’s Inn _Misfortunes of Arthur_ of Thomas -Hughes (q.v.) on 28 Feb. 1588. He became a Justice of the Queen’s Bench -on 2 Feb. 1602 and was knighted on 23 July 1603. - - - PRINTED IN ENGLAND - AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] Cf. ch. xxii. - -[2] _Quarterly Review_ (April 1908), 446. - -[3] A copy at Berlin of the Strassburg _Terence_ of 1496 has the -manuscript note to the engraving of the _Theatrum_, ‘ein offen stat -der weltlichkeit da man zu sicht, ubi fiunt chorei, ludi et de alijs -leutitatibus, sicut nos facimus oster spill’ (Herrmann, 300). Leo -Battista Alberti’s _De Re Edificatoria_ was written about 1451 and -printed in 1485. Vitruvius, _De Architectura_, v. 3–9, deals with -the theatre. The essential passage on the scene is v. 6, 8–9 ‘Ipsae -autem scenae suas habent rationes explicitas ita, uti mediae valvae -ornatus habeant aulae regiae, dextra ac sinistra hospitalia, secundum -autem spatia ad ornatus comparata, quae loca Graeci περιάκτους dicunt -ab eo, quod machinae sunt in his locis versatiles trigonoe habentes -singulares species ornationis, quae, cum aut fabularum mutationes sunt -futurae seu deorum adventus, cum tonitribus repentinis [ea] versentur -mutentque speciem ornationis in frontes. secundum ea loca versurae sunt -procurrentes, quae efficiunt una a foro, altera a peregre aditus in -scaenam. genera autem sunt scaenarum tria: unum quod dicitur tragicum, -alterum comicum, tertium satyricum. horum autem ornatus sunt inter -se dissimili disparique ratione, quod tragicae deformantur columnis -et fastigiis et signis reliquisque regalibus rebus; comicae autem -aedificiorum privatorum et maenianorum habent speciem prospectusque -fenestris dispositos imitatione, communium aedificiorum rationibus; -satyricae vero ornantur arboribus, speluncis, montibus reliquisque -agrestibus rebus in topeodis speciem deformati’; cf. G. Lanson, in -_Revue de la Renaissance_ (1904), 72. - -[4] ‘Tu enim primus Tragoediae ... in medio foro pulpitum ad quinque -pedum altitudinem erectum pulcherrime exornasti: eamdemque, postquam in -Hadriani mole ... est acta, rursus intra tuos penates, tamquam in media -Circi cavea, toto consessu umbraculis tecto, admisso populo et pluribus -tui ordinis spectatoribus honorifice excepisti. Tu etiam primus -picturatae scenae faciem, quum Pomponiani comoediam agerent, nostro -saeculo ostendisti’; cf. Marcantonius Sabellicus, _Vita Pomponii_ -(_Op._ 1502, f. 55), ‘Pari studio veterum spectandi consuetudinem -desuetae civitati restituit, primorum Antistitum atriis suo theatro -usus, in quibus Plauti, Terentii, recentiorum etiam quaedam agerentur -fabulae, quas ipse honestos adolescentes et docuit, et agentibus -praefuit’; cf. also D’Ancona, ii. 65; Creizenach, ii. 1. - -[5] D’Ancona, ii. 74. - -[6] D’Ancona, ii. 84; Herrmann, 353; Flechsig, 51. The scenic wall is -described in the contemporary narrative of P. Palliolo, _Le Feste pel -Conferimento del Patriziato Romano a Giuliano e Lorenzo de’ Medici_ -(ed. O. Guerrini, 1885), 45, 63, ‘Guardando avanti, se appresenta la -fronte della scena, in v compassi distinta per mezzo di colonne quadre, -con basi e capitelli coperti de oro. In ciascuno compasso è uno uscio -di grandezza conveniente a private case.... La parte inferiore di -questa fronte di quattro frigi è ornata.... A gli usci delle scene -furono poste portiere di panno de oro. El proscenio fu coperto tutto -di tapeti con uno ornatissimo altare in mezzo.’ The side-doors were in -‘le teste del proscenio’ (Palliolo, 98). I have not seen M. A. Altieri, -_Giuliano de’ Medici, eletto cittadino Romano_ (ed. L. Pasqualucci, -1881), or N. Napolitano, _Triumphi de gli mirandi Spettaculi_ (1519). -Altieri names an untraceable Piero Possello as the architect; Guerrini -suggests Pietro Rossello. - -[7] D’Ancona, ii. 128, from _Diario Ferrarese_, ‘in lo suo cortile ... -fu fato suso uno tribunale di legname, con case v merlade, con una -finestra e uscio per ciascuna: poi venne una fusta di verso le caneve e -cusine, e traversò il cortile con dieci persone dentro con remi e vela, -del naturale’; Bapt. Guarinus, _Carm._ iv: - - Et remis puppim et velo sine fluctibus actam - Vidimus in portus nare, Epidamne, tuos, - Vidimus effictam celsis cum moenibus urbem, - Structaque per latas tecta superba vias. - Ardua creverunt gradibus spectacula multis, - Velaruntque omnes stragula picta foros. - -[8] D’Ancona, ii. 129. - -[9] Ibid. 130. - -[10] Ibid. 132, 135. The two Marsigli, with Il Bianchino and Nicoletto -Segna, appear to have painted scenes and ships for the earlier -Ferrarese productions. - -[11] Ibid. 134. - -[12] Ibid. 381, from G. Campori, _Lettere artistiche inedite_, 5, ‘Era -la sua forma quadrangula, protensa alquanto in longitudine: li doi lati -l’uno al altro de rimpecto, havevano per ciaschuno octo architravi con -colonne ben conrespondenti et proportionate alla larghezza et alteza -de dicti archi: le base et capitelli pomposissimamente con finissimi -colori penti, et de fogliami ornati, representavano alla mente un -edificio eterne ed antiquo, pieno de delectatione: li archi con relevo -di fiori rendevano prospectiva mirabile: la largheza di ciascheuno era -braza quactro vel cerca: la alteza proporzionata ad quella. Dentro nel -prospecto eran panni d’oro et alcune verdure, si come le recitationi -recerchavano: una delle bande era ornata delli sei quadri del Cesareo -triumpho per man del singulare Mantengha: li doi altri lati discontro -erano con simili archi, ma de numero inferiore, che chiascheuno ne -haveva sei. Doj bande era scena data ad actorj et recitatorj: le doe -altre erano ad scalini, deputati per le donne et daltro, per todeschi, -trombecti et musici. Al jongere del’ angulo de un de’ grandi et minorj -lati, se vedevano quactro altissime colonne colle basi orbiculate, le -quali sustentavano quactro venti principali: fra loro era una grocta, -benchè facta ad arte, tamen naturalissima: sopra quella era un ciel -grande fulgentissimo de varij lumi, in modo de lucidissime stelle, con -una artificiata rota de segni, al moto de’ quali girava mo il sole, -mo la luna nelle case proprie: dentro era la rota de Fortuna con sei -tempi: _regno_, _regnavj_, _regnabo_: in mezo resideva la dea aurea -con un sceptro con un delphin. Dintorno alla scena al frontespitio da -basso era li triumphi del Petrarcha, ancor loro penti per man del p^o. -Mantengha: sopra eran candelierj vistosissimi deaurati tucti: nel mezo -era un scudo colle arme per tucto della C^a. M^g.; sopra la aquila -aurea bicapitata col regno et diadema imperiale: ciascheuno teneva tre -doppieri; ad ogni lato era le insegne. Alli doi maiorj, quelle della -S^{ta}. de N. S. et quelle della Cesarea Maestà: alli minorj lati -quelle del C^o. Sig. Re, et quelle della Ill^{ma}. Sig^a. da Venetia; -tra li archi pendevano poi quelle de V. Ex., quelle del Sig. duca -Alberto Alemano: imprese de Sig. Marchese et Sig^a. Marchesana: sopre -erano più alte statue argentate, aurate et de più colorj metallici, -parte tronche, parte integre, che assai ornavano quel loco: poi ultimo -era il cielo de panno torchino, stellato con quelli segni che quella -sera correvano nel nostro hemisperio.’ Flechsig, 26, thinks that the -architect was Ercole Albergati (Il Zafarano). - -[13] D’Ancona, i. 485; _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 79, 83, 135. - -[14] Ferrari, 50; D’Ancona, ii. 1, give examples of these at Ferrara -and elsewhere. The _Favola d’Orfeo_, originally produced about 1471, -seems to have been recast as _Orphei tragedia_ for Ferrara in 1486. -It had five acts, _Pastorale_, _Ninfale_, _Eroico_, _Negromantico_, -_Baccanale_; in the fourth, the way to hell and hell itself were -shown--‘duplici actu haec scena utitur’. - -[15] J. W. Cunliffe, _Early English Classical Tragedies_, xl; F. A. -Foster, in _E. S._ xliv. 8. - -[16] Herrmann, 280, 284; cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 208. - -[17] Translation by Hans Nithart, printed by C. Dinckmut (Ulm, 1486); -cf. Herrmann, 292, who reproduces specimen cuts from this and the other -sources described. - -[18] Edition printed by Johannes Trechsel (Lyons, 1493); cf. Herrmann, -300. The editor claims for the woodcuts that ‘effecimus, ut etiam -illitteratus ex imaginibus, quas cuilibet scenae praeposuimus, legere -atque accipere comica argumenta valeat’. Badius also edited a Paris -_Terence_ of 1502, with _Praenotamenta_ based on Vitruvius and other -classical writers, in which he suggests the use in antiquity of ‘tapeta -... qualia nunc fiunt in Flandria’. - -[19] Edition printed by Johannes Grüninger (Strassburg, 1496); cf. -Herrmann, 318. - -[20] Editions printed by Lazarus Soardus (Venice, 1497 and 1499); cf. -Herrmann, 346. The _Theatrum_ and other cuts are also reproduced in -_The Mask_ for July 1909. - -[21] Flechsig, 84, citing as possibly a stage design an example of -idealized architecture inscribed ‘Bramanti Architecti Opus’ and -reproduced by E. Müntz, _Hist. de l’Art pendant la Renaissance_, ii. -299. Bramante was at Rome about 1505, and was helped on St. Peter’s -by Baldassarre Peruzzi. But there is nothing obviously scenic in the -drawing. - -[22] D’Ancona, ii. 394, ‘Ma quello che è stato il meglio in tutte -queste feste e representationi, è stato tute le sene, dove si sono -representate, quale ha facto uno M^o. Peregrino depintore, che sta -con il Sig^{re}.; ch’ è una contracta et prospettiva di una terra cum -case, chiesie, campanili et zardini, che la persona non si può satiare -a guardarla per le diverse cose che ge sono, tute de inzegno et bene -intese, quale non credo se guasti, ma che la salvaràno per usarla de le -altre fiate’. - -[23] Ibid., ‘il caso accadete a Ferrara’. - -[24] Ibid. 102, ‘La scena poi era finta una città bellissima con le -strade, palazzi, chiese, torri, strade vere, e ogni cosa di rilevo, -ma ajutata ancora da bonissima pintura e prospettiva bene intesa’; -the description has further details. Genga is not named, but Serlio -(cf. App. G) speaks of his theatrical work for Duke Francesco Maria of -Urbino (succ. 1508). Vasari, vi. 316, says that he had also done stage -designs for Francesco’s predecessor Guidobaldo. - -[25] Vasari, iv. 600. Some of Peruzzi’s designs for _Calandra_ are in -the Uffizi; Ferrari (tav. vi) reproduces one. - -[26] D’Ancona, ii. 89, ‘Sonandosi li pifari si lasciò cascare la tela; -dove era pinto Fra Mariano con alcuni Diavoli che giocavano con esso -da ogni lato della tela; et poi a mezzo della tela vi era un breve che -dicea: _Questi sono li capricci di Fra Mariano_; et sonandosi tuttavia, -et il Papa mirando con il suo occhiale la scena, che era molto bella, -di mano di Raffaele, et rappresentava si bene per mia fè forami di -prospective, et molto furono laudate, et mirando ancora il cielo, che -molto si rappresentava bello, et poi li candelieri, che erano formati -in lettere, che ogni lettera substenìa cinque torcie, et diceano: _Leo -Pon. Maximus_’. - -[27] Ariosto, _Orlando Furioso_, xxxii. 80: - - Quale al cader de le cortine suole - Parer, fra mille lampade, la scena, - D’archi, et di più d’una superba mole - D’oro, e di statue e di pitture piena. - -This passage was added in the edition of 1532, but a more brief -allusion in that of 1516 (xliii. 10, ‘Vo’ levarti dalla scena i panni’) -points to the use of a curtain, rising rather than falling, before -1519; cf. p. 31; vol. i, p. 181; Creizenach, ii. 299; Lawrence (i. -111), _The Story of a Peculiar Stage Curtain_. - -[28] Ferrari (tav. xii) reproduces from _Uffizi_, 5282, an idealization -by Serlio of the _piazzetta_ of S. Marco at Venice as a _scenario_. - -[29] Cf. App. G. Book ii first appeared in French (1545). - -[30] De Sommi, _Dial._ iv (_c._ 1565, D’Ancona, ii. 419), ‘Ben che paia -di certa vaghezza il vedersi in scena una camera aperta, ben parata, -dentro a la quale, dirò così per esempio, uno amante si consulti con -una ruffiana, et che paia aver del verisimile, è però tanto fuor del -naturale esser la stanza senza il muro dinanzi, il che necessariamente -far bisogna, che a me ne pare non molto convenirsi: oltre che non so -se il recitare in quel loco, si potrà dire che sia in scena. Ben si -potrà per fuggir questi due inconvenienti, aprire come una loggia od un -verone dove rimanesse alcuno a ragionare’. - -[31] Creizenach, ii. 271. - -[32] Ferrari, 105, with engravings; A. Magrini, _Il teatro Olympico_ -(1847). This is noticed by the English travellers, Fynes Morison, -_Itinerary_, i. 2. 4 (ed. 1907, i. 376), ‘a Theater for Playes, which -was little, but very faire and pleasant’, and T. Coryat, _Crudities_, -ii. 7, ‘The scene also is a very faire and beautifull place to behold’. -He says the house would hold 3,000. In _Histriomastix_, ii. 322, the -‘base trash’ of Sir Oliver Owlet’s players is compared unfavourably -with the splendour of Italian theatres. A permanent theatre had been -set up in the _Sala grande_ of the Corte Vecchia at Ferrara in 1529, -with scenery by Dosso Dossi representing Ferrara, for a revival of the -_Cassaria_ and the production of Ariosto’s _Lena_; it was burnt down, -just before Ariosto’s death, in 1532 (Flechsig, 23; Gardner, _King of -Court Poets_, 203, 239, 258). - -[33] Probably some temporary additions to the permanent decoration of -the _scena_ was possible, as Ferrari (tav. xv) gives a design for a -_scenario_ by Scamozzi. - -[34] Ferrari, 100. - -[35] Engravings, by Jean de Gourmont and another, of this type of stage -are reproduced by Bapst, 145, 153, and by Rigal in Petit de Julleville, -iii. 264, 296; cf. M. B. Evans, _An Early Type of Stage_ (_M. P._ ix. -421). - -[36] Cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 217. - -[37] Baschet, 6; D’Ancona, ii. 456; H. Prunières, _L’Opéra Italien en -France_ (1913), xx; A. Solerti, _La rappresentazione della Calandra -a Lione nel 1548_ (1901, _Raccolta di Studii Critici ded. ad A. d’ -Ancona_), from _La Magnifica et Triumphale Entrata del Christianissimo -Re di Francia Henrico Secundo_ (1549). - -[38] Cf. ch. xiv (Italians). - -[39] D’Ancona, ii. 457. - -[40] Brantôme, _Recueil des Dames_, i. 2 (_[OE]uvres_, ed. 1890, x. -47), ‘Elle eut opinion qu’elle avoit porté malheur aux affaires du -royaume, ainsi qu’il succéda; elle n’en fit plus jouer’. Ingegneri says -of tragedies, ‘Alcuni oltra dicio le stimano di triste augurio’. - -[41] E. Rigal in _Rev. d’Hist. Litt._ xii. 1, 203; cf. the opposite -view of J. Haraszti in xi. 680 and xvi. 285. - -[42] Sainte-Marthe, _Elogia_ (1606), 175. - -[43] G. Lanson in _Rev. d’Hist. Litt._ x. 432. In _Northward Hoe_, -iv. 1, Bellamont is writing a tragedy of Astyanax, which he will have -produced ‘in the French court by French gallants’, with ‘the stage hung -all with black velvet’. - -[44] Lanson, _loc. cit._ 422. A description of a tragi-comedy called -_Genièvre_, based on Ariosto, at Fontainebleau in 1564 neglects the -staging, but gives a picture of the audience as - - une jeune presse - De tous costez sur les tapis tendus, - Honnestement aux girons espandus - De leur maîtresse. - -B. Rossi’s _Fiammella_ was given at Paris in 1584 with a setting of -‘boschi’. - -[45] Lanson, _loc. cit._ 424. - -[46] The plan is in J. A. Du Cerceau, _Les Plus Excellens Bastimens de -France_ (1576–9), and is reproduced in W. H. Ward, _French Châteaux -and Gardens in the Sixteenth Century_, 14; cf. R. Blomfield, _Hist. of -French Architecture_, i. 81, who, however, thinks that Du Cerceau’s -‘bastiment en manière de théâtre’ was not the long room, but the open -courtyard, in the form of a square with concave angles and semicircular -projections on each side, which occupies the middle of the block. - -[47] Prunières, _Ballet de Cour_, 72, 134. - -[48] Bapst, 147, reproduces an example. This is apparently the type -of French stage described by J. C. Scaliger, _Poetice_ (1561), i. -21, ‘Nunc in Gallia ita agunt fabulas, ut omnia in conspectu sint; -universus apparatus dispositis sublimibus sedibus. Personae ipsae -nunquam discedunt: qui silent pro absentibus habentur’. - -[49] Rigal, 36, 46, 53. - -[50] The full text is printed by E. Dacier from _B. N. f. fr._ 24330 in -_Mémoires de la Soc. de l’Hist. de Paris_ (1901), xxviii. 105, and is -analysed by Rigal, 247. The designs have recently (1920) been published -in H. C. Lancaster’s edition; reproductions, from the originals or -from models made for the Exposition of 1878, will be found of Durval’s -_Agarite_ in Rigal, f.p., Lawrence, i. 241, Thorndike, 154; of Hardy’s -_Cornélie_ in Rigal, _Alexandre Hardy_ (1890), f.p., Bapst, 185; of -_Pandoste_ in Jusserand, _Shakespeare in France_, 71, 75; of Mairet’s -_Sylvanire_ in E. Faguet, _Hist. de la Litt. Fr._ ii. 31; and of -_Pyrame et Thisbé_, Corneille’s _L’Illusion Comique_, and Du Ryer’s -_Lisandre et Caliste_ in Petit de Julleville, _Hist._ iv. 220, 270, 354. - -[51] ‘Il faut un antre ... d’où sort un hermite’ (Dacier, 116), ‘une -fenestre qui soit vis à vis d’une autre fenestre grillée pour la -prison, où Lisandre puisse parler à Caliste’ (116), ‘un beau palais -eslevé de trois ou quatre marches’ (117), ‘un palais ou sénat fort -riche’ (117), ‘une case où il y ayt pour enseigne L’Ormeau’ (117), ‘une -mer’ (117), ‘une tente’ (121), ‘un hermitage où l’on monte et descend’ -(123), ‘une fenestre où se donne une lettre’ (124), ‘une tour, une -corde nouée pour descendre de la tour, un pont-levis qui se lâche quand -il est nécessaire’ (125), ‘une sortie d’un roy en forme de palais’ -(127). - -[52] ‘Il faut aussy une belle chambre, une table, deux tabourets, une -écritoire’ (117), ‘une belle chambre, où il y ayt un beau lict, des -sièges pour s’asseoir; la dicte chambre s’ouvre et se ferme plusieurs -fois’ (121), ‘forme de salle garnie de sièges où l’on peint une dame’ -(126). - -[53] Dacier, 119. - -[54] Ibid. 119. - -[55] ‘Forme de fontaine en grotte coulante ou de peinture’ (Dacier, -127); ‘Au milieu du théâtre, dit la persepective, doit avoir une -grande boutique d’orfèvre, fort superbe d’orfèvrerie et autre joyaux’ -(136); ‘Il faut deux superbes maisons ornées de peinture; au milieu -du théâtre, une persepective où il y ait deux passages entre les deux -maisons’ (137). - -[56] ‘Il faut que le théâtre soit tout en pastoralle, antres, verdures, -et fleurs’ (116), ‘Il faut ... le petit Chastellet de la rue Saint -Jacques, et faire paroistre une rue où sont les bouchers’ (116), ‘en -pastoralle à la discrétion du feinteur’ (124), ‘Il faut le théâtre en -rues et maisons’ (129, for Rotrou’s _Les Ménechmes_), ‘La décoration du -théâtre doit estre en boutique’ (136), ‘le feinteur doit faire paraitre -sur le théâtre la place Royalle ou l’imiter à peu près’ (133). - -[57] ‘Il faut que cela soit caché durant le premier acte, et l’on ne -faict paroistre cela qu’au second acte, et se referme au mesme acte’ -(116), ‘un eschaffaut qui soit caché’ (117), ‘le vaisseau paraist -au quatriesme acte’ (120). For the use of curtains to effect these -discoveries, cf. Rigal, 243, 253, who, however, traces to a guess of -Lemazurier, _Galerie Historique_, i. 4, the often repeated statement -that to represent a change of scene ‘on levait ou on tirait une -tapisserie, et cela se faisait jusqu’à dix ou douze fois dans la même -pièce’. - -[58] It is so, e.g., in the design for _Agarite_. - -[59] ‘Non sic tolerari potest, ut longe lateque dissita loca in unum -subito proscenium cogantur; qua in re per se absurdissima et nullo -veterum exemplo comprobata nimium sibi hodie quidam indulserunt’; cf. -Creizenach, ii. 102. Spingarn, _Literary Criticism in the Renaissance_, -89, 206, 290, discusses the origin of the unities, and cites -Castelvetro, Poetica (1570), 534, ‘La mutatione tragica non può tirar -con esso seco se non una giornata e un luogo’, and Jean de la Taille, -_Art de Tragédie_ (1572), ‘Il faut toujours représenter l’histoire ou -le jeu en un même jour, en un même temps, et en un même lieu’. - -[60] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 257; Lawrence (i. 123), _Early French -Players in England_. It is only a guess of Mr. Lawrence’s that these -visitors played _Maistre Pierre Patelin_, a farce which requires a -background with more than one _domus_. Karl Young, in _M. P._ ii. 97, -traces some influence of French farces on the work of John Heywood. -There had been ‘Fransche-men that playt’ at Dundee in 1490, and -‘mynstrells of Fraunce’, not necessarily actors, played before Henry -VII at Abingdon in 1507. - -[61] Halle, i. 176. - -[62] Halle, ii. 86. - -[63] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 196; cf. ch. xii (Paul’s). Spinelli’s -letter is preserved in Marino Sanuto, _Diarii_, xlvi. 595, ‘La sala -dove disnamo et si rapresentò la comedia haveva nella fronte una grande -zoglia di bosso, che di mezzo conteneva in lettere d’oro: _Terentii -Formio_. Da l’un di canti poi vi era in lettere antique in carta: -_cedant arma togae_. Da l’altro: _Foedus pacis non movebitur_. Sotto -poi la zoglia si vide: _honori et laudi pacifici_.... Per li altri -canti de la sala vi erano sparsi de li altri moti pertinenti alla pace’. - -[64] _V. P._ iv. 115 translates ‘zoglia di bosso’ as ‘a garland of -box’, but Florio gives ‘soglia’ as ‘the threshold or hanse of a doore; -also the transome or lintle over a dore’. - -[65] Murray, ii. 168; cf. ch. xii (Westminster). - -[66] Halle, ii. 109. - -[67] Cf. ch. viii. - -[68] The memorandum on the reform of the Revels office in 1573, which -I attribute to Edward Buggin, tells us (_Tudor Revels_, 37; cf. ch. -iii) that ‘The connynge of the office resteth in skill of devise, -in vnderstandinge of historyes, in iudgement of comedies tragedyes -and showes, in sight of perspective and architecture, some smacke of -geometrye and other thynges’. If Sir George Buck, however, in 1612, -thought that a knowledge of perspective was required by the Art of -Revels, he veiled it under the expression ‘other arts’ (cf. ch. iii). - -[69] _Mundus et Infans_, _Hickscorner_, _Youth_, _Johan Evangelist_, -_Magnificence_, _Four Elements_, _Calisto and Melibaea_, _Nature_, -_Love_, _Weather_, _Johan Johan_, _Pardoner and Friar_, _Four PP._, -_Gentleness and Nobility_, _Witty and Witless_, _Kinge Johan_, _Godly -Queen Hester_, _Wit and Science_, _Thersites_, with the fragmentary -_Albion Knight_. To these must now be added Henry Medwall’s _Fulgens -and Lucres_ (N.D., but 1500 <), formerly only known by a fragment -(cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 458), but recently found in the Mostyn -collection, described by F. S. Boas and A. W. Reed in _T. L. S._ (20 -Feb. and 3 April 1919), and reprinted by S. de Ricci (1920). - -[70] _Wealth and Health_, _Nice Wanton_, _Lusty Juventus_, _Impatient -Poverty_, _Respublica_, _Jacob and Esau_, and perhaps _Enough is as -Good as a Feast_, with the fragmentary _Love Feigned and Unfeigned_. - -[71] _Trial of Treasure_, _Like Will to Like_, _The Longer Thou Livest, -The More Fool Thou Art_, _Marriage of Wit and Science_, _Marriage -between Wit and Wisdom_, _New Custom_, _The Tide Tarrieth no Man_, _All -for Money_, _Disobedient Child_, _Conflict of Conscience_, _Pedlar’s -Prophecy_, _Misogonus_, _Glass of Government_, _Three Ladies of -London_, _King Darius_, _Mary Magdalene_, _Apius and Virginia_, with -the fragmentary _Cruel Debtor_. - -[72] For details of date and authorship cf. chh. xxiii, xxiv, -and _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 439, 443. Albright, 29, attempts a -classification on the basis of staging, but not, I think, very -successfully. - -[73] Cf. e.g. _Hickscorner_, 544; _Youth_, 84, 201, 590, 633; _Johan -Johan_, 667; _Godly Queen Hester_, 201, 635, 886; _Wit and Science_, -969; _Wit and Wisdom_, 3, p. 60; _Nice Wanton_, 416; _Impatient -Poverty_, 164, 726, 746, 861, 988; _Respublica_, V. i. 38; _Longer -Thou Livest_, 628, 1234; _Conflict of Conscience_, III. i. 2; _et ad -infinitum_. Characters in action are said to be in place. For the -_platea_ cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 80, 135, but _Kinge Johan_, 1377, -has a direction for an alarm ‘_extra locum_’. - -[74] Cf. e.g. _Wit and Science_, 193, ‘Wyt speketh at the doore’; -_Longer Thou Livest_, 523, ‘Betweene whiles let Moros put in his head’, -583, ‘Crie without the doore’, &c., &c. - -[75] Cf. ch. vii. - -[76] Cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 216, and for the making of ‘room’ or ‘a -hall’ for a mask, ch. v. - -[77] Cf. M. L. Spencer, _Corpus Christi Pageants in England_, 184; -Creizenach, ii. 101. - -[78] Wallace, ii. 48, ‘The Blackfriars stage was elastic in depth as -well as width, and could according to the demands of the given play -be varied by curtains or traverses of any required number placed at -any required distance between the balcony and the front of the stage’; -Prölss, 89; Albright, 58; cf. p. 78. - -[79] _Volpone_, v. 2801 (cf. p. 111); _White Devil_, V. iv. 70: - - ‘_Flamineo._ I will see them, - They are behind the travers. Ile discover - Their superstitious howling. - -_Cornelia, the Moore and 3 other Ladies discovered, winding Marcello’s -coarse_’; - -_Duchess of Malfi_, IV. i. 54: - -‘_Here is discover’d, behind a travers, the artificiall figures of -Antonio and his children, appearing as if they were dead._’ - -[80] _Duke of Guise_, v. 3 (quoted by Albright, 58), ‘The scene draws, -behind it a Traverse’, and later, ‘The Traverse is drawn. The King -rises from his Chair, comes forward’. - -[81] The Revels Accounts for 1511 (Brewer, ii. 1497) include 10_d._ for -a rope used for a ‘travas’ in the hall at Greenwich and stolen during a -disguising. Puttenham (1589), i. 17, in an attempt to reconstruct the -methods of classical tragedy, says that the ‘floore or place where the -players vttered ... had in it sundrie little diuisions by curteins as -trauerses to serue for seueral roomes where they might repaire vnto and -change their garments and come in againe, as their speaches and parts -were to be renewed’. - -[82] There was a traverse in the nursery of Edward V in 1474; cf. _H. -O._ *28, ‘Item, we will that our sayd sonne in his chamber and for all -nighte lyverye to be sette, the traverse drawne anone upon eight of the -clocke’. - -[83] Rimbault, 150, 167. There is an elaborate description of ‘a fayer -traverse of black taffata’ set up in the chapel at Whitehall for the -funeral of James in 1625 and afterwards borrowed for the ceremony in -Westminster Abbey. - -[84] The chapel of Ahasuerus come in and sing (860). On the possibility -that plays may have been acted in the chapel under Elizabeth, cf. ch. -xii. - -[85] _G. G. Needle_, I. iv. 34; II. iv. 20, ‘here, euen by this poste, -Ich sat’; _Jack Juggler_, 908, ‘Joll his hed to a post’. - -[86] The manuscript of _Misogonus_ was written at Kettering. The -prologue of _Mary Magdalene_ is for travelling actors, who had given -it at a university. _Thersites_ contains local references (cf. Boas, -20) suggesting Oxford. Both this and _The Disobedient Child_ are -adaptations of dialogues of Ravisius Textor, but the adapters seem to -be responsible for the staging. - -[87] Cf. ch. xxii. - -[88] II. ii. ‘Fowre women bravelie apparelled, sitting singing in -Lamiaes windowe, with wrought Smockes, and Cawles, in their hands, as -if they were a working’. _Supposes_, IV. iv, is a dialogue between -Dalio the cook, at Erostrato’s window, and visitors outside. At the -beginning, ‘Dalio commeth to the wyndowe, and there maketh them -answere’; at the end, ‘Dalio draweth his hed in at the wyndowe, the -Scenese commeth out’. The dialogue of sc. v proceeds at the door, and -finally ‘Dalio pulleth the Scenese in at the dores’. In _Two Ital. -Gent._ 435, ‘Victoria comes to the windowe, and throwes out a letter’. -It must not be assumed on the analogy of later plays, and is in fact -unlikely, that the windows of these early ‘houses’, or those of the -‘case’ at Ferrara in 1486, were upper floor windows. - -[89] There is a reference to a falling curtain, not necessarily a stage -one, in _Alchemist_, IV. ii. 6, ‘O, for a suite, To fall now, like a -cortine: flap’. Such curtains were certainly used in masks; cf. ch. vi. - -[90] Donne, _Poems_ (ed. Grierson), i. 441; J. Hannah, _Courtly Poets_, -29. Graves, 20, quotes with this epigram Drummond, _Cypress Grove_, -‘Every one cometh there to act his part of this tragi-comedy, called -life, which done, the courtaine is drawn, and he removing is said to -dy’. But of course many stage deaths are followed by the drawing of -curtains which are not front curtains. - -[91] Inns of Court and University plays naturally run on analogous -lines. For the ‘houses’ at Cambridge in 1564 and at Oxford in -1566, cf. ch. vii. The three Cambridge Latin comedies, _Hymenaeus_ -(1579), _Victoria_ (_c._ 1580–3), _Pedantius_ (_c._ 1581), follow -the Italian tradition. For _Victoria_, which has the same plot as -_Two Ital. Gent._, Fraunce directs, ‘Quatuor extruendae sunt domus, -nimirum Fidelis, 1^a, Fortunij, 2^a, Cornelij, 3^a Octauiani, 4^a. -Quin et sacellum quoddam erigendum est, in quo constituendum est -Cardinalis cuiusdam Sepulchrum, ita efformatum, vt claudi aperirique -possit. In Sacello autem Lampas ardens ponenda est’. The earliest -extant tragedies, Grimald’s _Christus Redivivus_ (_c._ 1540) and -_Archipropheta_ (_c._ 1547), antedate the pseudo-Senecan influence. -Practical convenience, rather than dramatic theory, imposed upon the -former a unity of action before the tomb. Grimald says, ‘Loca item, -haud usque eò discriminari censebat; quin unum in proscenium, facilè & -citra negocium conduci queant’. The latter was mainly before Herod’s -palace, but seems to have showed also John’s prison at Macherus. -There is an opening scene, as in _Promos and Cassandra_, of approach -to the palace (Boas, 28, 35). Christopherson’s _Jephthah_, Watson’s -(?) _Absalon_, and Gager’s _Meleager_ (1582) observe classical unity. -The latter has two houses, in one of which an altar may have been -‘discovered’. Boas, 170, quotes two s.ds., ‘Transeunt venatores e -Regia ad fanum Dianae’ and ‘Accendit ligna in ara, in remotiore scenae -parte extructa’. Gager’s later plays (Boas, 179) seem to be under the -influence of theatrical staging. On Legge’s _Richardus Tertius vide_ -p. 43, _infra_. - -[92] I do not suggest that the actual ‘templum’ in Serlio’s design, -which is painted on the back-cloth, was practicable. The _ruffiana’s_ -house was. About the shop or tavern, half-way up the rake of the stage, -I am not sure. There is an echo of the _ruffiana_, quite late, in -_London Prodigal_ (1605), V. i. 44, ‘Enter Ruffyn’. - -[93] The early editions have few s.ds. Mr. Bond supplies many, which -are based on a profound misunderstanding of Lyly’s methods of staging, -to some of the features of which Reynolds in _M. P._ i. 581, ii. 69, -and Lawrence, i. 237, have called attention. - -[94] Possibly I. i might be an approach scene outside the city, as -prisoners are sent (76) ‘into the citie’, but this may only mean to the -interior of the city from the market-place. - -[95] Action is continuous between II. i, at the cave, and II. ii, in -which Sapho will ‘crosse the Ferrie’. Phao told Sibylla (II. i. 14) -that he was out of his way and benighted, but this was a mere excuse -for addressing her. - -[96] The palace itself was not necessarily staged. If it was, it was -used with the lunary bank, after visiting which Cynthia goes ‘in’ (IV. -iii. 171). She comes ‘out’ and goes ‘in’ again (V. iii. 17, 285), but -these terms may only refer to a stage-door. Nor do I think that the -‘solitarie cell’ spoken of by Endymion (II. i. 41) was staged. - -[97] Yet Eumenides, who was sent to Thessaly in III. i, has only -reached the fountain twenty years later (III. iii. 17), although he is -believed at Court to be dead (IV. iii. 54). The time of the play cannot -be reduced to consistency; cf. Bond, iii. 14. - -[98] In IV. ii. 96 Protea, in a scene before the rock, says to -Petulius, ‘Follow me at this doore, and out at the other’. During the -transit she is metamorphosed, but the device is rather clumsy. The -doors do not prove that a _domus_ of Erisichthon was visible; they may -be merely stage-doors. - -[99] Possibly _The Cobler’s Prophecy_ is also a Chapel or Paul’s play; -it was given before an audience who ‘sit and see’, and to whom the -presenters ‘cast comfets’ (39). The _domus_ required for a background -are (_a_) Ralph’s, (_b_) Mars’s court, (_c_) Venus’s court, (_d_) the -Duke’s court, (_e_) the cabin of Contempt. From (_a_) to (_b_) is ‘not -farre hence’ (138) and ‘a flight shoot vp the hill’ (578); between -are a wood and a spot near Charon’s ferry. From (_b_) to (_c_) leads -‘Adowne the hill’ (776). At the end (_e_) is burnt, and foreshortening -of space is suggested by the s.d. (1564), ‘Enter the Duke ... then -compasse the stage, from one part let a smoke arise: at which place -they all stay’. At the beginning (3) ‘on the stage Mercurie from one -end Ceres from another meete’. _Summer’s Last Will and Testament_, -which cannot be definitely assigned either to the Chapel or to Paul’s, -continues the manner of the old interlude; it has a stage (1570), but -the abstract action requires no setting beyond the tiled hall (205, -359, 932, 974) in which the performance was given. _The Wars of Cyrus_ -is a Chapel play, but must be classed, from the point of view of -staging, with the plays given in public theatres (cf. p. 48). - -[100] Act III has the s.d., ‘_The storme. Enter Æneas and Dido in the -Caue at seuerall times_’ (996).... ‘_Exeunt to the Caue_’ (1059). They -are supposed to remain in the cave during the interval between Acts III -and IV, after which, ‘_Anna._ Behold where both of them come forth the -Caue’ (1075). - -[101] ‘_Here the Curtaines draw, there is discouered Iupiter dandling -Ganimed vpon his knee_’ (1).... ‘_Exeunt Iupiter cum Ganimed_’ (120). -But as Jupiter first says, ‘Come Ganimed, we must about this gear’, it -may be that they walk off. If so, perhaps they are merely ‘discouered’ -in the wood, and the curtains are front curtains. - -[102] So too (897), - - This day they both a hunting forth will ride - Into these woods, adioyning to these walles. - -[103] At the end of the banquet scene (598), ‘_Exeunt omnes_’ towards -the interior of the palace, when ‘_Enter Venus at another doore, and -takes Ascanius by the sleeue_’. She carries him to the grove, and here -he presumably remains until the next Act (III), when ‘_Enter Iuno to -Ascanius asleepe_’ (811). He is then removed again, perhaps to make -room for the hunting party. I suppose the ‘_another doore_’ of 598 to -mean a stage-door. - -[104] Cf. ch. xxii. - -[105] Direct evidence pointing to performance at Court is only -available for two of the five, _Cambyses_ and _Orestes_. - -[106] _Cambyses_, 75, 303, 380, 968, 1041, 1055; _Patient Grissell_, -212, 338, 966, 1048, 1185, 1291, 1972, 1984, 2069; _Orestes_, 221, -1108; _Clyomon and Clamydes_, 1421, 1717, 1776, 1901, 1907, 1931, -1951, 2008, 2058, 2078; _Common Conditions_, 2, 110, 544, 838, 1397, -1570; &c. Of course, the technical meaning of ‘place’ shades into the -ordinary one. - -[107] A similar instruction clears the stage at the end (1197) of a -corpse, as in many later plays; cf. p. 80. - -[108] The s.d. ‘one of their wives come out’ (813) does not necessarily -imply a clown’s _domus_. _Cambyses_ fluctuates between the actor’s -notion that personages come ‘out’ from the tiring-house, and the -earlier notion of play-makers and audience that they go ‘out’ from the -stage. Thus ‘Enter Venus leading out her son’ (843), but ‘goe out Venus -and Cupid’ at the end of the same episode (880). - -[109] ‘Come, let us run his arse against the poste’ (186); cf. pp. 27, -75. - -[110] For later examples cf. p. 99. - -[111] Lawrence (i. 41), _Title and Locality Boards on the -Pre-Restoration Stage_. - -[112] Lawrence, i. 55. No English example of an inscribed miracle-play -_domus_ has come to light. - -[113] Gregory Smith, _Elizabethan Critical Essays_, i. 185, 197 -(cf. App. C, No. xxxiv). Sidney’s main argument is foreshadowed in -Whetstone’s Epistle to _Promos and Cassandra_ (1578; cf. App. C, No. -xix), ‘The Englishman in this quallitie, is most vaine, indiscreete, -and out of order; he fyrst groundes his worke on impossibilities: then -in three howers ronnes he throwe the worlde: marryes, gets children, -makes children men, men to conquer kingdomes, murder monsters, and -bringeth Gods from Heaven, and fetcheth Divels from Hel’. - -[114] Cf. p. 20. - -[115] Gibson had used written titles to name his pageant buildings; cf. -Brewer, ii. 1501; Halle, i. 40, 54. The Westminster accounts _c._ 1566 -(cf. ch. xii) include an item for ‘drawing the tytle of the comedee’. -The Revels officers paid ‘for the garnyshinge of xiiij titles’ in -1579–80, and for the ‘painting of ix. titles with copartmentes’ in -1580–1 (Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 328, 338). The latter number agrees with -that of the plays and tilt challenges for the year; the former is -above that of the nine plays recorded, and Lawrence thinks that the -balance was for locality-titles. But titles were also sometimes used -in the course of action. Thus _Tide Tarrieth for No Man_ has the -s.d. (1439), ‘Christianity must enter with a sword, with a title of -pollicy, but on the other syde of the tytle, must be written gods word, -also a shield, wheron must be written riches, but on the other syde -of the shield must be Fayth’. Later on (1501) Faithful ‘turneth the -titles’. Prologues, such as those of _Damon and Pythias_, _Respublica_, -and _Conflict of Conscience_, which announce the names of the plays, -tell rather against the use of title-boards for those plays. For the -possible use of both title- and scene-boards at a later date, cf. pp. -126, 154. - -[116] Cf. pp. 60, 63. - -[117] In the Latin academic drama the transition between classical -and romantic staging is represented by Legge’s _Richardus Tertius_ -(1580). This is Senecan in general character, but unity of place is not -strictly observed. A s.d. to the first _Actio_ (iii. 64) is explicit -for the use of a curtain to discover a recessed interior, ’ A curtaine -being drawne, let the queene appeare in y^e sanctuary, her 5 daughters -and maydes about her, sittinge on packs, fardells, chests, cofers. The -queene sitting on y^e ground with fardells about her’. - -[118] Cf. p. 21. - -[119] Cf. ch. vii. - -[120] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 365. - -[121] Cf. ch. xi. - -[122] There are four presenters, but, in order to avoid crowding the -stage, they are reduced to two by the sending of the others to bed -within the hut (128). - -[123] Albright, 66; Reynolds, i. 11. - -[124] Queen’s, _Three Lords and Three Ladies of London_, _1, 2 -Troublesome Reign of King John_, _Selimus_, _Looking-Glass for London -and England_, _Famous Victories of Henry V_, _James IV_, _King Leir_, -_True Tragedy of Richard III_; Sussex’s, _George a Greene_, _Titus -Andronicus_; Pembroke’s, _Edward II_, _Taming of a Shrew_, _2, 3 -Henry VI_, _Richard III_; Strange’s or Admiral’s, _1, 2 Tamburlaine_, -_Spanish Tragedy_, _Orlando Furioso_, _Fair Em_, _Battle of Alcazar_, -_Knack to Know a Knave_, _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_, _1 Henry -VI_, _Comedy of Errors_, _Jew of Malta_, _Wounds of Civil War_, _Dr. -Faustus_, _Four Prentices of London_; Admiral’s, _Knack to Know an -Honest Man_, _Blind Beggar of Alexandria_, _Humorous Day’s Mirth_, _Two -Angry Women of Abingdon_, _Look About You_, _Shoemaker’s Holiday_, -_Old Fortunatus_, _Patient Grissell_, _1 Sir John Oldcastle_, _Captain -Thomas Stukeley_, _1, 2 Robert Earl of Huntingdon_, _Englishmen for my -Money_; Chamberlain’s, _Edward III_, _1 Richard II_, _Sir Thomas More_, -_Taming of the Shrew_, _Two Gentlemen of Verona_, _Love’s Labour’s -Lost_, _Romeo and Juliet_, _Midsummer Night’s Dream_, _Richard II_, -_King John_, _Merchant of Venice_, _1, 2 Henry IV_, _Every Man in his -Humour_, _Warning for Fair Women_, _A Larum for London_, _Thomas Lord -Cromwell_ (the last two possibly Globe plays); Derby’s, _1, 2 Edward -IV_, _Trial of Chivalry_; Oxford’s, _Weakest Goeth to the Wall_; -Chapel, _Wars of Cyrus_; Unknown, _Arden of Feversham_, _Soliman -and Perseda_, _Edward I_, _Jack Straw_, _Locrine_, _Mucedorus_, -_Alphonsus_, _1, 2 Contention of York and Lancaster_. - -[125] _Quarterly Review_, ccviii. 446. - -[126] I here use ‘scene’ in the sense of a continuous section of action -in an unchanged locality, and do not follow either the usage of the -playwrights, which tends to be based upon the neo-classical principle -that the entrance or exit of a speaker of importance constitutes a -fresh scene, or the divisions of the editors, who often assume a change -of locality where none has taken place; cf. ch. xxii. I do not regard -a scene as broken by a momentary clearance of the stage, or by the -opening of a recess in the background while speakers remain on the -stage, or by the transference of action from one point to another of -the background if this transference merely represents a journey over a -foreshortened distance between neighbouring houses. - -[127] Albright, 114; Thorndike, 102. - -[128] _Downfall of R. Hood_, V. i. - -[129] _Alphonsus_, 163; _K. to K. Honest Man_, 71. The friar’s cell of -_T. G._ V. i may be in an urban setting, as Silvia bids Eglamour go -‘out at the postern by the abbey wall’; that of _R. J._ II. iii, vi; -III. iii; IV. i; V. 2 seems to be in rural environs. How far there is -interior action is not clear. None is suggested by II. or V. In III. -iii (Q_{2}) the Friar bids Romeo ‘come forth’ (1), and Romeo falls -‘upon the ground’ (69). Then ‘Enter Nurse and knocke’ (71). After -discussing the knock, which is twice repeated, the Friar bids Romeo -‘Run to my study’ and calls ‘I come’. Then ‘Enter Nurse’ (79) with ‘Let -me come in’. Romeo has not gone, but is still ‘There on the ground’ -(83). Q_{1} is in the main consistent with this, but the first s.d. is -merely ‘Nurse knockes’, and after talking to Romeo, ‘Nurse offers to -goe in and turnes againe’ (163). In IV. i (Q_{1}, and Q_{2}) the Friar -observes Juliet coming ‘towards my Cell’ (17), and later Juliet says -‘Shut the door’ (44); cf. p. 83. - -[130] _Downfall of R. Hood_, III. ii, ‘Curtaines open, Robin Hoode -sleepes on a greene banke and Marian strewing flowers on him’ ... -‘yonder is the bower’; _Death of R. Hood_, I. v; cf. I. iv, ‘Let us to -thy bower’. - -[131] _B. B. of Alexandria_, scc. i, iv; _Battle of Alcazar_, ii. 325, -where the presenter describes Nemesis as awaking the Furies, ‘In caue -as dark as hell, and beds of steele’, and the corresponding s.d. in the -plot (_H. P._ 139) is ‘Enter aboue Nemesis ... to them lying behinde -the Curtaines 3 Furies’. - -[132] _K. Leir_, scc. xxvii-xxxii. - -[133] _K. Leir_, sc. xxiv, ‘Enter the Gallian King and Queene, and -Mumford, with a basket, disguised like Countrey folke’. Leir meets -them, complaining of ‘this vnfruitfull soyle’, and (2178) ‘She bringeth -him to the table’; _B. B. of Alexandria_, sc. iii. - -[134] _B. B. of Alexandria_, sc. iii. - -[135] _Locrine_, III. i (d.s.), ‘A Crocadile sitting on a riuers banke, -and a little snake stinging it. Then let both of them fall into the -water’; IV. v. 1756 (a desert scene), ‘Fling himselfe into the riuer’; -V. vi. 2248 (a battle-field scene), ‘She drowneth her selfe’; _Weakest -Goeth to the Wall_, I. i (d.s.), ‘The Dutches of Burgundie ... leaps -into a Riuer, leauing the child vpon the banke’; _Trial of Chivalry_, -C_{4}^v, ‘yon fayre Riuer side, which parts our Camps’; E_{2}, ‘This -is our meeting place; here runs the streame That parts our camps’; cf. -p. 90. _A. of Feversham_, IV. ii and iii are, like part of _Sapho and -Phao_ (cf. p. 33), near a ferry, and ‘Shakebag falles into a ditch’, -but the river is not necessarily shown. - -[136] Two late testimonies may be held to support the theory. In _T. N. -K._ (King’s, _c. 1613_), III. i. 31, ‘Enter Palamon as out of a Bush’, -but cf. III. vi. 1, ‘Enter Palamon from the Bush’. The Prologue to -_Woman Killed with Kindness_ (Worcester’s, _1603_) says: - - I come but like a harbinger, being sent - To tell you what these preparations mean: - Look for no glorious state; our Muse is bent - Upon a barren subject, a bare scene. - We could afford this twig a timber tree. - Whose strength might boldly on your favours build; - Our russet, tissue; drone, a honey bee; - Our barren plot, a large and spacious field. - -These rhetorical antitheses are an apology for meanness of theme, -rather than, like the prologues to _Henry V_, for scenic imperfections, -and I hesitate to believe that, when the actor said ‘twig’, he pointed -to a branch which served as sole symbol on the stage for a woodland. - -[137] _Looking-Glass_, V. iii. 2059, 2075, ‘Lo, a pleasant shade, a -spreading vine ... _A Serpent deuoureth the vine_’; _O. Furioso_, 572, -‘Sacrepant hangs vp the Roundelayes on the trees’ (cf. _A. Y. L._ -III. ii. 1, ‘Hang there, my verse, in witness of my love’); _B. B. of -Alexandria_, sc. vi, ‘Here’s a branch, forsooth, of your little son -turned to a mandrake tree’; _Old Fortunatus_, 1–357, where Fortunatus -dreams under a tree, 1861–2128, where there are apple-and nut-trees -in a wilderness; &c., &c. Simon Forman in 1611 saw Macbeth and Banquo -‘ridinge thorowe a wod’ (_N. S. S. Trans._ 1875–6, 417), although from -the extant text we could have inferred no trees in I. iii. - -[138] _M. N. D._ II-IV. i; _Mucedorus_, I.; II. iii; III. iii-v; IV. -ii, iii; V. i; _T. A. Women of Abingdon_, scc. vii, ix-xii. - -[139] _Edw. I_, 2391, ‘I must hang vp my weapon vppon this tree’; -_Alphonsus_, II. i. 417, ‘this wood; where in ambushment lie’. For a -river cf. p. 51, n. 8 (_Locrine_). - -[140] _Hen. V_, IV, prol. 49. - -[141] _1 Tamb._ 705, ‘Sound trumpets to the battell, and he runs in’; -1286, ‘They sound the battell within, and stay’; _2 Tamb._ 2922, ‘Sound -to the battell, and Sigismond comes out wounded’; _1 Contention_, sc. -xii. 1, ‘Alarmes within, and the Chambers be discharged, like as it -were a fight at sea’. - -[142] _Alphonsus_, II. i, ii; _1 Hen. IV_, V. i-iv. The whole of _Edw. -III_, III, IV, V, is spread over Creçy and other vaguely located -battle-fields in France. - -[143] _1 Contention_, sc. xxii. 1, ‘Alarmes to the battaile, and then -enter the Duke of _Somerset_ and _Richard_ fighting, and _Richard_ kils -him vnder the signe of the Castle in saint _Albones_’. The s.d. of _2 -Hen. VI_, V. ii. 66, is only ‘Enter Richard, and Somerset to fight’, -but the dialogue shows that the ‘alehouse paltry sign’ was represented. - -[144] _1 Contention_, sc. xxii, 62 (with the alehouse), ‘Alarmes -againe, and then enter three or foure, bearing the Duke of _Buckingham_ -wounded to his Tent’; _2 Tamb._ IV. i. 3674, ‘Amyras and Celebinus -issues from the tent where Caliphas sits a sleepe’ ... 3764 (after -Caliphas has spoken from within the tent), ‘He goes in and brings -him out’; _Locrine_, 1423, ‘mee thinkes I heare some shriking noise. -That draweth near to our pauillion’; _James IV_, 2272, ‘Lords, troop -about my tent’; _Edw. I_, 1595, ‘King Edward ... goes into the Queenes -Chamber, the Queenes Tent opens, shee is discouered in her bed’ ... -1674, ‘They close the Tent’ ... 1750, ‘The Queenes Tent opens’ ... -1867, ‘The Nurse closeth the Tent’ ... 1898, ‘Enter ... to giue the -Queene Musicke at her Tent’, and in a later scene, 2141, ‘They all -passe ... to the Kings pavilion, the King sits in his Tent with his -pages about him’ ... 2152, ‘they all march to the Chamber. Bishop -speakes to her [the Queen] in her bed’; _1 Troilus and Cressida_, -plot (_Henslowe Papers_, 142), ‘Enter ... to them Achillis in his -Tent’; _Trial of Chivalry_, C_{4}^v, ‘this is the Pauilion of the -Princesse .... Here is the key that opens to the Tent’ ... D, ‘Discouer -her sitting in a chayre asleepe’ and a dialogue in the tent follows. -The presence of a tent, not mentioned in dialogue or s.ds., can often -be inferred in camp scenes, in which personages sit, or in those which -end with a ‘Come, let us in’; e.g. _Locrine_, 564, 1147. - -[145] _Richard III_, V. iii, iv, v (a continuous scene); _1 Hen. IV_, -V. i, ii, iii, iv (probably similar); cf. p. 51, n. 8 (_Trial of -Chivalry_). - -[146] _Edw. I_, 900, 1082, 2303 (after a battle), ‘Then make the -proclamation vpon the walles’ (s.d.); _James IV_, 2003 (after parley), -‘They descend downe, open the gates, and humble them’; _Soliman and -Perseda_, III. iv; V. iv. 16, ‘The Drum sounds a parle. _Perseda_ comes -vpon the walls in mans apparell. _Basilisco_ and _Piston_, vpon the -walles.... Then _Perseda_ comes down to _Soliman_, and _Basilisco_ and -_Piston_’; _2 Contention_, sc. xviii, ‘Enter the Lord Maire of _Yorke_ -vpon the wals’ ... (after parley) ‘Exit Maire’ ... ‘The Maire opens the -dore, and brings the keies in his hand’; _K. John_, II. i. 201, ‘Enter -a Citizen vpon the walles’ ... ‘Heere after excursions, Enter the -Herald of France with Trumpets to the gates’ ... ‘Enter the two kings -with their powers at seuerall doores’ ... (after parley) ‘Now, citizens -of Angiers, ope your gates’; cf. _1 Troublesome Raigne_, scc. ii-x; _2 -Contention_, sc. xxi; _George a Greene_, sc. v; _Orlando Furioso_, I. -ii; _2 Tamburlaine_, III. iii; _Selimus_, scc. xii, xxvii-xxxi; _Wounds -of Civil War_, V. ii-iv; _Edw. III_, I. ii; _Death of R. Hood_, V. ii; -_Stukeley_, II; _Frederick and Basilea_ and _1 Troilus and Cressida_ -plots (_Henslowe Papers_, 137, 142), &c. Wall scenes are not always -siege scenes. Thus in _2 Troub. Raigne_, sc. i, ‘Enter yong Arthur on -the walls.... He leapes’ (cf. _K. J._ IV. iii); in _1 Contention_, sc. -xvi, ‘Enter the Lord Skayles vpon the Tower walles walking. Enter three -or four Citizens below’ (cf. _2 Hen. VI_, IV. v). Analogous is _2 Hen. -VI_, IV. ix (Kenilworth), ‘Enter King, Queene, and Somerset on the -Tarras.... Enter Multitudes with Halters about their neckes’. - -[147] In _Alarum for London_, 203, a gun is fired at Antwerp from the -walls of the castle; cf. _1 Hen. VI_ below. - -[148] _2 Tamburlaine_, V. i, ‘Enter the Gouernour of Babylon vpon -the walles’ ... (after parley) ‘Alarme, and they scale the walles’, -after which the governor is hung in chains from the walls and shot at; -_Selimus_, 1200, ‘Alarum, Scale the walles’, 2391, ‘Allarum, beats -them off the walles; cf. _1 Hen. VI_ below. _Hen. V_, III. i-iii (a -continuous scene) opens with ‘Alarum: Scaling Ladders at Harflew’. -Henry says ‘Once more vnto the breach’, but later a parley is sounded -from the town, and ‘Enter the King and all his Traine before the -Gates’, where submission is made, and they ‘enter the Towne’. Sometimes -an assault appears to be on the gates rather than the walls; e.g. _1 -Edw. IV_, I. iv-vi; _1 Hen. VI_, I. iii. - -[149] Cf. p. 106, n. 6. The fullest use of walls is made in _1 Hen. -VI_, a sixteenth-century play, although the extant text was first -printed in 1623. An analysis is necessary. The walls are those of -Orleans in I, II, of Rouen in III, of Bordeaux in IV, of Angiers in V. -In I. iv, ‘Enter the Master Gunner of Orleance, and his Boy’. They tell -how - - the English, in the suburbs close entrencht, - Wont through a secret grate of iron barres, - In yonder tower, to ouer-peere the citie. - -The Gunner bids the Boy watch, and tell him if he sees -any English. Then ‘Enter Salisbury and Talbot on the turrets, with -others’, and later ‘Enter the Boy with a Linstock’. The English talk of -attacking ‘heere, at the bulwarke of the bridge’, and ‘Here they shot, -and Salisbury falls downe’. After an _Exeunt_ which clears the stage, -there is fighting in the open, during which a French relieving party -‘enter the Towne with souldiers’, and later ‘Enter on the Walls, Puzel, -Dolphin, Reigneir, Alanson, and Souldiers’. In II. i, which follows, -a French watch is set, lest English come ‘neere to the walles’. Then -‘Enter Talbot, Bedford, and Burgundy, with scaling Ladders’; Bedford -will go ‘to yond corner’, Burgundy ‘to this’, and Talbot mount ‘heere’. -They assault, and ‘The French leape ore the walles in their shirts. -Enter seuerall wayes, Bastard, Alanson, Reignier, halfe ready, and -halfe unready’. They discourse and are pursued by the English, who -then ‘retreat’, and in turn discourse ‘here ... in the market-place’, -rejoicing at how the French did ‘Leape o’re the Walls for refuge in -the field’. Then, after a clearance, comes a scene at the Countess -of Auvergne’s castle. In III. ii the Pucell enters before the gates -of Rouen, obtains access by a trick, and then ‘Enter Pucell on the -top, thrusting out a torch burning’. Other French watch without for -the signal from ‘yonder tower’ or ‘turret’, and then follow into the -town and expel the English, after which, ‘Enter Talbot and Burgonie -without: within, Pucell, Charles, Bastard, and Reigneir on the walls’. -After parley, ‘Exeunt from the walls’, and fighting in front leaves the -English victorious, and again able to enter the town. In IV. ii ‘Enter -Talbot ... before Burdeaux’, summons the French general ‘vnto the -Wall’, and ‘Enter Generall aloft’. In V. iii the English are victorious -before Angiers, sound for a parley before the castle, and ‘Enter -Reignier on the walles’. After parley, Reignier says ‘I descend’, and -then ‘Enter Reignier’ to welcome the English. - -[150] In _Looking-Glass_, II. i, ‘Enters Remilia’ and after discourse -bids her ladies ‘Shut close these curtaines straight and shadow me’; -whereupon ‘They draw the Curtaines and Musicke plaies’. Then enter the -Magi, and ‘The Magi with their rods beate the ground, and from vnder -the same riseth a braue Arbour’. Rasni enters and will ‘drawe neare -Remilias royall tent’. Then ‘He drawes the Curtaines, and findes her -stroken with thunder, blacke.’ She is borne out. Presumably the same -arbour is used in IV. iii, where Alvida’s ladies ‘enter the bowers’. -Both scenes are apparently near the palace at Nineveh and not in a -camp. The earlier action of _L. L. L._ is in a park, near a manor -house, which is not necessarily represented. But at IV. iii. 373 the -King wishes to devise entertainment ‘in their tents’ for the ‘girls -of France’, and Biron says, ‘First, from the park let us conduct them -thither’. Presumably therefore V. ii passes near the tents. - -[151] _Looking-Glass_, II. i; IV. iii (_supra_); _Edw. III_, II. i. -61, at Roxborough Castle, ‘Then in the sommer arber sit by me’; _2 -Hen. IV_, V. iii (_infra_). In _Sp. Trag._ II. ii. 42, Horatio and -Belimperia agree to meet in ‘thy father’s pleasant bower’. In II. iv -they enter with ‘let us to the bower’ and set an attendant to ‘watch -without the gate’. While they sit ‘within these leauy bowers’ they -are betrayed, and (s.d.) ‘They hang him in the Arbor’. In II. v (not -really a new scene) Hieronimo emerges from his house, where a woman’s -cry ‘within this garden’ has plucked him from his ‘naked bed’, finds -Horatio hanging ‘in my bower’, and (s.d.) ‘He cuts him downe’. In III. -xii (an addition of the 1602 text) Hieronimo ranges ‘this hidious -orchard’, where Horatio was murdered before ‘this the very tree’. -Finally, in IV. ii Isabella enters ‘this garden plot’, and (s.d.) ‘She -cuts downe the Arbour’. - -[152] _Sp. Trag._ III. xii^a (_supra_); _Shoemaker’s Holiday_, sc. ii, -‘this flowry banke’, sc. iv, ‘these meddowes’; _1 Hen. VI_, II. iv, -‘From off this brier pluck a white rose with me’, &c. In _R. J._ II. -i (Q_{1}, but Q_{2} has apparently the same setting) Romeo enters, -followed by friends, who say, ‘He came this way, and leapt this orchard -wall’, and refer to ‘those trees’. They go, and in II. ii (presumably -the same scene) Romeo speaks under Juliet’s window ‘ouer my head’. -She says ‘The Orchard walles are high and hard to climb’, and he, ‘By -loues light winges did I oreperch these wals’, and later swears by the -blessed moon, ‘That tips with siluer all these fruit trees tops’. - -[153] _R. J._ II. ii (_supra_); _Sp. Trag._ II. v (_supra_); _Look -About You_, sc. v (a bowling green under Gloucester’s chamber in the -Fleet); _1 Oldcastle_, I. iii, II. i (a grove before Cobham’s gate and -an inn); &c. In _1 Contention_, sc. ii. 64, Elinor sends for a conjurer -to do a spell ‘on the backside of my orchard heere’. In sc. iv she -enters with the conjurer, says ‘I will stand upon this Tower here’, -and (s.d.) ‘She goes vp to the Tower’. Then the conjurer will ‘frame a -cirkle here vpon the earth’. A spirit ascends; spies enter; and ‘Exet -Elnor aboue’. York calls ‘Who’s within there?’ The setting of _2 Hen. -VI_, I. ii, is much the same, except that the references to the tower -are replaced by the s.d. ‘Enter Elianor aloft’. In _2 Hen. VI_, II. -ii, the scene is ‘this close walke’ at the Duke of York’s. Similarly, -scc. i, iv of _Humourous Day’s Mirth_ are before Labervele’s house in -a ‘green’, which is his wife’s ‘close walk’, which is kept locked, and -into which a visitor intrudes. But in sc. vii, also before Labervele’s, -the ‘close walk’ is referred to as distinct from the place of the scene. - -[154] _2 Troublesome Raigne_, sc. viii, ‘Enter two Friars laying a -Cloth’. One says, ‘I meruaile why they dine heere in the Orchard’. We -need not marvel; it was to avoid interior action. In _2 Hen. IV_, V. -iii, the scene is Shallow’s orchard, ‘where, in an arbour, we will eat -a last year’s pippin of mine own graffing, with a dish of caraways, and -so forth’. - -[155] _Famous Victories_, sc. ii, 5, ‘we will watch here at -Billingsgate ward’; _Jack Straw_, iii (Smithfield); _W. for Fair -Women_, II. 115, ‘here at a friends of mine in Lumberd Street’; IV. -1511, ‘Enter two Carpenters vnder Newgate’; _Shoemaker’s Holiday_, sc. -xi (Tower Street, _vide infra_); _Cromwell_, V. ii, iii (Westminster -and Lambeth, _vide infra_); _Arden of F._ II. ii (Paul’s Churchyard, -_vide infra_); _2 Hen. VI_, IV. vi, ‘Enter Iacke Cade and the rest, and -strikes his staffe on London stone’; &c. - -[156] _Span. Tragedy_, III. vi. 104, ‘He turnes him off’ (s.d.); _Sir -T. More_, sc. xvii. More is brought in by the Lieutenant of the Tower -and delivered to the sheriff. He says (1911), ‘Oh, is this the place? -I promise ye it is a goodly scaffolde’, and ‘your stayre is somewhat -weake’. Lords enter ‘As he is going vp the stayres’ (s.d.), and he -jests with ‘this straunge woodden horsse’ and ‘Truely heers a moste -sweet Gallerie’ (where the marginal s.d. is ‘walking’). Apparently the -block is not visible; he is told it is ‘to the Easte side’ and ‘exit’ -in that direction. - -[157] _Rich. II_, I. iii, ‘The trumpets sound and the King enters with -his nobles; when they are set, enter the Duke of Norfolke in armes -defendent’. No one is ‘to touch the listes’ (43), and when the duel is -stopped the combatants’ returne backe to their chaires againe’ (120). - -[158] _S. and P._ I. iii. There is an open place in Rhodes which a mule -and ass can enter. Knights and ladies are welcomed and go ‘forwards to -the tilt’ with an ‘Exeunt’ (126). Action continues in the same place. -Piston bids Basilisco ‘stay with me and looke vpon the tilters’, and -‘Will you vp the ladder, sir, and see the tilting?’ The s.d. follows -(180), ‘Then they go vp the ladders and they sound within to the first -course’. Piston and Basilisco then describe the courses as these -proceed, evidently out of sight of the audience. The tiltyard may be -supposed to run like that at Westminster, parallel to the public road -and divided from it by a wall, up which ladders can be placed for the -commoner spectators. In V. ii Erastus is arrested in public and tried -on the spot before the Marshal. He is bound to ‘that post’ (83) and -strangled. The witnesses are to be killed. Soliman says (118), - - Lord Marshall, hale them to the towers top. - And throw them headlong downe into the valley; - -and we get the s.ds. ‘Then the Marshall beares them to the tower top’ -(122), and ‘Then they are both tumbled downe’ (130). Presumably they -disappear behind. - -[159] _James IV_, I. ii. 1, ‘Enter _Slipper_, _Nano_, and _Andrew_, -with their billes, readie written, in their hands’. They dispute as to -whose bill shall stand highest, and then post the bills. - -[160] _Lord Cromwell_, III. i. 41 (in Italy): - - Content thee, man; here set vp these two billes, - And let us keep our standing on the bridge, - -followed by s.ds., ‘One standes at one end, and one at tother’, and -‘Enter Friskiball, the Marchant, and reades the billes’. In V. ii. 1 -(Westminster) Cromwell says, ‘Is the Barge readie?’ and (12) ‘Set on -before there, and away to Lambeth’. After an ‘Exeunt’, V. iii begins -‘Halberts, stand close vnto the water-side’, and (16) ‘Enter Cromwell’. - -[161] Cf. ch. xix, p. 44. _Wounds of Civil War_ has several such -scenes. In I. i. 1, ‘Enter on the Capitoll Sulpitius Tribune ... -whom placed, and their Lictors before them with their Rods and Axes, -Sulpitius beginneth’ ... (146) ‘Here enter Scilla with Captaines and -Souldiers’. Scilla’s party are not in the Capitol; they ‘braue the -Capitoll’ (149), are ‘before the Capitoll’ (218), but Scilla talks to -the senators, and Marius trusts to see Scilla’s head ‘on highest top of -all this Capitoll’. Presently Scilla bids (249) ‘all that loue Scilla -come downe to him’, and (258) ‘Here let them goe downe’. In II. i the -action is in the open, but (417) ‘yond Capitoll’ is named; III. i seems -to be in ‘this Capitoll’ (841). In IV. i Marius and his troops enter -before the seated Senate. Octavius, the consul, ‘sits commanding in -his throne’ (1390). From Marius’ company, ‘Cynna presseth vp’ (s.d.) -to ‘yonder emptie seate’ (1408), and presently Marius is called up and -(1484) ‘He takes his seate’. In V. v. 2231 ‘Scilla seated in his roabes -of state is saluted by the Citizens’. Similarly in _T. A._ I. i, ‘Enter -the Tribunes and Senatours aloft: and then enter Saturninus and his -followers at one doore, and Bassianus and his followers’. Saturninus -bids the tribunes ‘open the gates and let me in’ (63) and ‘They goe vp -into the Senate house’. Titus enters and buries his sons in his family -tomb, and (299) ‘Enter aloft the Emperour’ and speaks to Titus. There -is a Venetian senate house in _K. to K. an Honest Man_, scc. iii, xvii, -but I do not find a similar interplay with the outside citizens here. - -[162] _W. for Fair Women_, II. 93 (Lombard Street), ‘While Master -Sanders and he are in busy talk one to the other, Browne steps to a -corner.... Enter a Gentleman with a man with a torch before. Browne -draws to strike’; _Arden of F._ II. ii. 41, ‘Stand close, and take you -fittest standing, And at his comming foorth speed him’. - -[163] _T. G._ IV. ii (cf. IV. iii. 16, ‘Now must we to her window’, and -III. i. 35, 114, where Valentine has a rope-ladder to scale Silvia’s -window ‘in an upper tower’ and ‘aloft, far from the ground’); IV. iv. -91, ‘That’s her chamber’; _R. J._ (orchard scenes), II. ii; III. v, -‘Enter Romeo and Juliet at the window’ (Q_{1} where Q_{2} has ‘aloft’; -on the difficulty presented by Juliet’s chamber, cf. p. 94); _M. V._ -II. vi. 1, ‘This is the penthouse vnder which Lorenzo Desired us to -make a stand’ ... ‘Jessica aboue’ (s.d.) ... ‘Descend, for you must be -my torch-bearer’ ... ‘Enter Jessica’ (having come down within from the -casement forbidden her by Shylock and advised by Lancelot in II. v); -_Englishmen for my Money_, sc. ix (where Vandalle, come to woo Pisaro’s -daughter in the dark, is drawn up in a basket and left dangling in -mid-air, while later (1999) Pisaro is heard ‘at the window’ and ‘Enter -Pisaro aboue’); _Two A. Women_, 1495, ‘Enter Mall in the window’; -_Sp. Trag._ II. ii, where spies ‘in secret’ and ‘aboue’ overhear the -loves of Horatio and Belimperia below. Lovers are not concerned in -_Sp. Trag._ III. ii, ‘Enter Hieronimo ... A Letter falleth’; III. ix, -‘Belimperia, at a window’; _The Shrew_, V. i. 17, ‘Pedant lookes out of -the window’. - -[164] In _T. A._ I. i a coffin is brought in, apparently in the -market-place, while the Senators are visible in the Capitol (cf. p. -58, n. 2), and (90) ‘They open the Tombe’ and (150) ‘Sound trumpets, -and lay the coffin in the Tombe’. _R. J._ V. iii is in a churchyard -with ‘yond yew trees’ (3). A torch ‘burneth in the Capels monument’ -(127), also called a ‘vault’ (86, &c.) and ‘the tomb’ (262). Romeo will -‘descend into this bed of death’ (28), and Q_{1} adds the s.d. ‘Romeo -opens the tombe’ (45). He kills Paris, whose blood ‘stains The stony -entrance of this sepulchre’ (141). Juliet awakes and speaks, and must -of course be visible. The Admiral’s inventories of 1598 (_Henslowe -Papers_, 116) include ‘j tombe’, ‘j tome of Guido, j tome of Dido’. - -[165] _George a Greene_, sc. xi, ‘Enter a Shoemaker sitting vpon the -Stage at worke’, where a shop is not essential; but may be implied -by ‘Stay till I lay in my tooles’ (1005); _Locrine_, II. ii, ‘Enter -Strumbo, Dorothy, Trompart cobling shooes and singing’ (569) ... ‘Come -sirrha shut vp’ (660); _R. and J._ V. i. 55, ‘This should be the house. -Being holiday, the beggar’s shop is shut. What, ho! apothecary!’ where -the elaborate description of the shop which precedes leaves some doubt -how far it was represented; _Shoemaker’s Holiday_, scc. iii, ‘Open my -shop windows’; v, ‘Ile goe in’; viii, ‘Shut vp the shop’; xi, ‘Enter -Hodge at his shop-board, Rafe, Friske, Hans, and a boy at worke’ (all -before or in Eyre’s shop); x, ‘Enter Iane in a Semsters shop working, -and Hammon muffled at another doore, he stands aloofe’ (another shop); -_1 Edw. IV_, IV. iii, ‘Enter two prentizes, preparing the Goldsmiths -shop with plate.... Enter mistris Shoare, with her worke in her -hand.... The boy departs, and she sits sowing in her shop. Enter the -King disguised’. - -[166] _Arden of F._ II. ii. 52, - -‘_Here enters_ a prentise. - - Tis very late; I were best shute vp my stall, - For heere will be ould filching, when the presse - Comes foorth of Paules. - -_Then lettes he downe his window, and it breaks_ Black Wils _head_’. - -[167] _Shoemaker’s Holiday_, sc. xi, ‘the signe of the Last in -Tower-street, mas yonders the house’; _1 Edw. IV_, IV. iii, ‘Heres -Lombard Streete, and heres the Pelican’. The Admiral’s inventories of -1598 (_Henslowe Papers_, 117) include ‘j syne for Mother Redcap’. - -[168] Cf. ch. xix, p. 11. The introduction of a meal goes rather beyond -the neo-classic analogy, but presents no great difficulty. If a banquet -can be brought into a garden or orchard, it can be brought into a porch -or courtyard. It is not always possible to determine whether a meal -is in a threshold scene or a hall scene (cf. p. 64), but in _1 Edw. -IV_, III. ii, ‘Enter Nell and Dudgeon, with a table couered’ is pretty -clearly at the door of the Tanner’s cottage. - -[169] In the theatre usage personages go ‘in’, even where they merely -go ‘off’ without entering a house (cf. e.g. p. 53, n. 2). The interlude -usage is less regular, and sometimes personages go ‘out’, as they would -appear to the audience to do. - -[170] _Soliman and Perseda_, II. i. 227, ‘Sound vp the Drum to Lucinaes -doore’ (s.d.). Doors are conspicuous in _K. to K. Honest Man_; thus sc. -ii. 82, ‘Enter Lelio with his sword drawen, hee knockes at his doore’; -sc. v. 395, ’tis time to knocke vp Lelios householde traine. _He -knockes_’ ... ‘What mean this troup of armed men about my dore?’; sc. -v. 519 (Bristeo’s), ‘Come breake vp the doore’; sc. vii. 662, ‘_Enter -Annetta and Lucida with their worke in their handes...._ Here let vs -sit awhile’ ... (738) ‘Get you in ... _Here put them in at doore_’; sc. -vii. 894 (Lelio’s), ‘Underneath this wall, watch all this night: If -any man shall attempt to breake your sisters doore, Be stout, assaile -him’; sc. vii. 828 (a Senator’s), ‘What make you lingering here about -my doores?’; sc. ix. 1034 (Lelio’s), ‘Heaue me the doores from of the -hinges straight’; sc. xv. 1385 (Lelio’s), ‘my door doth ope’ (cf. p. -62, on the courtyard scene in the same play). - -[171] Thus _Humorous Day’s Mirth_, sc. v (Moren’s), 111, ‘We’ll draw -thee out of the house by the heels’ ... 143, ‘Thrust this ass out of -the doors’ ... 188, ‘Get you out of my house!’, but 190, ‘Well, come -in, sweet bird’; _Shoemaker’s Holiday_, sc. xii (Lord Mayor’s), ‘Get -you in’, but ‘The Earl of Lincoln at the gate is newly lighted’. - -[172] _James IV_, II. i, ‘_Enter the Countesse of Arrain, with Ida, -her daughter, in theyr porch, sitting at worke_’ ... (753) ‘Come, will -it please you enter, gentle sir? _Offer to Exeunt_’; cf. _Arden of F._ -(_vide infra_) and the penthouse in _M. V._ II. vi. 1 (p. 58). - -[173] Perhaps the best example is in _Arden of Feversham_. Arden’s -house at Aldersgate is described by Michael to the murderers in II. ii. -189: - - The dores Ile leaue unlockt against you come, - No sooner shall ye enter through the latch, - Ouer the thresholde to the inner court, - But on your left hand shall you see the staires - That leads directly to my M. Chamber. - -Here, then, is III. i. Arden and Francklin talk and go to bed. Michael, -in remorse, alarms them with an outcry, and when they appear, explains -that he ‘fell asleepe, Vpon the thresholde leaning to the staires’ and -had a bad dream. Arden then finds that ‘the dores were all unlockt’. -Later (III. iv. 8) Michael lies about this to the murderers: - - Francklin and my master - Were very late conferring in the porch, - And Francklin left his napkin where he sat - With certain gold knit in it, as he said. - Being in bed, he did bethinke himselfe, - And comming down he found the dores vnshut: - He lockt the gates, and brought away the keyes. - -When the murderers come in III. ii, Will bids Shakebag ‘show me to this -house’, and Shakebag says ‘This is the doore; but soft, me thinks tis -shut’. They are therefore at the outer door of the courtyard; cf. p. -69, n. 2. Similarly _1 Rich. II_, III. ii, which begins with ‘Enter -Woodstock, Lancaster, and Yorke, at Plashey’, and ‘heere at Plasshy -house I’le bid you wellcome’, is clearly in a courtyard. A servant -says (114), ‘Ther’s a horseman at the gate.... He will not off an’s -horse-backe till the inner gate be open’. Gloucester bids ‘open the -inner gate ... lett hime in’, and (s.d.) ‘Enter a spruce Courtier a -horse-backe’. It is also before the house, for the Courtier says, -‘Is he within’, and ‘I’le in and speake with the duke’. Rather more -difficult is _Englishmen for my Money_, sc. iv, ‘Enter Pisaro’ with -others, and says, ‘Proud am I that my roofe containes such friends’ -(748), also ‘I would not haue you fall out in my house’ (895). He -sends his daughters ‘in’ (827, 851), so must be in the porch, and a -‘knock within’ (s.d.) and ‘Stirre and see who knocks!’ (796) suggest -a courtyard gate. But later in the play (cf. p. 58, n. 4) the street -seems to be directly before the same house. - -[174] In _K. to K. Honest Man_, scc. x-xii (continuous scene at -Servio’s), Phillida is called ‘forth’ (1058) and bidden keep certain -prisoners ‘in the vpper loft’. Presently she enters ‘with the keyes’ -and after the s.d. ‘Here open the doore’ calls them out and gives them -a signet to pass ‘the Porter of the gates’, which Servio (1143) calls -‘my castell gates’. In _1 Hen. VI_, II. iii, the Countess of Auvergne, -to entrap Talbot, bids her porter ‘bring the keyes to me’; presumably -Talbot’s men are supposed to break in the gates at the s.d. ‘a Peale of -Ordnance’. _Rich. III_, III. vii, is at Baynard’s Castle. Buckingham -bids Gloucester (55) ‘get you vp to the leads’ to receive the Mayor, -who enters with citizens, and (95) ‘Enter Richard with two bishops a -lofte’. Similarly in _Rich. II_, III. iii. 62, ‘Richard appeareth on -the walls’ of Flint Castle, and then comes down (178) to the ‘base -court’. _B. Beggar of Alexandria_, sc. ii, is before the house of -Elimine’s father and ‘Enter Elimine above on the walls’. She is in a -‘tower’ and comes down, but there is nothing to suggest a courtyard. - -[175] _1 Sir John Oldcastle_, IV. iv, v (a continuous scene), is partly -‘neare vnto the entrance of the Tower’, beyond the porter’s lodge, -partly in Oldcastle’s chamber there, with a ‘window that goes out into -the leads’; cf. p. 67. - -[176] _Famous Victories_, sc. vi, 60, ‘What a rapping keep you at the -Kings Court gate!’; _Jack Straw_, II. ii (a City gate). - -[177] _A Shrew_, ind. 1, ‘Enter a Tapster, beating out of his doores -Slie Droonken’; _1 Oldcastle_, V. iii-vii (inn and barn); _True Tragedy -of Rich. III_, sc. viii, ‘Earle Riuers speakes out of his chamber’ in -an inn-yard, where he has been locked up; _James IV_, III. ii (stable); -_Looking Glass_, V. ii. 2037, ‘Enter the temple Omnes’. _Selimus_, sc. -xxi. 2019, has - - Thy bodie in this auntient monument, - Where our great predecessours sleep in rest: - Suppose the Temple of _Mahomet_, - Thy wofull son _Selimus_ thus doth place. - -Is the third line really a s.d., in which case it does not suggest -realistic staging, or a misunderstood line of the speech, really meant -to run, ‘Supposed the Temple of great Mahomet’? - -[178] _Patient Grissell_, 755–1652, reads like a threshold scene, and -‘Get you in!’ is repeated (848, 1065, 1481), but Grissell’s russet -gown and pitcher are hung up and several times referred to (817, 828, -1018, 1582). _Old Fortunatus_, 733–855, at the palace of Babylon, must -be a threshold scene as the Soldan points to ‘yon towre’ (769), but -this is not inconsistent with the revealing of a casket, with the s.d. -(799) ‘Draw a Curtaine’. We need not therefore assume that _M. V._ II. -vii, ix, in which Portia bids ‘Draw aside the Curtaines’ and ‘Draw the -Curtain’, or III. ii are hall scenes, and all the Belmont scenes may -be, like V. i, in a garden backed by a portico; or rather the hall -referred to in V. i. 89, ‘That light we see is burning in my hall’, may -take the form of a portico. - -[179] Cf. p. 58, n. 2. - -[180] Thus in _Rich. II_, V. iii, iv (a continuous scene), Aumerle has -leave to ‘turne the key’ (36). Then ‘_The Duke of Yorke knokes at the -doore and crieth_, My leige ... Thou hast a traitor in thy presence -there’. Cf. _1 Troublesome Raigne_, sc. xiii. 81: - - He stayes my Lord but at the Presence door: - Pleaseth your Highnes, I will call him in. - -[181] _Famous Victories_, scc. iv, v (a continuous scene), ‘Jayler, -bring the prisoner to the barre’ (iv. 1).... ‘Thou shalt be my Lord -chiefe Justice, and thou shalt sit in the chaire’ (v. 10); _Sir -T. More_, sc. ii. 104, ‘An Arras is drawne, and behinde it (as in -sessions) sit the L. Maior.... Lifter the prisoner at the barre’; -_Warning for Fair Women_, II. 1180, ‘Enter some to prepare the -judgement seat to the Lord Mayor....(1193) Browne is brought in and the -Clerk says, ‘To the barre, George Browne’; _M. V._ IV. i; _1 Sir John -Oldcastle_, V. x; &c. - -[182] _Bacon and Bungay_, scc. vii, ix (Regent House), where visitors -‘sit to heare and see this strange dispute’ (1207), and later, ‘Enter -Miles, with a cloth and trenchers and salt’ (1295); _Shoemaker’s -Holiday_, sc. xv (Leadenhall); _Englishmen for my Money_, sc. iii -(Exchange). - -[183] _1 Troublesome Raigne_, sc. xi, in a convent, entails the opening -of a coffer large enough to hold a nun and a press large enough to -hold a priest; _2 Troublesome Raigne_, sc. iii, before St. Edmund’s -shrine, has a numerous company who swear on an altar. _Alphonsus_, IV. -i, begins ‘Let there be a brazen Head set in the middle of the place -behind the Stage, out of the which cast flames of fire’. It is in the -‘sacred seate’ of Mahomet, who speaks from the head, and bids the -priests ‘call in’ visitors ‘which now are drawing to my Temple ward’. - -[184] _T. of a Shrew_, scc. ix, xi, xiii; _Sir T. More_, scc. ix, -‘Enter S^r _Thomas Moore_, M^r _Roper_, and Seruing men setting -stooles’; xiii, ‘Enter ... Moore ... as in his house at Chelsey’ ... -(1413) ‘Sit good Madame [_in margin_, ‘lowe stooles’] ... (1521) -‘Entreate their Lordships come into the hall’. _E. M. I._ III. i, ii -(a continuous scene), is at Thorello’s house, and in III. iii. 1592 -it is described with ‘I saw no body to be kist, vnlesse they would -haue kist the post, in the middle of the warehouse; for there I left -them all ... How? were they not gone in then?’ But I. iv. 570, also at -Thorello’s, has ‘Within sir, in the warehouse’. Probably the warehouse -was represented as an open portico. - -[185] Cf. p. 63, nn. 3, 4. - -[186] _Sir T. More_, scc. ix, xiii (stools, _vide supra_); x, where -the Council ‘sit’ to ‘this little borde’ (1176); _R. J._ I. v (stools, -_vide supra_); _James IV_, I. i. 141, ‘Enstall and crowne her’; _Sp. -Tragedy_, I. iii. 8, ‘Wherefore sit I in a regall throne’; _1 Rich. -II_, II. ii. 81, ‘Please you, assend your throne’; _1 Tamburlaine_, IV. -ii. 1474, ‘He [Tamburlaine] gets vp vpon him [Bajazet] to his chaire’; -_Dr. Faustus_, 1010 (addition of 1616 text), ‘His Maiesty is comming to -the Hall; Go backe, and see the State in readinesse’; _Look About You_, -sc. xix, ‘Enter young Henry Crowned ... Henry the elder places his -Sonne, the two Queenes on eyther hand, himselfe at his feete, Leyster -and Lancaster below him’; this must have involved an elaborate ‘state’. - -[187] _Bacon and Bungay_, sc. ix. (_vide supra_); _T. of a Shrew_, sc. -ix. 32, ‘They couer the bord and fetch in the meate’; _1 Edw. IV_, -IV. ii, ‘They bring forth a table and serue in the banquet’; _Patient -Grissell_, 1899, ‘A Table is set’; _Humorous Day’s Mirth_, scc. viii, -x-xii (Verone’s ordinary), on which cf. p. 70. - -[188] _1 Rich. II_, IV. ii; _Death of R. Hood_, II. ii; _R. J._ I. -v, where a servant says, ‘Away with the joint-stools, remove the -court-cupboard’, and Capulet ‘turn the tables up’; cf. ch. vi. - -[189] _M. N. D._ v (cf. III. i. 58); _Sir T. More_, sc. ix; _Sp. -Tragedy_, IV. iii, iv (a continuous scene), on which cf. p. 93, n. 1. - -[190] _2 Tamburlaine_, III. iii. 2969, ‘The Arras is drawen, and -Zenocrate lies in her bed of state, Tamburlaine sitting by her: three -Phisitians about her bed, tempering potions. Theridamas, Techelles, -Vsumcasane, and the three sonnes’.... (3110, at end of sc.) ‘The -Arras is drawen’; _Selimus_, sc. x. 861, ‘I needs must sleepe. -_Bassaes_ withdraw your selues from me awhile’.... ‘They stand -aside while the curtins are drawne’ (s.d.) ... (952) ‘A Messenger -enters, _Baiazet_ awaketh’; _Battle of Alcazar_, d.s. 24, ‘Enter -Muly Mahamet and his sonne, and his two young brethren, the Moore -sheweth them the bed, and then takes his leaue of them, and they betake -them to their rest’ ... (36) ‘Enter the Moore and two murdrers -bringing in his unkle Abdelmunen, then they draw the curtains and -smoother the yong princes in the bed. Which done in sight of the vnkle -they strangle him in his Chaire, and then goe forth’; _Edw. I_, sc. -xxv. 2668, ‘Elinor in child-bed with her daughter Ione, and other -Ladies’; _True Tragedy of Rich. III_, sc. i, ‘Now Nobles, draw -the Curtaines and depart ... (s.d.) The King dies in his bed’; sc. -xiii, where murderers are called ‘vp’, and murder of princes in bed -is visible; _Famous Victories_, sc. viii. 1, ‘Enter the King with -his Lords’ ... (10), ‘Draw the Curtaines and depart my chamber a -while’ ... ‘He sleepeth ... Enter the Prince’ (s.d.) ... ‘I wil -goe, nay but why doo I not go to the Chamber of my sick father?’ ... -(23) ‘Exit’ [having presumably taken the crown] ... (25) ‘_King._ -Now my Lords ... Remoue my chaire a little backe, and set me right’ -... (47) ‘_Prince_ [who has re-entered]. I came into your Chamber -... And after that, seeing the Crowne, I tooke it’ ... (87) ‘Draw -the Curtaines, depart my Chamber, ... Exeunt omnes, The King dieth’. -In the analogous _2 Hen. IV_, IV. iv, v (a continuous scene divided, -with unanimity in ill-doing, by modern editors in the middle of a -speech), the King says (IV. iv. 131), ‘Beare me hence Into some other -chamber’, Warwick (IV. v. 4), ‘Call for the Musick in the other -Roome’, and the King ‘Set me the Crowne vpon my Pillow here’. The -Prince enters and the Lords go to ‘the other roome’; he takes the -crown and ‘Exit’. Later (56) the Lords say, ‘This doore is open, -he is gone this way’, and ‘He came not through the chamber where we -staide’. The Prince returns and the Lords are bidden ‘Depart the -chamber’. Later (233) the King asks the name of ‘the lodging where -I first did swound’, and bids ‘beare me to that Chamber’. Then the -scene, and in F_{1} the act, ends. In _1 Contention_, sc. x. 1, ‘Then -the Curtaines being drawne, Duke _Humphrey_ is discouered in his bed, -and two men lying on his brest and smothering him in his bed. And then -enter the Duke of _Suffolke_ to them’. He bids ‘draw the Curtaines -againe and get you gone’. The King enters and bids him call Gloucester. -He goes out, and returns to say that Gloucester is dead. Warwick says, -‘Enter his priuie chamber my Lord and view the bodie’, and (50), -‘_Warwicke_ drawes the curtaines and showes Duke _Humphrey_ in his -bed’. The analogous _2 Hen. VI_, III. ii, omits the murder _coram -populo_ and begins ‘Enter two or three running ouer the Stage, from -the Murther of Duke Humfrey’. It then follows the earlier model until -(132) the King bids Warwick ‘Enter his Chamber’ and we get the brief -s.d. (146) ‘Bed put forth’, and Warwick speaks again. The next scene -is another death scene, which begins in _1 Contention_, sc. xi, ‘Enter -King and _Salsbury_, and then the Curtaines be drawne, and the Cardinal -is discouered in his bed, rauing and staring as if he were madde’, -and in _2 Hen. VI_, III. iii, ‘Enter the King ... to the Cardinal in -bed’, ending (32) ‘Close vp his eyes, and draw the Curtaine close’. In -_1 Rich. II_, V. i, Lapoole enters ‘with a light’ and murderers, whom -he bids ‘stay in the next with-draweing chamber ther’. Then (48), ‘He -drawes the curtayne’, says of Gloucester ‘He sleepes vppon his bed’, -and Exit. Gloucester, awaked by ghosts, says (110), ‘The doores are all -made fast ... and nothing heere appeeres, But the vast circute of this -emptie roome’. Lapoole, returning, says, ‘Hee’s ryssen from his bed’. -Gloucester bids him ‘shutt to the doores’ and ‘sits to wright’. The -murderers enter and kill him. Lapoole bids ‘lay hime in his bed’ and -‘shutt the doore, as if he ther had dyd’, and they (247) ‘Exeunt with -the bodye’. In _Death of R. Hood_, ii, ind., the presenter says ‘Draw -but that vaile, And there King John sits sleeping in his chaire’, and -the s.d. follows, ‘Drawe the curten: the King sits sleeping ... Enter -Queene ... She ascends, and seeing no motion, she fetcheth her children -one by one; but seeing yet no motion, she descendeth, wringing her -hands, and departeth’. In _R. J._ IV. iii, iv, v (continuous action), -Juliet drinks her potion and Q_{1}, has the s.d. (IV. iii. 58) ‘She -fals vpon her bed within the Curtaines’. Action follows before the -house, until the Nurse, bidden to call Juliet, finds her dead. Then -successively ‘Enter’ Lady Capulet, Capulet, the Friar, and Paris, to -all of whom Juliet is visible. After lament, the Friar, in Q_{2} (IV. -v. 91), bids them all ‘go you in’, but in Q_{1}, ‘They all but the -Nurse goe foorth, casting Rosemary on her and shutting the Curtens’. -The Nurse, then, in both texts, addresses the musicians, who came with -Paris. On the difficulty of this scene, in relation to II. ii and III. -v, cf. p. 94. - -[191] _Wounds of Civil War_, III. ii, 913, ‘Enter old _Marius_ with -his keeper, and two souldiers’. There is (965) ‘this homely bed’, on -which (972) ‘He lies downe’ (s.d.), and when freed (1066) ‘from walls -to woods I wend’. In _Edw. II_, 2448–2568 (at Kenilworth), keepers -say that the King is ‘in a vault vp to the knees in water’, of which -(2455) ‘I opened but the doore’. Then (2474) ‘Heere is the keyes, this -is the lake’ and (2486), ‘Heeres a light to go into the dungeon’. Then -(2490) Edward speaks and, presumably having been brought out, is bid -(2520) ‘lie on this bed’. He is murdered with a table and featherbed -brought from ‘the next roome’ (2478), and the body borne out. In _1 -Tr. Raigne_, sc. xii, Hubert enters, bids his men (8) ‘stay within -that entry’ and when called set Arthur ‘in this chayre’. He then bids -Arthur (13) ‘take the benefice of the faire evening’, and ‘Enter -Arthur’ who is later (131) bid ‘Goe in with me’. _K. J._ IV. i has -precisely analogous indications, except that the attendants stand -(2) ‘within the arras’, until Hubert stamps ‘Vpon the bosome of the -ground’. In _Rich. III_, I. iv, Clarence talks with his keeper, and -sleeps. Murderers enter, to whom the keeper says (97), ‘Here are the -keies, there sits the Duke a sleepe’. They stab him, threaten to ‘chop -him in the malmsey but in the next roome’ (161, 277), and bear the body -out. In _Rich. II_, V. v (at Pontefract) Richard muses on ‘this prison -where I liue’. He is visited by a groom of his stable (70), ‘where no -man neuer comes, but that sad dog, That brings me foode’. Then (95) -‘Enter one to Richard with meate’ and (105) ‘The murderers rush in’, -and (119) the bodies are cleared away. _Sir T. More_, sc. xvi, ‘Enter -_Sir Thomas Moore_, the Lieutenant, and a seruant attending as in his -chamber in the Tower’; _Lord Cromwell_, V. v, ‘Enter Cromwell in the -Tower.... Enter the Lieutenant of the Tower and officers.... Enter all -the Nobles’; _Dead Man’s Fortune_, plot (_Henslowe Papers_, 134), ‘Here -the laydes speakes in prysoun’; _Death of R. Hood_, IV. i: - - _Brand._ Come, come, here is the door. - _Lady Bruce._ O God, how dark it is. - _Brand._ Go in, go in; it’s higher up the stairs.... - _He seems to lock a door._ - -In _Old Fortunatus_, 2572, Montrose says of Ampedo, ‘Drag him to -yonder towre, there shackle him’. Later (2608) Andelocia is brought to -join him in ‘this prison’ and the attendants bid ‘lift in his legs’. -The brothers converse in ‘fetters’. In _1 Oldcastle_, IV. iv, v (a -continuous scene), ‘Enter the Bishop of Rochester with his men, in -liuerie coates’. They have brought him ‘heere into the Tower’ (1965) -and may ‘go backe vnto the Porters Lodge’ or attend him ‘here without’. -But they slip away. The Bishop calls the Lieutenant and demands to -see Oldcastle. A message is sent to Oldcastle by Harpoole. Then -(1995), ‘Enter sir Iohn Oldcastle’, and while the Bishop dismisses the -Lieutenant, Harpoole communicates a plot ‘aside’ to Oldcastle. Then the -Bishop addresses Oldcastle, and as they talk Oldcastle and Harpoole lay -hands upon him. They take his upper garments, which Oldcastle puts on. -Harpoole says (2016) ‘the window that goes out into the leads is sure -enough’ and he will ‘conuay him after, and bind him surely in the inner -room’. Then (2023) ‘Enter seruing men againe’. Oldcastle, disguised as -the Bishop, comes towards them, saying, ‘The inner roomes be very hot -and close’. Harpoole tells him that he will ‘downe vpon them’. He then -pretends to attack him. The serving-men join in, and (2049) ‘Sir John -escapes’. The Lieutenant enters and asks who is brawling ‘so neare vnto -the entrance of the Tower’. Then (2057) ‘Rochester calls within’, and -as they go in and bring him out bound, Harpoole gets away; cf. p. 62, -n. 2. _Look About You_, sc. v, is a similar scene in the Fleet, partly -in Gloucester’s chamber (811), the door of which can be shut, partly -(865) on a bowling green. Analogous to some of the prison scenes is -_Alarum for London_, sc. xii, in which a Burgher’s Wife shows Van End a -vault where her wealth is hid, and (1310) ‘She pushes him downe’, and -he is stoned there. - -[192] _Bacon and Bungay_, I. ii. 172, ‘Enter frier _Bacon_’, with -others, says ‘Why flocke you thus to Bacon’s secret cell?’, and -conjures; II. ii is in a street, but Bacon says (603) ‘weele to my -studie straight’, and II. iii begins (616), ‘_Bacon_ and _Edward_ -goes into the study’, where Edward *sits and looks in ‘this glasse -prospectiue’ (620), but his vision is represented on some part of the -stage; in IV. i. 1530, ‘Enter Frier _Bacon_ drawing the courtaines, -with a white sticke, a booke in his hand, and a lampe lighted by him, -and the brazen head and _Miles_, with weapons by him’. Miles is bid -watch the head, and ‘Draw closse the courtaines’ and ‘Here he [Bacon] -falleth asleepe’ (1568). Miles ‘will set me downe by a post’ (1577). -Presently (1604), ‘Heere the Head speakes and a lightning flasheth -forth, and a hand appeares that breaketh down the Head with a hammer’. -Miles calls to Bacon (1607) ‘Out of your bed’; IV. iii. 1744 begins -‘Enter frier _Bacon_ with frier _Bungay_ to his cell’. A woodcut in -Q_{2} of 1630, after the revival by the Palsgrave’s men, seems to -illustrate II. iii; the back wall has a window to the left and the head -on a bracket in the centre; before it is the glass on a table, with -Edward gazing in it; Bacon sits to the right. Miles stands to the left; -no side-walls are visible. In _Locrine_, I. iii. 309, ‘Enter Strumbo -aboue in a gowne, with inke and paper in his hand’; _Dr. Faustus_, ind. -28, ‘And this the man that in his study sits’, followed by s.d. ‘Enter -Faustus in his Study’, 433, ‘Enter Faustus in his Study ... (514) -Enter [Mephastophilis] with diuels, giuing crownes and rich apparell -to Faustus, and daunce, and then depart’, with probably other scenes. -In _T. A._ V. ii. 1, ‘Enter Tamora, and her two sonnes disguised’ ... -(9) ‘They knocke and Titus opens his studie doore’. Tamora twice (33, -43) bids him ‘come downe’, and (80) says, ‘See heere he comes’. The -killing of Tamora’s sons follows, after which Titus bids (205) ‘bring -them in’. In _Sir T. More_, sc. viii. 735, ‘A table beeing couered -with a greene Carpet, a state Cushion on it, and the Pursse and Mace -lying thereon Enter Sir Thomas Moore’.... (765) ‘Enter Surrey, Erasmus -and attendants’. Erasmus says (779), ‘Is yond Sir Thomas?’ and Surrey -(784), ‘That Studie is the generall watche of England’. The original -text is imperfect, but in the revision Erasmus is bid ‘sitt’, and later -More bids him ‘in’ (ed. Greg, pp. 84, 86). _Lord Cromwell_ has three -studies; in II. i, ii (continuous action at Antwerp), ‘Cromwell in his -study with bagges of money before him casting of account’, while Bagot -enters in front, soliloquizes, and then (II. ii. 23) with ‘See where he -is’ addresses Cromwell; in III. ii (Bologna), the action begins as a -hall scene, for (15) ‘They haue begirt you round about the house’ and -(47) ‘Cromwell shuts the dore’ (s.d.), but there is an inner room, for -(115) ‘Hodge [disguised as the Earl of Bedford] sits in the study, and -Cromwell calls in the States’, and (126) ‘Goe draw the curtaines, let -vs see the Earle’; in IV. v (London), ‘Enter Gardiner in his studie, -and his man’. _E. M. I._ I. iii, is before Cob’s house, and Tib is bid -show Matheo ‘vp to Signior Bobadilla’ (Q_{1} 392). In I. iv ‘Bobadilla -discouers himselfe on a bench; to him, Tib’. She announces ‘a gentleman -below’; Matheo is bid ‘come vp’, enters from ‘within’, and admires the -‘lodging’. In _1 Oldcastle_, V. i. 2086, ‘Enter Cambridge, Scroope, -and Gray, as in a chamber, and set downe at a table, consulting about -their treason: King Harry and Suffolke listning at the doore’ ... -(2114) ‘They rise from the table, and the King steps in to them, with -his Lordes’. _Stukeley_, i. 121, begins with Old Stukeley leaving his -host’s door to visit his son. He says (149), ‘I’ll to the Temple to -see my son’, and presumably crosses the stage during his speech of -171–86, which ends ‘But soft this is his chamber as I take it’. Then -‘He knocks’, and after parley with a page, says, ‘Give me the key of -his study’ and ‘methinks the door stands open’, enters, criticizes the -contents of the study, emerges, and (237) *‘Old Stukeley goes again -to the study’. Then (244) ‘Enter _Stukeley_ at the further end of the -stage’ and joins his father. Finally the boy is bid (335) ‘lock the -door’. In _Downfall of R. Hood_, ind., ‘Enter Sir John Eltham and -knocke at Skeltons doore’. He says, ‘Howe, maister Skelton, what at -studie hard?’ and (s.d.) ‘Opens the doore’. In _2 Edw. IV_, IV. ii, -‘Enter D. Shaw, pensiuely reading on his booke’. He is visited by a -Ghost, who gives him a task, and adds, ‘That done, return; and in thy -study end Thy loathed life’. - -[193] _Old Fortunatus_, 1315–1860, is before or in the hall of a court; -at 1701, ‘A curtaine being drawne, where Andelocia lies sleeping in -Agripines lap’. In _Downfall of R. Hood_, ind., is a s.d. of a court -scene, presumably in a hall, and ‘presently Ely ascends the chaire ... -Enter Robert Earl of Huntingdon, leading Marian: ... they infolde each -other, and sit downe within the curteines ... drawing the curteins, -all (but the Prior) enter, and are kindely receiued by Robin Hood. The -curteins are again shut’. - -[194] _Jew of Malta_, i. 36, ‘Enter Barabas in his Counting-house, with -heapes of gold before him’. Later his house is taken for a nunnery; -he has hid treasure (536) ‘underneath the plancke That runs along the -vpper chamber floore’, and Abigail becomes a nun, and (658) throws -the treasure from ‘aboue’. He gets another house, and Pilia-Borza -describes (iii. 1167) how ‘I chanc’d to cast mine eye vp to the Iewes -counting-house’, saw money-bags, and climbed up and stole by night. -_Arden of Feversham_, I., III. v, IV. i, V. i are at Arden’s house at -Feversham. From I. I should assume a porch before the house, where -Arden and his wife breakfast and (369) ‘Then she throwes down the broth -on the grounde’; cf. 55, ‘Call her foorth’, and 637, ‘Lets in’. It can -hardly be a hall scene, as part of the continuous action is ‘neare’ -the house (318) and at 245 we get ‘This is the painters [Clarke’s] -house’, who is called out. There is no difficulty in III. v or IV. i; -cf. III. v. 164, ‘let vs in’. But V. i, taken by itself, reads like a -hall scene with a counting-house behind. Black Will and Shakebag are -hidden in a ‘counting-house’, which has a ‘door’ and a ‘key’ (113, 145, -153). A chair and stool are to be ready for Mosbie and Arden (130). -Alice bids Michael (169) ‘Fetch in the tables, And when thou hast done, -stand before the counting-house doore’, and (179) ‘When my husband -is come in, lock the streete doore’. When Arden comes with Mosbie, -they are (229) ‘in my house’. They play at tables and the murderers -creep out and kill Arden, and (261), ‘Then they lay the body in the -Counting-house’. Susan says (267), ‘The blood cleaueth to the ground’, -and Mosbie bids (275) ‘strew rushes on it’. Presently, when guests -have come and gone, (342) ‘Then they open the counting-house doore -and looke vppon Arden’, and (363) ‘Then they beare the body into the -fields’. Francklin enters, having found the body, with rushes in its -shoe, ‘Which argueth he was murthred in this roome’, and looking about -‘this chamber’, they find blood ‘in the place where he was wont to sit’ -(411–15). - -[195] In _1 Hen. IV_, II. iv, Henry calls Poins (1) ‘out of that fat -roome’ and bids him (32) ‘Stand in some by-roome’ while the Prince -talks to the Drawer. The Vintner (91) bids the Drawer look to guests -‘within’, and says Falstaff is ‘at the doore’. He enters and later -goes out to dismiss a court messenger who is (317) ‘at doore’ and -returns. He has a chair and cushion (416). When the Sheriff comes, -Henry bids Falstaff (549) ‘hide thee behind the Arras, the rest walke -vp aboue’. Later (578) Falstaff is found ‘a sleepe behind the Arras’. -This looks like a hall scene, and with it III. iii, where Mrs. Quickly -is miscalled (72) ‘in mine owne house’ and Falstaff says (112) ‘I fell -a sleepe here, behind the Arras’, is consistent. But in _2 Hen. IV_, -II. iv, Falstaff and Doll come out of their supper room. The Drawer -announces (75) ‘Antient Pistol’s belowe’, and is bid (109) ‘call him -vp’ and (202) ‘thrust him downe staires’. Later (381) ‘Peyto knockes -at doore’; so does Bardolph (397), to announce that ‘a dozen captaines -stay at doore’. This is clearly an upper parlour. In _Look About You_, -scc. ix, x (continuous action), Gloucester, disguised as Faukenbridge, -and a Pursuivant have stepped into the Salutation tavern (1470), -and are in ‘the Bel, our roome next the Barre’ (1639), with a stool -(1504) and fire (1520). But at 1525 the action shifts. Skink enters, -apparently in a room called the Crown, and asks whether Faukenbridge -was ‘below’ (1533). Presumably he descends, for (1578) he sends the -sheriff’s party ‘vp them stayres’ to the Crown. This part of the -action is before the inn, rather than in the Bell. _Humorous Day’s -Mirth_, scc. viii, x-xii, in Verone’s ordinary, with tables and a court -cupboard, seems to be a hall scene; at viii. 254 ‘convey them into the -inward parlour by the inward room’ does not entail any action within -the supposed inward room. - -[196] _W. for Fair Women_, II. 601. The scene does not itself prove -interior action, but cf. the later reference (800), ‘Was he so suted -when you dranke with him, Here in the buttery’. - -[197] In _Jew of Malta_, V. 2316, Barabas has ‘made a dainty Gallery, -The floore whereof, this Cable being cut, Doth fall asunder; so that -it doth sinke Into a deepe pit past recouery’, and at 2345 is s.d. ‘A -charge, the cable cut, A Caldron discouered’. - -[198] Cf. pp. 51, 53, 55–6, 58–9, 62. - -[199] A. E. Richards, _Studies in English Faust Literature: i. The -English Wagner Book of 1594_ (1907). The book was entered in S. R. on -16 Nov. 1593 (Arber, ii. 640). A later edition of 1680 is reprinted as -_The Second Report of Dr. John Faustus_ by W. J. Thoms, _Early Prose -Romances_ (1828), iii. Richards gives the date of the first edition of -the German book by Fridericus Schotus of Toledo as 1593. An edition -of 1714 is reprinted by J. Scheible, _Das Kloster_, iii. 1. This has -nothing corresponding to the stage-play of the English version. - -[200] _1 Contention_, sc. i. 1 (court scene), sc. xx. 1 (garden scene); -_Locrine_, III. vi. 1278 (battle scene); &c., &c. - -[201] _Henslowe Papers_, 130, ‘To them Pride, Gluttony Wrath and -Couetousness at one dore, at an other dore Enuie, Sloth and Lechery’ -(l. 6) ... ‘Enter Ferrex ... with ... soldiers one way ... to them At -a nother dore, Porrex ... and soldiers’ (26) ... ‘Enter Queene, with 2 -Counsailors ... to them Ferrex and Porrex seuerall waies ... Gorboduk -entreing in The midst between’ (30) ... ‘Enter Ferrex and Porrex -seuerally’ (36). I suppose that, strictly, ‘seuerally’ might also mean -successively by the same door, and perhaps does mean this in _Isle of -Gulls_, ind. 1 (Blackfriars), ‘Enter seuerally 3 Gentlemen as to see a -play’. - -[202] e. g. _Alphonsus_, II. i. 1 (battle scene); _Selimus_, 2430 -(battle scene); _Locrine_, V. v. 2022, 2061 (battle scene); _Old -Fortunatus_, 2675 (threshold scene); &c., &c. Archer, 469, calculates -that of 43 examples (sixteenth and seventeenth century) taken at -random, 11 use ‘one ... the other’, 21 ‘one ... an other’, and 11 -‘several’. - -[203] _Selimus_, 658, ‘at diuerse doores’; _Fair Em_, sc. ix, ‘at two -sundry doors’; _James IV_, II. ii. 1, ‘one way ... another way’; _Look -About You_, 464, ‘two waies’; _Weakest Goeth to the Wall_, 3, ‘one way -... another way’; _Jew of Malta_, 230, ‘Enter Gouernor ... met by’. -Further variants are the seventeenth-century _Lear_ (Q_{1}), II. i. 1, -‘meeting’, and _Custom of Country_, IV. iv, ‘at both doors’. - -[204] _1 Rich. II_, I. i, ‘at seuerall doores’. - -[205] _Fair Em_, sc. iv, ‘Enter Manvile ... Enter Valingford at -another door ... Enter Mountney at another door’; _Patient Grissell_, -1105, ‘Enter Vrcenze and Onophrio at seuerall doores, and Farneze -in the mid’st’; _Trial of Chivalry_, sign. I_{3}^{v}, ‘Enter at one -dore ... at the other dore ... Enter in the middest’. Examples from -seventeenth-century public theatres are _Four Prentices of London_, -prol., ‘Enter three in blacke clokes, at three doores’; _Travels of -3 English Brothers_, p. 90, ‘Enter three seuerall waies the three -Brothers’; _Nobody and Somebody_, 1322, ‘Enter at one doore ... at -another doore ... at another doore’; _Silver Age_, V. ii, ‘Exeunt three -wayes’. It may be accident that these are all plays of Queen Anne’s -men, at the Curtain or Red Bull. For the middle entrance in private -theatres, cf. p. 132. - -[206] _Downfall of R. Hood_, I. i (ind.), after Eltham has knocked -at Skelton’s study door (cf. p. 69), ‘At euery doore all the players -runne out’; _Englishmen for my Money_, 393, ‘Enter Pisaro, Delion -the Frenchman, Vandalle the Dutchman, Aluaro the Italian, and other -Marchants, at seuerall doores’; cf. the seventeenth-century _1 Honest -Whore_, sc. xiii (Fortune), ‘Enter ... the Duke, Castruchio, Pioratto, -and Sinezi from severall doores muffled’. - -[207] _Locrine_, IV. ii. 1460 (not an entry), ‘Locrine at one side of -the stage’; _Sir T. More_, sc. i. 1, ‘Enter at one end John Lincolne -... at the other end enters Fraunces’; _Stukeley_, 245, ‘Enter Stukeley -at the further end of the stage’, 2382, ‘Two trumpets sound at either -end’; _Look About You_, sc. ii. 76, ‘Enter ... on the one side ... on -the other part’. Very elaborate are the s.ds. of _John a Kent_, III. i. -The scene is before a Castle. A speaker says, ‘See, he [John a Cumber] -sets the Castell gate wide ope’. Then follows dialogue, interspersed -with the s.ds. ‘Musique whyle he opens the door’.... ‘From one end of -the Stage enter an antique ... Into the Castell ... Exit’.... ‘From -the other end of the Stage enter another Antique ... Exit into the -Castell’.... ‘From under the Stage the third antique ... Exit into the -Castell’.... ‘The fourth out of a tree, if possible it may be ... Exit -into the Castell’. Then John a Cumber ‘Exit into the Castell, and makes -fast the dore’. John a Kent enters, and ‘He tryes the dore’. John a -Cumber and others enter ‘on the walles’ and later ‘They discend’. For -an earlier example of ‘end’, cf. _Cobler’s Prophecy_ (p. 35, n. 1), and -for a later _The Dumb Knight_ (Whitefriars), i, iv. In _2 Return from -Parnassus_ (Univ. play), IV. i begins ‘Sir _Radericke_ and _Prodigo_, -at one corner of the Stage, Recorder and _Amoretto_ at the other’. - -[208] Cf. p. 98. - -[209] _Soliman and Perseda_, I. iv. 47, ‘Enter _Basilisco_ riding of a -mule’ ... (71) ‘_Piston_ getteth vp on his Asse, and rideth with him to -the doore’; cf. _1 Rich. II_ (quoted p. 61, n. 3), and for the private -stage, _Liberality and Prodigality_, _passim_, and _Summer’s Last Will -and Testament_, 968. W. J. Lawrence, _Horses upon the Elizabethan -Stage_ (_T. L. S._ 5 June 1919), deprecates a literal acceptance of -Forman’s notice of Macbeth and Banquo ‘riding through a wood’, attempts -to explain away the third example here given, and neglects the rest. I -think some kind of ‘hobby’ more likely than a trained animal. In the -_Mask of Flowers_, Silenus is ‘mounted upon an artificiall asse, which -sometimes being taken with strains of musicke, did bow down his eares -and listen with great attention’; cf. T. S. Graves, _The Ass as Actor_ -(1916, _South Atlantic Quarterly_, XV. 175). - -[210] _Knack to Know an Honest Man_, sc. ix. 1034 (cf. p. 60, n. 3). - -[211] _Leir_, 2625 (open country scene near a beacon), ‘Mumford -followes him to the dore’; cf. p. 60, _supra_. - -[212] Cf. ch. xviii, p. 544. - -[213] _2 Angry Women_, sc. x. 2250, ‘A plague on this poast, I would -the Carpenter had bin hangd that set it vp for me. Where are yee now?’; -_Englishmen for my Money_, scc. vii-ix (continuous scene), 1406, ‘Take -heede, sir! hers a post’ ... (1654) ‘Watt be dis Post?... This Post; -why tis the May-pole on Iuie-bridge going to Westminster.... Soft, -heere’s an other: Oh now I know in deede where I am; wee are now at the -fardest end of Shoredich, for this is the May-pole’.... (1701) ‘Ic weit -neit waer dat ic be, ic goe and hit my nose op dit post, and ic goe and -hit my nose op danden post’. - -[214] _3 Lords and 3 Ladies_, sign. I_{3}^v. - -[215] Cf. p. 57, n. 4, and for Kempe, ch. xviii, p. 545. - -[216] Cf. p. 57, n. 5; p. 58, n. 1. - -[217] Cf. p. 64, n. 3; p. 67, n. 1. - -[218] Graves, 88. - -[219] Cf. ch. xix, p. 42; _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 86, 142. Heywood, -_Apology_ (_1608_), thinks that the theatre of Julius Caesar at Rome -had ‘the covering of the stage, which we call the heavens (where upon -any occasion their gods descended)’. - -[220] _Battle of Alcazar_, 1263 (s.d.), ‘Lightning and thunder ... -Heere the blazing Starre ... Fire workes’; _Looking Glass_, 1556 -(s.d.), ‘A hand from out a cloud, threatneth a burning sword’; _2 -Contention_, sc. v. 9 (s.d.), ‘Three sunnes appeare in the aire’ (cf. -_3 Hen. VI_, II. i. 25); _Stukeley_, 2272 (s.d.), ‘With a sudden -thunderclap the sky is on fire and the blazing star appears’. - -[221] _1 Troublesome Raign_, sc. xiii. 131 (s.d.), ‘There the fiue -Moones appeare’. The Bastard casts up his eyes ‘to heauen’ (130) at the -sight, and the moons are in ‘the skie’ (163), but the episode follows -immediately after the coronation which is certainly in ‘the presence’ -(81). Perhaps this is why in _K. J._, IV. ii. 181, the appearance of -the moons is only narrated. - -[222] The Admiral’s inventories of 1598 (_Henslowe Papers_, 117) -include ‘the clothe of the Sone and Moone’. - -[223] _Alphonsus_, prol. (1), ‘After you haue sounded thrise, let -_Venus_ be let downe from the top of the stage’; epil. (1916), ‘Enter -_Venus_ with the Muses’ ... (1937), ‘Exit _Venus_; or if you can -conueniently, let a chaire come down from the top of the Stage and draw -her vp’. In _Old Fortunatus_, 840, Fortunatus, at the Soldan’s court, -gets a magic hat, wishes he were in Cyprus, and ‘Exit’. The bystanders -speak of him as going ‘through the ayre’ and ‘through the clouds’. -Angels descend from heaven to a tower in the _Wagner Book_ play (cf. p. -72). - -[224] One of the 1616 additions to the text of _Dr. Faustus_ (sc. xiv) -has the s.d. ‘Musicke while the Throne descends’ before the vision of -heaven, and ‘Hell is discouered’ before that of hell. On the other -hand, in _Death of R. Hood_, ii, ind. (cf. p. 66), the king is in a -chair behind a curtain, and the fact that the queen ‘ascends’ and -‘descends’ may suggest that this chair is the ‘state’. However this -may be, I do not see how any space behind the curtain can have been -high enough to allow any dignity to the elaborate states required by -some court scenes; cf. p. 64, n. 5. The throne imagined in the _Wagner -Book_ (cf. p. 72) had 22 steps. Out-of-door scenes, in which the -‘state’ appears to be used, are _Alphonsus_, II. i. 461 (battle scene), -‘Alphonsus sit in the Chaire’ (s.d.); II. i (a crowning on the field); -_Locrine_, IV. ii. 1490 (camp scene), ‘Let him go into his chaire’ -(s.d.); _Old Fortunatus_, sc. i. 72 (dream scene in wood), ‘Fortune -takes her Chaire, the Kings lying at her feete, shee treading on them -as shee goes vp’ ... (148), ‘She comes downe’. - -[225] Henslowe, i. 4, ‘Itm pd for carpenters worke & mackinge the -throne in the heuenes the 4 of Iune 1595 ... vij^{li} ij^s’. - -[226] _E. M. I._ (F_{1}), prol. 14, - - One such to-day, as other plays should be; - Where neither chorus wafts you o’er the seas, - Nor creaking throne comes down the boys to please. - -[227] Cf. p. 89. - -[228] Cf. vol. ii, p. 546. - -[229] Mettenleiter, _Musikgeschichte von Regensburg_, 256; Herz, 46, -‘ein Theater darinnen er mit allerley musikalischen Instrumenten auf -mehr denn zehnerley Weise gespielt, und über der Theaterbühne noch -eine Bühne 30 Schuh hoch auf 6 grosse Säulen, über welche ein Dach -gemacht worden, darunter ein viereckiger Spund, wodurch die sie schöne -Actiones verrichtet haben’; cf. ch. xiv and C. H. Kaulfuss-Diesch, _Die -Inszenierung des deutschen Dramas an der Wende des sechzehnten und -siebzehnten Jahrhunderts_ (1905). - -[230] Prölss, 73; Brodmeier, 5, 43, 57; cf. Reynolds, i. 7, and in _M. -P._ ix. 59; Albright, 151; Lawrence, i. 40. - -[231] Cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Vennor. The only extant Swan play is -Middleton’s _Chaste Maid in Cheapside_ of 1611. Chamber scenes are -III. i, ii, iii; IV. i; V. ii. Some of these would probably have been -treated in a sixteenth-century play as threshold scenes. But III. ii, -a child-bed scene, would have called for curtains. In _Chaste Maid_, -however, the opening s.d. is ‘A bed thrust out upon the stage; Allwit’s -wife in it’. We cannot therefore assume curtains; cf. p. 113. The room -is above (ll. 102, 124) and is set with stools and rushes. In V. iv, -two funeral processions meet in the street, and ‘while all the company -seem to weep and mourn, there is a sad song in the music-room’. - -[232] Florio, _Dictionary_, ‘_Scena_ ... forepart of a theatre where -players make them readie, being trimmed with hangings’ (cf. vol. ii, p. -539); Jonson, _Cynthia’s Revels_, ind. 151, ‘I am none of your fresh -Pictures, that use to beautifie the decay’d dead Arras, in a publique -Theater’; Heywood, _Apology_, 18 (Melpomene _loq._), ‘Then did I tread -on arras; cloth of tissue Hung round the fore-front of my stage’; -Flecknoe (cf. App. I), ‘Theaters ... of former times ... were but plain -and simple, with no other scenes, nor decorations of the stage, but -onely old tapestry, and the stage strew’d with rushes’. - -[233] _1 Hen. VI_, I. i. 1, ‘Hung be the heavens with black, yield day -to night!’; _Lucr._ 766 (of night), ‘Black stage for tragedies and -murders fell’; _Warning for Fair Women_, ind. 74, ‘The stage is hung -with blacke, and I perceive The auditors prepar’d for tragedie’; II. -6, ‘But now we come unto the dismal act, And in these sable curtains -shut we up The comic entrance to our direful play’; Daniel, _Civil -Wars_ (_Works_, ii. 231), ‘Let her be made the sable stage, whereon -Shall first be acted bloody tragedies’; _2 Antonio and Mellida_ -(Paul’s, 1599), prol. 20, ‘Hurry amain from our black-visaged shows’; -_Northward Hoe_, IV. i (of court play), ‘the stage hung all with black -velvet’; Dekker (iii. 296), _Lanthorne and Candlelight_ (1608), ‘But -now, when the stage of the world was hung with blacke, they jetted -vppe and downe like proud tragedians’; _Insatiate Countess_, IV. v. 4 -‘The stage of heaven is hung with solemn black, A time best fitting -to act tragedies’; Anon., _Elegy on Burbage_ (Collier, _Actors_, -53), ‘Since thou art gone, dear Dick, a tragic night Will wrap our -black-hung stage’; cf. Malone in _Variorum_, iii. 103; Graves, _Night -Scenes in the Elizabethan Theatres_ (_E. S._ xlvii. 63); Lawrence, -_Night Performances in the Elizabethan Theatres_ (_E. S._ xlviii. -213). In several of the passages quoted above, the black-hung stage is -a metaphor for night, but I agree with Lawrence that black hangings -cannot well have been used in the theatre to indicate night scenes -as well as tragedy. I do not know why he suggests that a ‘prevalent -idea that the stage was hung with blue for comedies’, for which, if it -exists, there is certainly no evidence, is ‘due to a curious surmise -of Malone’s’. Malone (_Var._ iii. 108) only suggests that ‘pieces of -drapery tinged with blue’ may have been ‘suspended across the stage to -represent the heavens’--quite a different thing. But, of course, there -is no evidence for that either. According to Reich, _Der Mimus_, I. -ii. 705, the colour of the _siparium_ in the Indian theatre is varied -according to the character of the play. - -[234] Cf. p. 30; vol. i, p. 231. On the removal of bodies W. Archer -(_Quarterly Review_, ccviii. 454) says, ‘In over a hundred plays which -we have minutely examined (including all Shakespeare’s tragedies) -there is only a small minority of cases in which explicit provision -is not made, either by stage-direction or by a line in the text, for -the removal of bodies. The few exceptions to this rule are clearly -mere inadvertences, or else are due to the fact that there is a crowd -of people on the stage in whose exit a body can be dragged or carried -off almost unobserved’. In _Old Fortunatus_, 1206, after his sons have -lamented over their dead father, ‘They both fall asleepe: Fortune and -a companie of Satyres enter with Musicke, and playing about Fortunatus -body, take him away’. Of course, a body left dead in the alcove need -not be removed; the closing curtains cover it. - -[235] Cf. p. 26. - -[236] Cf. p. 51, n. 3 (_Downfall of R. Hood_, ‘curtaines’ of bower -‘open’); p. 51, n. 4 (_Battle of Alcazar_, cave behind ‘curtaines’); -p. 53, n. 5 (_Edw. I_, tent ‘opens’ and is closed, and Queen is -‘discouered’); p. 55, n. 1 (_Looking-Glass_, ‘curtaines’ of tent -drawn to shut and open); p. 63, n. 1 (_Old Fortunatus_, _M. V._, -‘curtaines’ drawn to reveal caskets); p. 63, n. 4 (_Sir T. More_, -‘arras’ drawn); p. 65, n. 3 (_2 Tamburlaine_, ‘arras’ drawn; -_Selimus_, ‘curtins’ drawn; _Battle of Alcazar_, ‘curtains’ drawn; -_Famous Victories_, ‘curtains’ drawn; _1 Contention_, ‘curtains’ -drawn and bodies ‘discouered’; _1 Rich. II_, ‘curtayne’ drawn; _Death -of R. Hood_, ‘vaile’ or ‘curten’ drawn; _R. J._, ‘curtens’ shut); -p. 67, n. 1 (_Friar Bacon_, ‘courtaines’ drawn by actor with stick; -_Lord Cromwell_, ‘curtaines’ drawn); p. 68, n. 1 (_Old Fortunatus_, -‘curtaine’ drawn; _Downfall of R. Hood_, ‘curteines’ drawn and ‘shut’). - -[237] _M. W._ III. iii. 97; cf. p. 66, n. 1 (_K. J._), p. 68, n. 3 (_1 -Hen. IV_). - -[238] So probably in _Dr. Faustus_, 28, where the prol. ends ‘And this -the man that in his study sits’, and the s.d. follows, ‘Enter Faustus -in his study’. - -[239] The ‘groom’ of the seventeenth-century _Devil’s Charter_ (cf. p. -110) might be a servitor. - -[240] Cf. p. 53, n. 5 (_Edw. I_; _Trial of Chivalry_); p. 65, n. 3 (_1 -Contention_); p. 67, n. 1 (_E. M. I._). In _James IV_, V. vi. 2346, ‘He -discouereth her’ only describes the removal of a disguise. - -[241] Prölss, 85; Albright, 140; Reynolds, i. 26; cf. p. 65, n. 3 -(_Battle of Alcazar_); p. 67, n. 1 (_Dr. Faustus_). - -[242] W. Archer in _Quarterly Review_, ccviii. 470; Reynolds, i. 9; -Graves, 88; cf. Brereton in _Sh. Homage_, 204. - -[243] Cf. p. 65, n. 3 (_2 Tamburlaine_). - -[244] Cf. p. 64, n. 2 (_Alphonsus_). - -[245] Cf. p. 85. - -[246] Cf. vol. ii, p. 539. - -[247] W. Archer in _Quarterly Review_, ccviii. 470; Graves, 13. - -[248] Cf. p. 73. T. Holyoke, _Latin Dict._ (1677), has ‘_Scena_--the -middle door of the stage’. - -[249] Lawrence, ii. 50. A window could also be shown in front, if -needed, but I know of no clear example; cf. Wegener, 82, 95. - -[250] Cf. p. 51, n. 2 (_R. J._). - -[251] Cf. p. 67, n. 1 (_Stukeley_). - -[252] _Stratford Town Shakespeare_, x. 360; cf. Wegener, 56, 73; -Neuendorff, 124; Reynolds, i. 25. - -[253] Cf. p. 65, n. 3. - -[254] Cf. vol. ii, p. 520. - -[255] Of the examples cited on p. 80, n. 3, bed-curtains could only -suffice for _Selimus_, _Battle of Alcazar_, _1 Rich. II_, and possibly -_R. J._ and _Bacon and Bungay_; in the others either there is no bed, -or there is a clear indication of a discovered chamber. The curtains in -_Sp. Trag._ need separate consideration; cf. p. 93, n. 1. - -[256] The s.ds. of _2 Hen. VI_, in so far as they vary from _1 -Contention_, may date from the seventeenth century; cf. ch. xxi, p. 113. - -[257] _Henslowe Papers_, 130. - -[258] Prölss, 96; Reynolds, i. 24, 31; Albright, 111. - -[259] Cf. p. 63, n. 4. - -[260] _Dr. Faustus_, 1007 sqq., is apparently a hall scene, but in 1030 -(an addition of 1616 text), ‘Enter Benuolio aboue at a window’, whence -he views the scene with a state. On the play scene, with a gallery for -the court, in _Sp. Trag._ IV. ii, cf. p. 93. - -[261] _Famous Victories_, sc. viii; _2 Hen. IV_, IV. iv, v; _1 -Contention_, scc. x, xi; _2 Hen. VI_, III. ii, iii (cf. p. 65, n. 3); -_Edw. II_, 2448–2565; _1 Tr. Raigne_, xii; _K. J._ IV. i (cf. p. 66, n. -1); _Lord Cromwell_, III. ii (cf. p. 67, n. 1); _Downfall of R. Hood_, -ind. (cf. p. 68, n. 1); _Arden of Feversham_, V. i (cf. p. 68, n. 2); -_1 Hen. IV_, II. iv; _Humorous Day’s Mirth_, viii (cf. p. 68, n. 3). - -[262] Cf. p. 64, n. 6. W. Archer (_Quarterly Review_, ccviii. 457) -suggests that convention allowed properties, but not dead or drunken -men, to be moved in the sight of the audience by servitors. But as a -rule the moving could be treated as part of the action, and need not -take place between scenes. - -[263] _Rich. II_, I. iii; _2 Edw. IV_, II. iv, ‘This while the hangman -prepares, Shore at this speech mounts vp the ladder ... Shoare comes -downe’. The Admiral’s inventories of 1598 (_Henslowe Papers_, 116) -include ‘j payer of stayers for Fayeton’. - -[264] The dissertations of Reynolds (cf. _Bibl. Note_ to ch. xviii) are -largely devoted to the exposition of this theory. - -[265] Cf. p. 52, n. 2. The Admiral’s inventories of 1598 (_Henslowe -Papers_, 116) include ‘j baye tree’, ‘j tree of gowlden apelles’, -‘Tantelouse tre’, as well as ‘ij mose banckes’. - -[266] Cf. p. 51, n. 3. - -[267] _Looking Glass_, II. i. 495, ‘The Magi with their rods beate the -ground, and from vnder the same riseth a braue Arbour’; _Bacon and -Bungay_, sc. ix. 1171, ‘Heere Bungay coniures and the tree appeares -with the dragon shooting fire’; _W. for Fair Women_, ii. 411, ‘Suddenly -riseth vp a great tree betweene them’. On the other hand, in _Old -Fortunatus_, 609 (ind.), the presenters bring trees on and ‘set the -trees into the earth’. The t.p. of the 1615 _Spanish Tragedy_ shows the -arbour of the play as a small trellissed pergola with an arched top, -not too large, I should say, to come up and down through a commodious -trap. - -[268] _1 Contention_, sc. ii (cf. p. 56, n. 3); _John a Kent_, III. i -(cf. p. 74, n. 3); &c. - -[269] _Looking Glass_, IV. ii, s.d. ‘Jonas the Prophet cast out of the -Whales belly vpon the Stage’. - -[270] _Dr. Faustus_, 1450, s.d. (addition of 1616 text), ‘Hell is -discouered’; cf. p. 72 for the description of the imaginary stage -in the _Wagner Book_. The Admiral’s inventories of 1598 (_Henslowe -Papers_, 116) include ‘j Hell mought’. - -[271] _Arden of Feversham_, IV. ii, iii. - -[272] Cf. p. 51. - -[273] Cf. p. 43. - -[274] Cf. p. 76. - -[275] Of the late woodcuts, _Roxana_ shows ‘above’ two compartments, -clearly with spectators; _Messalina_ one, closed by curtains; _The -Wits_ a central one closed by curtains, and three on each side, with -female spectators. In view of their dates and doubtful provenances -(cf. _Bibl. Note_ to ch. xviii), these are no evidence for the -sixteenth-century public theatre, but they show that at some plays, -public or private, the audience continued to sit ‘over the stage’ well -in to the seventeenth century. - -[276] Cf. vol. ii, p. 542. - -[277] Cf. p. 45. - -[278] _Henslowe Papers_, 139. - -[279] _James IV_, 106, 605, 618, 1115. - -[280] _Looking Glass_, 152, 1756. - -[281] _T. of a Shrew_, scc. ii, xvi. In _T. of the Shrew_, sc. ii of -the Induction is ‘aloft’ (1), and the presenters ‘sit’ to watch the -play (147), but they only comment once (I. i. 254) with the s.d. ‘The -Presenters aboue speakes’, and Sly is not carried down at the end. - -[282] Cf. p. 57, n. 4. The main induction ends (38) with, ‘Why stay we -then? Lets giue the Actors leaue, And, as occasion serues, make our -returne’. - -[283] Revenge says (I. i. 90), ‘Here sit we downe to see the misterie, -And serue for Chorus in this Tragedie’, and the Ghost (III. xv. 38), -‘I will sit to see the rest’. In IV. i Hieronimo discusses with his -friends a tragedy which he has promised to give before the Court, and -alludes (184) to ‘a wondrous shew besides. That I will haue there -behinde a curtaine’. The actual performance occupies part of IV. iii, -iv (a continuous scene). In IV. iii. 1, ‘Enter Hieronimo; he knocks up -the curtaine’. We must not be misled by the modern French practice of -knocking for the rise of the front curtain. The tragedy has not yet -begun, and this is no front curtain, but the curtain already referred -to in IV. i, which Hieronimo is now hammering up to conceal the dead -body of Horatio, as part of the setting which he is arranging at one -end of the main stage. The Duke of Castile now enters, and it is clear -that the Court audience are to sit ‘above’, for Hieronimo begs the -Duke (12) that ‘when the traine are past into the gallerie, You would -vouchsafe to throw me downe the key’. He then bids (16) a Servant -‘Bring a chaire and a cushion for the King’ and ‘hang up the Title: Our -scene is Rhodes’. We are still concerned with Court customs, and no -light is thrown on the possible use of title-boards on the public stage -(cf. p. 126). The royal train take their places, and the performance -is given. Hieronimo epilogizes and suddenly (IV. iv. 88) ‘Shewes his -dead sonne’. Now it is clear why he wanted the key of the gallery, for -(152) ‘He runs to hange himselfe’, and (157) ‘They breake in, and hold -Hieronimo’. - -[284] Cf. p. 87, n. 3. - -[285] _Locrine_, I. iii; _Sp. Trag._ II. ii, III. ii, ix; _T. A._ -V. ii; _T. G._ IV. ii, iv; _R. J._ II. ii, III. v; _M. V._ II. vi; -_Englishmen for my Money_, sc. ix; _Two Angry Women_, 1495; cf. p. 56, -n. 3, p. 58, n. 4, p. 67, n. 1. - -[286] Cf. p. 66, n. 1, p. 67, n. 1, p. 68, n. 2, p. 68, n. 3. - -[287] In _R. J._ II. ii Romeo is in the orchard, and (2) ‘But soft, -what light through yonder window breaks?’ The lovers discourse, he -below, she ‘o’er my head’ (27). Presently (F_{1}; Q_{1}, is summary -here) Juliet says ‘I hear some noise within’ (136), followed by s.d. -‘Cals within’ and a little later ‘Within: Madam’, twice. Juliet then -‘Exit’ (155), and (159) ‘Enter Juliet again’. Modern editors have -reshuffled the s.ds. In III. v, Q_{2} (reproduced in F_{1}), in -addition to textual differences from Q_{1}, may represent a revised -handling of the scene. Q_{1} begins ‘Enter Romeo and Juliet at the -window’. They discuss the dawn. Then ‘He goeth downe’, speaks from -below, and ‘Exit’. Then ‘Enter Nurse hastely’ and says ‘Your Mother’s -comming to your Chamber’. Then ‘She goeth downe from the Window’. I -take this to refer to Juliet, and to close the action above, at a -point represented by III. v. 64 of the modern text. Then follow ‘Enter -Juliets Mother, Nurse’ and a dialogue below. Q_{2} begins ‘Enter -Romeo and Juliet aloft’. Presently (36) ‘Enter Madame [? an error] -and Nurse’, and the warning is given while Romeo is still above. -Juliet says (41) ‘Then, window, let day in, and let life out’, and -Romeo, ‘I’ll descend’. After his ‘Exit’ comes ‘Enter Mother’ (64), and -pretty clearly discourses with Juliet, not below, but in her chamber. -Otherwise there would be no meaning in Juliet’s ‘Is she not downe so -late or vp so early? What vnaccustomd cause procures her hither?’ -Probably, although there is no s.d., they descend (125) to meet -Capulet, for at the end of the scene Juliet bids the Nurse (231) ‘Go -in’, and herself ‘Exit’ to visit Friar Laurence. - -[288] Cf. p. 65, n. 3. - -[289] Cf. p. 58, n. 2. - -[290] Cf. p. 119. - -[291] _Arden of Feversham_, III. i (p. 61, n. 3), and _Death of R. -Hood_, IV. i (p. 66, n. 1), require stairs of which the foot or -‘threshold’ is visible. For the execution scene in _Sir T. More_, -sc. xvii (p. 57, n. 2), the whole stairs should be visible, but -perhaps here, as elsewhere, the scaffold, although More likens it to -a ‘gallerie’, was to be at least in part a supplementary structure. -The Admiral’s inventory of 1598 (_Henslowe Papers_, 116; cf. ch. ii, -p. 168) included ‘j payer of stayers for Fayeton’. In _Soliman and -Perseda_, I. iii (p. 57, n. 4), where the back wall represents the -outer wall of a tiltyard, ladders are put up against it. - -[292] Albright, 66; Lawrence, ii. 45. I am not prepared to accept the -theory that in _R. J._ III. v Romeo descends his ladder from behind; -cf. p. 94, n. 2. The other examples cited are late, but I should add -the ‘window that goes out into the leads’ of _1 Oldcastle_, 2016 (p. -66, n. 1). - -[293] _Jew of Malta_, V. 2316; cf. p. 68, n. 5. - -[294] _E. M. I._ I. v, ‘Bobadilla discouers himselfe: on a bench’. - -[295] Cf. p. 54, nn. 2–5. - -[296] See the conjectural reconstruction in Albright, 120. - -[297] _Jonsonus Virbius_ (1638). - -[298] Cf. p. 72. - -[299] _1 Hen. VI_, II. i (p. 54, n. 5). This arrangement would also fit -I. ii, in which a shot is fired from the walls at ‘the turrets’, which -could then be represented by the back wall. On a possible similar wall -in the Court play of _Dido_, cf. p. 36. - -[300] W. Archer (_Quarterly Review_, ccviii. 466) suggests the possible -use of a machine corresponding to the Greek ἐκκύκλημα (on which cf. A. -E. Haigh, _Attic Theatre_^3, 201), although he is thinking of it as a -device for ‘thrusting’ out a set interior from the alcove, which does -not seem to me necessary. - -[301] _Henslowe Papers_, 118. The ‘j payer of stayers for Fayeton’ -may have been a similar structure; cf. p. 95, n. 4. Otway, _Venice -Preserved_ (_1682_), V, has ‘Scene opening discovers a scaffold and a -wheel prepared for the executing of Pierre’. - -[302] _Henslowe Papers_, 116. - -[303] Cf. p. 56, nn. 2, 3. The courtyard in _Arden of Feversham_, III. -i, ii, might have been similarly staged. - -[304] _1 Hen. VI_, I. ii (a tower with a ‘grate’ in it), III. ii -(p. 55); _1 Contention_, sc. iii (p. 56); _Soliman and Perseda_, V. -ii. 118 (p. 57); _Blind Beggar of Alexandria_, sc. ii (p. 62); _Old -Fortunatus_, 769 (p. 63). - -[305] Cf. p. 54. - -[306] _Arden of Feversham_, sc. i, begins before Arden’s house whence -Alice is called forth (55); but, without any break in the dialogue, we -get (245) ‘This is the painter’s house’, although we are still (318) -‘neare’ Arden’s, where the speakers presently (362) breakfast. - -[307] _T. of A Shrew_, sc. xvi (cf. p. 92), see. iii, iv, v (a -continuous scene). _T. of The Shrew_, I. i, ii, is similarly before the -houses both of Baptista and Hortensio. - -[308] _Blind Beggar_, scc. v, vii. The use of the houses seems natural, -but not perhaps essential. - -[309] _1 Oldcastle_, II. i. 522, 632. - -[310] Cf. p. 67, n. 1. - -[311] _K. to K. Honest Man_, sc. v. 396, 408, 519, 559; sc. vii. 662, -738, 828, 894; sc. xv. 1385, 1425, 1428; cf. Graves, 65. - -[312] Cf. pp. 25, 33. - -[313] _George a Greene_, sc. xi. 1009, ‘Wil you go to the townes -end.... Now we are at the townes end’. - -[314] _A. of Feversham_, III. vi. 55, ‘See Ye ouertake vs ere we come -to Raynum down’.... (91) ‘Come, we are almost now at Raynum downe’. - -[315] _Dr. Faustus_, 1110, ‘let vs Make haste to Wertenberge ... til I -am past this faire and pleasant greene, ile walke on foote’, followed -immediately by ‘Enter a Horse-courser’ to Faustus, evidently in his -‘chaire’ (1149) at Wittenberg. - -[316] _R. J._ I. iv. 113, where, in Q_{1}, Romeo’s ‘on lustie -Gentlemen’ to the maskers is followed by ‘Enter old Capulet with the -Ladies’, while in Q_{2}, Benvolio responds ‘Strike drum’, and then -‘They march about the Stage, and Seruingmen come forth with Napkins’, -prepare the hall, and ‘Exeunt’, when ‘Enter all the guests and -gentlewomen to the Maskers’. - -[317] In _T. of The Shrew_, V. i. 17, ‘Pedant lookes out of the -window’, while the presenters are presumably occupying the gallery, but -even if this is a sixteenth-century s.d., the window need not be an -upper one. - -[318] The s.d. to _Sp. Trag._ III. xi. 8, where ‘He goeth in at one -doore and comes out at another’, is rather obscure, but the doors are -probably those of a house which has just been under discussion, and if -so, more than one door was sometimes supposed to belong to the same -house. - -[319] Cf. pp. 3, 4, 11. - -[320] See my diagrams on pp. 84–5. - -[321] W. Archer in _Universal Review_ (1888), 281; J. Le G. Brereton, -_De Witt at the Swan_ (_Sh. Homage_, 204); cf. p. 7. - -[322] Serlio’s ‘comic’ and ‘tragic’ scenes (cf. App. G) show steps to -the auditorium from the front of the stage. - -[323] Creizenach, iii. 446; iv. 424 (Eng. tr. 370), with engravings -from printed descriptions of 1539 and 1562. - -[324] The contest of 1561 is described in a long letter to Sir Thomas -Gresham (Burgon, i. 377) by his agent at Antwerp, Richard Clough. -It might be possible to trace a line of affiliation from another of -Gresham’s servants, Thomas Dutton, who was his post from Antwerp -_temp._ Edw. VI, and his agent at Hamburg _c._ 1571 (Burgon, i. 109; -ii. 421). The actor Duttons, John and Laurence, seem also to have -served as posts from Antwerp and elsewhere (cf. ch. xv). - -[325] _Thomas Lord Cromwell_ and _A Larum for London_, dealt with in -the last chapter, might also be Globe plays. - -[326] _Henry V_, _Much Ado about Nothing_, _Merry Wives of Windsor_, -_Hamlet_, _King Lear_, _Troilus and Cressida_, _Pericles_, _Every Man -Out of his Humour_, _Sejanus_, _Volpone_, _Yorkshire Tragedy_, _London -Prodigal_, _Fair Maid of Bristow_, _Devil’s Charter_, _Merry Devil -of Edmonton_, _Revenger’s Tragedy_, _Miseries of Enforced Marriage_, -and perhaps _1 Jeronimo_; with the second version of _Malcontent_, -originally a Queen’s Revels play, and _Satiromastix_, the s.ds. of -which perhaps belong rather to Paul’s, where it was also played. - -[327] _Catiline_, _Alchemist_; _Second Maid’s Tragedy_. - -[328] _Julius Caesar_, _Twelfth Night_, _As You Like It_, _All’s -Well that Ends Well_, _Measure for Measure_, _Othello_, _Macbeth_, -_Coriolanus_, _Antony and Cleopatra_, _Timon of Athens_. - -[329] _Cymbeline_, _Winter’s Tale_, _Tempest_, _Henry VIII_, _Duchess -of Malfi_, _Two Noble Kinsmen_, _Maid’s Tragedy_, _King and no King_, -_Philaster_, and perhaps _Thierry and Theodoret_. - -[330] I have only occasionally drawn upon plays such as _Bonduca_, -whose ascription in whole or part to 1599–1613 is doubtful; these will -be found in the list in App. L. - -[331] _1 Honest Whore_, _When You See Me You Know Me_, _Whore of -Babylon_, _Roaring Girl_, and possibly _Two Lamentable Tragedies_. The -extant text of _Massacre at Paris_ may also represent a revival at the -Fortune. - -[332] _Nobody and Somebody_, _Travels of Three English Brothers_, -_Woman Killed With Kindness_, _Sir Thomas Wyat_, _Rape of Lucrece_, -_Golden Age_, _If It Be Not Good the Devil is in It_, _White Devil_, -_Greene’s Tu Quoque_, _Honest Lawyer_, and probably _1, 2 If You Know -Not Me You Know Nobody_, _Fair Maid of the Exchange_, _Silver Age_, -_Brazen Age_. _How to Choose a Good Wife from a Bad_ is probably a Rose -or Boar’s Head play. - -[333] _Hen. V_, IV. iv-viii; _T. C._ V. iv-x; _J. C._ V. i-v; _Lear_, -IV. iii, iv, vii; V. i-iii; _A. C._ III. vii-x, xii; IV. i, iii, v-xiv; -V. i, &c. - -[334] _Hen. V_, IV. viii; _J. C._ IV. ii, iii; _T. C._ I. iii; II. i, -iii; III. iii; IV. v; V. i, ii, apparently with tents in one or other -scene of Agamemnon (I. iii. 213), Ulysses (I. iii. 305), Ajax (II. i), -Achilles (II. iii. 84; III. iii. 38; V. i. 95), and Calchas (V. i. 92; -V. ii); _Devil’s Charter_, IV. iv. 2385, ‘He discouereth his Tent where -her two sonnes were at Cardes’; and in s.d. of Prol. 29 (not a battle -scene) ‘Enter, at one doore betwixt two other Cardinals, Roderigo ... -one of which hee guideth to a Tent, where a table is furnished ... and -to another Tent the other’. - -[335] _Hen. V_, III. vi, vii; IV. i-iii. - -[336] _Hen. V_, III. i. 1, ‘Scaling Ladders at Harflew’; III. iii. -1, ‘Enter the King and all his Traine before the Gates’.... (58) -‘Flourish, and enter the Towne’; _Cor._ I. iv. 13, ‘Enter two Senators -with others on the Walles of Corialus’.... (29) ‘The Romans are beat -back to their Trenches’.... (42) ‘Martius followes them to their gates, -and is shut in’.... (62) ‘Enter Martius bleeding, assaulted by the -enemy’.... ‘They fight and all enter the City’, and so on to end of sc. -x; _Tim._ V. iv. 1, ‘Enter Alcibiades with his Powers before Athens.... -The Senators appeare vpon the wals’; IV. i; _Devil’s Charter_, II. i; -IV. iv; _Maid’s Tragedy_, V. iii. - -[337] _A. Y. L._ III. ii. 1; _Philaster_, IV. iv. 83, ‘Philaster creeps -out of a bush’ (as shown in the woodcut on the t.p. of the Q.); _T. N. -K._ III. i. 37, ‘Enter Palamon as out of a bush’; V. i. 169, ‘Here the -Hynde vanishes under the Altar: and in the place ascends a Rose Tree, -having one Rose upon it’. - -[338] _Ham._ III. ii. 146 (Q_{1}) ‘Enter in a Dumb Show, the King and -the Queene, he sits downe in an Arbor’, (Q_{2}, F_{2}) ‘he lyes him -downe vpon a bancke of flowers’; _M. Ado_, I. ii. 10; III. i. 7, 30; -_J. C._ III. ii. 1, ‘Enter Brutus and goes into the Pulpit’; _Tim._ V. -iii. 5; _E. M. O._ III. ii. - -[339] _Ham._ V. i; _Macb._ IV. i; _Devil’s Charter_, prol.; _Catiline_, -I. i, &c.; I do not know whether hell-mouth remained in use; there is -nothing to point to it in the hell scene of _The Devil is an Ass_, I. i. - -[340] _Pericles_, II. i. 121, ‘Enter the two Fisher-men, drawing vp a -Net’. - -[341] _Devil’s Charter_, III. v. Caesar Borgia and Frescobaldi murder -the Duke of Candie (_vide infra_). Caesar says ‘let vs heaue him ouer, -That he may fall into the riuer Tiber, Come to the bridge with him’; he -bids Frescobaldi ‘stretch out their armes [for] feare that he Fall not -vpon the arches’, and ‘Caesar casteth Frescobaldi after’. - -[342] _Rape of Lucrece_ (ed. Pearson), p. 240. It is before ‘yon -walles’ of Rome. Horatius has his foot ‘fixt vpon the bridge’ and -bids his friends break it behind him, while he keeps Tarquin’s party -off. Then ‘a noise of knocking downe the bridge, within’ and ‘Enter -... Valerius aboue’, who encourages Horatius. After ‘Alarum, and the -falling of the Bridge’, Horatius ‘exit’, and Porsenna says ‘Hee’s leapt -off from the bridge’. Presently ‘the shout of all the multitude Now -welcomes him a land’. - -[343] _Devil’s Charter_, III. v, Frescobaldi is to waylay the Duke of -Candie. ‘He fenceth’ (s.d.) with ‘this conduct here’ (1482), and as the -victim arrives, ‘Here will I stand close’ (1612) and ‘He stands behind -the post’ (s.d.); cf. _Satiromastix_ (p. 141, n. 4). - -[344] _Tp._ IV. i. 72. - -[345] _Tp._ III. iii. 17, ‘Solemne and strange Musicke: and Prosper -on the top (invisible:) Enter severall strange shapes, bringing in a -Banket; and dance about it with gentle actions of salutations, and -inuiting the King, &c. to eate, they depart’.... (52) ‘Thunder and -lightning. Enter Ariell (like a Harpey) claps his wings upon the Table, -and with a queint device the Banquet vanishes’.... (82) ‘He vanishes -in Thunder: then (to soft Musicke) Enter the shapes againe, and daunce -(with mockes and mowes) and carrying out the Table’; IV. i. 134, ‘Enter -Certaine Nimphes.... Enter certaine Reapers (properly habited:) they -ioyne with the Nimphes, in a gracefull dance, towards the end whereof, -_Prospero_ starts sodainly and speakes, after which to a strange hollow -and confused noyse, they heauily vanish’.... (256) ‘A noyse of Hunters -heard. Enter divers Spirits in shape of Dogs and Hounds, hunting them -about: Prospero and Ariel setting them on’. Was the ‘top’ merely the -gallery, or the third tiring-house floor (cf. p. 98) above? Ariel, like -Prospero, enters ‘invisible’ (III. ii. 48). Is this merely the touch -of an editor (cf. ch. xxii) or does it reflect a stage convention? The -Admiral’s tiring-house contained in 1598 (_Henslowe Papers_, 123) ‘a -robe for to goo invisibell’. - -[346] _G. A._ V, ‘Iris descends ... Iupiter first ascends upon the -Eagle, and after him Ganimed’.... ‘Enter at 4 severall corners the -4 winds’; _S. A._ II, ‘Thunder and lightning. Iupiter discends in a -cloude’.... ‘Iuno and Iris descend from the heavens’; III, ‘Enter Iuno -and Iris above in a cloud’.... ‘Enter Pluto, his Chariot drawne in by -Divels’.... ‘Mercury flies from above’.... ‘Earth riseth from under -the stage’.... ‘Earth sinkes’.... ‘The river Arethusa riseth from the -stage’; IV, ‘Iupiter taking up the Infant speakes as he ascends in -his cloud’; V, ‘Hercules sinkes himselfe: Flashes of fire; the Diuels -appeare at every corner of the stage with severall fireworkes’.... -‘Exeunt three wayes Ceres, Theseus, Philoctetes, and Hercules dragging -Cerberus one way: Pluto, hels Iudges, the Fates and Furies downe to -hell: Iupiter, the Gods and Planets ascend to heaven’; _B. A._ I, -‘When the Fury sinkes, a Buls head appeares’; V, ‘Enter Hercules from -a rocke above, tearing down trees’.... ‘Iupiter above strikes him with -a thunderbolt, his body sinkes, and from the heavens discends a hand -in a cloud, that from the place where Hercules was burnt, brings up a -starre, and fixeth it in the firmament’. - -[347] _G. A._ II, ‘Enter Iupiter like a Nimph, or a Virago’; IV, -‘Enter Iupiter like a Pedler’; _S. A._ II, ‘Enter ... Iupiter shapt -like Amphitrio’; IV, ‘Enter Iuno in the shape of old Beroe’.... ‘Enter -Iupiter like a woodman’; _B. A._ V, ‘Enter ... Hercules attired like a -woman, with a distaffe and a spindle’. - -[348] _S. A._ III, ‘The Nurses bring yong Hercules in his Cradle, and -leave him. Enter Iuno and Iris with two snakes, put them to the childe -and depart: Hercules strangles them: to them Amphitrio, admiring the -accident’; _B. A._ IV, ‘Enter Vulcan and Pyragmon with his net of -wire.... Vulcan catcheth them fast in his net.... All the Gods appeare -above and laugh, Iupiter, Iuno, Phoebus, Mercury, Neptune’. - -[349] _G. A._ II, ‘A confused fray, an alarme.... Lycaon makes head -againe, and is beat off by Iupiter and the Epirians, Iupiter ceazeth -the roome of Lycaon’; II, ‘Enter with musicke (before Diana) sixe -Satires, after them all their Nimphs, garlands on their heads, and -iavelings in their hands, their Bowes and Quivers: the Satyrs sing’.... -‘Hornes winded, a great noise of hunting. Enter Diana, all her Nimphes -in the chase, Iupiter pulling Calisto back’; III, ‘Alarm. They combat -with iavelings first, after with swords and targets’; _S. A._ III, -‘Enter Ceres and Proserpine attired like the Moone, with a company of -Swaines, and country Wenches: They sing’.... ‘A confused fray with -stooles, cups and bowles, the Centaurs are beaten.... Enter with -victory, Hercules’; _B. A._ IV, ‘Enter Aurora, attended with Seasons, -Daies, and Howers’; V, ‘Hercules swings Lychas about his head, and kils -him’. - -[350] _G. A._ I, ‘Enter Saturn with wedges of gold and silver, models -of ships and buildings, bow and arrowes, &c.’; II, ‘Vesta and the -Nurse, who with counterfeit passion present the King a bleeding heart -upon a knives point, and a bowle of bloud’.... ‘A banquet brought in, -with the limbes of a man in the service’; _B. A._ V, ‘Enter to the -sacrifice two Priests to the Altar, sixe Princes with sixe of his -labours, in the midst Hercules bearing his two brazen pillars, six -other Princes, with the other six labours’. - -[351] _G. A._ V, ‘Pluto drawes hell: the Fates put upon him a -burning Roabe, and present him with a Mace, and burning crowne’; -_S. A._ II, ‘Jupiter appeares in his glory under a Raine-bow’; IV, -‘Thunder, lightnings, Jupiter descends in his maiesty, his Thunderbolt -burning’.... ‘As he toucheth the bed it fires, and all flyes up’; V, -‘Fire-workes all over the house’.... ‘Enter Pluto with a club of fire, -a burning crowne, Proserpine, the Judges, the Fates, and a guard of -Divels, all with burning weapons’; _B. A._ II, ‘There fals a shower of -raine’. Perhaps one should remember the sarcasm of _Warning for Fair -Women_, ind. 51, ‘With that a little rosin flasheth forth, Like smoke -out of a tobacco pipe, or a boys squib’. - -[352] _Revenger’s Tragedy_ (Dodsley^4), p. 99; it recurs in _2 If You -Know Not Me_ (ed. Pearson), p. 292. - -[353] _T. N._ IV. ii; _M. for M._ IV. iii; _Fair Maid of Bristow_, sig. -E 3; _Philaster_, V. ii. - -[354] _Tp._ V. i. 172, ‘Here Prospero discouers Ferdinand and Miranda, -playing at Chesse’. - -[355] _Tim._ IV. iii.; V. i. 133. - -[356] _M. Wives_, I. iv. 40, ‘He steps into the Counting-house’ -(Q_{1}); _2 Maid’s Tragedy_, 1995, 2030, ‘Locks him self in’. - -[357] _M. D. of Edmonton_, prol. 34, ‘Draw the Curtaines’ (s.d.), -which disclose Fabel on a couch, with a ‘necromanticke chaire’ by him; -_Devil’s Charter_, I. iv. 325, ‘Alexander in his study’; IV. i. 1704, -1847; v. 2421, 2437; V. iv. 2965; vi. 3016, ‘Alexander vnbraced betwixt -two Cardinalls in his study looking vpon a booke, whilst a groome -draweth the Curtaine.... They place him in a chayre vpon the stage, a -groome setteth a Table before him’.... (3068), ‘Alexander draweth the -Curtaine of his studie where hee discouereth the diuill sitting in his -pontificals’; _Hen. VIII_, II. ii. 63, after action in anteroom, ‘Exit -Lord Chamberlaine, and the King drawes the Curtaine and sits reading -pensiuely’; _Catiline_, I. i. 15, ‘Discouers Catiline in his study’; -_Duchess of Malfi_, V. ii. 221 (a ‘cabinet’); cf. _Massacre at Paris_ -(Fortune), 434, ‘He knocketh, and enter the King of Nauarre and Prince -of Condy, with their scholmaisters’ (clearly a discovery, rather than -an entry). - -[358] _2 Maid’s Tragedy_, 1725, ‘Enter the Tirant agen at a farder -dore, which opened, bringes hym to the Toombe wher the Lady lies -buried; the Toombe here discovered ritchly set forthe’; (1891) -‘Gouianus kneeles at the Toomb wondrous passionatly’.... (1926), ‘On -a sodayne in a kinde of Noyse like a Wynde, the dores clattering, the -Toombstone flies open, and a great light appeares in the midst of the -Toombe’. - -[359] _W. T._ V. iii; _D. of Malfi_, III. iv. 1, ‘Two Pilgrimes to the -Shrine of our Lady of Loretto’. - -[360] _E. M. O._ IV. iii-v; cf. _Roaring Girl_ (Fortune) (ed. Pearson, -p. 50), ‘The three shops open in a ranke: the first a Poticaries shop, -the next a Fether shop; the third a Sempsters shop’; _Two Lamentable -Tragedies_ (? Fortune), I. i, ‘Sit in his shop’ (Merry’s); I. iii, -‘Then Merry must passe to Beeches shoppe, who must sit in his shop, and -Winchester his boy stand by: Beech reading’; II. i, ‘The boy sitting -at his maisters dore’.... ‘When the boy goeth into the shoppe Merrie -striketh six blowes on his head and with the seaventh leaues the hammer -sticking in his head’.... ‘Enter one in his shirt and a maide, and -comming to Beeches shop findes the boy murthered’; IV. iv, ‘Rachell -sits in the shop’ (Merry’s); _Bartholomew Fair_ (Hope), II-V, which -need booths for the pig-woman, gingerbread woman, and hobby-horse man. - -[361] _Revenger’s Tragedy_ (Dodsley^4), i, p. 26, ‘Enter ... Antonio -... discovering the body of her dead to certain Lords and Hippolito; -pp. 58, 90 (scenes of assignation and murder in a room with ‘yon silver -ceiling’, a ‘darken’d blushless angle’, ‘this unsunned lodge’, ‘that -sad room’); _D. of Malfi_, IV. i. 55, ‘Here is discover’d, behind a -travers, the artificiall figures of Antonio and his children, appearing -as if they were dead’; ii. 262, ‘Shewes the children strangled’; cf. -_White Devil_ (Queen’s), V. iv. 71, ‘They are behind the travers. Ile -discover Their superstitious howling’, with s.d. ‘Cornelia, the Moore -and 3 other Ladies discovered, winding Marcello’s coarse’; _Brazen Age_ -(Queen’s), III, ‘Two fiery Buls are discouered, the Fleece hanging -over them, and the Dragon sleeping beneath them: Medea with strange -fiery-workes, hangs above in the Aire in the strange habite of a -Coniuresse’. - -[362] Cf. p. 25. I am not clear whether _Volpone_, V. 2801, ‘Volpone -peepes from behinde a trauerse’ is below or above, but in either event -the traverse in this case must have been a comparatively low screen and -free from attachment at the top, as Volpone says (2761), ‘I’le get up, -Behind the cortine, on a stoole, and harken; Sometime, peepe ouer’. - -[363] _M. Ado_, I. iii. 63; _M. Wives_, III. iii. 97, ‘Falstaffe stands -behind the aras’ (Q_{1}); _Ham._ II. ii. 163; III. iv. 22; _D. of -Malfi_, I. ii. 65; _Philaster_, II. ii. 61, ‘Exit behind the hangings’ -... (148), ‘Enter Galatea from behind the hangings’. - -[364] _Cy._ II. ii. 1, ‘Enter Imogen, in her Bed, and a Lady’ ... (11) -‘Iachimo from the Trunke’, who says (47) ‘To th’ Truncke againe, and -shut the spring of it’ and (51) ‘Exit’; cf. II. iii. 42, ‘Attend you -here the doore of our stern daughter?’; cf. _Rape of Lucrece_ (Red -Bull), p. 222 (ed. Pearson), ‘Lucrece discovered in her bed’. - -[365] _Ham._ III. iv; cf. p. 116. Most of the scenes are in some -indefinite place in the castle, called in II. ii. 161 ‘here in the -lobby’ (Q_{2}, F_{1}) or ‘here in the gallery’ (Q_{1}). Possibly the -audience for the play scene (III. ii) were in the alcove, as there is -nothing to suggest that they were above; or they may have been to right -and left, and the players in the alcove; it is guesswork. - -[366] _Oth._ V. ii. 1, ‘Enter Othello with a light’ (Q_{1}), ‘Enter -Othello and Desdemona in her bed’ (F_{1}). It is difficult to say -whether _Maid’s Tragedy_, V. i. 2 (continuous scene), where Evadne’s -entry and colloquy with a gentleman of the bedchamber is followed by -s.d. ‘King abed’, implies a ‘discovery’ or not. - -[367] _D. Charter_, I. v. 547, ‘Enter _Lucretia_ alone in her night -gowne untired, bringing in a chaire, which she planteth upon the Stage’ -... (579) ‘Enter Gismond di Viselli untrussed in his Night-cap, tying -his points’ ... (625) ‘Gismond sitteth downe in a Chaire, Lucretia on -a stoole [ready on the stage for a spectator?] beside him’ ... (673) -‘She ... convaieth away the chaire’. Barbarossa comes into ‘this parler -here’ (700), finds the murdered body, and they ‘locke up the dores -there’ and ‘bring in the body’ (777), which is therefore evidently not -behind a curtain. - -[368] _D. Charter_, IV. iii. 2005, ‘Enter Lucretia richly attired with -a Phyal in her hand’ ... ‘Enter two Pages with a Table, two looking -glasses, a box with Combes and instruments, a rich bowle’. She paints -and is poisoned, and a Physician bids ‘beare in her body’ (2146). - -[369] _D. Charter_, IV. v. 2441, ‘Exit _Alexander_ into his study’ ... -‘Enter _Astor_ and _Philippo_ in their wast-cotes with rackets’ ... -‘Enter two Barbers with linen’ ... ‘After the barbers had trimmed and -rubbed their bodies a little, _Astor_ caleth’ ... ‘They lay them selves -upon a bed and the barbers depart’ ... ‘_Bernardo_ knocketh at the -study’. They are murdered and Bernardo bidden to ‘beare them in’ (2589). - -[370] Cf. p. 66. - -[371] Albright, 142; Graves, 17; Reynolds (1911), 55; Thorndike, 81. - -[372] Cf. ch. xxii. - -[373] In _The Faithful Friends_ (possibly a Jacobean King’s play), iv. -282, Rufinus says, ‘Lead to the chamber called Elysium’; then comes -s.d. ‘Exit Young Tullius, Phyladelphia and Rufinus. Then a rich Bed -is thrust out and they enter again’, and Tullius says ‘This is the -lodging called Elysium’. Later examples are Sir W. Berkeley, _The Lost -Lady_ (1638), V. i, ‘Enter the Moor on her bed, Hermione, Phillida, and -Irene. The bed thrust out’; Suckling, _Aglaura_ (1646), V, ‘A bed put -out. Thersames and Aglaura in it.... Draw in the Bed’; Davenport, _City -Night Cap_ (1661, Cockpit), II. i, ‘A bed thrust out. Lodovico sleeping -in his clothes; Dorothea in bed’. - -[374] _Silver Age_, IV, ‘Enter Semele drawne out in her bed’; _Hector -of Germany_, I. i, ‘a bed thrust out, the Palsgrave lying sick on -it, the King of Bohemia, the Duke of Savoy, the Marquis Brandenburg -entering with him’; _Chaste Maid in Cheapside_, III. ii. 1, ‘A bed -thrust out upon the stage; Allwit’s wife in it’. This appears from -‘call him up’ (102) to be on the upper stage. _Golden Age_, I, ‘Enter -Sibilla lying in child-bed, with her child lying by her, and her Nurse, -&c.’ has the Cymbeline formula, but presumably the staging was as for -Danae. - -[375] _Golden Age_, IV, ‘Enter foure old Beldams’, and say ‘The ‘larme -bell rings’; it is Acrisius; they will ‘clap close to the gate and let -him in’. He bids them watch ‘your percullist entrance’, says ‘Danae is -descended’, speaks of ‘the walkes within this barricadoed mure’. She -returns ‘unto her chamber’ and he ‘Exit’. The beldams will ‘take our -lodgings before the Princesse chamber’ and ‘Exit’. Then ‘Enter Iupiter -like a Pedler, the Clowne his man, with packs at their backes’. They -are evidently outside the gate. ‘He rings the bell’ and persuades the -beldams to let him ‘into the Porters lodge’. They will ‘shut the gate -for feare the King come and if he ring clap the Pedlers into some of -yon old rotten corners’. Then ‘Enter Danae’, whom Jupiter courts. She -says ‘Yon is my doore’ and ‘Exit’. The beldams will ‘see the Pedlers -pack’t out of the gate’, but in the end let them ‘take a nap upon -some bench or other’, and bid them good-night. Jupiter ‘puts off his -disguise’ and ‘Exit’. Then ‘Enter the foure old Beldams, drawing out -Danae’s bed: she in it. They place foure tapers at the foure corners’. -Jupiter returns ‘crown’d with his imperiall robes’, says ‘Yon is the -doore’, calls Danae by name, ‘lyes upon her bed’ and ‘puts out the -lights and makes unready’. Presently ‘The bed is drawne in, and enter -the Clowne new wak’t’, followed by ‘Enter Iupiter and Danae in her -night-gowne’. He puts on his cloak, and ‘Enter the foure Beldams in -hast’, say ‘the gate is open’, and dismiss the pedlars. - -[376] _M. Ado_, III. iv. Presumably the action is at the window, as -there is a ‘new tire within’ (13) and Hero withdraws when guests arrive -(95). It is of course the same window which is required by Don John’s -plot, although it is not again in action (cf. II. ii. 43; iii. 89; III. -ii. 116, iii. 156; IV. i. 85, 311). - -[377] _Volpone_, II. v-vii. In the piazza, under the same window, is -II. i-iii, where ‘Celia at the windo’ throws downe her handkerchiefe’ -(1149). - -[378] _M. W._ II. ii; III. v, in both of which persons ‘below’ are -bidden ‘come up’; possibly V. i; cf. IV. v, 13, 22, 131, where persons -below speak of the chamber as above. - -[379] _E. M. O._ V. iv-vi, at the Mitre; _M. Devil of Edmonton_, I. -i; _Miseries of Enforced Marriage_, III. i; and for other theatres, -_Massacre at Paris_ (Fortune), 257 ‘Enter the Admirall in his bed’, 301 -‘Enter into the Admirals house, and he in his bed’, with 310 ‘Throw him -downe’; _Two Lamentable Tragedies_ (Fortune), parts of I. iii, ‘Then -being in the upper Rome Merry strickes him in the head fifteene times’, -II. i, iii; _1 If You Know Not Me_ (? Queen’s), p. 240 (ed. Pearson), -‘Enter Elizabeth, Gage, and Clarencia aboue’. Elizabeth bids Gage -‘Looke to the pathway that doth come from the court’, perhaps from a -window at the back (cf. p. 96), and he describes a coming horseman. - -[380] _Yorkshire Tragedy_, scc. iii, v, vii, while the intermediate -episodes, scc. iv, vi, are below. It is all really one scene. - -[381] _Sejanus_ (F_{1}), i. 355–469 (cf. 287), an episode breaking the -flow of the main action, a hall scene, of the act; it must be apart -from the hall, not perhaps necessarily above. - -[382] _E. M. O._ V. ii, preceded and followed by scene near the court -gate at the foot of stairs leading to the great chamber; V. i has ‘Is -this the way? good truth here be fine hangings’ and ‘courtiers drop -out’, presumably through the arras and up the stairs. Then a presenter -says, ‘Here they come’, and the courtiers enter, presumably above. - -[383] _A. and C._ IV. xv. 1, ‘Enter Cleopatra, and her Maides aloft’, -with (8) ‘Look out o’ the other side your monument’ ... (37) ‘They -heave Anthony aloft to Cleopatra’; V. ii; cf. 360, ‘bear her women from -the monument’. - -[384] _Pericles_, III. i (prol. 58, ‘In your imagination hold This -stage the ship’); V. i (prol. 21, ‘In your supposing once more put your -sight Of heavy Pericles; think this his bark’). The other scenes (_1 -Contention_, sc. xii; _A. and C._ II. vii; _Tp._ I. i) have nothing -directly indicating action ‘above’. - -[385] _Ham._ I. i, iv, v; cf. I. ii. 213, ‘upon the platform where we -watch’d’. There would be hardly room ‘above’ for the Ghost to waft -Hamlet to ‘a more removed ground’ (I. iv. 61), and the effect of I. v. -148, where ‘Ghost cries under the Stage’, would be less. On the other -hand, in _White Devil_ (Queen’s), IV. iv. 39 the s.d. ‘A Cardinal on -the Tarras’ is explained by Flamineo’s words, ‘Behold! my lord of -Arragon appeares, On the church battlements’. - -[386] _J. C._ III. i; _Cor._ II. ii, ‘Enter two Officers, to lay -Cushions, as it were, in the Capitol’; _Sejanus_ (F_{1}), iii. 1–6; -v. 19–22; _Catiline_, IV. ii, V. iv, vi; also _Rape of Lucrece_ (Red -Bull), pp. 168–73 (ed. Pearson). There is a complete absence of s.ds. -for ‘above’; cf. p. 58. But in _J. C._ III. i and _Catiline_, V. vi, -at least, action in the senate house is continuous with action in the -street or forum without, and both places must have been shown, and -somehow differentiated. - -[387] _Bonduca_, V. i, ‘Enter Caratach upon a rock, and Hengo by him, -sleeping’; V. iii, ‘Enter Caratach and Hengo on the Rock’. Hengo is let -down by a belt to fetch up food. It is ‘a steep rock i th’ woods’ (V. -ii); cf. the rock scene in _Brazen Age_, V (cf. p. 109). - -[388] Cf. p. 153. _Duchess of Malfi_, III. ii, with (173) ‘call up our -officers’ is a possible exception. - -[389] _E. M. O._ II. i (where personages standing ‘under this Tarras’ -watch action under a window); _Devil’s Charter_, III. ii, ‘Alexander -out of a Casement’; _M. Devil of Edmonton_, V. ii. 59, ‘D’yee see yon -bay window?’ _Miseries of Enforced Marriage_ (Dodsley^4), iv, p. 540 -(‘Here’s the sign of the Wolf, and the bay-window’); _T. N. K._ II. i, -ii; _Catiline_, III. v; _Philaster_, II. iv; _Second Maiden’s Tragedy_, -V. i. 2004, ‘Leonella above in a gallery with her love Bellarius’ ... -(2021) ‘Descendet Leonela’; _Duchess of Malfi_, V. v; _Hen. VIII_, V. -ii. 19, ‘Enter the King, and Buts, at a Windowe above’, with ‘Let ’em -alone, and draw the curtaine close’ (34); _Pericles_, II. ii (where -Simonides and Thaisa ‘withdraw into the gallerie’, to watch a tilting -supposed behind, as in the sixteenth-century _Soliman and Perseda_; cf. -p. 96). So, too, in _T. N. K._ V. iii, the fight between Palamon and -Arcite takes place within; Emilia will not see it, and it is reported -to her on the main stage. - -[390] _D. an Ass_, II. vi. 37, ‘This Scene is acted at two windo’s -as out of two contiguous buildings’ ... (77) ‘Playes with her paps, -kisseth her hands, &c.’ ... vii. 1 ‘Her husband appeares at her back’ -... (8) ‘Hee speaks out of his wives window’ ... (23) ‘The Divell -speakes below’ ... (28) ‘Fitz-dottrel enters with his wife as come -downe’. - -[391] _M. Devil of Edmonton_, V. i, ii; _Catiline_, V. vi (where -apparently three houses are visited after leaving the senate house); -cf. the cases of shops on p. 110, n. 10. - -[392] _Ham._ V. i. 60. - -[393] _Bonduca_, V. iii. - -[394] _Three English Brothers_, ad fin. A court scene in _Sir T. Wyatt_ -ends (ed. Hazlitt, p. 10) with s.d. ‘pass round the stage’, which takes -the personages to the Tower. Similarly in _1 If You Know Not Me_ (ed. -Pearson, p. 246) a scene at Hatfield ends ‘And now to London, lords, -lead on the way’, with s.d. ‘Sennet about the Stage in order. The Maior -of London meets them’, and in _2 If You Know Not Me_ (p. 342) troops -start from Tilbury, and ‘As they march about the stage, Sir Francis -Drake and Sir Martin Furbisher meet them’. - -[395] W. Archer in _Quarterly Review_, ccviii. 471; Albright, 77; -Lawrence, i. 19; cf. my analogous conjecture of ‘wings’ on p. 100. - -[396] _David and Bethsabe_, 25, ‘He [Prologus] drawes a curtaine, and -discouers Bethsabe with her maid bathing ouer a spring: she sings, and -David sits aboue vewing her’. - -[397] Lawrence, i. 159 (_Proscenium Doors: an Elizabethan Heritage_). - -[398] Cf. vol. ii, p. 534. - -[399] At the Globe the windows appear to have been bay windows; cf. p. -116, n. 7. Lawrence, ii. 25 (_Windows on the Pre-Restoration Stage_), -cites T. M. _Black Book_ (1604), ‘And marching forward to the third -garden-house, there we knocked up the ghost of mistress Silverpin, -who suddenly risse out of two white sheets, and acted out of her -tiring-house window’. It appears from Tate Wilkinson’s _Memoirs_ -(Lawrence, i. 177) that the proscenium balconies were common ground to -actors and audience in the eighteenth century. - -[400] _Family of Love_, I. iii. 101. - -[401] The theory is best represented by C. Brodmeier, _Die -Shakespeare-Bühne nach den alten Bühnenanweisungen_ (1904); V. -Albright, _The Shakespearian Stage_ (1909). - -[402] Thorndike, 106. - -[403] Cf. pp. 41, 126, 154. - -[404] Palace of Tiberius (Acts I, II, III), Senate house (III, V), -Gardens of Eudemus (II), Houses of Agrippina (II, IV), Sejanus (V), -Regulus (V). - -[405] Houses of Volpone (I, II, III, V), Corvino (II), Would Be (V), -Law court (IV, V). - -[406] Houses of Catiline (I, IV), Fulvia (II), Cicero (III, IV, V), -Lecca (III), Brutus (IV), Spinther (V. vi), Cornificius (V. vi), Caesar -(V. vi), Senate house (IV, V), Milvian Bridge (IV). - -[407] _Alchemist_, _III._ v. 58, ‘He speakes through the keyhole, -the other knocking’. _Hen. VIII_, V. ii, iii (continuous scene) also -requires a council-chamber door upon the stage, at which Cranmer is -stopped after he has entered through the stage-door. - -[408] Daborne gave Tourneur ‘an act of y^e Arreignment of London to -write’ (_Henslowe Papers_, 72). - -[409] Cf. ch. xxii. - -[410] _M. N. D._ III. ii. 463 (F_{1}), ‘They sleep all the Act’; i. -e. all the act-interval (cf. p. 131). So in _Catiline_ the storm with -which Act III ends is still on at the beginning of Act IV, and in -_Alchemist_ Mammon and Lovewit are seen approaching at the ends of Acts -I and IV respectively, but in both cases the actual arrival is at the -beginning of the next act. - -[411] F. A. Foster, _Dumb Show in Elizabethan Drama before 1620_ (_E. -S._ xliv. 8). - -[412] Jonson has a ‘Chorus--of musicians’ between the acts of -_Sejanus_, and the presenter of _Two Lamentable Tragedies_ bids -the audience ‘Delight your eares with pleasing harmonie’ after the -harrowing end of Act II. Some other examples given in Lawrence, i. 75 -(_Music and Song in the Elizabethan Drama_), seem to me no more than -incidental music such as may occur at any point of a play. Malone -(_Var._ iii. 111) describes a copy of the Q_{2} of _R. J._ in which -the act endings and directions for inter-act music had been marked in -manuscript; but this might be of late date. - -[413] _Malcontent_, ind. 89. - -[414] _Henslowe Papers_, 127. - -[415] _Catiline_, I. i. - -[416] _Second Maidens Tragedy_, 1719, ‘Exit’ the Tyrant, four lines -from the end of a court scene, and 1724 ‘Enter the Tirant agen at a -farder dore, which opened, bringes hym to the Toombe’ (cf. p. 110, -n. 8). So in _Woman Killed with Kindness_ (Queen’s), IV. ii, iii -(continuous scene), Mrs. Frankford and her lover retire from a hall -scene to sup in her chamber, and the servants are bidden to lock -the house doors. In IV. iv Frankford enters with a friend, and says -(8) ‘This is the key that opes my outward gate; This the hall-door; -this the withdrawing chamber; But this ... It leads to my polluted -bedchamber’. Then (17) ‘now to my gate’, where they light a lanthorn, -and (23) ‘this is the last door’, and in IV. v Frankford emerges as -from the bedchamber. Probably sc. iv is supposed to begin before the -house. They go behind at (17), emerge through another door, and the -scene is then in the hall, whence Frankford passes at (23) through the -central aperture behind again. - -[417] _Wily Beguiled_, prol. The Prologus asks a player the name of the -play, and is told ‘Sir you may look vpon the Title’. He complains that -it is ‘_Spectrum_ once again’. Then a Juggler enters, will show him a -trick, and says ‘With a cast of cleane conveyance, come aloft _Jack_ -for thy masters advantage (hees gone I warrant ye)’ and there is the -s.d. ‘_Spectrum_ is conveied away: and _Wily beguiled_, stands in the -place of it’. - -[418] Most of the examples in Lawrence, i. 43 (_Title and Locality -Boards on the Pre-Restoration Stage_) belong to Court or to private -theatres; on the latter cf. p. 154, _infra_. But the prologue to _1 Sir -John Oldcastle_ begins ‘The doubtful Title (Gentlemen) prefixt Upon -the Argument we have in hand May breede suspence’. The lost Frankfort -engraving of English comedians (cf. vol. ii, p. 520) is said to have -shown boards. - -[419] Cunningham, _Jonson_, iii. 509; Dekker, _G. H. B._ (ed. -McKerrow), 40, ‘And first observe your doors of entrance, and your -exit; not much unlike the players at the theatres; keeping your -decorums, even in fantasticality. As for example: if you prove to be a -northern gentleman, I would wish you to pass through the north door, -more often especially than any of the other; and so, according to your -countries, take note of your entrances’. - -[420] _1 Contention_, sc. xxii, ‘Richard kils him under the signe -of the Castle in St. Albones’; _Comedy of Errors_ (the Phoenix, the -Porpentine), _Shoemaker’s Holiday_ (the Last), _Edw. IV_ (the Pelican), -_E. M. O._ (the Mitre), _Miseries of Enforced Marriage_ (the Mitre, the -Wolf); _Bartholomew Fair_ (the Pig’s Head); &c. - -[421] _Wounds of Civil War_, III. iv, ‘Enter Marius solus from the -Numidian mountaines, feeding on rootes’; _3 Hen. VI_, IV. ii, ‘Enter -Warwick and Oxford in England’, &c.; cf. ch. xxii. - -[422] _Warning for Fair Women_, ind. 86, ‘My scene is London, native -and your own’; _Alchemist_, prol. 5, ‘Our scene is London’; cf. the -Gower speeches in _Pericles_. - -[423] _Dr. Faustus_, 13, 799, 918, 1111. - -[424] I cite Greg’s Q_{2}, but Q_{1} agrees. Jonson’s own -scene-division is of course determined by the introduction of new -speakers (cf. p. 200) and does not precisely follow the textual -indications. - -[425] _Henslowe Papers_, 116. - -[426] _2 If You Know Not Me_ (ed. Pearson), p. 295. - -[427] Cf. App. I, and Neuendorff, 149, who quotes J. Corey, _Generous -Enemies_ (1672), prol.: - - Coarse hangings then, instead of scenes, were worn. - And Kidderminster did the stage adorn. - -Graves, 78, suggests pictorial ‘painted cloths’ for -backgrounds. - -[428] ‘Scenes’ were used in the public performances of Nabbes’s -_Microcosmus_ (1637), Suckling’s _Aglaura_ (_1637_), and Habington’s -_Queen of Arragon_ (_1640_); cf. Lawrence, ii. 121 (_The Origin of -the English Picture-Stage_); W. G. Keith, _The Designs for the First -Movable Scenery on the English Stage_ (_Burlington Magazine_, xxv. 29, -85). - -[429] For Paul’s, _C. and C. Errant_ (after each act), ‘Here they -knockt up the Consort’; _Faery Pastorall_; _Trick to Catch the Old One_ -(after I and II), ‘music’; _What You Will_, II. ii. 235 ‘So ends our -chat;--sound music for the act’; for Blackfriars, _Gentleman Usher_, -III. i. 1, ‘after the song’; _Sophonisba_ (after I), ‘the cornets and -organs playing loud full music for the act’, (II) ‘Organ mixt with -recorders, for this act’, (III) ‘Organs, viols and voices play for this -act’, (IV) ‘A base lute and a treble violl play for the act’, with -which should be read the note at the end of Q_{1}, ‘let me intreat my -reader not to taxe me for the fashion of the entrances and musique of -this tragedy, for know it is printed only as it was presented by youths -and after the fashion of the private stage’; _K. B. P._ (after I), -‘Boy danceth. Musicke. Finis Actus primi’, (II) ‘Musicke. Finis Actus -secundi’, (III) ‘Finis Actus tertii. Musicke. Actus quartus, scoena -prima. Boy daunceth’, (IV) Ralph’s May Day speech; cf. _infra_ and vol. -ii, p. 557. I do not find any similar recognition of the scene as a -structural element in the play to be introduced by music; in _1 Antonio -and Mellida_, III. ii. 120, the s.d. ‘and so the Scene begins’ only -introduces a new scene in the sense of a regrouping of speakers (cf. p. -200). - -[430] For Paul’s, _Histriomastix_, III. i. 1, ‘Enter Pride, -Vaine-Glory, Hypocrisie, and Contempt: Pride casts a mist, wherein -Mavortius and his company [who ended II] vanish off the Stage, and -Pride and her attendants remaine’, (after III) ‘They all awake, and -begin the following Acte’, (after V) ‘Allarmes in severall places, that -brake him off thus: after a retreat sounded, the Musicke playes and -Poverty enters’; 2 ANTONIO AND MELLIDA, III. i. 1, ‘A dumb show. The -cornets sounding for the Act’, (after IV) ‘The cornets sound for the -act. The dumb show’; _What You Will_, III. i. 1, ‘Enter Francisco ... -They clothe Francisco whilst Bidet creeps in and observes them. Much of -this done whilst the Act is playing’; _Phoenix_ (after II), ‘Towards -the close of the musick the justices three men prepare for a robberie’; -for Blackfriars, _Malcontent_, II. i. 1, ‘Enter Mendoza with a sconce, -to observe Ferneze’s entrance, who, whilst the act is playing, enters -unbraced, two Pages before him with lights; is met by Maquerelle and -conveyed in; the Pages are sent away’; _Fawn_, V. i. 1, ‘Whilst the Act -is a-playing, Hercules and Tiberio enters; Tiberio climbs the tree, -and is received above by Dulcimel, Philocalia, and a Priest; Hercules -stays beneath’. The phrase ‘whilst the act is playing’ is a natural -development from ‘for the act’, i. e. ‘in preparation for the act’, -used also for the elaborate music which at private houses replaced the -three preliminary trumpet ‘soundings’ of the public houses; cf. _What -You Will_, ind. 1 (s.d.), ‘Before the music sounds for the Act’, and -_1 Antonio and Mellida_, ind. 1, ‘The music will sound straight for -entrance’. But it leads to a vagueness of thought in which the interval -itself is regarded as the ‘act’; cf. the _M. N. D._ s.d. of F_{1}, -quoted p. 124, n. 3, with Middleton, _The Changeling_ (1653), III. i. -1, ‘In the act-time De Flores hides a naked rapier behind a door’, -and Cotgrave, _Dict._ (1611), ‘Acte ... also, an Act, or Pause in a -Comedie, or Tragedie’. - -[431] For Paul’s, _Histriomastix_, i. 163, ‘Enter Fourcher, Voucher, -Velure, Lyon-Rash ... two and two at severall doores’; v. 103, ‘Enter -... on one side ... on the other’; v. 192, ‘Enter ... at one end of -the stage: at the other end enter ...’; vi. 41, ‘Enter Mavortius -and Philarchus at severall doores’; vi. 241, ‘Enter ... at the one -doore. At the other ...’; _1 Antonio and Mellida_, iv. 220 (marsh -scene), ‘Enter ... at one door; ... at another door’; _2 Antonio and -Mellida_, v. 1, ‘Enter at one door ... at the other door’; _Maid’s -Metamorphosis_, II. ii. 1 (wood scene), ‘Enter at one door ... at the -other doore, ... in the midst’; III. ii. 1 (wood scene), ‘Enter ... at -three severall doores’; _Faery Pastoral_, III. vi, ‘Mercury entering -by the midde doore wafted them back by the doore they came in’; IV. -viii, ‘They enterd at severall doores, Learchus at the midde doore’; -_Puritan_, I. iv. 1 (prison scene), ‘Enter ... at one dore, and ... -at the other’, &c.; for Blackfriars, _Sir G. Goosecap_, IV. ii. 140, -‘Enter Jack and Will on the other side’; _Malcontent_, V. ii. 1, ‘Enter -from opposite sides’; _E. Ho!_, I. i. 1, ‘Enter ... at severall dores -... At the middle dore, enter ...’; _Sophonisba_, prol., ‘Enter at one -door ... at the other door’; _May Day_, II. i. 1, ‘Enter ... several -ways’; _Your Five Gallants_, I. ii. 27, ‘Enter ... at the farther -door’, &c. - -[432] For Paul’s, _2 Antonio and Mellida_, IV. ii. 87, ‘They strike the -stage with their daggers, and the grave openeth’; V. i. 1, ‘Balurdo -from under the Stage’; _Aphrodysial_ (quoted Reynolds, i. 26), ‘A Trap -door in the middle of the stage’; _Bussy d’Ambois_, II. ii. 177, ‘The -Vault opens’ ... ‘ascendit Frier and D’Ambois’ ... ‘Descendit Fryar’ -(cf. III. i; IV. ii; V. i, iii, iv); for Blackfriars, _Poetaster_ -(F_{1}) prol. 1, ‘Envie. Arising in the midst of the stage’; _Case is -Altered_, III. ii, ‘Digs a hole in the ground’; _Sophonisba_, III. i. -201, ‘She descends after Sophonisba’ ... (207) ‘Descends through the -vault’; V. i. 41, ‘Out of the altar the ghost of Asdrubal ariseth’. - -[433] _Widow’s Tears_ (Blackfriars), III. ii. 82, ‘Hymen descends, -and six Sylvans enter beneath, with torches’; this is in a mask, and -Cupid may have descended from a pageant. When a ‘state’ or throne is -used (e.g. _Satiromastix_, 2309, ‘Soft musicke, Chaire is set under a -Canopie’), there is no indication that it descends. In _Satiromastix_, -2147, we get ‘O thou standst well, thou lean’st against a poast’, but -this is obviously inadequate evidence for a heavens supported by posts -at Paul’s. - -[434] _C. and C. Errant_, V. ix, ‘He tooke the Bolle from behind the -Arras’; _Faery Pastoral_, V. iv (wood scene), ‘He tooke from behind -the Arras a Peck of goodly Acornes pilld’; _What You Will_, ind. 97, -‘Let’s place ourselves within the curtains, for good faith the stage -is so very little, we shall wrong the general eye else very much’; -_Northward Ho!_, IV. i, ‘Lie you in ambush, behind the hangings, and -perhaps you shall hear the piece of a comedy’. In _C. and C. Errant_, -V. viii. 1, the two actors left on the stage at the end of V. vii were -joined by a troop from the inn, and yet others coming ‘easily after -them and stealingly, so as the whole Scene was insensibly and suddenly -brought about in Catastrophe of the Comoedy. And the whole face of the -Scene suddenly altered’. I think that Percy is only trying to describe -the change from a nearly empty to a crowded stage, not a piece of -scene-shifting. - -[435] _Cynthia’s Revels_ (Q), ind. 149, ‘Slid the Boy takes me for a -peice of Prospective (I holde my life) or some silke Curtine, come to -hang the Stage here: Sir Cracke I am none of your fresh Pictures, that -use to beautifie the decay’d dead Arras, in a publique Theater’; _K. -B. P._ II. 580, ‘_Wife._ What story is that painted upon the cloth? -the confutation of Saint Paul? _Citizen._ No lambe, that Ralph and -Lucrece’. In _Law Tricks_, III. i, Emilia bids Lurdo ‘Behind the Arras; -scape behind the Arras’. Polymetes enters, praises the ‘verie faire -hangings’ representing Venus and Adonis, makes a pass at Vulcan, and -notices how the arras trembles and groans. Then comes the s.d. (which -has got in error into Bullen’s text, p. 42) ‘Discouer Lurdo behind the -Arras’, and Emilia carries it off by pretending that it is only Lurdo’s -picture. - -[436] I think it is possible that _Sophonisba_, with its ‘canopy’ (cf. -p. 149) was also originally written for Paul’s. - -[437] _1, 2 Antonio and Mellida_, _Maid’s Metamorphosis_, _Wisdom of -Dr. Dodipoll_, _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_, _Satiromastix_, _Blurt -Master Constable_, _Bussy D’Ambois_, _Westward Ho!_, _Northward Ho!_, -_Fawn_, _Michaelmas Term_, _Phoenix_, _Mad World, My Masters_, _Trick -to Catch the Old One_, _Puritan_, _Woman Hater_. - -[438] _Jack Drum’s Ent._ v. 112. - -[439] _Histriomastix_, i. 6, ‘now sit wee high (tryumphant in our -sway)’; ii. 1, ‘Enter Plenty upon a Throne’; iii. 11, ‘If you will sit -in throne of State with Pride’; v. 1, ‘Rule, fier-eied Warre!... Envy -... Hath now resigned her spightfull throne to us’; vi. 7, ‘I [Poverty] -scorne a scoffing foole about my Throne’; vi. 271 (s.d.), ‘Astraea’ -[in margin, ‘Q. Eliza’] ‘mounts unto the throne’; vi. 296 (original -ending), ‘In the end of the play. Plenty Pride Envy Warre and Poverty -To enter and resigne their severall Scepters to Peace, sitting in -Maiestie’. - -[440] _Histriomastix_, i. 163, ‘Enter ... Chrisoganus in his study’ ... -(181) ‘So all goe to Chrisoganus study, where they find him reading’; -ii. 70, ‘Enter Contrimen, to them, Clarke of the Market: hee wrings a -bell, and drawes a curtaine; whereunder is a market set about a Crosse’ -... (80) ‘Enter Gulch, Belch, Clowt and Gut. One of them steppes on the -Crosse, and cryes, A Play’ ... (105) ‘Enter Vintner with a quart of -Wine’; v. 192, ‘Enter Lyon-rash to Fourchier sitting in his study at -one end of the stage: At the other end enter Vourcher to Velure in his -shop’. - -[441] _Dr. Dodipoll_, I. i. 1, ‘A Curtaine drawne, Earl Lassingbergh -is discovered (like a Painter) painting Lucilia, who sits working on a -piece of cushion worke’. In III. ii a character is spoken of after his -‘Exit’ as ‘going down the staires’, which suggests action ‘above’. But -other indications place the scene before Cassimere’s house. - -[442] _C. and C. Errant_, I. i, ‘They entered from Maldon’; I. iv, -‘They entered from Harwich all’. - -[443] _C. and C. Errant_, I. ii, ‘They met from Maldon and from -Harwich’, for a scene in Colchester; III. i, ‘They crossd: Denham to -Harwich, Lacy to Maldon’. - -[444] Reynolds (_M. P._ xii. 248) gives the note as ‘In the middle and -alofte Oceanus Pallace The Scene being. Next Proteus-Hall’. This seems -barely grammatical and I am not sure that it is complete. A limitation -of Paul’s is suggested by the s.d. (ibid. 258) ‘Chambers (noise supposd -for Powles) For actors’, but apparently ‘a showre of Rose-water and -confits’ was feasible. - -[445] _Faery Pastoral_, p. 162, ‘A Scrolle fell into her lap from -above’. - -[446] _Jack Drum_, II. 27, ‘The Casement opens, and Katherine -appeares’; 270, ‘Winifride lookes from aboue’; 286, ‘Camelia, from her -window’. - -[447] I give s.ds. with slight corrections from Bullen, who -substantially follows 1633. But he has re-divided his scenes; 1633 has -acts only for _1 Antonio and Mellida_ (in spite of s.d. ‘and so the -scene begins’ with a new speaker at III. ii. 120); acts and scenes, by -speakers, for _2 Antonio and Mellida_; and acts and scenes or acts and -first scenes only, not by speakers and very imperfectly, for the rest. - -[448] _1 Ant. and Mell._ I. 100, ‘Enter above ... Enter below’ ... -(117) ‘they two stand ... whilst the scene passeth above’ ... (140) -‘Exeunt all on the lower stage’ ... (148) ‘_Rossaline._ Prithee, go -down!’ ... (160) ‘Enter Mellida, Rossaline, and Flavia’; III. ii. 190 -‘Enter Antonio and Mellida’ ... (193) ‘_Mellida._ A number mount my -stairs; I’ll straight return. _Exit_’ ... (222) ‘_Feliche._ Slink to my -chamber; look you, that is it’. - -[449] _IV._ 220, ‘Enter Piero (&c.) ... Balurdo and his Page, at -another door’. - -[450] _2 Ant. and Mell._ I. ii. 194, ‘_Antonio._ See, look, the curtain -stirs’ ... (s.d.) ‘The curtains drawn, and the body of Feliche, stabb’d -thick with wounds, appears hung up’ and ‘_Antonio._ What villain bloods -the window of my love?’ - -[451] III. ii. 1, ‘Enter ... Maria, her hair loose’ ... (59) ‘_Maria._ -Pages, leave the room’ ... (65) ‘Maria draweth the curtain: and the -ghost of Andrugio is displayed, sitting on the bed’ ... (95) ‘Exit -Maria to her bed, Andrugio drawing the curtains’. - -[452] V. ii. 50, ‘While the measure is dancing, Andrugio’s ghost is -placed betwixt the music-houses’ ... (115) ‘The curtaine being drawn, -exit Andrugio’. - -[453] V. ii. 112, ‘They run all at Piero with their rapiers’. This is -while the ghost is present above, but (152) ‘The curtains are drawn, -Piero departeth’. - -[454] III. i. 33, ‘And, lo, the ghost of old Andrugio Forsakes his -coffin’ ... (125) ‘Ghosts ... from above and beneath’ ... (192) ‘From -under the stage a groan’; IV. ii. 87, ‘They strike the stage with their -daggers, and the grave openeth’. The church must have been shown open, -and part of the crowded action of these scenes kept outside; at IV. ii. -114, ‘yon bright stars’ are visible. - -[455] _Fawn_, IV. 638, ‘_Dulcimel._ Father, do you see that tree, -that leans just on my chamber window?’ ... (V. 1) ‘whilst the Act is -a-playing, Hercules and Tiberio enters; Tiberio climbs the tree, and is -received above by Dulcimel, Philocalia, and a Priest: Hercules stays -beneath’. After a mask and other action in the presence, (461) ‘Tiberio -and Dulcimel above, are discovered hand in hand’. - -[456] _W. You Will_, IV. 373, after a dance, ‘_Celia._ Will you to -dinner?’ ... (V. 1) ‘The curtains are drawn by a Page, and Celia (&c.) -displayed, sitting at dinner’. - -[457] II. 1, ‘One knocks: Laverdure draws the curtains, sitting on his -bed, apparelling himself; his trunk of apparel standing by him’ ... -(127) ‘Bidet, I’ll down’; II. ii. 1, ‘Enter a schoolmaster, draws the -curtains behind, with Battus, Nous, Slip, Nathaniel, and Holophernes -Pippo, schoolboys, sitting, with books in their hands’. - -[458] I. 110, ‘He sings and is answered; from above a willow garland is -flung down, and the song ceaseth’. - -[459] _Satiromastix_, I. ii. 1, ‘Horrace sitting in a study behinde a -curtaine, a candle by him burning, bookes lying confusedly’. - -[460] V. ii. 23, where the ‘canopie’, if a Paul’s term, may be the -equivalent of the public theatre alcove (cf. pp. 82, 120). The ‘bower’ -in IV. iii holds eight persons, and a recess may have been used. - -[461] Shorthose says (V. i. 60) ‘Thou lean’st against a poast’, but -obviously posts supporting a heavens at Paul’s cannot be inferred. - -[462] _Westward Ho!_ uses the houses of Justiniano (I. i), Wafer (III. -iii), Ambush (III. iv), the Earl (II. ii; IV. ii), and a Bawd (IV. i), -the shops of Tenterhook (I. ii; III. i) and Honeysuckle (II. i), and -inns at the Steelyard (II. iii), Shoreditch (II. iii), and Brentford -(V). Continuous setting would not construct so many houses for single -scenes. There is action above at the Bawd’s, and interior action below -in several cases; in IV. ii, ‘the Earle drawes a curten and sets forth -a banquet’. The s.ds. of this scene seem inadequate; at a later point -Moll is apparently ‘discovered’, shamming death. _Northward Ho!_ uses -the houses of Mayberry (I. iii; II. ii) and Doll (II. i; III. i), a -garden house at Moorfields (III. ii), Bellamont’s study (IV. i), Bedlam -(IV. iii, iv), a ‘tavern entry’ in London (I. ii), and an inn at Ware -(I. i; V. i). Action above is at the last only, interior action below -in several. - -[463] _B. d’Ambois_, II. ii. 177, ‘_Tamyra_. See, see the gulfe is -opening’ ... (183) ‘Ascendit Frier and D’Ambois’ ... (296) ‘Descendit -Fryar’; IV. ii. 63, ‘Ascendit [Behemoth]’ ... (162) ‘Descendit cum -suis’; V. i. 155, ‘Ascendit Frier’ ... (191) ‘_Montsurry._ In, Ile -after, To see what guilty light gives this cave eyes’; V. iv. 1, -‘Intrat umbra Comolet to the Countesse, wrapt in a canapie’ ... (23) -‘D’Amboys at the gulfe’. - -[464] The Q of 1641, probably representing a revival by the King’s men, -alters the scenes in Montsurry’s house, eliminating the characteristic -Paul’s ‘canapie’ of V. iv. 1 and placing spectators above in the same -scene. It is also responsible for the proleptic s.d. (cf. ch. xxii) at -I. i. 153 for I. ii. 1, ‘Table, Chesbord and Tapers behind the Arras’. - -[465] _Blurt Master Constable_ has (_a_) Camillo’s (I. i; II. i) with a -hall; (_b_) Hippolyto’s (III. i) where (136) ‘Violetta appears above’, -and (175) ‘Enter Truepenny above with a letter’; (_c_) a chapel (III. -ii) with a ‘pit-hole’ dungeon, probably also visible in II. i and III. -i; (_d_) Blurt’s (I. ii) which is ‘twelve score off’; (_e_) Imperia’s, -where is most of the action (II. ii; III. iii; IV. i, ii, iii; V. ii, -iii). Two chambers below are used; into one Lazarillo is shown in III. -iii. 201, and here in IV. ii he is let through a trap into a sewer, -while (38) ‘Enter Frisco above laughing’ and (45) ‘Enter Imperia -above’. At IV. iii. 68 Lazarillo crawls from the sewer into the street. -In IV. i and IV. iii tricks are played upon Curvetto with a cord and a -rope-ladder hanging from a window above. - -[466] _Phoenix_ has (_a_) the palace (I. i; V. i) with hall; (_b_) -Falso’s (I. vi; II. iii; III. i); (_c_) the Captain’s (I. ii; II. ii); -(_d_) a tavern (I. iv; IV. iii) with interior action; (_e_) a law court -(IV. i); (_f_) a jeweller’s (III. ii; IV. i, ii, iii) with interior -action. It will be observed that (_f_) is needed both with (_d_) and -(_e_). There is no action above. - -[467] _M. Term_ has (_a_) Paul’s (I. i, ii); (_b_) Quomodo’s shop, the -Three Knaves (II. iii; III. iv; IV. i, iii, iv; V. i); (_c_) a tavern -(II. i); (_d_) a law court (V. iii); (_e_) a courtesan’s (III. i; -IV. ii). All have interior action and (_b_) eavesdropping above in a -balcony (II. iii. 108, 378, 423; III. iv). Much action is merely in the -streets. - -[468] _A Mad World_ has (_a_) Harebrain’s (I. ii; III. i; IV. iv); -(_b_) Penitent Brothel’s (IV. i), with interior action; (_c_) a -courtesan’s (I. i; II. iii, vi; III. ii; IV. v), with a bed and five -persons at once, perhaps above, in III. ii; (_d_) Sir Bounteous -Progress’s in the country (II. i; II. ii, iv, v, vii; III. iii; IV. ii, -iii; V. i, ii). The action here is rather puzzling, but apparently a -hall, a lodging next it, where are ‘Curtains drawn’ (II. vii. 103), the -stairs, and a ‘closet’ or ‘matted chamber’ (IV. ii. 27; IV. iii. 3) are -all used. If the scenes were shifted, the interposition of a scene of -only 7 lines (II. iii) at London amongst a series of country scenes is -strange. - -[469] _A Trick to Catch_ has (_a_) Lucre’s (I. iii, iv; II. i, ii; -IV. ii, iii; V. i); (_b_) Hoard’s (III. ii; IV. iv; V. ii); (_c_) a -courtesan’s (III. i); (_d_) an inn (III. iii); (_e_) Dampit’s (III. iv; -IV. v); and away from London, (_f_) Witgood Hall, with (_g_) an inn (I. -i, ii); (_h_) Cole Harbour (IV. i). Nearly all the action is exterior, -but a window above is used at (_b_) in IV. iv, and at (_e_) there is -interior action both below in III. iv and perhaps above (cf. III. iv. -72), with a bed and eight persons at once in IV. v. - -[470] _Puritan_ has (_a_) the Widow’s (I. i; II. i, ii; III. i, ii; -IV. i, ii, iii; V. i, ii), with a garden and rosemary bush; (_b_) a -gentleman’s house (III. iv); (_c_) an apothecary’s (III. iii); (_d_) a -prison (I. iv; III. v). There is interior action below in all; action -above only in (_a_) at V. ii. 1, ‘Enter Sir John Penidub, and Moll -aboue lacing of her clothes’ in a balcony. - -[471] _Woman Hater_ has (_a_) the Duke’s palace (I. i, iii; IV. i; V. -ii); (_b_) the Count’s (I. iii); (_c_) Gondarino’s (II. i; III. i, ii); -(_d_) Lazarillo’s lodging (I. i, ii); (_e_) a courtesan’s (II. i; IV. -ii, iii; V. ii); (_f_) a mercer’s shop (III. iv); (_g_) Lucio’s study -(V. i). There is interior action below in (_a_), (_e_), (_f_), and -(_g_), where ‘Enter Lazarello, and two Intelligencers, Lucio being at -his study.... Secretary draws the Curtain’. A window above is used at -(_e_), and there is also action above at (_c_), apparently in a loggia -within sight and ear-shot of the street. - -[472] The term is used in _The Faery Pastoral_, _Satiromastix_, and -_Bussy d’Ambois_ (_vide supra_); but also in _Sophonisba_ (_vide -infra_), which is a Blackfriars play. - -[473] I take it that it was in this stand that Andrugio’s ghost was -placed ‘betwixt the music-houses’ in _2 Antonio and Mellida_. - -[474] The four plays which seem most repugnant to continuous staging, -_Westward Ho!_, _Northward Ho!_, _A Mad World, my Masters_, and _A -Trick to Catch the Old One_, are all datable in 1604–6. - -[475] Elizabethan Plays: _Love’s Metamorphosis_, _Liberality and -Prodigality_, _Cynthia’s Revels_, _Poetaster_, _Sir Giles Goosecap_, -_Gentleman Usher_, and probably _All Fools_; Jacobean Plays: _M. -d’Olive_, _May Day_, _Widow’s Tears_, _Conspiracy of Byron_, _Tragedy -of Byron_, _Case is Altered_, _Malcontent_, _Dutch Courtesan_, -_Sophonisba_, _Eastward Ho!_, _Your Five Gallants_, _Philotas_, _Isle -of Gulls_, _Law Tricks_, _Fleir_, _Faithful Shepherdess_, _Knight of -the Burning Pestle_. In addition _Fawn_ and _Trick to Catch an Old -One_, already dealt with under Paul’s, were in the first case produced -at, and in the second transferred to, Blackfriars. - -[476] Cf. p. 34. - -[477] _Lib. and Prod._ 903, ‘Here Prod. scaleth. Fortune claps a halter -about his neck, he breaketh the halter and falles’; 1245, ‘The Judge -placed, and the Clerkes under him’. - -[478] The fountain requires a trap. There is no action above. I cite -the scenes of Q_{1}, which are varied by Jonson in F_{1}. - -[479] In the prol. 27, Envy says, ‘The scene is, ha! Rome? Rome? and -Rome?’ (cf. p. 154). The only action above is by Julia in IV. ix. 1, -before the palace, where (F_{1}) ‘Shee appeareth above, as at her -chamber window’, and speaks thence. - -[480] _Sir G. G._ has, besides the London and Barnet road (III. i), -the houses of (_a_) Eugenia (I. i-iii; II; IV. i) and (_b_) Momford -(I. iv; II; III. ii; IV. iii; V). Both have action within, none above. -In IV. ii. 140 persons on the street are met by pages coming from -Momford’s ‘on the other side’, but (_b_) is near enough to (_a_) to -enable Clarence in II to overhear from it (as directed in I. iv. 202) -a talk between Momford and Eugenia, probably in her porch, where (ii. -17) ‘Enter Wynnefred, Anabell, with their sowing workes and sing’, -and Momford passes over to Clarence at ii. 216. Two contiguous rooms -in (_b_) are used for V. i, ii (a single scene). One is Clarence’s; -from the other he is overheard. They are probably both visible to the -audience, and are divided by a curtain. At V. ii. 128 ‘He draws the -curtains and sits within them’. Parrott adds other s.ds. for curtains -at 191, 222, 275, which are not in Q_{1}. - -[481] _Gent. Usher_ has (_a_) Strozza’s (I. i; IV. i, iii; V. ii), -where only a porch or courtyard is needed, and (_b_) Lasso’s (I. ii; -II; III; IV. ii, iv; V. i, iii, iv), with a hall, overlooked by a -balcony used in V. i. 1 and V. iii. 1, and called ‘this tower’ (V. iii. -5). - -[482] The visible houses of _All Fools_ are (_a_) Gostanzo’s, (_b_) -Cornelio’s, and (_c_) the Half Moon tavern, where drawers set tables -(V. ii. 1), but not necessarily inside. Both (_a_) and (_b_) are -required in II. i and IV. i, and (_a_), (_b_), and (_c_) in III. i. - -[483] _M. d’Olive_ has (_a_) a hall at Court (II. ii); (_b_) -Hieronyme’s chamber, also at Court (V. ii); (_c_) d’Olive’s chamber -(III. ii; IV. ii); (_d_) Vaumont’s (I; II. i; IV. i; V. i); (_e_) St. -Anne’s (III. i); of which (_b_) and (_d_) are used together in V. i, ii -(a continuous scene), and probably (_c_) and (_e_) in III. i. There is -action within at (_a_), (_c_), and (_d_), and above at (_d_), which has -curtained windows lit by tapers (I. 48), at one of which a page above -‘looks out with a light’, followed by ladies who are bidden ‘come down’ -(V. i. 26, 66). - -[484] _May Day_ has (_a_) Quintiliano’s, (_b_) Honorio’s, (_c_) -Lorenzo’s, and (_d_) the Emperor’s Head, with an arbour (III. iii. -203). The only interior action is in Honorio’s hall (V). Windows above -are used at Lorenzo’s, with a rope-ladder, over a terrace (III. iii), -and at Quintiliano’s (III. ii). The action, which is rather difficult -to track, consists largely of dodging about the pales of gardens and -backsides (II. i. 180; III. iii. 120, 185; IV. ii. 83, 168). Clearly -(_a_), (_c_), and (_d_) are all used in the latter part of II. i, where -a new scene may begin at 45; and similarly (_b_), (_c_), and (_d_) in -III. iii, and (_b_) and (_c_) in IV. ii. - -[485] _Widow’s Tears_ has (_a_) Lysander’s (I. i; II. i; III. i); (_b_) -Eudora’s (I. ii; II. ii, iv; III. ii; IV. i); (_c_) Arsace’s (II. iii); -all of which are required in I. iii; and (_d_), a tomb (IV. ii, iii; -V). There is interior action in a hall of (_b_), watched from a ‘stand’ -(I. i. 157; I. iii. 1) without, and the tomb opens and shuts; no action -above. - -[486] In the _Conspiracy_ the Paris scenes are all at Court, vaguely -located, and mainly of hall type, except III. iii, which is at an -astrologer’s; the only Brussels scene is I. ii, at Court. The _Tragedy_ -is on the same lines, but for V. ii, in the Palace of Justice, with a -‘bar’, V. iii, iv, in and before the Bastille, with a scaffold, and -I. ii and III. i at Dijon, in Byron’s lodging. In II. i. 3 there is -‘Music, and a song above’, for a mask. - -[487] _C. Altered_, I. i. 1, ‘Iuniper a Cobler is discouered, sitting -at worke in his shoppe and singing’; IV. v. 1, ‘Enter Iuniper in his -shop singing’. - -[488] _C. A._ I. v. 212; II. i; III. ii, iii, v, ‘Enter Iaques with his -gold and a scuttle full of horse-dung’. ‘_Jaques._ None is within. None -ouerlookes my wall’; IV. vii. 62, ‘Onion gets vp into a tree’; V. i. -42. In I. v action passes directly from the door of Farneze to that of -Jaques. - -[489] _Malc._ I. i. 11, ‘The discord ... is heard from ... Malevole’s -chamber’ ... (19) ‘Come down, thou rugged cur’ ... (43) ‘Enter Malevole -below’. - -[490] _Malc._ V. ii. 163. This transition is both in Q_{1} and Q_{2}, -although Q_{2} inserts a passage (164–94) here, as well as another -(10–39) earlier in the scene, which entails a contrary transition from -the palace to the citadel. - -[491] _Dutch C._ has (_a_) Mulligrub’s (I. i; II. iii; III. iii) with -action in a ‘parlour’ (III. iii. 53); (_b_) Franceschina’s (I. ii; II. -ii; IV. iii, v; V. i), with action above, probably in a _loggia_ before -Franceschina’s chamber, where she has placed an ambush at V. i. 12, -‘She conceals them behind the curtain’; (_c_) Subboy’s (II. i; III. -i; IV. i, ii, iv; V. ii), with a ring thrown from a window above (II. -i. 56); (_d_) Burnish’s shop (III. ii; V. iii), with an inner and an -outer door, for (III. ii. 1) ‘Enter Master Burnish [&c.] ... Cocledemoy -stands at the other door ... and overhears them’. - -[492] _Soph._ I. ii. 32, ‘The Ladies lay the Princess in a fair bed, -and close the curtains, whilst Massinissa enters’ ... (35) ‘The Boys -draw the curtains, discovering Sophonisba, to whom Massinissa speaks’ -... (235) ‘The Ladies draw the curtains about Sophonisba; the rest -accompany Massinissa forth’. - -[493] _Soph._ III. i. 117, ‘The attendants furnish the altar’.... -(162) ‘They lay Vangue in Syphax’ bed and draw the curtains’ ... (167) -_Soph._ ‘Dear Zanthia, close the vault when I am sunk’ ... (170) ‘She -descends’ ... (207) ‘[Syphax] descends through the vault’. - -[494] _Soph._ IV. i, ‘Enter Sophonisba and Zanthia, as out of a cave’s -mouth’ ... (44) ‘Through the vaut’s mouth, in his night-gown, torch in -his hand, Syphax enters just behind Sophonisba’.... (126) ‘Erichtho -enters’ ... (192) ‘Infernal music, softly’ ... (202) ‘A treble viol and -a base lute play softly within the canopy’ ... (212) ‘A short song to -soft music above’ ... (215) ‘Enter Erichtho in the shape of Sophonisba, -her face veiled, and hasteth in the bed of Syphax’ ... (216) ‘Syphax -hasteneth within the canopy, as to Sophonisba’s bed’ ... (V. i. 1) -‘Syphax draws the curtains, and discovers Erichtho lying with him’ ... -(24) ‘Erichtho slips into the ground’ ... (29) ‘Syphax kneels at the -altar’ ... (40) ‘Out of the altar the ghost of Asdrubal ariseth’. There -is no obvious break in IV. Erichtho promises to bring Sophonisba with -music, and says ‘I go’ (181), although there is no _Exit_. We must -suppose Syphax to return to his chamber through the vault either here -or after his soliloquy at 192, when the music begins. - -[495] _E. Ho!_, I. i. 1, ‘Enter Maister Touchstone and Quick-silver -at severall dores.... At the middle dore, enter Golding, discovering -a gold-smiths shoppe, and walking short turns before it’; II. i. 1, -‘Touchstone, Quick-silver[cf above and below, but Touchstone diff]; -Goulding and Mildred sitting on eyther side of the stall’. - -[496] At the end of II. ii, which is before Security’s, with Winifred -‘above’ (241), Quick-silver remains on the stage, for II. iii, before -Petronel’s. The tavern is first used in III. iii, after which III. iv, -of one 7–line speech only, returns to Security’s and ends the act. -Billingsgate should be at some little distance from the other houses. - -[497] _E. Ho!_, IV. i. 1, ‘Enter Slitgut, with a paire of oxe hornes, -discovering Cuckolds-Haven above’. - -[498] Clearly IV. i. 346–64 (ed. Schelling) has been misplaced in the -Q_{q}; it is a final speech by Slitgut, with his _Exit_, but without -his name prefixed, and should come after 296. The new scene begins with -297. - -[499] _E. Ho!_, IV. i. 92, ‘Enter the Drawer in the Taverne before -[i.e. in III. iii], with Wynnyfrid’; he will shelter her at ‘a house -of my friends heere in S. Kath’rines’ ... (297) ‘Enter Drawer, with -Wynifrid new attird’, who says ‘you have brought me nere enough your -taverne’ and ‘my husband stale thither last night’. Security enters -(310) with ‘I wil once more to this unhappy taverne’. - -[500] _Y. F. Gallants_ has (_a_) Frippery’s shop (I. i); (_b_) -Katherine’s (I. ii; V. ii); (_c_) Mitre inn (II. iii); (_d_) Primero’s -brothel (II. i; III. iv; V. i); (_e_) Tailby’s lodging (IV. i, ii); -(_f_) Fitzgrave’s lodging (IV. iii); (_g_) Mrs. Newcut’s dining-room -(IV. vii); (_h_) Paul’s (IV. vi). There is action within in all these, -and in V. i, which is before (_d_), spies are concealed ‘overhead’ -(124). - -[501] In _Isle of Gulls_ the park or forest holds a lodge for the duke -(I. i), a ‘queach of bushes’ (II. ii), Diana’s oak (II. ii; IV. iv), -Adonis’ bower (II. ii; V. i), a bowling green with arbours (II. iii-v), -and the house of Manasses (IV. iii). - -[502] _Law Tricks_ has (_a_) the palace (I. i; II; IV. i, ii; V. ii), -within which (p. 64, ed. Bullen) ‘Discover Polymetes in his study’, and -(p. 78) ‘Polymetes in his study’; (_b_) an arrased chamber in Lurdo’s -(III. i), entered by a vault (cf. p. 148, _supra_); (_c_) Countess -Lurdo’s (III. ii); (_d_) the cloister vaults (V. i, ii) where (p. 90) -‘Countesse in the Tombe’. Action passes direct from (_a_) to (_d_) at -p. 89. - -[503] _Fleir_ has (_a_) the courtesans’ (I. 26–188; II; III. 1–193; IV. -1–193); (_b_) Alunio’s (IV. 194–287); (_c_) Ferrio’s (V. 1–54); (_d_) a -prison (V. 55–87); (_e_) a law court (V. 178–end); (_f_) possibly Susan -and Nan’s (I. 189–500). Conceivably (_c_), (_d_), (_e_) are in some way -combined: there is action within at (_b_), ‘Enter Signior Alunio the -Apothecarie in his shop with wares about him’ (194), (_d_) ‘Enter Lord -Piso ... in prison’ (55), and (_e_); none above. - -[504] The action of _F. Shepherdess_ needs a wood, with rustic cotes -and an altar to Pan (I. ii, iii; V. i, iii), a well (III. i), and a -bower for Clorin (I. i; II. ii; IV. ii, v; V. ii, v), where is hung a -curtain (V. ii. 109). - -[505] _K. B. P._ I. 230, ‘Enter Rafe like a Grocer in ’s shop, with -two Prentices Reading Palmerin of England’; at 341 the action shifts -to Merrithought’s, but the episode at Venturewell’s is said to have -been ‘euen in this place’ (422), and clearly the two houses were staged -together. Possibly the conduit head on which Ralph sings his May Day -song (IV. 439) was also part of the permanent setting. - -[506] _K. B. P._ II. 71–438; III. 1–524; IV. 76–151. - -[507] The certain plays are _Epicoene_, _Woman a Weathercock_, -_Insatiate Countess_, and _Revenge of Bussy_. I have noted two unusual -s.ds.: _W. a W._ III. ii, ‘Enter Scudmore ... Scudmore passeth one -doore, and entereth the other, where Bellafront sits in a Chaire, under -a Taffata Canopie’; _Insatiate C._ III. i, ‘Claridiana and Rogero, -being in a readiness, are received in at one anothers houses by their -maids. Then enter Mendoza, with a Page, to the Lady Lentulus window’. -There is some elaborate action with contiguous rooms in _Epicoene_, IV, -V. - -[508] Cf. pp. 98, 117. - -[509] I have noted bedchamber scenes as ‘perhaps above’ at Paul’s -in _A Mad World, my Masters_ and _A Trick to Catch the Old One_, -but the evidence is very slight and may be due to careless writing. -In _A Mad World_, III. ii. 181, Harebrain is said to ‘walke below’; -later ‘Harebrain opens the door and listens’. In _A Trick_, III. iv. -72, Dampit is told that his bed waits ‘above’, and IV. v is in his -bedchamber. - -[510] Cf. p. 116. - -[511] Cf. _Dr. Dodipoll_, _1 Antonio and Mellida_, _The Fawn_, and -_Bussy d’Ambois_ for Paul’s, and _Sir Giles Goosecap_ and _Fleir_ for -Blackfriars. The early Court plays had similar scenes; cf. p. 43. - -[512] _C. Revels_, ind. 54, ‘First the Title of his Play is _Cynthias -Revels_, as any man (that hath hope to be sau’d by his Booke) can -witnesse; the Scene _Gargaphia_’; _K. B. P._ ind. 10, ‘Now you call -your play, The London Marchant. Downe with your Title, boy, downe with -your Title’. For _Wily Beguiled_, cf. p. 126. - -[513] Duff, xi. - -[514] Ch. ix; cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 221. - -[515] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 2. ‘Cum priuilegio’ is in the colophons of -Rastell’s 1533 prints of _Johan Johan_, _The Pardoner and the Friar_, -and _The Wether_, and ‘Cum priuilegio regali’ in those of his undated -_Gentleness and Nobility_ and _Beauty and Good Properties of Women_. - -[516] _Procl._ 114, 122, 155, 176. The texts of 1529 and 1530 are in -Wilkins, _Concilia_, iii. 737, 740; that of 1538 in Burnet, _Hist. of -Reformation_, vi. 220; cf. Pollard, _Sh. F._ 6, and in _3 Library_, x. -57. I find ‘Cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum’ in the colophon of -_Acolastus_ (1540) and in both t.p. and colophon of _Troas_ (1559); -also ‘Seen and allowed &c.’ in the t.p. of Q_{2} of _Gorboduc_ (_c._ -1570), ‘Perused and Alowed’ at the end of _Gammer Gurton’s Needle_ -(1575), and ‘Seen and allowed, according to the order appointed in the -Queenes maiesties Injunctions’ in the t.p. of _The Glass of Government_ -(1575). Otherwise these precautions became dead letters, so far as -plays were concerned. - -[517] _Procl._ 295 (part only in Wilkins, iv. 1; cf. Pollard, _Sh. F._ -7). The ‘daye of the printe’ is in the t.ps. of _Thyestes_ (1560), -_Oedipus_ (1563), _Gordobuc_ (1565), _Four Ps_ (1569), and the colophon -of _Promos and Cassandra_ (1578); the year and month in the t.p. -of _King Darius_ (1565). Earlier printers had given the day in the -colophons of _Mundus et Infans_ (1522), _Johan Johan_ (1533), and _The -Pardoner and the Friar_ (1533). - -[518] Dasent, ii. 312; _Procl._ 395 (text in Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 9; cf. -Pollard, _Sh. F._ 8). - -[519] _Procl._ 427 (cf. Pollard, _Sh. F._ 9); _Procl._ 461 (text in -Wilkins, _Concilia_, iv. 128; Arber, i. 52); _Procl._ 488 (text in -Arber, i. 92). - -[520] Arber, i. xxviii, xxxii. - -[521] Duff, xi. - -[522] _1 Eliz._ c. 1 (_Statutes_, iv. 1. 350). - -[523] App. D, No. ix. - -[524] App. D, No. xii. - -[525] App. D, No. xiii. - -[526] _Procl._ 638, 656, 659, 687, 688, 702, 740, 752, 775; Arber, i. -430, 452, 453, 461, 464, 474, 502; cf. McKerrow, xiii. A draft Bill by -William Lambarde prepared in 1577–80 for the establishment of a mixed -body of ecclesiastics and lawyers as Governors of the English Print -(Arber, ii. 751) never became law. - -[527] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 15; _F. and Q._ 4. Mr. Pollard stresses the -difficulty of obtaining the hands of six Privy Councillors. Perhaps -this is somewhat exaggerated. Six was the ordinary quorum of that body, -which sat several times a week, while many of its members resided in -court, were available for signing documents daily, and did in fact -sign, in sixes, many, such as warrants to the Treasurer of the Chamber, -of no greater moment than licences (cf. ch. ii). The signatures were of -course ministerial, and would be given to a licence on the report of an -expert reader. In any case the _Injunction_ provides alternatives. - -[528] Arber, iii. 690; Pollard, _Sh. F._ 23, ‘From 19^o Elizabethe -[1576–7] till the Starre-chamber Decree 28^o Elizabeth [1586], many -were licensed by the Master and Wardens, some few by the Master alone, -and some by the Archbishop and more by the Bishop of London. The like -was in the former parte of the Quene Elizabeth’s time. They were made a -corporacon but by P. and M. Master Kingston, y^e now master, sayth that -before the Decree the master and wardens licensed all, and that when -they had any Divinity booke of muche importance they would take the -advise of some 2 or 3 ministers of this towne’. - -[529] The references in the following notes, unless otherwise -specified, are to the vols. and pages of Arber’s _Transcript_. - -[530] i. 106; ii. 879. - -[531] i. 17, ‘No member or members of this Company shall hereafter -knowingly imprint or cause to be imprinted any book, pamphlet, -portraicture, picture or paper whereunto the law requires a license, -without such license as by the law is directed for the imprinting of -the same (1678)’; 22, ‘By ancient usage of this company, when any book -or copy is duly entred in the register-book of this company, to any -member or members of this company, such person to whom such entry is -made, is, and always hath been reputed and taken to be proprietor of -such book or copy, and ought to have the sole printing thereof (1681)’; -26, ‘It hath been the ancient usage of the members of this company, -for the printer or printers, publisher or publishers of all books, -pamphlets, ballads, and papers, (except what are granted by letters -pattents under the great seal of England) to enter into the publick -register-book of this company, remaining with the clerk of this company -for the time being, in his or their own name or names, all books, -pamphlets, ballads, and papers whatsoever, by him or them to be printed -or published, before the same book, pamphlet, ballad, or paper is begun -to be printed, to the end that the printer or publisher thereof may be -known, to justifie whatsoever shall be therein contained, and have no -excuse for the printing or publishing thereof (1682)’. - -[532] Typical examples are i. 75 (1557–8), ‘To master John Wally these -bokes called Welth and helthe, the treatise of the ffrere and the boy, -stans puer ad mensam, another of youghte charyte and humylyte, an a. -b. c. for cheldren in englesshe with syllabes, also a boke called an -hundreth mery tayles ij^s’; 77 (1557–8), ‘To Henry Sutton to prynte -an enterlude vpon the history of Jacobe and Esawe out of the xxvij -chapeter of the fyrste boke of Moyses called Genyses and for his -lycense he geveth to the howse iiij^d’; 128 (1559–60), ‘Recevyd of John -Kynge for his lycense for pryntinge of these copyes Lucas urialis, nyce -wanton, impaciens poverte, the proude wyves pater noster, the squyre -of low degre and syr deggre graunted ye x of June anno 1560 ij^s’. The -last becomes the normal form, but without the precise date. - -[533] i. 155, 177, 204, 205, 208, 209, 231, 263, 268, 269, 272, 299, -302, 308, 312, 334, 336, 343, 378, 382, 385, 398, 399, 415. It is -possible that the wardens, intent on finance, did not always transcribe -into their accounts notes of authorizations. Only half a dozen of the -above are ascribed to the archbishop, yet a mention of ‘one Talbot, -servant of the archbishop of Canterbury, a corrector to the printers’ -in an examination relative to the Ridolfi plot (Haynes-Murdin, ii. 30) -shows that he had enough work in 1571 to justify the appointment of a -regular deputy. - -[534] ii. 35, 301. Collins remained clerk to 1613, when he was -succeeded by Thomas Mountfort, who became a stationer (McKerrow, 196), -and is of course to be distinguished from the prebendary of Paul’s and -High Commissioner of a similar name, who acted as ‘corrector’ (cf. p. -168). - -[535] i. 451 _sqq._ - -[536] ii. 302, 359, 371, 377, 378, 414, &c. - -[537] ii. 440, 444. - -[538] ii. 334, ‘vnder the hande of Master Recorder’; 341, ‘vnder -thandes of Doctour Redman and the wardens’; 342, ‘master Recorder and -the wardens’; 346, ‘the lord maiour and the wardens’; 357, ‘sub manibus -comitum Leicester et Hunsdon’; 372, ‘master Crowley’; 375, ‘master -Vaughan’; 386, ‘master Secretary Wilson’; 403, ‘master Thomas Norton -[Remembrancer]’; 404, ‘the Lord Chancellor’; 409, ‘master Cotton’; -417, ‘by aucthoritie from the Counsell’; 434, 435, ‘pervsed by master -Crowley’; 447, ‘master Recorder’. For Talbot, cf. _supra_. - -[539] ii. 304; cf. ii. 447 (1586), ‘Entred by commaundement from master -Barker in wrytinge vnder his hand. Aucthorised vnder the Archbishop of -Canterbury his hand’. ‘Licenced’, as well as ‘authorised’ or ‘alowed’, -now sometimes (ii. 307, 447) describes the action of a prelate or -corrector. - -[540] ii. 366. - -[541] ii. 428. - -[542] ii. 424, ‘alwaies provided that before he print he shall get the -bishop of London his alowance to yt’; 424, ‘upon condicon he obtaine -the ordinaries hand thereto’; 429, ‘provyded alwaies and he is enioyned -to gett this booke laufully alowed before he print yt’; 431, ‘yt is -granted vnto him that if he gett the card of phantasie lawfullie alowed -vnto him, that then he shall enioye yt as his owne copie’; 431, ‘so -it be or shalbe by laufull aucthoritie lycenced vnto him’; 444, ‘to -be aucthorised accordinge to her maiesties Iniunctions’. The wardens’ -hands are not cited to any of these conditional entries. - -[543] ii. 307, 308, 336, 353, 430, 438, 439. - -[544] App. D, No. lxxvii; cf. Strype, _Life of Whitgift_, i. 268; -Pierce, _Introduction to Mar Prelate Tracts_, 74. Confirmations -and special condemnations of offending books are in _Procl._ 802, -812, 1092, 1362, 1383 (texts of two last in G. W. Prothero, _Select -Statutes_, 169, 395). - -[545] ii. 459, ‘Master Hartwell certifying it to be tollerated’; 460, -‘authorised or alowed as good vnder thand of Doctour Redman &c.’; 461, -‘certified by Master Hartwell to be alowed leavinge out the ij staues -yat are crossed’; 464, ‘master Crowleys hand is to yt, as laufull to -be printed’; 475, ‘aucthorised by tharchbishop of Canterbury as is -reported by Master Cosin’; 479, ‘which as master Hartwell certifyithe -by his hande to the written copie, my Lordes grace of Canterbury is -content shall passe without anie thinge added to yt before it be -pervsed’; 487, ‘sett downe as worthie to be printed vnder thand of -Master Gravet’; 489, ‘Master Crowleys hand is to yt testyfying it to be -alowable to ye print’; 491, ‘vnder the Bishop of London, Master Abraham -Fraunce, and the wardens hands’; 493, ‘Master Hartwells hand beinge at -the wrytten copie testifyinge his pervsinge of the same’; 493, ‘alowed -vnder D^r Stallers hand as profitable to be printed’, &c. - -[546] Lambe notes (iii. 690) in 1636 that on 30 June 1588, ‘the -archbishop gave power to Doctor Cosin, Doctor Stallard, Doctor Wood, -master Hartwell, master Gravett, master Crowley, master Cotton, and -master Hutchinson, or any one of them, to license books to be printed: -Or any 2 of those following master Judson, master Trippe, master Cole -and master Dickens’. It will be observed that most of the first group -of these had already acted as ‘correctors’, together with William -Redman and Richard Vaughan, chaplains respectively to Archbishop -Grindal and Bishop Aylmer. William Hutchinson and George Dickens were -also chaplains to Aylmer. Hutchinson was in the High Commission of -1601. Richard Cosin was Dean of the Arches and a High Commissioner. -Abraham Hartwell was secretary and Cole chaplain (Arber, ii. 494) to -Archbishop Whitgift. Hutchinson, William Gravett, William Cotton, -and George Dickins were or became prebendaries of St. Paul’s. Thomas -Stallard was rector of All Hallows’ and St. Mary’s at Hill; Henry Tripp -of St. Faith’s and St. Stephen’s, Walbrook. Most of this information -is from Hennessy. Crowley was presumably Robert Crowley, vicar of St. -Giles, Cripplegate, and himself a stationer, although his activity as -a Puritan preacher and pamphleteer makes his appointment an odd one -for Whitgift. Moreover, he died on 18 June 1588. There may have been -two Robert Crowleys, or the archbishop’s list may have been drawn up -earlier than Lambe dates it. - -[547] Amongst the correctors who appear later in the Register are -Richard Bancroft, John Buckeridge, and Michael Murgatroyd, secretaries -or chaplains to Whitgift, Samuel Harsnett, William Barlow, Thomas -Mountford, John Flower, and Zacharias Pasfield, prebendaries of St. -Paul’s, William Dix, Peter Lyly, chaplain of the Savoy and brother of -the dramatist, Lewis Wager, rector of St. James’s, Garlickhithe, and -dramatist, John Wilson, and Gervas Nidd. Mountford and Dix were in the -High Commission of 1601. I have not troubled to trace the full careers -of these men in Hennessy and elsewhere. Thomas Morley (Arber, iii. 93) -and William Clowes (ii. 80) seem to have been applied to as specialists -on musical and medical books respectively. - -[548] ii. 463, 464, 508, 509, ‘Alowed by the Bishop of London vnder -his hand and entred by warrant of Master [warden] Denhams hand to the -copie’. - -[549] A typical entry is now - - ‘xiii^{to} die Augusti [1590]. -Richard Jones. Entred vnto him for his Copye The twooe commicall -discourses of Tomberlein the Cithian shepparde vnder the handes of -Master Abraham Hartewell and the Wardens. vj^d.’ - -[550] iii. 677. A number of satirical books were condemned by name -to be burnt, and direction given to the master and wardens, ‘That no -Satyres or Epigrams be printed hereafter; That noe Englishe historyes -be printed excepte they bee allowed by some of her maiesties privie -Counsell; That noe playes be printed excepte they bee allowed by suche -as haue aucthoritie; That all Nasshes bookes and Doctor Harvyes bookes -be taken wheresoeuer they maye be found and that none of theire bookes -be euer printed hereafter; That thoughe any booke of the nature of -theise heretofore expressed shalbe broughte vnto yow vnder the hands of -the Lord Archebisshop of Canterburye or the Lord Bishop of London yet -the said booke shall not be printed vntill the master or wardens haue -acquainted the said Lord Archbishop or the Lord Bishop with the same to -knowe whether it be theire hand or no’. - -[551] _Hunting of Cupid_ (R. Jones, 26 July 1591), ‘provyded alwayes -that yf yt be hurtfull to any other copye before lycenced, then this -to be voyde’; _Merchant of Venice_ (J. Robertes, 22 July 1598), -‘prouided, that yt bee not prynted by the said James Robertes or anye -other whatsoeuer without lycence first had from the Right honorable -the lord chamberlen’; _Blind Beggar of Alexandria_ (W. Jones, 15 Aug. -1598), ‘vppon condition that yt belonge to noe other man’; _Spanish -Tragedy_ (transfer from A. Jeffes to W. White, 13 Aug. 1599), ‘saluo -iure cuiuscunque’; _Cloth Breeches and Velvet Hose_ (J. Robertes, -27 May 1600), ‘prouided that he is not to putt it in prynte without -further and better aucthority’; _A Larum for London_ (J. Robertes, -29 May 1600), ‘prouided that yt be not printed without further -aucthoritie’; _Antonio and Mellida_ (M. Lownes and T. Fisher, 24 Oct. -1601), ‘prouided that he gett laufull licence for yt’; _Satiromastix_ -(J. Barnes, 11 Nov. 1601), ‘vppon condicon that yt be lycensed to be -printed’; _Troilus and Cressida_ (J. Robertes, 7 Feb. 1603), ‘to print -when he hath gotten sufficient aucthoritie for yt’; _When You See Me, -You Know Me_ (N. Butter, 12 Feb. 1605), ‘yf he gett good alowance for -the enterlude of King Henry the 8^{th} before he begyn to print it. And -then procure the wardens handes to yt for the entrance of yt: He is to -haue the same for his copy’; _Westward Hoe_ (H. Rocket, 2 March 1605), -‘prouided yat he get further authoritie before yt be printed’ (entry -crossed out, and marked ‘vacat’); _Dutch Courtesan_ (J. Hodgets, 26 -June 1605), ‘provyded that he gett sufficient aucthoritie before yt be -prynted’ (with later note, ‘This is alowed to be printed by aucthoritie -from Master Hartwell’); _Sir Giles Goosecap_ (E. Blount, 10 Jan. -1606), ‘prouided that yt be printed accordinge to the copie wherevnto -Master Wilsons hand ys at’; _Fawn_ (W. Cotton, 12 March 1606), -‘provided that he shall not put the same in prynte before he gett -alowed lawfull aucthoritie’; _Fleire_ (J. Trundle and J. Busby, 13 May -1606), ‘provided that they are not to printe yt tell they bringe good -aucthoritie and licence for the doinge thereof’ (with note to transfer -of Trundle’s share to Busby and A. Johnson on 21 Nov. 1606, ‘This booke -is aucthorised by Sir George Bucke Master Hartwell and the wardens’). - -[552] Buck’s hand first appears to _Claudius Tiberius Nero_ (10 Mar. -1607), and thereafter to all London (but not University) plays up to -his madness in 1622, except _Cupid’s Whirligig_ (29 June 1607), which -has Tilney’s, _Yorkshire Tragedy_ (2 May 1608), which has Wilson’s, -some of those between 4 Oct. 1608 and 10 March 1609, which have -Segar’s, who is described as Buck’s deputy, and _Honest Lawyer_ (14 -Aug. 1615), which has Taverner’s. - -[553] i. 45, 69, 93, 100, &c.; ii. 821, 843. In 1558–9, only, the -heading is ‘Fynes for defautes for Pryntynge withoute lycense’. - -[554] See the case of Jeffes and White in 1593 given in ch. xxiii, s.v. -Kyd, _Spanish Tragedy_. - -[555] i. 93, 100; ii. 853 (21 Jan. 1583), ‘This daye, Ric. Jones is -awarded to paie x^s for a fine for printinge a thinge of the fall of -the gallories at Paris Garden without licence and against commandement -of the Wardens. And the said Jones and Bartlet to be committed to -prison viz Bartlet for printing it and Jones for sufferinge it to be -printed in his house’. - -[556] ii. 824, 826, 832, 837, 849, 851. - -[557] ii. 850. - -[558] The testimony only relates strictly to the period 1576–86, which -is nearly coincident with the slack ecclesiastical rule of Archbishop -Grindal (1576–83). Parker (1559–75) may have been stricter, as Whitgift -(1583–1604) certainly was. - -[559] i. 95, ‘Master Waye had lycense to take the lawe of James Gonnell -for a sarten dett due vnto hym’; 101, ‘Owyn Rogers for ... kepynge of a -forren with out lycense ys fyned’. - -[560] ii. 62. - -[561] i. 322. - -[562] v. lxxvi, ‘we do will and commande yowe that from hence forthe -yowe suffer neither booke ballett nor any other matter to be published -... until the same be first seene and allowed either by us of her -M^{tes} pryvie Counsell or by thee [_sic_] Commissioners for cawses -ecclesyastical there at London’. - -[563] The fee seems at first to have been 4_d._ for ‘entraunce’ (i. -94), with a further sum for books above a certain size at the rate of -‘euery iij leves a pannye’ (i. 97); plays ran from 4_d._ to 12_d._ But -from about 1582 plays and most other books are charged a uniform fee of -6_d._, and only ballads and other trifles escape with 4_d._ Payments -were sometimes in arrear; often there is no note of fee to a title; -and in some of these cases the words ‘neuer printed’ have been added. -On the other hand, the receipt of fees is sometimes recorded, and the -title remains unentered; at the end of the entries for 1585–6 (ii. 448) -is a memorandum that one of the wardens ‘brought in about iiij^s moore -which he had receved for copies yat were not brought to be entred into -the book this yere’. A similar item is in the wardens’ accounts for -1592–3 (i. 559). Fees were charged for entries of transferred as well -as of new copies. - -[564] Various formulae are used, such as ‘assigned vnto him’ (ii. 310, -351), ‘turned ouer to him’ (ii. 369), ‘putt ouer vnto him’ (ii. 431), -‘sold and sett ouer vnto him’ (ii. 350), ‘which he affyrmeth yat he -bought of’ (ii. 351), ‘by assent of’ (ii. 415), ‘by thappointment of’ -(ii. 667), ‘by the consent of’ (ii. 608), ‘which he bought of’ (ii. -325), &c. A transfer of ‘plaiebookes’ from Sampson Awdeley to John -Charlewood on 15 Jan. 1582 (ii. 405) included, besides two plays, -_Youth_ and _Impatient Poverty_, which had been formerly registered, -four others, _Weather_, _Four Ps_, _Love_, and _Hickscorner_, which -had been printed before the Register came into existence. I suppose -that Charlwood secured copyright in these, but was there any copyright -before the entry of 1582? - -[565] ii. 377. ‘Tollerated vnto him but not vnder the wardens handes’, -472, ‘beinge broughte to enter by John Woulf without the wardens handes -to the copy’. Even in the seventeenth century ballads are sometimes -entered without any citation of hands, and in 1643 it was the clerk -and not the wardens whom Parliament authorized to license ‘small -pamphletts, portratures, pictures, and the like’ (v. liv). - -[566] ii. 365, ‘Translated by a French copie whereat was the bishop of -Londons hand and master Harrisons’; 440, ‘by commaundement from master -warden Newbery vnder his own handwrytinge on the backside of ye wrytten -copie’; 443, ‘vnder his hand to the printed copie’; 449, ‘by warrant -of master warden Bisshops hand to the former copie printed anno 1584’; -449, ‘by warrant of master warden Bishops hand to the wrytten copie’; -457, ‘by warrant of the wardens handes to thold copie’; 521, ‘with -master Hartwelles hand to the Italyan Booke’; 534, ‘alowed vnder master -Hartwelles hand, entred by warrant of the subscription of the wardens’, -&c. - -[567] ii. 434, ‘entred vpon a special knowen token sent from master -warden Newbery’; 437, ‘allowed by tharchbishop of Canterbury, by -testymonie of the Lord Chenie’; 460, ‘by the wardens appointment at the -hall’; 504, ‘by warrant of a letter from Sir Ffrauncis Walsingham to -the master and wardens of the Cumpanye’; 523, ‘alowed by a letter or -note vnder master Hartwelles hand’; 524, ‘reported by master Fortescue -to be alowed by the archbishop of Canterbury’; 633, ‘The note vnder -master Justice Ffenners hand is layd vp in the wardens cupbord’; -iii. 160, ‘John Hardie reporteth that the wardens are consentinge to -thentrance thereof’, &c. - -[568] An inventory of 1560 (i. 143) records ‘The nombre of all suche -Copyes as was lefte in the Cubberde in our Counsell Chambre at the -Compte ... as apereth in the whyte boke for that yere ... xliiij. Item -in ballettes ... vij^e iiij^x and xvj’. From 1576 to 1579 ‘and a copie’ -is often added to the notes of fees. The wardens accounts from 1574 -to 1596 (i. 470, 581) regularly recite that they had ‘deliuered into -the hall certen copies which haue been printed this yeare, as by a -particular booke thereof made appearithe’. - -[569] ii. 452, ‘Receaved of him for printinge 123 ballades which are -filed vp in the hall with his name to euerie ballad’. The order of -1592 about _Dr. Faustus_ (cf. ch. xxiii) suggests preliminary entry of -claims in a Hall book distinct from the Clerk’s book. - -[570] ii. 414, ‘Graunted by the Assistants’; 449, ‘entred in full -court’; 462, ‘entred in plena curia’; 465, ‘intratur in curia’; 477, -‘by the whole consent of thassistantes’; 535, ‘aucthorysed to him at -the hall soe that yt doe not belonge to any other of the Cumpanye’; -535, ‘This is allowed by the consent of the whole table’; 663, ‘in open -court’; 344, ‘memorandum that this lycence is revoked and cancelled’; -457, ‘This copie is forbydden by the Archbishop of Canterbury’, with -marginal note ‘Expunctum in plena curia’; 514, ‘so yat he first gett yt -to be laufully and orderly alowed as tollerable to be printed and doo -shewe thaucthoritie thereof at a Court to be holden’; 576, ‘Cancelled -out of the book, for the vndecentnes of it in diuerse verses’; iii. 82, -‘Entred ... in full court ... vppon condicon that yt be no other mans -copie, and that ... he procure it to be aucthorised and then doo shew -it at the hall to the master and wardens so aucthorised’. - -[571] The register indicates that even at the time of entry the fee -sometimes remained unpaid. But probably it had to be paid before the -stationer could actually publish with full security of copyright. - -[572] Cf. p. 173. - -[573] I note twenty-two cases (1586–1616) in which the earliest print -known falls in a calendar year later than the next after that of -entry: _Spanish Tragedy_, 1592–4 (N.D. probably earlier); _Soliman -and Perseda_, 1592–9 (N.D. probably earlier); _James IV_, 1594–8; -_Famous Victories_, 1594–8; _David and Bethsabe_, 1594–9; _King Leire_, -1594–1605 (re-entry 1605); _Four Prentices_, 1594–1615 (one or more -earlier editions probable); _Jew of Malta_, 1594–1633 (re-entry 1632); -_Woman in the Moon_, 1595–7; _George a Greene_, 1595–9; _Merchant of -Venice_, 1598–1600 (conditional entry); _Alarum for London_, 1600–2 -(conditional entry); _Patient Grissell_, 1600–3 (stayed by Admiral’s); -_Stukeley_, 1600–5; _Dr. Faustus_, 1601–4; _Englishmen for my Money_, -1601–16; _Troilus and Cressida_, 1603–9 (re-entry 1609); _Westward -Ho!_, 1605–7 (conditional entry cancelled); _Antony and Cleopatra_, -1608–23, (re-entry 1623); _2 Honest Whore_, 1608–30 (re-entry 1630); -_Epicoene_, 1610–20 (earlier edition probable); _Ignoramus_, 1615–30 -(re-entry 1630). The glutting of the book-market in 1594 accounts for -some of the delays. - -[574] ii. 829 (1599), 833 (1601), 835 (1602), 837 (1603). - -[575] I find no entries of _Enough is as Good as a Feast_ (N.D.), -_Thyestes_ (1560), _Hercules Furens_ (1561), _Trial of Treasure_ -(1567), _God’s Promises_ (1577), perhaps reprints; of _Orestes_ (1567); -or of _Abraham’s Sacrifice_ (1577) or _Conflict of Conscience_ (1581), -perhaps entered in 1571–5. The method of exhaustions suggests that -Copland’s _Robin Hood_ (N.D.) is the ‘newe playe called ---- ’ which he -entered on 30 Oct. 1560, and that Colwell’s _Disobedient Child_ (N.D.) -is the unnamed ‘interlude for boyes to handle and to passe tyme at -christenmas’, which he entered in 1569–70. - -[576] His plays were _Sir Thomas Wyat_ (1607), _Every Woman in her -Humour_ (1609), _Two Maids of Moreclack_ (1609), _Roaring Girl_ (1611), -_White Devil_ (1612), and _Insatiate Countess_ (1613). - -[577] In _Nice Wanton_ a prayer for a king has been altered by -sacrificing a rhyme into one for a queen. The prayer of _Impatient -Poverty_ seems also to have been for Mary and clumsily adapted for -Elizabeth. Wager’s _Enough is as Good as a Feast_ may be Elizabethan -or pre-Elizabethan. _Jacob and Esau_ (1568), entered in 1557–8, is -pre-Elizabethan. - -[578] Reprints of 1559–85 include Heywood’s _Weather_ and _Four -Ps_, printed in England before the establishment of the Stationers’ -Register, and Bale’s _Three Laws_ and _God’s Promises_, printed, -probably abroad, in 1538. John Walley, who seems to have printed -1545–86, failed to date his books. I cannot therefore say whether his -reprints of the pre-Register _Love_ and _Hickscorner_, or the prints -of _Youth_ and _Wealth and Health_ (if it is his), which he entered in -1557–8, are Elizabethan or not. - -[579] Cf. App. L. - -[580] Cf. App. B. I classify as follows: (a) COMPANIES OF MEN: (i) -Morals (3), _Delight_, _Beauty and Housewifery_, _Love and Fortune_; -(ii) Classical (7), _Tully_, _A Greek Maid_, _Four Sons of Fabius_, -_Sarpedon_, _Telomo_, _Phillida and Corin_, _Rape of the Second Helen_; -(iii) Romantic (17), _Lady Barbara_, _Cloridon and Radiamanta_, _Predor -and Lucia_, _Mamillia_, _Herpetulus the Blue Knight and Perobia_, -_Philemon and Philecia_, _Painter’s Daughter_, _Solitary Knight_, -_Irish Knight_, _Cynocephali_, _Three Sisters of Mantua_, _Knight in -the Burning Rock_, _Duke of Milan and Marquess of Mantua_, _Portio -and Demorantes_, _Soldan and Duke_, _Ferrar_, _Felix and Philiomena_; -(iv) Farce (1), _The Collier_; (v) Realistic (2), _Cruelty of a -Stepmother_, _Murderous Michael_; (vi) Antic Play (1); (vii) Episodes -(2), _Five Plays in One_, _Three Plays in One_; (b) COMPANIES OF -BOYS: (i) Morals (6), _Truth, Faithfulness and Mercy_, ‘_Vanity_’, -_Error_, _Marriage of Mind and Measure_, _Loyalty and Beauty_, _Game -of Cards_; (ii) Classical (12), _Iphigenia_, _Ajax and Ulysses_, -_Narcissus_, _Alcmaeon_, _Quintus Fabius_, _Siege of Thebes_, _Perseus -and Andromeda_, ‘_Xerxes_’, _Mutius Scaevola_, _Scipio Africanus_, -_Pompey_, _Agamemnon and Ulysses_; (iii) Romantic (4), _Paris and -Vienna_, _Titus and Gisippus_, _Alucius_, _Ariodante and Genevora_; -(c) UNKNOWN COMPANIES: (i) Morals (5), _As Plain as Can Be_, _Painful -Pilgrimage_, _Wit and Will_, _Prodigality_, ‘_Fortune_’; (ii) Classical -(2), _Orestes_, _Theagenes and Chariclea_; (iii) Romantic (1), _King of -Scots_; (iv) Farces (2), _Jack and Jill_, _Six Fools_. The moral and -romantic elements meet also in the list of pieces played by companies -of men at Bristol from 1575 to 1579: _The Red Knight_, _Myngo_, _What -Mischief Worketh in the Mind of Man_, _The Queen of Ethiopia_, _The -Court of Comfort_, _Quid pro Quo_ (Murray, ii. 213). - -[581] _Love and Fortune_ was printed in the next period. - -[582] _Mary Magdalen_; _Conflict of Conscience_. ‘Compiled’ goes back -to Bale, Heywood, and Skelton. Earlier still, _Everyman_ is not so much -a play as ‘a treatyse ... in maner of a morall playe’. - -[583] The prologue of _Mary Magdalen_ has ‘we haue vsed this feate at -the uniuersitie’. - -[584] Wynkyn de Worde calls _Mundus et Infans_ a ‘propre newe -interlude’, and the advertising title-page is well established from the -time of Rastell’s press. - -[585] _Conflict of Conscience_; cf. _Damon and Pythias_, the prologue -of which, though it had been a Court play, ‘is somewhat altered for -the proper use of them that hereafter shall haue occasion to plaie it, -either in Priuate, or open Audience’. The castings, for four, five, -or six players, occur in _King Darius_, _Like Will to Like_, _Longer -Thou Livest_, _Mary Magdalen_, _New Custom_, _Tide Tarrieth for No -Man_, _Trial of Treasure_, _Conflict of Conscience_. I find a later -example from the public stage in _Fair Maid of the Exchange_, which -has ‘Eleauen may easily acte this comedie’, and a division of parts -accordingly. There are pre-Elizabethan precedents, while _Jack Juggler_ -is ‘for Chyldren to playe’, the songs in _Ralph Roister Doister_ are -for ‘those which shall vse this Comedie or Enterlude’, and _The Four -Elements_ has directions for reducing the time of playing at need from -an hour and a half to three-quarters of an hour, and the note ‘Also yf -ye lyst ye may brynge in a dysgysynge’. Similarly _Robin Hood_ is ‘for -to be played in Maye games’. That books were in fact bought to act from -is shown by entries in the accounts of Holy Trinity, Bungay, for 1558 -of 4_d._ for ‘the interlude and game booke’ and 2_s._ for ‘writing the -partes’ (_M. S._ ii. 343). A book costing only 4_d._ must clearly have -been a print. - -[586] There are prayers in _All for Money_, _Apius and Virginia_, -_Common Conditions_, _Damon and Pythias_, _Disobedient Child_ (headed -‘The Players ... kneele downe’), _King Darius_, _Like Will to Like_, -_Longer Thou Livest_, _New Custom_, _Trial of Treasure_ (epilogue -headed ‘Praie for all estates’). _Mary Magdalen_ and _Tide Tarrieth -for No Man_ substitute a mere expression of piety. I do not agree with -Fleay, 57, that such prayers are evidence of Court performance. The -reverence and epilogue to the Queen in the belated moral of _Liberality -and Prodigality_ (1602), 1314, is different in tone. _The Pedlar’s -Prophecy_, also belated as regards date of print, adds to the usual -prayer for Queen and council ‘And that honorable T. N. &c. of N. -chiefly: Whom as our good Lord and maister, found we haue’. No doubt -any strolling company purchasing the play would fill up the blanks to -meet their own case. Probably both the Queen and estates and the ‘lord’ -of a company were prayed for, whether present or absent, so long as the -custom lasted; cf. ch. x, p. 311; ch. xviii, p. 550. - -[587] Cf. e. g. _Mary Magdalen_ (which refers on the title-page to -those who ‘heare or read the same’), 56, 1479, 1743; _Like Will to -Like_, sig. C, ‘He ... speaketh the rest as stammering as may be’, C -ij, ‘Haunce sitteth in the chaire, and snorteth as though he were fast -a sleep’, E ij^v, ‘Nichol Newfangle lieth on the ground groning’, &c., -&c. - -[588] _Three Ladies of London_ (1584), _Three Lords and Three Ladies of -London_ (1590), _Pedlar’s Prophecy_ (1595), _Contention of Liberality -and Prodigality_ (1602). _Lingua_ (1607) is a piece of academic -archaism. I cannot believe that the manuscript fragment of _Love -Feigned and Unfeigned_ belongs to the seventeenth century. Of course -there are moral elements in other plays, such as _Histriomastix_, -especially in dumb-shows and inductions. - -[589] There is little evidence as to the price at which prints were -sold; what there is points to 6_d._ for a quarto. A ‘testerne’ is -given in the epistle as the price of _Troilus and Cressida_, and in -Middleton, _Mayor of Quinborough_, v. i, come thieves who ‘only take -the name of country comedians to abuse simple people with a printed -play or two, which they bought at Canterbury for sixpence’. The -statement that the First Folio cost £1 only rests on Steevens’s report -of a manuscript note in a copy not now known; cf. McKerrow in _Sh. -England_, ii. 229. - -[590] Cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Shakespeare. - -[591] Cf. App. L. In the above allocation _Leir_ and _Satiromastix_, to -each of which two companies have equal claims, are counted twice. - -[592] Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 148, gives a full list; cf. ch. xiii, s.vv. -Queen’s, Sussex’s, Strange’s, Admiral’s, Pembroke’s, Worcester’s. - -[593] Cf. App. M. Can Moseley have been trying in some way to secure -plays of which he possessed manuscripts from being _acted_ without his -consent? On 30 Aug. 1660 (_Variorum_, iii. 249; Herbert, 90) he wrote -to Sir Henry Herbert, denying that he had ever agreed with the managers -of the Cockpit and Whitefriars that they ‘should act any playes that -doe belong to mee, without my knowledge and consent had and procured’. - -[594] Printed from _Addl. MS._ 27632, f. 43, by F. J. Furnivall in _7 -N. Q._ (1890), ix. 382. Harington died in 1612. An earlier leaf (30) -has the date ‘29^{th} of Jan. 1609’. The latest datable play in the -collection is _The Turk_ (1610, S. R. 10 Mar. 1609). There are four out -of six plays printed in 1609, as well as _The Faithful Shepherdess_ -(N.D.), of which on this evidence we can reasonably put the date of -publication in 1609 or 1610. - -[595] Cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Heywood. - -[596] _M. S. C._ i. 364; _Variorum_, iii. 159. The King’s men played -_The Malcontent_, probably after its first issue in 1604, as a retort -for the appropriation of _Jeronimo_ by its owners, the Queen’s Revels. -The earliest extant print of _1 Jeronimo_ is 1605, but the play, which -is not in S. R., may have been printed earlier. The Chapel boys seem -to have revived one at least of Lyly’s old Paul’s plays in 1601. The -Chamberlain’s adopted _Titus Andronicus_, which had been Sussex’s, and -Shakespeare revised for them _Taming of A Shrew_ and _The Contention_, -which had been Pembroke’s, and based plays which were new from the -literary, and in the case of the last also from the publisher’s, -standpoint on the _Troublesome Reign of John_ and the _Famous Victories -of Henry V_, which had been the Queen’s, and upon _King Leir_. But of -course Sussex’s, Pembroke’s, and the Queen’s had broken. - -[597] Henslowe, i. 119. - -[598] A single printer, Thomas Creede, entered or printed ten plays -between 1594 and 1599, all of which he probably acquired in 1594, -although he could not get them all in circulation at once. These -include four (_T. T. of Rich. III_, _Selimus_, _Famous Victories_, -_Clyomon and Clamydes_) from the Queen’s; it is therefore probable that -some of those on whose t.ps. no company is named (_Looking Glass_, -_Locrine_, _Pedlar’s Prophecy_, _James IV_, _Alphonsus_) were from the -same source. The tenth, _Menaechmi_, was not an acting play. - -[599] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 44; cf. ch. ix. - -[600] The Folio editors of Shakespeare condemn the Quartos, or some -of them, as ‘stolne, and surreptitious copies’; ‘piratical’, although -freely used by Mr. Pollard and others, is not a very happy term, since -no piracy of copyright is involved. The authorized Q_{2} of _Roxana_ -(1632) claims to be ‘a plagiarii unguibus vindicata’. - -[601] Introduction, xxxvi of his edition. - -[602] R. B. McKerrow in _Bibl. Soc. Trans._ xii. 294; J. D. Wilson, -_The Copy for Hamlet 1603 and the Hamlet Transcript 1593_ (1918). - -[603] C. Dewischeit, _Shakespeare und die Stenographie_ -(_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxxiv. 170); cf. Lee, 113, quoting Sir G. Buck’s -_Third Universitie of England_ (1612; cf. ch. iii), ‘They which know it -[brachygraphy] can readily take a Sermon, Oration, Play, or any long -speech, as they are spoke, dictated, acted, and uttered in the instant’. - -[604] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 48; _F. and Q._ 64. More recently A. W. -Pollard and J. D. Wilson have developed a theory (_T. L. S._ Jan.–Aug. -1919) that the ‘bad quartos’ rest upon pre-Shakespearian texts partly -revised by Shakespeare, of which shortened transcripts had been made -for a travelling company in 1593, and which had been roughly adapted -by an actor-reporter so as to bring them into line with the later -Shakespearian texts current at the time of publication. Full discussion -of this theory belongs to a study of Shakespeare. The detailed -application of it in J. D. Wilson, _The Copy for Hamlet 1603 and the -Hamlet Transcript 1593_ (1918), does not convince me that Shakespeare -had touched the play in 1593, although I think that the reporter was in -a position to make some slight use of a pre-Shakespearian _Hamlet_. And -although travelling companies were doubtless smaller than the largest -London companies (cf. chh. xi and xiii, s.v. Pembroke’s), there is no -external evidence that special ‘books’ were prepared for travelling. -For another criticism of the theory, cf. W. J. Lawrence in _T. L. -S._ for 21 Aug. 1919. Causes other than travelling might explain the -shortening of play texts: prolixity, even in an experienced dramatist -(cf. t.p. of _Duchess of Malfi_), the approach of winter afternoons, an -increased popular demand for jigs. - -[605] Cf. G. Wither, _Schollers Purgatory_ (_c._ 1625), 28, ‘Yea, by -the lawes and Orders of their Corporation, they can and do setle upon -the particuler members thereof a perpetuall interest in such Bookes -as are Registred by them at their Hall, in their several Names: and -are secured in taking the ful benefit of those books, better then any -Author can be by vertue of the Kings Grant, notwithstanding their first -Coppies were purloyned from the true owner, or imprinted without his -leave’. - -[606] Pollard, _F. and Q._ 10. Mr. Pollard seems to suggest (_F. and -Q._ 3) that copyright in a printed book did not hold as against the -author. He cites the case of Nashe’s _Pierce Pennilesse_, but there -seems no special reason to assume that in this case, or in those of -_Gorboduc_ and _Hamlet_, the authorized second editions were not made -possible by an arrangement, very likely involving blackmail, with the -pirate. - -[607] Letter in Grosart, _Poems of Sidney_ (1877), i. xxiii. Pollard, -_F. and Q._ 8, says that on other occasions Sidney’s friends approached -the Lord Treasurer and the Star Chamber. - -[608] Pollard, _F. and Q._ 7, 11. I am not sure that the appearance -of Bacon’s name can be regarded as a recognition of the principle of -author’s copyright. He may have been already in the High Commission; he -was certainly in that of 1601. - -[609] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 49, 51, speaks of Burby as ‘regaining the -copyright’ by his publications, and as, moreover, saving his sixpences -‘as a license was only required for new books’. But surely there was -no copyright, as neither Danter nor Burby paid for an entry. I take -it that when, on 22 Jan. 1607, _R. J._ and _L. L. L._ were entered to -Nicholas Ling, ‘by direccõn of a Court and with consent of Master Burby -in wrytinge’, the entry of the transfer secured the copyright for the -first time. - -[610] Arber, iii. 37. The ink shows that there are two distinct entries. - -[611] Fleay, _L. and W._ 40; Furness, _Much Ado_, ix. - -[612] Pollard, _F. and Q._ 66; _Sh. F._ 44. - -[613] Roberts did not print the 1603 _Hamlet_, although he did that -of 1604; but it must have been covered by his entry of 1602, and this -makes it a little difficult to regard him (or Blount in 1609) as the -‘agent’ of the Chamberlain’s. - -[614] Pollard, _F. and Q._ 66; _Sh. F._ 45. - -[615] There are analogies in _Taming of the Shrew_, _2, 3 Henry VI_, -and _King John_, which were not entered in S. R. with the other -unprinted plays in 1623, and were probably regarded as covered by -copyright in the plays on which they were based, although, as a matter -of fact, the _Troublesome Reign_ was itself not entered. - -[616] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 53. - -[617] They had risks to run. The Star Chamber fined and imprisoned -William Buckner, late chaplain to the archbishop, for licensing -Prynne’s _Histriomastix_ in 1633 (Rushworth, _Historical Collections_, -ii. 234). - -[618] _M. S. C._ i. 364; _Variorum_, iii. 159. - -[619] Moseley’s _Epistle_ to F_{1} (1647) of Beaumont and Fletcher -says, ‘When these _Comedies_ and _Tragedies_ were presented on the -Stage, the _Actours_ omitted some _Scenes_ and Passages (with the -_Authour’s_ consent) as occasion led them; and when private friends -desir’d a Copy, they then (and justly too) transcribed what they Acted’. - -[620] See _Epistles_ to Armin, _Two Maids of Moreclack_; Chapman, -_Widow’s Tears_; Heywood, _Rape of Lucrece_, _Golden Age_; Marston, -_Malcontent_; Middleton, _Family of Love_. - -[621] Jonson, _E. M. O._ (1600), ‘As it was first composed by the -Author B. I. Containing more than hath been publikely spoken or acted’; -Barnes, _Devil’s Charter_ (1607), ‘As it was plaide.... But more -exactly reuewed, corrected, and augmented since by the Author, for the -more pleasure and profit of the Reader’; Webster, _Duchess of Malfi_ -(1623), ‘with diuerse things Printed, that the length of the Play would -not beare in the Presentment’. - -[622] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 57; _F. and Q._ 117. - -[623] The editors of the Shakespeare F_{1} claim that they are -replacing ‘stolne, and surreptitious copies’ by plays ‘absolute in -their numbers, as he conceiued them’, and that ‘wee haue scarse -receiued from him a blot in his papers’; and those of the Beaumont -and Fletcher F_{1} say they ‘had the Originalls from such as received -them from the Authors themselves’ and lament ‘into how many hands the -Originalls were dispersed’. The same name ‘original’ was used for the -authoritative copy of a civic miracle-play; cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. -143. - -[624] The manuscripts of _Sir John Barnevelt_ (_Addl. MS._ 18653), -_Believe As You List_ (_Egerton MS._ 2828), _The Honest Man’s Fortune_ -(_Dyce MS._ 9), _The Faithful Friends_ (_Dyce MS._ 10), and _The -Sisters_ (_Sion College MS._) appear to be play-house copies, with -licensing corrections, and in some cases the licences endorsed, and -some of them may be in the authors’ autographs; cf. Pollard, _Sh. -F._ 59; Mönkemeyer, 72. Several of the copies in _Egerton MS._ 1994, -described by F. S. Boas in _3 Library_ (July 1917), including that of -_1 Richard II_, are of a similar type. - -[625] Sir Henry Herbert noted in his office-book in 1633 (_Variorum_, -iii. 208), ‘The Master ought to have copies of their new playes -left with him, that he may be able to shew what he hath allowed or -disallowed’, but it was clearly not the current practice. In 1640 -(_Variorum_, iii. 241) he suppressed an unlicensed play, and noted, -‘The play I cald for, and, forbiddinge the playinge of it, keepe the -booke’, which suggests that only one copy existed. - -[626] Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 155, prints it; cf. _1 Antonio and -Mellida_, ind. 1, ‘Enter ... with parts in their hands’; _Wily -Beguiled_, prol. 1, ‘Where are these paltrie Plaiers? stil poaring in -their papers and neuer perfect?’ By derivation, the words assigned -to an actor became his ‘part’; cf. Dekker, _News from Hell_ (1606, -_Works_, ii. 144), ‘with pittifull action, like a Plaier, when hees out -of his part’. - -[627] In 1623 Herbert re-allowed _The Winter’s Tale_, ‘thogh the -allowed booke was missinge’, and in 1625 _The Honest Man’s Fortune_, -‘the originall being lost’ (_Variorum_, iii. 229). - -[628] Cf. App. N. - -[629] The handing over of ‘papers’ is referred to in several letters to -Henslowe; cf. _Henslowe Papers_, 56, 69, 75, 76, 81, 82. - -[630] He sends Henslowe an instalment ‘fayr written’, and on another -occasion says, ‘I send you the foule sheet and y^e fayr I was wrighting -as your man can testify’ (_Henslowe Papers_, 72, 78). - -[631] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 62. - -[632] _Birth of Hercules_, 3, ‘Notae marginales inseruiant dirigendae -histrion[ic]ae’; Nashe, _Summer’s Last Will and Testament_, 1813, ‘You -might haue writ in the margent of your play-booke, Let there be a fewe -rushes laide in the place where _Back-winter_ shall tumble, for feare -of raying his cloathes: or set downe, Enter _Back-winter_, with his boy -bringing a brush after him, to take off the dust if need require. But -you will ne’re haue any wardrobe wit while you live. I pray you holde -the booke well, that we be not _non plus_ in the latter end of the -play.’ - -[633] ‘Exit’ and ‘Exeunt’ soon became the traditional directions for -leaving the stage, but I find ‘Exite omnes’ in Peele, _Edw. I_, 1263. - -[634] Mönkemeyer, 73. - -[635] _T. N. K._ I. iii. 69, ‘2 Hearses ready with Palamon: and Arcite: -the 3 Queenes. Theseus: and his Lordes ready’, i.e. ready for I. iv, -which begins 42 lines later; and again I. iv. 29, ‘3 Hearses ready’, -for I. v, beginning 24 lines later. So too _Bussy D’Ambois_ (1641, not -1607 ed.), I. i. 153, ‘Table, Chesbord and Tapers behind the Arras’, -ready for I. ii. - -[636] _A Shrew_, ind. i, ‘San.’ for speaker; _The Shrew_ (F_{1}), ind. -i. 88, ‘Sincklo’ for speaker; _3 Hen. VI_ (F_{1}), I. ii. 48, ‘Enter -Gabriel’; III. i. 1, ‘Enter Sinklo, and Humfrey’; _R. J._ (Q_{2}), IV. -v. 102, ‘Enter Will Kemp’; _M. N. D._ (F_{1}), V. i. 128, ‘Tawyer with -a Trumpet before them’; _1 Hen. IV_ (Q_{1}), I. ii. 182 (text, not -s.d.), ‘Falstaffe, Haruey, Rossill, and Gadshil, shall rob those men -that we haue already waylaid’ (cf. II. ii); _2 Hen. IV_ (Q_{1}), V. iv. -1, ‘Enter Sincklo and three or foure officers’; _M. Ado_ (F_{1}), II. -iii. 38, ‘Enter Prince, Leonato, Claudio and Iacke Wilson’; _M. Ado_ (Q -and F), IV. ii, ‘Cowley’ and ‘Kemp’ for speakers; _T.N.K._ v. 3, ‘T. -Tucke: Curtis’, IV. ii. 75, ‘Enter Messenger, Curtis’; _1 Antonio and -Mellida_, IV. i. 30, ‘Enter Andrugio, Lucio, Cole, and Norwood’; for -other examples, cf. pp. 227, 271, 285, 295, 330, and vol. iv, p. 43. -The indications of speakers by the letters E. and G. in _All’s Well_, -II. i; III. i, ii, vi, may have a similar origin. The names of actors -are entered in the ‘plots’ after those of the characters represented -(cf. _Henslowe Papers_, 127). - -[637] _Alphonsus_, prol. 1, ‘after you haue sounded thrise’; 1938, -‘Exit Venus. Or, if you can conueniently, let a chaire come down from -the top of the stage’; _James IV_, 1463, ‘Enter certaine Huntsmen, -if you please, singing’; 1931, ‘Enter, from the widdowes house, a -seruice, musical songs of marriages, or a maske, or what prettie -triumph you list’; _Three Lords and Three Ladies of London_, sig. C, -‘Here Simp[licitie] sings first, and Wit after, dialoguewise, both to -musicke if ye will’; _Locrine_, I. i. 1, ‘Let there come foorth a Lion -running after a Beare or any other beast’; _Death of R. Hood_, III. ii, -‘Enter or aboue [Hubert, Chester]’; _2 Hen. VI_, IV. ii. 33, ‘Enter -Cade [etc.] with infinite numbers’; IV. ix. 9, ‘Enter Multitudes with -Halters about their Neckes’; _T. A._ I. i. 70, ‘as many as can be’; -_Edw. I_, 50, ‘Enter ... and others as many as may be’; _Sir T. More_, -sc. ix. 954, ‘Enter ... so many Aldermen as may’; _What You Will_, v. -193, ‘Enter as many Pages with torches as you can’. - -[638] Mönkemeyer, 63, 91. - -[639] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 79. - -[640] e.g. _R. J._ (Q_{1}), III. i. 94, ‘Tibalt vnder Romeos arme -thrusts Mercutio in and flyes’; III. ii. 32, ‘Enter Nurse wringing her -hands, with the ladder of cordes in her lap’; IV. v. 95, ‘They all but -the Nurse goe foorth, casting Rosemary on her and shutting the Curtens’. - -[641] Cf. ch. xxi, pp. 133, 136. - -[642] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 71; Van Dam and Stoffel, _William Shakespeare, -Prosody and Text_, 274; _Chapters on English Printing, Prosody, and -Pronunciation_. - -[643] R. B. McKerrow, introd. xiv, to Barnes, _Devil’s Charter_. - -[644] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 74; cf. his introd. to _A New Shakespeare -Quarto_ (1916). - -[645] Epistles to Heywood, _Rape of Lucrece_; Marston, _Malcontent_, -_Fawn_; Middleton, _Family of Love_. In _Father Hubburd’s Tales_ -Middleton says, ‘I never wished this book a better fortune than to -fall into the hands of a truespelling printer’. Heywood, in an Epistle -to _Apology for Actors_ (1612), praises the honest workmanship of -his printer, Nicholas Okes, as against that of W. Jaggard, who would -not let him issue _errata_ of ‘the infinite faults escaped in my -booke of _Britaines Troy_, by the negligence of the Printer, as the -misquotations, mistaking of sillables, misplacing halfe lines, coining -of strange and neuer heard of words’. - -[646] ‘Proofs’ and ‘revises’ had come into use before 1619, for -Jaggard, criticized by Ralph Brooke for his ill printing of Brooke’s -_Catalogue of Nobility_ (1619), issued a new edition as _A Discoverie -of Errors in the First Edition of the Catalogue of Nobility_ (1622), -regretting that his workmen had not given Brooke leave to print his own -faulty English, and saying, ‘In the time of this his vnhappy sicknesse, -though hee came not in person to ouer-looke the Presse, yet the Proofe, -and Reuiewes duly attended him, and he perused them (as is well to be -iustifyed) in the maner he did before’; cf. p. 261. - -[647] Cf. pp. 106, 107, 117, 127. - -[648] e.g. _Cynthia’s Revels_ (F_{1}), ‘The Scene Gargaphie’; -_Philaster_ (F_{2}), ‘The scene being in Cicilie’; _Coxcomb_ (F_{2}), -‘The Scene; England, France’ (but in fact there are no scenes in -France!). - -[649] _The Marriage of Wit and Wisdom_ has no acts, but nine scenes. -The latish _Jacob and Esau_, _Respublica_, _Misogonus_, _Conflict of -Conscience_ have acts and scenes. - -[650] _Ralph Roister Doister_, _Gammer Gurton’s Needle_, _Gorboduc_, -_Gismund of Salerne_, _Misfortunes of Arthur_, _Jocasta_, _Supposes_, -_Bugbears_, _Two Italian Gentlemen_, _Glass of Government_, _Promos -and Cassandra_, _Arraignment of Paris_; so, too, as a rule, University -plays. _Dido_ and _Love and Fortune_, like the later private theatre -plays, show acts only. - -[651] _Devil’s Charter_, _Duchess of Malfi_, _Philotas_, _Sir Giles -Goosecap_, _The Turk_, _Liberality and Prodigality_, Percy’s plays, -_The Woman Hater_, _Monsieur Thomas_, _2 Antonio and Mellida_. - -[652] Acts and scenes are marked in _Tamburlaine_ and _Locrine_; acts, -or one or more of them only, sometimes with the first scene, in _Jack -Straw_, _Battle of Alcazar_, _Wounds of Civil War_, _King Leire_, -_Alphonsus_, _James IV_, _Soliman and Perseda_, _Spanish Tragedy_, -_John a Kent and John a Cumber_; a few scenes without acts in _Death -of Robin Hood_. These exceptions may indicate neo-classic sympathies -in the earlier group of scholar playwrights; some later plays, e.g. of -Beaumont and Fletcher, have partial divisions. The acts in _Spanish -Tragedy_ and _Jack Straw_ are four only; _Histriomastix_, a private -theatre play, has six. Where there are no formal divisions, they are -sometimes replaced by passages of induction or dumb-shows. - -[653] Cf. ch. xxi. - -[654] Pollard, _F. and Q._ 124; _Sh. F._ 79. - -[655] Creizenach, 248. - -[656] _Melville’s Diary_ (Bannatyne Club), 22. - -[657] R. Hudson, _Memorials of a Warwickshire Parish_, 141. - -[658] Lodge, _Defence of Plays_, 7. - -[659] Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_, 133. - -[660] _Plays Confuted_, 167 - -[661] _School of Abuse_, 40. - -[662] Lodge, _Defence of Plays_, 28. - -[663] _Plays Confuted_, 165. - -[664] _Repentance_ (Grosart, xii. 177). - -[665] Grosart, xii. 134. - -[666] Ibid. viii. 128. - -[667] Ibid. vii. 7. - -[668] App. M; cf. E. Köppel (_Archiv_, cii. 357); W. Bang (_E. S._ -xxviii. 229). - -[669] Grosart, vi. 86, 119. - -[670] Grosart, vi. 31. - -[671] Sig. A 3^v. _Farewell to Folly_ was entered on S. R. on 11 -June 1587 (Arber, ii. 471), but the first extant edition of 1591 was -probably the first published, and the use of the term ‘Martinize’ in -the preface dates it as at least post-1589 (cf. Simpson, ii. 349). - -[672] Grosart, xi. 75. - -[673] _Strange News_ (Nashe, i. 271); cf. _Pierce Penniless; his -Supplication to the Devil_ (Nashe, i. 198) and _Have With You to -Saffron Walden_ (Nashe, iii. 130). The passage about ‘make-plays’ is in -an Epistle only found in some copies of _The Lamb of God_ (Nashe, v. -180). - -[674] This allusion is not in the extant 1592 editions of the pamphlet -(Grosart, xi. 206, 258). - -[675] Ed. Grosart, i. 167. - -[676] Ed. McKerrow, i. 247. - -[677] Ed. Gosart, ii. 222, 322. - -[678] Ed. McKerrow, iii. 131. - -[679] Arber, ii. 620. - -[680] App. C, No. xlviii. - - -Transcriber’s Notes: - -1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been - corrected silently. - -2. Original spelling has been retained where appropriate. - -3. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have been -retained as in the original. - -4.Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g. D^r. - or X^{xx}. Subscripts are shown as X{x}. - -5. Italics are shown as _xxx_. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE (VOL 3 OF -4) *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |