XXIV
ANONYMOUS WORK
[Here I bring together, giving them the same treatment as the individual works in ch. xxiii, pieces of which the authorship, as regards the whole or a large part, is unknown or conjectural. They are grouped as (A) Plays, (B) Masks, (C) Receptions and Entertainments. It has been convenient, for the sake of classification, to include in the third group a few which might alternatively have been brought into ch. xxiii under the name of a part-author or describer.]
A. PLAYS
An Alarum for London > 1600
S. R. 1600, May 27. ‘Allarum to London’ is included in a memorandum of ‘my lord chamberlens menns plaies Entred’ and noted as entered on this day to J. Roberts (Arber, iii. 37).
1600, May 29. ‘The Allarum to London, provided that yt be not printed without further Aucthoritie.’ John Roberts (Arber, iii. 161).
1602. A Larum for London, or The Siedge of Antwerpe. With the ventrous actes and valorous deeds of the lame Soldier. As it hath been playde by the right Honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants. For William Ferbrand. [Prologue and Epilogue.]
Editions by R. Simpson (1872), J. S. Farmer (1912, T.F.T.), and W. W. Greg (1913, M.S.R.).
The play has been ascribed to Shakespeare by Collier, to Shakespeare and Marston by Simpson, and to Lodge by Fleay, Shakespeare, 291, but no serious case has been made out for any of these claims. Bullen, Marlowe, 1, lxxiv, says that Collier had a copy with doggerel rhymes on the t.p. including the line,
which Bullen calls ‘a very ridiculous piece of forgery’.
Albion Knight > 1566
S. R. 1565–6. ‘A play intituled a merye playe bothe pytthy and pleasaunt of Albyon knyghte.’ Thomas Colwell (Arber, i. 295).
Fragment in Devonshire collection.
[The t.p. is lost, but the seventeenth-century play lists (Greg, Masques, xlvii) include an interlude called Albion. A fragment on Temperance and Humility, conjecturally assigned by Collier, i. 284, to the same play, is of earlier printing by thirty years or so (M.S.C. i. 243).]
Editions by J. P. Collier (1844, Sh. Soc. Papers, i. 55) and W. W. Greg (1910, M. S. C. i. 229).—Dissertations: M. H. Dodds, The Date of A. K. (1913, 3 Library, iv. 157); G. A. Jones, The Political Significance of A. K. (1918, J. G. P. xvii. 267).
Collier suggests that this was the play disliked at court on 31 Dec. 1559, but, as Fleay, 66, points out, that would hardly have been licensed for printing. Dodds thinks it motived by the Pilgrimage of Grace (1536–7) and written shortly after.
Alice and Alexis
A fragment (to iii. 1) of a play on the loves of Alice and Alexis, thwarted by Tanto, with an argument of the whole, is in Douce MS. 171 (Bodl. 21745), f. 48v. The date ‘1604’ is scribbled amongst the pages. The manuscript also contains sixteenth-century accounts. There seems nothing to connect this with Massinger’s Alexius, or the Chaste Lover, licensed by Herbert on 25 Sept. 1639 and apparently included in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (3 Library, ii. 232, 249).
Alphonsus, Emperor of Germany > 1636
S. R. 1653, Sept. 9. ‘A play called Alphonso, Emperor of Germany, by John Poole.’ H. Moseley (Eyre, i. 428).
1654. The Tragedy of Alphonsus Emperour of Germany. As it hath been very often Acted (with great applause) at the Privat house in Black-Friers by his late Maiesties Servants. By George Chapman Gent. For Humphrey Moseley. [Epistle to the Reader. The B.M. copy of the play is dated ‘Novemb. 29, 1653’.]
Editions by K. Elze (1867) and H. F. Schwarz (1913), and in collections of Chapman (q.v.).
Alphonsus may reasonably be identified with the Alfonso given before the Queen and the Elector Palatine at the Blackfriars on 5 May 1636 (Cunningham, xxiv). The ascription on the title-page to Chapman is repeated therefrom by Langbaine who rejects that of Kirkman in 1661 and 1671 (Greg, Masques, xlviii) to Peele, but the intimate knowledge of German shown in the dialogue has led Elze and Ward, ii. 428, to give Chapman a German collaborator, conceivably one Rudolf Weckerlin of Würtemberg, who after a preliminary visit before 1614 settled permanently in England about 1624 and obtained political employment, which he varied with literary exercises. Later critics are inclined to reject Chapman’s authorship altogether, and the case against it has been effectively put by E. Koeppel, Quellen-Studien zu den Dramen Chapman’s, 78, and Parrott. The ascription to Peele has been revived by Robertson, T. A. 123, and though Parrott does not accept the full argument, he agrees in regarding the play as originally of Peele’s date, possibly by him, with or without a collaborator, and drastically revised at a later period, perhaps by Weckerlin in 1636. Fleay, ii. 156, 311, also accepts Peele and identifies the play with Harry of Cornwall, revived by Strange’s for Henslowe on 25 Feb. 1592, but, as Greg (Henslowe, ii. 151) points out, the character in Alphonsus is not Henry, but Richard of Cornwall. It must be observed that no critic has noticed the S. R. ascription to John Poole, which may quite well be the origin of Kirkman’s ‘Peele’. Who John Poole was, I do not know.
Apius and Virginia > 1567–8
S. R. 1567–8. ‘A Tragedy of Apius and Virgine.’ Richard Jones (Arber, i. 357).
1575. A new Tragicall Comedie of Apius and Virginia, Wherein is liuely expressed a rare example of the vertue of Chastitie, by Virginias constancy, in wishing rather to be slaine at her owne Fathers handes, then to be deflowred of the wicked Iudge Apius. By R. B. William How for Richard Jones. [Prologue and Epilogue.]
Editions in Dodsley3, 4 (1825–76), and by J. S. Farmer (1908, T. F. T.) and R. B. McKerrow (1911, M. S. R.).
‘Haphazard, the Vice’ is a character. The stage-directions name ‘the stage’, ‘the scaffold’. A prologue addresses ‘lordings’; an epilogue has a prayer for the queen, nobles, and commons. The play is not controversial, but the tone is Protestant. Fleay, 61, thinks it a Westminster play of 1563–4; but no Westminster play of 1563–4 is on record. If Fleay means 1564–5, the Westminster play of that Christmas was Miles Gloriosus. There is nothing but the initials to identify the author with Richard Bower of the Chapel (q.v.), but the suggestion is more plausible than that of Wallace, i. 108, who gives the play to Richard Edwardes (q.v.), finding that the ‘R. E.’ subscribed to some of his manuscript poems is capable of being misread ‘R. B.’.
Arden of Feversham > 1592
S. R. 1592, April 3 (Bishop of London). ‘The tragedie of Arden of Feuersham and Blackwall.’ Edward White (Arber, ii. 607). [See s.v. Kyd, Spanish Tragedy, for the record of a piracy of the play in 1592 by Abel Jeffes.]
1592. The Lamentable and True Tragedie of M. Arden of Feuersham in Kent. Who was most wickedlye murdered, by the meanes of his disloyall and wanton wyfe, who for the love she bare to one Mosbie, hyred two desperat ruffins Blackwill and Shakbag, to kill him. Wherin is shewed the great mallice and discimulation of a wicked woman, the vnsatiable desire of filthie lust and the shamefull end of all murderers. For Edward White. [Epilogue.]
1599. J. Roberts for Edward White.
1633. Eliz. Allde.
Editions by E. Jacob (1770), A. H. Bullen (1887), R. Bayne (1897, T. D.), J. S. Farmer (1911, T. F. T.), and in Sh. Apocrypha.—Dissertations: C. E. Donne, Essay on the Tragedy of A. of F. (1873); C. Crawford, The Authorship of A. of F. (1903, Jahrbuch, xxxix. 74; Collectanea, i. 101); W. Miksch, Die Verfasserschaft des A. of F. (1907, Breslau diss.); K. Wiehl, Thomas Kyd und die Autorschaft von ... A. of F. (1912, E. S. xliv. 356); H. D. Sykes, Sidelights upon Shakespeare, 48 (1919); L. Cust, A. of F. (1920, Arch. Cant. xxxiv. 101).
Jacob first claimed the authorship for Shakespeare. In spite of the advocacy of Swinburne (Study of Sh., 129) modern criticism remains wholly unconvinced. The play has tragic merit, but it is not of a Shakespearian character, and it is impossible to fit its manner, before 1592, into any coherent theory of Shakespeare’s development. More plausible is the case for Kyd, suggested by Fleay, ii. 28, who puts the date as far back as 1585 on quite unreliable grounds of improbable guess-work, and supported by Robertson, T. A. 151, and elaborately argued by Crawford and Sykes. But Boas, Kyd, lxxxix, thinks that the author was more likely an imitator of Kyd, and opinion remains divided. Oliphant (M. P. viii. 420) suggests Kyd and Marlowe, possibly with a third. The theme may also have been that of the Murderous Michael played at court by Sussex’s in 1579.
The Birth of Hercules. 1597 <
[MS.] B.M. Add. MS. 28722. ‘The birthe of hercules.’ [Prologus Laureatus; Mercurius Prologus; after text, ‘Testamentum poetae, ad peleum. Comoedarum pariter et histrionum princeps Peleu, tuo pro iudicio, volo hanc meam Comoediam, vel recitari, vel reticeri: hoc est: aut vivere aut mori. Scripsi, nec poeta, nec moriens: et tamen poeta moriens’. Written in one hand, with stage-directions by a second and corrections by a third and possibly a fourth, on paper datable by the watermark in 1597.]
Editions by M. W. Wallace (1903) and R. W. Bond (1911, M. S. R.).
This is pretty clearly a University play, and any connexion with the Hercules of the Admiral’s men in 1595 is highly improbable. As George Peele died in 1596, it seems difficult to identify him with the Peleus of the MS. Bond thinks that ‘the styles of composition and writing agree in placing a date before 1600 out of the question’.
Caesar’s Revenge > 1606
S. R. 1606, June 5. ‘A booke called Julius Caesars reuenge.’ J. Wright and N. Fosbrook, licensed by Dr. Covell and the wardens (Arber, iii. 323).
N.D. The Tragedie of Caesar and Pompey Or Caesars Reuenge. G. E. for Iohn Wright.
1607.... Priuately acted by the Studentes of Trinity Colledge in Oxford. For Nathaniel Fosbrook and Iohn Wright. [Re-issue with cancel t.p.]
Editions by F. S. Boas (1911, M. S. R.) and W. Mühlfeld (1911, 1912, Jahrbuch, xlvii. 132; xlviii. 37), and J. S. Farmer (S. F. T.).—Dissertations: T. M. Parrott, The Academic Tragedy of C. and P. (1910, M. L. R. v. 435); H. M. Ayres, C. R. (1915, M. L. A. xxx. 771); G. C. Moore Smith, The Tragedy of C. R. (1916, 12 N. Q. ii. 305).
There is no traceable connexion between this and any other of the several plays on Caesar, extant and lost, which are upon record. C. Crawford (M. S. C. i. 290) indicates some parallels which suggest a date of authorship between 1592 and 1596.
Charlemagne or The Distracted Emperor c. 1600
[MS.] Egerton MS. 1994. At the end is the note, ‘Nella Φ δ Φ ν ρ la B’ = ‘Nella fedeltà finirò la vita’.
Editions by A. H. Bullen (1884, O. E. P. iii) and F. L. Schoell (1920).—Dissertation: F. L. Schoell, Un Drame Élisabéthain Anonyme C (1912, Revue Germanique, viii. 155).
Bullen suggests that the author was Chapman, and also thinks Tourneur or Marston conceivable. He quotes Fleay’s opinion in favour of Field. Fleay, ii. 319, withdraws Field and substitutes Dekker. He identifies the play with the ‘King Charlemagne’ of Peele’s Farewell of 1589 (cf. s.v. Peele, Battle of Alcazar). Schoell makes an elaborate case for Chapman, and thinks that the play might be The Fatall Love, a French Tragedy, entered as his in S. R. on 29 June 1660, and included, without author’s name, in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (3 Library, ii. 231). A date later than 1584 is indicated by the use of Du Bartas’s Seconde Semaine of that year. It may be added that the style points to c. 1600 rather than c. 1590.
Claudius Tiberius Nero > 1607
S. R. 1607, April 10 (Buck). ‘A booke called the tragicall Life and Death of Claudius Tiberius Nero.’ Francis Burton (Arber, iii. 346).
1607. The Tragedie of Claudius Tiberius Nero, Rome’s greatest Tyrant. Truly represented out of the purest Records of those Times. For Francis Burton. [Epistle to Sir Arthur Mannering, son of Sir George of Eithfield, Shropshire; Verses Ad Lectores.]
1607. The Statelie Tragedie of Claudius Tiberius Nero.... For Francis Burton. [Another issue.]
Edition by J. S. Farmer (S. F. T.).
The play, which is on Tiberius, not Nero, is to be distinguished from Nero (1624). The epistle, not apparently by the author, says that the play’s ‘Father was an Academician’.
Club Law. 1599–1600
[MS.] St. John’s College, Cambridge, MS. S. 62. [Without t.p. and imperfect; probably identical with a MS. of the play owned by Richard Farmer.]
Edition by G. C. Moore Smith (1907). [Epilogue.]—Dissertation: G. C. Moore Smith, The Date of C. L. (1909, M. L. R. iv. 268).
The play is described by Fuller, Hist. of Cambridge (1655), 156, as given at Clare Hall in 1597–8. But J. S. Hawkins, in his edition of Ruggle’s Ignoramus (1787), xvi, gives the alternative date 1599, and this has now been confirmed by the discovery of manuscript annals of Cambridge, probably by Fuller himself, with the entry, under the academic year 1599–1600, ‘Aula Clarensis. Club Law fabula festivissima data multum ridentibus Academicis, frustra Oppidanis dolentibus’. The play is a satire on the townsmen, and especially the anti-gown mayor of 1599–1600, John Yaxley. Fuller says that the townsmen were invited to the performance and made to sit it through, and that they complained to the Privy Council, who first ‘sent some slight and private check to the principall Actors therein’, and then, when pressed, said that they would come to Cambridge, and see the comedy acted over again in the presence of the townsmen. The fact that there is no record of these letters in the extant register of the Council hardly disproves the substance of Fuller’s story. Hawkins ascribed the play to Ruggle (q.v.) on the authority of an eighteenth-century memorandum.
Sir Clyomon and Clamydes c. 1570
1599. The Historie of the two valiant Knights, Syr Clyomon knight of the Golden Sheeld, sonne to the King of Denmarke: And Clamydes the White Knight, sonne to the King of Suauia. As it hath been sundry times Acted by her Maiesties Players. Thomas Creede. [Prologue.]
Editions by W. W. Greg (1913, M. S. R.) and J. S. Farmer (S. F. T.), and in collections of Peele.
Subtle Shift ‘the vice’, Providence, and Rumour are among the characters.
Dyce ascribed the play to George Peele on the strength of a manuscript note ‘in a very old hand’ on a copy of the 1599 edition. Bullen thinks it of earlier date than Peele. Greg agrees, regarding it as about contemporary with Common Conditions. L. Kellner, in Englische Studien, xiii. 187, compares the language and style at great length with Peele’s and concludes against his authorship, unless indeed he wrote it in a spirit of parody. His arguments are challenged by R. Fischer in Englische Studien, xiv. 344. Fleay, 70, assigned it, with Common Conditions, to R. Wilson. Later (ii. 295), he substituted R[ichard] B[ower]. He noted a parallel to Thomas Preston’s Cambyses, and suggested as a date 1570 or 1578, the years, according to him, of the original production and of a revival of Cambyses. G. L. Kittredge, in Journal of Germanic Philology, ii. 8, suggests that Preston himself was the author of Sir Clyomon and Clamydes. If the ‘her Maiesties Players’ of the title-page means the later company of that name, the play, if not written, must have been revived 1583–94. Fleay, ii. 296, further identifies it with The Four Kings licensed for Henslowe (i. 103) in March 1599; but an old Queen’s play would not have needed a licence. An Anglo-German repertory of 1626 includes a ‘Tragikomödie vom König in Dänemark und König in Schweden’ (Herz, 66, 72).
Common Conditions > 1576
S. R. 1576, July 26. ‘A newe and pleasant comedie or plaie after the maner of common condycons.’ John Hunter (Arber, ii. 301). [Clearly ‘maner’ is a misreading of the ‘name’ of the t.p.]
Q1, N.D. An excellent and pleasant Comedie, termed after the name of the Vice, Common Condicions, drawne out of the most famous historie of Galiarbus Duke of Arabia, and of the good and eeuill successe of him and his two children, Sedmond his sun, and Clarisia his daughter: Set foorth with delectable mirth, and pleasant shewes. William How for John Hunter. [T.p. adds ‘The Players names’ and ‘Six may play this Comedie’; Prologue.]
Q2. Fragment, without t.p. or date, under r.t. ‘A pleasant Comedie called Common Conditions’.
Editions in Brandl, 597 (1898), and by J. S. Farmer (1908, Five Anonymous Plays) from Q2, and by Tucker Brooke (1915, Yale Elizabethan Club Reprints, i) from Q1.
The prologue refers to the audience ‘that sit in place’ and the ‘actours’ that ‘redy stand’. Fleay, ii. 296, suggests the authorship of Richard Bower, on grounds of style.
The Contention of York and Lancaster > 1592
S. R. 1594, March 12. ‘A booke intituled, the firste parte of the Contention of the twoo famous houses of York and Lancaster with the deathe of the good Duke Humfrey and the banishement and Deathe of the Duke of Suffolk and the tragicall ende of the prowd Cardinall of Winchester, with the notable rebellion of Jack Cade and the Duke of Yorkes ffirste clayme vnto the Crowne. Thomas Millington (Arber, ii. 646). [Part i.]
1602, April 19. Transfer from T. Millington to T. Pavier, ‘The first and Second parte of Henry the Vjt, ij bookes’ (Arber, iii. 204). [Parts i and ii.]
1594. The First Part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the death of the good Duke Humphrey: And the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolke, and the Tragicall end of the proud Cardinall of Winchester, with the notable Rebellion of Iacke Cade: And the Duke of Yorkes first claime vnto the Crowne. Thomas Creede for Thomas Millington. [Part i.]
1595. The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and the death of good King Henrie the Sixt, with the whole contention betweene the two Houses Lancaster and Yorke, as it was sundrie times acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke his seruants. P. S. for Thomas Millington. [Part ii.]
1600. Valentine Simmes for Thomas Millington. [Part i.]
1600. W. W. for Thomas Millington. [Part ii.]
[1619] N.D. The Whole Contention betweene the two Famous Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. With the Tragicall ends of the good Duke Humfrey, Richard Duke of Yorke, and King Henrie the sixt. Diuided into two Parts: And newly corrected and enlarged. Written by William Shakespeare, Gent. For T. P. [Parts i and ii, printed continuously with Pericles, 1619 (q.v.).]
Editions by J. O. Halliwell (1843, Sh. Soc.), Wright and Clark (1863–6, 1893, Cambridge Shakespeare), W. C. Hazlitt (1875, Sh. Libr. v, vi), F. J. Furnivall and T. Tyler (1886, 1889, 1891, Sh. Q), and J. S. Farmer (S. F. T.).—Dissertations: E. Malone, On the Three Parts of Hen. 6 (1821, Variorum, xviii. 553); R. Grant White, On the Authorship of Hen. 6 (Works of Sh. 1859–65, vii); J. Lee, On the Authorship of 2, 3 Hen. vi and their Originals (N. S. S. Trans. 1875–6, 219); C. F. T. Brooke, The Authorship of 2, 3 Hen. 6 (1912, Trans. of Connecticut Academy, xvii. 141).
The various claims of Marlowe, Kyd, Greene, Peele, Lodge, and Shakespeare himself to the Contention can only be discussed in relation to Shakespeare’s revision of them as 2, 3 Henry VI, which probably belongs approximately to the date of 1 Henry vi, produced by Strange’s on 3 March 1592.
Thomas Lord Cromwell > 1602
S. R. 1602, Aug. 11 (Jackson). ‘A booke called the lyfe and Deathe of the Lord Cromwell, as yt was lately Acted by the Lord Chamberleyn his servantes.’ William Cotton (Arber, iii. 214).
1602. The True Chronicle Historie of the whole life and death of Thomas Lord Cromwell. As it hath beene sundrie times publikely Acted by the Right Honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants. Written by W. S. For William Jones.
S. R. 1611, Dec. 16. Transfer from William Jones to John Browne of a ‘booke called the lyfe and death of the Lord Cromwell, by W: S.’ (Arber, iii. 474).
1613.... As it hath been sundry times publikely Acted by the Kings Maiesties Seruants. Written by W. S. Thomas Snodham.
1664; 1685. [Parts of F3 and F4 of Shakespeare.]
Editions printed by R. Walker (1734) and by T. E. Jacob (1889, Old English Dramas), J. S. Farmer (1911, T. F. T.), and in Sh. Apocrypha.—Dissertation: W. Streit, The L. and D. of T. L. C. (1904, Jena diss.).
The W. S. of the title-page was interpreted as William Shakespeare in Archer’s play-list of 1656 (Greg, Masques, lx). No modern critic accepts the attribution, except Hopkinson, who thinks that the original author was Greene, and that Shakespeare revised his work. Heywood was suggested by R. Farmer, and Drayton by Fleay, Shakespeare, 298; B.C. i. 152, 160. The guesses at Wentworth Smith and William Sly rest merely on their initials.
King Darius > 1565
S. R. 1565–6. ‘A playe intituled of the story of kyng Daryous beyinge taken oute of the iijde and iiijth chapeter of the iijde boke of Esdras &c.’. Thomas Colwell (Arber, i. 298).
1565, October. A Pretie new Enterlude both pithie & pleasaunt of the Story of Kyng Daryus, Beinge taken out of the third and fourth Chapter of the thyrd booke of Esdras. Colwell. [On t.p. ‘Syxe persons may easely play it’.]
1577. Hugh Jackson. [B.M. C. 34, i. 21, from Irish sale of 1906.]
Editions by J. O. Halliwell (1860), A. Brandl (1898), 359, J. S. Farmer (1907, 1909, T. F. T.).
The characters, other than Darius and Zorobabell, are mainly abstract, and include Iniquitie, ‘the Vyce’. There is a Prolocutor.
The Dead Mans Fortune > 1591
[MS.] Add. MS. 10449. ‘The plotte of the deade mans fortune.’ [Probably from Dulwich.]
The text is given by Steevens, Variorum (1803), iii. 414; Boswell, Variorum (1821), iii. 356; Greg, Henslowe Papers, 133; and a facsimile by Halliwell, The Theatre Plats of Three Old English Dramas (1860).
The names of actors who took part in the play point to a performance by the Admiral’s, about 1590–1 (cf. ch. xiii).
The Reign of King Edward the Third > 1595
S. R. 1595, Dec. 1. ‘A book Intitled Edward the Third and the Blacke Prince their warres with kinge John of Fraunce.’ Burby (Arber, iii. 55).
1596. The Raigne of King Edward the third: As it hath bin sundrie times plaied about the Citie of London. For Cuthbert Burby.
1599. Simon Stafford for Cuthbert Burby.
Editions with Shakespeare Apocrypha, and by E. Capel (1759–60, Prolusiones), F. J. Furnivall (1877, Leopold Sh.), J. P. Collier (1878, Shakespeare), G. C. Moore Smith (1897, T. D.), J. S. Farmer (1910, T. F. T.).—Dissertations: H. von Friesen, Ed. iii, angeblich ein Stück von Sh. (1867, Jahrbuch, ii. 64); J. P. Collier, K. Edw. III, a Historical Play by W. Sh. (1874); A. Teetgen, Sh’s. K. Edw. iii, absurdly called, and scandalously treated, as a ‘Doubtful Play’: an Indignation Pamphlet (1875); A. C. Swinburne, On the Historical Play of K. Edw. iii (1879, Gent. Mag., 1880, &c., Study of Sh.); G. von Vincke, K. Edw. iii, ein Bühnenstück? (1879, Jahrbuch, xiv. 304); E. Phipson, Ed. iii (1889, N. S. S. Trans. 58*); G. Liebau, K. Ed. iii von England und die Gräfin von Salisbury (1900, 1901), K. Ed. iii von England im Lichte europäischer Poesie (1901); R. M. Smith, Edw. III (1911, J. G. P. x. 90).
The authorship was first ascribed to Shakespeare (with that of Edw. IV and Edw. II!) in Rogers and Ley’s play-list of 1656 (Greg, Masques, lxiv). The theory was advocated by Capell, and has received much support, largely owing to the assent of Tennyson, against whose authority, however, may be set that of Swinburne. In its latest and not altogether unplausible form, Shakespeare is regarded as the author, not of the whole play, but of i. 2 and ii, which deal with the episode of the wooing of Lady Salisbury by the king, and are possibly, although by no means certainly, due to another hand than that of the chronicle narrative, to which they are only slightly linked. The style of these scenes is not demonstrably un-Shakespearian, and they, and in less degree the play as a whole, contain many parallels with Hen. V and other works of the ‘nineties, of which the repetition in II. i. 451 and in Sonnet XCIV of the line
is the most striking. The controversy cannot be dealt with in detail here. Shakespeare’s contribution, if any, may with most probability be assigned to the winter of 1594–5; but it does not follow that the original play may not have been of earlier date. No importance is to be attached to the argument of Fleay (ii. 62; Shakespeare, 282) that the use of the phrase ‘Ave, Caesar’ in I. i. 164 caused its use in Greene’s Francesco’s Fortunes of 1590 (cf. App. C, no. xliii), but it is noteworthy that a play on the subject was produced, apparently under Anglo-German influence, at Danzig in 1591 (Herz, 5). Of non-Shakespearian authors, for the whole or a part of the play as extant, Marlowe is preferred by Fleay, Greene by Liebau and Robertson, and Kyd by Sarrazin.
Edward the Fourth > 1599
S. R. 1599, Aug. 28. ‘Twoo playes beinge the ffirst and Second parte of Edward the iiijth and the Tanner of Tamworth With the history of the life and deathe of master Shore and Jane Shore his Wyfe as yt was lately acted by the Right honorable the Erle of Derbye his seruantes.’ John Oxonbridge and John Burby (Arber, iii. 147).
1600, Feb. 23. Transfer of Busby’s interest to Humphrey Lownes (Arber, iii. 156).
1600. The First and Second Parts of King Edward the Fourth. Containing His mery pastime with the Tanner of Tamworth, as also his loue to faire mistrisse Shoare, her great promotion, fall and miserie and lastly the lamentable death of both her and her husband. Likewise the besieging of London, by the Bastard Falconbridge, and the valiant defence of the same by the Lord Maior and the Citizens. As it hath diuers times beene publikely played by the Right Honorable the Earle of Derbie his seruants. F. K. for Humfrey Lownes and John Oxenbridge.
1605; 1613; 1619; 1626.
Edition by B. Field (1842, Sh. Soc.).—Dissertation: A. Sander, T. Heywood’s Historien von König Edward iv und ihre Quellen (1907, Jena diss.).
Sander and others date the play 1594, by an identification with the anonymous Siege of London revived by the Admiral’s on 26 Dec. 1594. Greg (Henslowe, ii. 173) more cautiously says that the play of 1594 ‘may underlie’ certain scenes of 1 Edward iv. He regards Edward iv, ‘on internal evidence, as unquestionably Heywood’s’. This is the usual view, but Fleay, ii. 288, had doubted it. There is no external evidence for Heywood’s authorship, or for any connexion between him and Derby’s men. Moreover, in May 1603, he authorized Henslowe, on behalf of Worcester’s, to pay Chettle and Day for ‘the Booke of Shoare, now newly to be written’, also described as ‘a playe wherein Shores wiffe is writen’. If this was a revision of his own play, he would hardly have left it to others. It is fair to add that in the previous January he had himself received payment with Chettle for an unnamed play, which might be the same (Henslowe, ii. 234). The ‘three-mans song’ on Agincourt in iii. 2 of Part I closely resembles Drayton’s Ballad of Agincourt (ed. Brett, 81), and must, I think, be his. Jane Shore is mentioned as a play visited by citizens in The Knight of the Burning Pestle (1607), ind. 57, and ‘the well-frequented play of Shore’ in Pimlyco or Runne Redcap (1609). A play, apparently on the same subject, was performed by English actors at Graz on 19 Nov. 1607 (Herz, 98).
Every Woman in Her Humour. 1607–8?
1609. Everie Woman in her Humor. E. A. for Thomas Archer. [Prologue.]
Editions by A. H. Bullen (1885, O. E. P. iv) and J. S. Farmer (1913, S. F. T.).—Dissertation: J. Q. Adams, E. W. I. and The Dumb Knight (1913, M. P. x. 413).
Fleay, ii. 321, suggests a date c. 1602 on the ground of apparent reference to the Poetomachia. But this is not conclusive, and Adams points to the use of a song (p. 335) from Bateson’s Madrigals (1604). He thinks that Lewis Machin was the author, as the style resembles that of the comic part of The Dumb Knight (vide s. Markham), and two passages are substantially reproduced in the latter. If so, this also may be a King’s Revels play. Allusions on p. 270 to the ‘babones’ (cf. s.v. Sir Giles Goosecap) and on p. 316 to the Family of Love (cf. s.v. Middleton) are consistent with a date of 1603–8.
Fair Em c. 1590
N.D. For T. N. and I. W.
[In Bodleian. Greg says that this is ‘considerably earlier’ than 1631. The t.p. is as in 1631. Chetwood mentions three early editions, including one undated and one of 1619. This is not now known.]
1631. A Pleasant Comedie of Faire Em, the Millers Daughter of Manchester. With the loue of William the Conqueror. As it was sundry times publiquely acted in the Honourable Citie of London, by the right Honourable the Lord Strange his Seruants. For John Wright.
Editions by R. Simpson (1878, S. of S. ii), J. S. Farmer (1911, T. F. T.), and in collections of Sh. Apocrypha.—Dissertations: R. Simpson, Some Plays Attributed to Sh. (1875–6, N. S. S. Trans. 155); K. Elze, Nachträgliche Bemerkungen zu Mucedorus und F. E. (1880, Jahrbuch, xv. 339); P. Lohr, Le Printemps d’Yver und die Quelle zu F. E. (1912).
The play has a double plot. One theme is the contest of William the Conqueror and the Marquess Lubeck for the loves of Princess Blanch of Denmark and of Mariana, a Swedish captive; the other is the contest of Manvile, Mountney and Valingford for Em, daughter of the Miller of Manchester. A ‘ballad intituled The Miller’s daughter of Manchester’ was entered on the Stationers’ Register by Henry Carr on 2 March 1581 (Arber, ii. 390). Fair Em has been included in the Shakespeare Apocrypha on the strength of a volume formerly in the collection of Charles II, and then in that of Garrick, in which it was bound up with Mucedorus and The Merry Devil of Edmonton and lettered ‘Shakespeare, vol. i’. On the other hand, Edward Phillips, in his Theatrum Poetarum (1675), assigned it to Greene. Clearly Greene is not the author, although there are certain resemblances of situation between the play and Friar Bacon; for he satirizes it in the preface to Farewell to Folly (Works, ix. 232), quoting one or two of its expressions and blaming them as borrowed out of Scripture. Of the author he says, ‘He that cannot write true English without the help of clerks of parish churches will needs make himself the father of interludes’, and, ‘The sexton of St. Giles without Cripplegate would have been ashamed of such blasphemous rhetoric’. Farewell to Folly seems to have appeared in 1591 (cf. s.v. Greene), and Fair Em may perhaps therefore be dated between this pamphlet and Friar Bacon (c. 1589). Simpson adopts the theory, which hardly deserves serious discussion, of Shakespeare’s authorship. He finds numerous (but impossible) attacks by Greene upon Shakespeare from the Planetomachia (1585) onwards, and thinks that Shakespeare retorted in Fair Em, satirizing Greene as Manvile and Marlowe as Mountney, and depicting himself as Valingford. ‘Fair Em’ herself is the Manchester stage. In the story of William the Conqueror he finds an allusion to the travels of William Kempe and other actors in Denmark and Saxony. Fleay, Shakespeare Manual (1878), 281, adopts much of this fantasy, but turns ‘Fair Em’ into the Queen’s company and Valingford into Peele. In 1891 (ii. 282) he makes ‘Fair Em’ Strange’s company. His minor identifications, whether of 1878 or of 1891, may be disregarded. More plausible is his suggestion that the author of the play may be Robert Wilson (q.v.), which would explain the attack upon Greene (q.v.) for his Farewell to Folly in R. W.’s Martin Mar-sixtus (1591). The suggestion that the play was the Sir John Mandeville revived by Strange’s for Henslowe in 1592 rests on a confusion between Mandeville and Manvile, but it may have been the William the Conqueror similarly revived by Sussex’s on 4 Jan. 1594 (Greg, Henslowe, ii. 151, 158).
The Fair Maid of Bristow > 1604
S. R. 1605, Feb. 8. ‘A commedy called “the fayre Mayd of Bristoe” played at Hampton Court by his Maiesties players.’ Thomas Pavier (Arber, iii. 283).
1605. The Faire Maide of Bristow. As it was plaide at Hampton, before the King and Queenes most excellent Maiesties. For Thomas Pavier.
Editions by A. H. Quinn (1902, Pennsylvania Univ. Publ.) and J. S. Farmer (1912, T. F. T.).
The court performance must have been during the Christmas of 1603–4, which was at Hampton Court. Bullen, Works of Day, 10, rejects the theory of Collier that this was Day’s Bristol Tragedy, written for the Admiral’s in May 1602, on the grounds that it is not a tragedy and does not resemble the known work of Day. Moreover, the King’s men are not likely to have acquired an Admiral’s play.
The Fair Maid of the Exchange c. 1602
S. R. 1607, April 24 (Buck). ‘A booke called the faire Mayde of the Exchaunge.’ Henry Rocket (Arber, iii. 347).
1607. The Fayre Mayde of the Exchange. With the pleasaunt Humours of the Cripple of Fanchurch. Very delectable, and full of mirth. For Henry Rockit. [Dramatis Personae headed ‘Eleauen may easily acte this Comedie’, and Prologue.]
1525. I. L.
1637. A. G.
Edition by B. Field (1845, Sh. Soc.).—Dissertations: L. A. Hibberd, The Authorship and Date of the Fair Maid of the Exchange (M. P. vii. 383); P. Aronstein, Die Verfasserschaft des Dramas The Fair Maid of the Exchange (1912, E. S. xlv. 45).
Heywood’s authorship was asserted by Kirkman in 1671 (Greg, Masques, lxvii), denied by Langbaine in 1687, accepted by Charles Lamb and out of respect to him by Ward, ii. 572, and is still matter of dispute. Fleay, ii. 329, assigned it to Machin on quite inadequate grounds. Hibberd argues the case for Heywood, and Aronstein attempts a compromise by giving ii. I, iv. I, and V to Heywood and the rest to some young academic student of Shakespeare and Jonson. The imitations of these point to a date c. 1602. I do not offer an opinion.
Fedele and Fortunio or Two Italian Gentlemen c. 1584
S. R. 1584, Nov. 12. ‘A booke entituled Fedele et Fortuna. The deceiptes in love Discoursed in a Commedie of ij Italyan gent and translated into Englishe.’ Thomas Hackett (Arber, ii. 437).
1585. Fedele and Fortunio. The deceites in Loue: excellently discoursed in a very pleasaunt and fine conceited Comoedie, of two Italian Gentlemen. Translated out of Italian, and set downe according as it hath beene presented before the Queenes moste excellent Maiestie. For Thomas Hacket.
[In the Mostyn sale (1919). Epistle ‘To the Woorshipfull, and very courteous Gentleman, Maister M. R. M.A. commendeth this pleasaunt and fine conceited comœdie’, signed M.A.; Prologue before the Queene; Epilogue at the Court, signed M.A. The compiler of the Mostyn sale catalogue says that this differs from the imperfect print in the Chatsworth collection, containing sheets B to G only, without t.p., epistle, prologue, or epilogue, which is the basis of the modern editions. Both have the running title, ‘A pleasant Comœdie of two Italian Gentlemen’. Collier, iii. 60, had seen a copy with the epistle as found in the Mostyn print, but addressed to John Heardson and signed A.M. This has been recently found in the Huntington collection.
Editions by P. Simpson (1909, M. S. R.) and F. Flügge (1909, Archiv, cxxiii, 45), and extracts by Halliwell (1852, Literature of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, 15).—Dissertations: W. W. Greg, Notes on Publications (1909, M. S. C. i. 218); F. Flügge, Fidele und Fortunio (1912, Breslau diss.).
The epistle says ‘I commende to your freendly viewe this prettie Conceit, as well for the inuention, as the delicate conueiance thereof: not doubting but you will so esteeme thereof, as it dooth very well deserue, and I hartely desire’. This praise of the ‘conueiance’ (which I take to mean either ‘style’ or possibly ‘translation’) does not suggest that M. A. (or A. M.) was the translator. It is true that ll. 224–41 appear in England’s Helicon (1600) signed ‘Shep. Tonie’, and that this signature is often taken to indicate Munday. On the other hand, two lines of this passage also appear in England’s Parnassus (1600, ed. Crawford, 306) over the initials S. G., which suggest Gosson. Another passage in E. P. (231) combines ll. 661–2 and 655–6 of the play over the signature G. Chapman. This has led Crawford (E. S. xliii. 203), with some support from Greg, to suggest Chapman’s authorship. I do not think the suggestion very convincing, in view of the inconsistency and general unreliability of E. P. and the fact that Chapman’s first clear appearance as a writer is ten years later, in 1594. The evidence is quite indecisive, but of Munday, Chapman, Gosson, I incline to think Gosson the most likely candidate. On the other hand, if M. R. is Matthew Roydon, he was the dedicatee of poems by Chapman in 1594 and 1595. For M. A. I hardly dare guess Matthew Arundel. In any case, the play is only a translation from L. Pasqualigo’s Il Fedele (1576).
2 Fortune’s Tennis c. 1602
[MS.] Add. MS. 10449. ‘The [plott of the sec]ond part of fortun[s Tenn]is.’ [A fragment, probably from Dulwich.]
The text is given by Greg, Henslowe Papers, 143. The actors named show that it belonged to the Admiral’s, and Greg suggests that it may be Dekker’s ‘fortewn tenes’ of Sept. 1600. Is it not more likely to have been a sequel to that, possibly Munday’s Set at Tennis of Dec. 1602?
Frederick and Basilea. 1597
[MS.] Add. MS. 10449. ‘The plott of Frederick & Basilea.’ [Probably from Dulwich.]
The text is given by Steevens, Variorum (1803), iii. 414; Boswell, Variorum (1821), iii. 356; Greg, Henslowe Papers, 135; and a facsimile by Halliwell, The Theatre Plats of Three Old English Dramas (1860).
The play was produced by the Admiral’s on 3 June 1597, and the actors named represent that company at that date (cf. ch. xiii).
George a Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield > 1593
S. R. 1595, April 1. ‘An Enterlude called the Pynder of Wakefeilde.’ Cuthbert Burby (Arber, ii. 295).
1599. A Pleasant Conceyted Comedie of George a Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield. As it was sundry times acted by the seruants of the right Honourable the Earle of Sussex. Simon Stafford for Cuthbert Burby.
Editions in Dodsley1–3 (1744–1825), by W. Scott (1810, A. B. D. i), F. W. Clarke (1911, M. S. R.), and J. S. Farmer (S. F. T.), and in collections of Greene.—Dissertation: O. Mertins, Robert Greene and the Play of G. a G. (1885, Breslau diss.).
Sussex’s men revived the play for Henslowe on 29 Dec. 1593 (Greg, Henslowe, ii. 158). The Chatsworth copy has on the title-page the following notes in two early seventeenth-century hands: ‘Written by ... a minister, who ac[ted] the piñers p̄t in it himself. Teste W. Shakespea[re]’, and ‘Ed Iuby saith that the play was made by Ro. Gree[ne]’. These, though first produced by Collier, appear (M. S. C. i. 288) to be genuine. Greene’s authorship has been very commonly accepted. Fleay, i. 264, ii. 51, supposed first Greene and Peele, then added Lodge, but, although the text has been abridged, there is no evidence of double authorship. Oliphant’s suggestion (M. P. viii. 433) of revision by Heywood only rests on the inclusion of the play next his in the Cockpit list of 1639 (Variorum, iii. 159). R. B. McKerrow thinks (M. S. C. i. 289) that the ‘by Ro. Greene’ of the note may mean ‘about Ro. Greene’ as a leading incident is apparently based on an episode of Greene’s life. An allusion in I. i. 42 to Tamburlaine gives an anterior limit of date.
Sir Giles Goosecap. 1601 < > 3
S. R. 1606, Jan. 10. (Wilson). ‘An Comedie called Sir Gyles Goosecap Provided that yt be printed accordinge to the Copie wherevnto master Wilson’s hand ys at.’ Edward Blount (Arber, iii. 309).
1606. Sir Gyles Goosecappe. Knight. A Comedie presented by the Chil: of the Chappell. John Windet for Edward Blount.
1636....A Comedy lately Acted with great applause at the private House in Salisbury Court. For Hugh Perry, sold by Roger Bell. [Epistle to Richard Young of Woolley Farm, Berks. Signed ‘Hugh Perry’.]
Editions by A. H. Bullen (1884, O. E. P. iii), W. Bang and R. Brotanek (1909, Materialien, xxvi), J. S. Farmer (1912, T. F. T.), and T. M. Parrott (1914, Chapman, ii).—Dissertations: G. L. Kittredge, Notes on Elizabethan Plays (1898, J. G. P. ii. 10); T. M. Parrott, The Authorship of S. G. G. (1906, M. P. iv. 25).
Bullen thought the author, who is stated in Perry’s epistle to be dead in 1636, might be some imitator of Chapman. Fleay, ii. 322, suggests Chapman himself. This view receives elaborate support from Parrott, and appears very plausible. As ‘your greatest gallants, for men, in France were here lately’ (III. i. 47) the date is after the visit of Biron in Sept. 1601 and possibly after that of Nevers in April 1602. It cannot be later than the beginning of 1603, as ‘She is the best scholar of any woman, but one, in Europe’ (I. i. 140) points to Elizabeth’s lifetime. Moreover, Dekker, in his Wonderful Year of 1603 (Grosart, i. 116), has ‘Galen could do no more good, than Sir Giles Goosecap’, and though ‘goosecap’ is a known term for a booby, e.g. in Nashe’s Four Letters Confuted of 1592 (Works, i. 281), the play seems to be responsible for the ‘Sir Giles’. The phrase ‘comparisons odorous’ in IV. ii. 64 echoes Much Ado, III. v. 18. The later part of the period 1601–3 would perhaps best fit the allusions to the Family of Love (II. i. 263), as to which cf. s.v. Middleton’s play of that name, and to the baboons (I. i. 11), the memory of which is still alive in Volpone (1606) and Ram Alley (1607–8). Probably these had already amused London before 1605, as on Oct. 5 of that year the Norwich records (Murray, ii. 338) note that ‘This day John Watson ironmonger brought the Kyngs maiesties warrant graunted to Roger Lawrence & the deputacion to the seid Watson to shewe two beasts called Babonnes’. So, too, Kelly, 247, has a Leicester payment of 1606 ‘to the Mr of the Babons, lycensed to travell by the Kings warrant’. There is a story of a country fellow who wanted to go to a market town ‘to haue seene the Baboones’ as late as J. Taylor’s Wit and Mirth in 1629 (Hazlitt, Jest Books, iii. 43). Fleay’s identifications of Chapman himself with Clarence and Drayton with Goosecap hardly deserve consideration.
Grim the Collier of Croydon. 1600
[Alleged prints of 1599 (Chetwood), 1600 (Ward, i. 263), and 1606 (Jacob) probably rest on no authority.]
1662. Grim the Collier of Croyden; Or, The Devil and his Dame: With The Devil and Saint Dunston. [Part of Gratiae Theatrales, or, A choice Ternary of English plays. Composed upon especial occasions by several ingenious persons; viz.... Grim the Collier ... a Comedy, by I. T. Never before published: but now printed at the request of sundry ingenious friends. R. D. 1662, 12mo.]
Editions by W. Scott (1810, A. B. D. iii), in Dodsley4, viii (1876), and by J. S. Farmer (S. F. T.).—Dissertation: H. D. Sykes, The Authorship of G. the C. of C. (1919, M. L. R. xiv. 245).
Of I. T. nothing is known. Greg (Henslowe, ii. 213) regards the play as clearly of the sixteenth century on internal evidence, and points out that Henslowe, on behalf of the Admiral’s, paid Haughton 5s. on 6 May 1600, ‘in earneste of a boocke which he wold calle the devell & his dame’. The entry was subsequently cancelled, and presumably Haughton transferred the play to another company. Sykes calls attention to analogies with Englishmen for my Money, which confirm the probability of Haughton’s authorship. It is only the ascription of 1662 to I. T. which causes hesitation. Farmer (Hand List, 19) suggests that this was John Tatham. Grim and the Devil both appear in the Like Will to Like of Ulpian Fulwell (q.v.), but I do not understand what kind of indirect connexion Greg thinks may have existed between Haughton’s play and a possible revival of Fulwell’s by Pembroke’s men in Oct. 1600.
The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth > 1588
S. R. 1594, May 14. ‘A booke intituled, The famous victories of Henrye the Fyft, conteyninge the honorable battell of Agincourt.’ Thomas Creede (Arber, ii. 648).
1598. The Famous Victories of Henry the fifth: Containing the Honourable Battell of Agincourt: As it was plaide by the Queenes Maiesties Players. Thomas Creede.
1617.... as it was Acted by the Kinges Maiesties Seruants. Bernard Alsop. [Another issue of the same sheets.]
Editions by J. Nichols (1779, Six Old Plays, ii. 317), W. C. Hazlitt (1875, Shakespeare’s Library, v. 321), P. A. Daniel (1887, Sh. Q.), and J. S. Farmer (S. F. T.).
In Tarlton’s Jests (ed. Halliwell for Sh. Soc. 24) is a story of Knell acting Henry V and Tarlton doubling the parts of the judge and the clown, which clearly refers to this play. The performance took place ‘at the Bull in Bishopsgate’. Tarlton died in 1588. Fleay, 67; ii. 259, suggests that Tarlton was the author. Nashe in Pierce Penilesse (1592, Works, i. 213) speaks of ‘Henrie the fifth represented on the stage’. This is obviously too early to be the new play of ‘harey the V’, given thirteen times for Henslowe between 28 Nov. 1595 and 15 July 1596 by the Admiral’s, in whose inventories of March 1598 Harry the Fifth’s doublet and gown appear. An earlier Henslowe entry on 14 May 1592, sometimes quoted as ‘harey the vth’ by Collier, is really ‘harey the 6’ (Greg, Henslowe, ii. 152, 177; Henslowe Papers, 121). Sykes thinks the author S. Rowley (q.v.).
Histriomastix. 1589 (?), 1599
S. R. 1610, Oct. 31 (Buck). ‘A booke called, Histriomastix or the player whipte.’ Thomas Thorpe (Arber, iii. 447).
1610. Histrio-Mastix. Or, the Player whipt. For Thomas Thorp.
Editions by R. Simpson (1878, S. of S. ii. 1) and J. S. Farmer (1912, T. F. T.).—Dissertation: F. Hoppe, Histriomastix-Studien (1906, Breslau diss.).
Fleay, ii. 69, gives the whole play to Marston, but the sounder view of Simpson that Marston, whose style in places is unmistakable, was only the reviser of an earlier play, is revived in the elaborate and mainly satisfactory study of Small, 67. The passages assigned by Small to Marston are ii. 63–9, 128–9, 247–79; iii. 179–v. 191; v. 234; vi. 259–95. I should be inclined to add v. 244–67, but to omit ii. 128–9; iii. 218–64; iv. 159–201; v. 61–102; v. 147–180; vi. 259–95, which may just as well belong to the original play. No doubt vi. 259–95 is an addition, constituting an alternative ending for a court performance before Elizabeth; but this may just as well have been a contemporary as a Marstonian addition, and in fact there is no court performance at the end of the century available for it, while the attempt to find one led Fleay to the impossible theory that it was given by Derby’s men. As its whole substance is a satire on professional players, it must have been both produced and revived by amateurs or boys; and the same conclusion is pointed to by the enormous number of characters. The original matter is so full of the technical learning of the schools as to suggest an academic audience; I think it was a University or possibly an Inns of Court, not a choirboy, play. The theme is the cyclical progression of a state through the stages Peace, Plenty, Pride, Envy, War, Poverty, and Peace again. It is illustrated by the fortunes of a company of players, who wax insolent in prosperity, and when war comes, are pressed for soldiers. Their poet Posthaste is clearly Munday and not, as Simpson and others have vainly imagined, Shakespeare. With him is contrasted the scholar-poet, Chrisoganus, a philosopher with whom the players will have nothing to do. He seems to belong to the order of ideas connected with the scientific school of Thomas Harriott. Small thinks that the date was 1596, when there was scarcity of food, a persecution of players, and a pressing of men for service against Spain; and that the author might be Chapman. Certainly Chapman was an early admirer of Harriott. But I disagree as to the date. The style seems to me to be that of Peele or some imitator, the attitude to the players an academic reflection of the attacks of Greene, and the political atmosphere that of the years following the Armada, when the relief of peace was certainly not unbroken by fears of renewed Spanish attempts. Impressment was not a device of 1596 alone. The only notice of it known to me in which players are known to have especially suffered is in an undated letter of Philip Gawdy, assigned by his editor to 1602 (Gawdy, 121), ‘All the playe howses wer besett in one daye and very many pressed from thence, so that in all ther ar pressed ffowre thowsand besydes fyve hundred voluntaryes, and all for flaunders’. This is too late for the proto-Histriomastix, and probably also for the revival, but men were being pressed for foreign service as early as 1585, and again in 1588 and possibly in 1589 and 1591 (Cheyney, i. 158, 197, 219, 255; Procl. 805, 809). As to the revival, Small puts it definitely in August 1599, when a scare of a Spanish invasion, which had lasted for a month, came to a crisis in London on Aug. 7 (Stowe, Annales, 788; Chamberlain, 59; Sydney Papers, ii. 113; Hist. MSS. xv, app. v, 66), and he thinks that the words ‘The Spaniards are come!’ (v. 234) are an insertion of this date. They are not ‘extra-metrical’, as Fleay says, for the passage is not in metre. There had, however, been earlier scares, e.g. in Oct. 1595 (Sydney Papers, i. 355; cf. Arber, iii. 55, 56) and in Oct. 1597 (Edmondes Papers, 303). The date of 1599 would agree well enough with the career of Marston, and with that of the Paul’s boys, to whom the revival was probably due, although I do not agree with Small that it was their court play of 1 Jan. 1601, because I see no evidence that the court ending belongs to the revision. I take it that Histriomastix was one of the ‘musty fopperies of antiquity’ with which we learn from Jack Drum’s Entertainment, v. 112, that the Paul’s boys began. The revision leaves Posthaste untouched, save for the characteristic Marstonian sneer of ‘goosequillian’ (iii. 187). Munday of course was still good sport in 1599. But Chrisoganus is turned from a scientific into a ‘translating’ scholar (ii. 63). I agree with Small that Marston has given him Jonsonian traits, and that he intended to be complimentary rather than the reverse. I do not know that it is necessary to suppose that Jonson misunderstood this and took offence, for the real offence was given by Jack Drum’s Entertainment in the next year. But certainly some of the ‘fustian’ words put in the mouth of Clove in Every Man Out of His Humour, III. i. 177 sqq., later in 1599 come from Histriomastix, and their origin is pointed by the phrase ‘as you may read in Plato’s Histriomastix’. One of the fragments of plays recited by the players contains the lines (ii. 269):