A bear is introduced in i. 2, as in W. T. iii. 3, and I venture to conjecture that both episodes were inspired by the successful bear in Jonson’s Mask of Oberon on 1 Jan. 1611, to which there is also an allusion in his Love Restored of 6 Jan. 1612. If so, the revival must have been on Shrove Sunday, 3 Feb. 1611. In I. i. 50 Anselmo says that he was a shepherd in ‘Lord Iulios Maske’. Oberon, however, had no shepherds proper, only satyrs and sylvans. The induction is altered to compliment James instead of Elizabeth, and the following dialogue between Comedie and Envie is introduced:
Fleay, with 1606 in his mind, finds here an apology for The Fox, thinking Jonson the raven and Eastward Hoe the ‘trap for Boyes’. In 1610 there had been no trouble about any London play, although one in Lincolnshire had given offence. But a careful reading of the passage will show that it is no apology at all, but a boast, and an attack upon informers against the stage.
As the play had been in print since 1598, it must not be assumed that, because the King’s revived it in 1610–11, it was originally a Chamberlain’s play. It may have belonged to the Queen’s or some other extinct company. Evidently it was a popular play, as the number of editions shows. K. B. P. ind. 91 tells us that Ralph has ‘play’d ... Musidorus before the Wardens of our Company’.
The ascription to Shakespeare is due to Archer’s list of 1656 (Greg, Masques, xci) and to the inclusion of the play with Fair Em and The Merry Devil of Edmonton in a volume in Charles II’s library, lettered ‘Shakespeare, vol. i’ (Variorum, ii. 682). It now receives little support, even as regards the added passages. Greene is preferred as the original author by Malone and Hopkinson, Peele by von Friesen, and Lodge by Fleay.
After the suppression of the theatres in 1642, Mucedorus was acted by strolling players in various parts of Oxfordshire. An accident during a performance at Witney on 3 Feb. 1654 is recorded in John Rowe, Tragi-Comoedia. Being a brieff relation of the strange and wonderful hand of God, discovered at Witney in the Comedy acted February the third, where there were some slaine, many hurt and several other remarkable passages (1653/4).
Either Mucedorus or Greene’s Alphonsus (q.v.) may have been the play on a king of Arragon given at Dresden in 1626. It has also been suggested (Herz, 95) that Mucedorus influenced Pieter Hooft’s Dutch pastoral Granida (1605).
Narcissus. 6 Jan. 1603
[MS.] Bodl. MS. 147303 (Rawl. Poet. MS. 212), f. 82v. ‘A Twelfe Night Merriment. Anno 1602.’ [Porter’s speech ‘at the end of supper’, Wassail Song, Prologue, and Epilogue.]
Edition by M. L. Lee (1893).
The porter’s name is Francis, and from some speeches and a letter composed for him, which appear in the same manuscript, it is clear that he was Francis Clark, who became porter of St. John’s, Oxford, on 8 May 1601, at which house therefore the play was doubtless given. It has borrowings from M. N. D. and 1 Hen. IV.
New Custom. 1558 < > 73
1573. A new Enterlude No less wittie: then pleasant, entituled new Custome, deuised of late, and for diuerse causes nowe set forthe, neuer before this tyme Imprinted. William How for Abraham Veale.
Editions in Dodsley4 (1874, iii) and by J. S. Farmer (1908, T. F. T.).
A moral of Protestant controversy, with typical personages, bearing allegorical names, arranged for four actors.
The final prayer is for Elizabeth, and Avarice played in the days of Queen Mary. Fleay, 64; ii. 294, thinks it a revised Edward VI play, on the ground of an allusion to a ‘square caps’ controversy of 1550. But this was still vigorous in 1565 (cf. Parker’s Letters, 240). Fleay also says that the Nugize of Captain Cox’s collection (Laneham, 30) is Mankind (Med. Stage, ii. 438) in which New Gyse is a character. But Mankind was first printed in 1897, and probably this play is the one Laneham had in mind.
Nobody and Somebody > 1606
S. R. 1606, Jan. 8. ‘The picture of No bodye.’ John Trundell (Arber, iii. 308).
1606, March 12 (Wilson). ‘A Booke called no bodie and somme bodie &c.’ John Trundell (Arber, iii. 316).
N.D. No-Body, and Some-Body. With the true Chronicle Historie of Elydure, who was fortunately three seuerall times crowned King of England. The true Coppy thereof, as it hath beene acted by the Queens Maiesties Seruants. For John Trundle. [Prologue and Epilogue.]
Editions by A. Smith (1877), R. Simpson (1878, S. of S. i), J. S. Farmer (1911, T. F. T.), of the early German translation by F. Bischoff, Niemand und Jemand in Graz im Jahre 1608 (1899, Mitteilungen des historischen Vereins für Steiermark, xlvii. 127), and of Tieck’s translation by J. Bolte (1894, Jahrbuch, xxix. 4).—Dissertation: J. Bolte, Eine Hamburger Aufführung von N. a. S. (1905, Jahrbuch, xli. 188).
The play is probably Jacobean. There is a reference to the unwilling recipients of knighthood (l. 325), and the use of Essex’s nickname for Cobham, Sycophant, as the name of a courtier, must be later than Cobham’s disgrace in 1603. Simpson thought that an allusion to the misuse of the collections for rebuilding Paul’s steeple (l. 754) pointed to an original date c. 1592, when the matter caused a scandal, but the steeple was still unbuilt in James’s reign. Greg, Henslowe, ii. 230, revising a conjecture of Fleay, i. 293, suggests that Albere Galles, written by Heywood and Smith for Worcester’s in Sept. 1602, may be this play, and Henslowe’s title a mistake for Archigallo, one of the characters. The play seems to have reached Germany by 1608. A performance at Graz in that year was probably the occasion of the dedication by ‘Joannes Grün Nob. Anglus’ to the archduke Maximilian of a manuscript German translation, now in the Rein library. To it is attached a coloured drawing of a bearded man in a doublet which hides his breeches, and with a book and chain in his hands. Above is written ‘Nemo’ and ‘Neminis Virtus ubique Laudabilis.’ A version is also in the Anglo-German collection of 1620 (Herz, 66, 112).
Parnassus. 1598–1602 (?)
[MSS.] Bodl. Rawlinson MS. D. 398. ‘The Pilgrimage to Parnassus’, ‘The Returne from Parnassus’. [1 Parnassus with Prologue; 2 Parnassus with Stagekeeper’s speech for Prologue. The cover bears the name of ‘Edmunde Rishton, Lancastrensis’, who took his M.A. from St. John’s, Cambridge, in 1602.]
Halliwell-Phillipps MS. ‘The Returne from Pernassus: or The Scourge of Simony.’ [3 Parnassus, with induction for Prologue, which says, ‘The Pilgrimage to Pernassus, and the returne from Pernassus have stood the honest Stagekeepers in many a Crownes expence for linckes and vizards: ... this last is the last part of the returne from Pernassus’.]
S. R. 1605, Oct. 16 (Gwyn). ‘An Enterlude called The retourne from Pernassus or the scourge of Simony publiquely Acted by the studentes in Sainct Johns College in Cambridg.’ John Wright (Arber, iii. 304).
1606. The Returne from Pernassus: Or The Scourge of Simony. Publiquely acted by the Students in Saint Iohns Colledge in Cambridge. G. Eld, for Iohn Wright. [Two issues. 3 Parnassus only.]
Editions of 3 Parnassus by T. Hawkins (1773, O. E. D. iii), W. Scott (1810, A. B. D. i), in Dodsley4 (1874, ix), by E. Arber (1878) and O. Smeaton (1905, T. D.), and of 1, 2, 3 Parnassus by W. D. Macray (1886) and J. S. Farmer (S. F. T.).—Dissertations: B. Corney (1866, 3 N. Q. ix. 387); J. W. Hales, The Pilgrimage to P. (1887, Academy and Macmillan’s Magazine; 1893, Folia Litteraria, 165); W. Lühr, Die drei Cambridger Spiele vom P. in ihren litterarischen Beziehungen (1900, Kiel diss.); E. B. Reed, The College Element in Hamlet (1909, M. P. vi. 453); G. C. Moore Smith, The P. Plays (1915, M. L. R. x. 162).
There are several notes of time and authorship. At the end of 1, which was ‘three daies studie’ (l. 3), the pilgrimage has lasted ‘4 yeares’ (712). Kinsader’s, i.e. Marston’s, Satires and Bastard’s Epigrams, both of 1598, are mentioned (212). The prologue to 2, which is a ‘Christmas toy’ (18), deprecates the former courtesy of ‘our stage’:
It is now seven years since the scholars started for Parnassus (62). Gullio has been ‘verie latelie in Irelande’ and ‘scapt knightinge’ (878), obviously with Essex in 1599. The Epigrams (1599) of ‘one Weaver fellow’, i.e. John Weever, are alluded to (982). The prologue to 3, also a ‘Christenmas toy’ (30), calls it ‘an old musty show, that hath laine this twelue moneth in the bottome of a coalehouse’ (25). ‘The Authors wit’ (48) has stood ‘hammering upon ... 2 schollers some foure (1606, whole) yeare’ (37). This is the third play of a series (76):
Belvedere (1600) is published (179) and Nashe is dead (314). The Dominical letters are C, or for the Annunciation year D and C (1105), and the moon is in ‘the last quarter the 5 day, at 2 of the cloke and 38 minuts in the morning’ (1133). These indications fit Jan. 1602 (Lühr, 15, 105). The siege of Ostend, which extended from 1601 to 1604, has begun (1333). Jonson has ‘brought vp Horace giving the Poets a pill’ (1811), and Kempe is back ‘from dancing the morrice over the Alpes’ (1823). Both events took place in 1601. It is still Elizabeth’s reign (1141).
A quite clear conclusion as to date is not possible. The calendar references, the four years of hammering (in 3), and the probability that the writer would try to have his allusions to literary events up to date, suggest performances at the Christmases of 1598–9, 1599–1600, and 1601–2. This allows for a twelve-months’ delay, followed by a good deal of revision, in the performance of 3. On the other hand, the difference between four (in 1) and seven (in 2) years of pilgrimage points to 1598–9, 1601–2, and 1602–3. On the whole, I lean to the first alternative.
So far as we know, the association of Kempe with the Chamberlain’s men was out of date either in 1601 or 1602; conceivably he returned to the company for a while in 1601, but he was certainly of Worcester’s in 1602.
Moore Smith thinks that the ‘ruder quill’ of the prologue to 3 implies that the author of 2 and 3 was distinct from the author of 1. But the same prologue speaks clearly of a single author. Hales took the account of his troubles in getting his degree literally, and pointed out that foreign students at German universities were called ‘Käsebettler’ and ‘Käsejäger’. Moore Smith doubts, and thinks the degree may have been given at Cambridge by the influence of William Holland, senior fellow of St. John’s, and his name glanced at in ‘Germanie’. The absence alike of matriculation books and college admission registers for the period makes identification difficult. Corney found a copy of the print of 3 with the inscription ‘To my Lovinge Smallocke J. D.’, which he thought in the same hand as the Lansdowne MS. of John Day’s Peregrinatio Scholastica. Bullen was inclined to support Day’s authorship on internal grounds, but Day was a Caius man, whose university career closed in disgrace, and is not very likely to have written plays for St. John’s some years later. And it is but a slight connexion with Cheshire that ‘dey’ means ‘dairy’ in the dialect of that county. Cheshire ought to be our clue. Charles Chester was not, so far as I know, a writer. Hales seems to have thought that the theatrical Beestons of London may have been connected with the Cheshire family of that name. There was a Cheshire foundation at St. John’s, and Moore Smith cites a suggestion that the author may have been William Dodd, a Cheshire man, who became Scholar of St. John’s in 1597, B.A. in 1599, and Fellow in 1602. The ‘priviledge’ reminds me of the traditional jurisdiction of the Dutton family over minstrelsy in Cheshire (Mediaeval Stage, ii. 259), but I do not know whether any Dutton can be traced at St. John’s.
In i. 2 of 3 Judicio is exercising the occupation of a ‘corrector of the presse’, apparently in the employment of a particular printing-house, not of the licensing authorities. The house would be Danter’s, who is himself introduced in i. 3 bargaining with Ingenioso to give him 40s. for a pamphlet. In iv. 3 Burbage and Kempe appear, and here is the famous passage in which Kempe says:
‘Few of the vniuersity men pen plaies well, they smell too much of that writer Ouid, and that writer Metamorphosis, and talke too much of Proserpina & Iuppiter. Why heres our fellow Shakespeare puts them all downe, I and Ben Ionson too. O that Ben Ionson is a pestilent fellow, he brought vp Horace giuing the Poets a pill, but our fellow Shakespeare hath giuen him a purge that made him beray his credit.’
Fleay, Shakespeare, 221, suggests that the ‘purge’ was the description of Ajax in Troilus and Cressida, I. ii. 15, and is supported by Small, 167. If so, it was very irrelevant to its setting. The purge ought to be Satiromastix, and though there is nothing to indicate that Shakespeare had any responsibility for Satiromastix, it is just conceivable that a Cambridge man, writing before the play was assigned to Dekker in print, may have thought that he had. The allusion is clearly to Shakespeare as a writer, or one might have thought that he acted Horace-Jonson in Satiromastix.
Especially in 3, the writer is much occupied with contemporary literature, but this does not justify the slap-dash attempt of Fleay, ii. 347, to identify nearly all his characters with individual literary men. They are, of course, not individuals, but types, and types of university men. The most that can be said is that there may be something of Marston in Furor Poeticus, and a good deal of Nashe, with probably also a little of Greene, in Ingenioso, who ultimately takes flight, with Furor and Phantasma, to the Isle of Dogs (v. 3, 4):
Il Pastor Fido > 1601
S. R. 1601, Sept. 16 (Pasfield). ‘A booke called the faythfull Shepheard’. Waterson (Arber, iii. 192).
1602. Il Pastor Fido: Or The faithfull Shepheard. Translated out of Italian into English. For Simon Waterson. [Sonnets by S. Daniel and the Translator to Sir Edward Dymocke; Epistle to the same, dated 31 Dec. 1601, and signed ‘Simon Waterson’.]
1633. For John Waterson. [Epistle by John Waterson to Charles Dymock.]
1633. Augustine Matthewes for William Sheares. [Another issue.]
The preliminary matter of 1602 and 1633 is shown by Greg, Pastoral, 242, to point to a kinsman, but not the son, of Sir Edward Dymocke as the translator. He may be a John Dymmocke, to whom Archer’s play-list of 1656 (Greg, Masques, xcvi) assigns in error The Faithful Shepherdess. The translation is from G. Battista Guarini’s Il Pastor Fido (1590). For a Latin translation see App. L.
The Pedlar’s Prophecy > 1594
S. R. 1594, May 13. ‘A plea booke intituled the Pedlers Prophesie.’ Thomas Creede (Arber, ii. 649).
1595. The Pedlers Prophecie. Thomas Creede, sold by William Barley. [Prologue.]
Editions by J. S. Farmer (1911, T. F. T.) and W. W. Greg (1914, M. S. R.).
The analogies of title and date of publication to The Cobler’s Prophecy have led Fleay, ii. 283, and others to ascribe the authorship to Wilson. To me the play reads more like a belated piece of c. 1560–70.
Pericles c. 1607–8
See Shakespeare (ch. xxiii), except in relation to whose work the play can hardly be discussed.
Philotus > 1603
1603. Ane verie excellent and delectabill Treatise intitulit Philotus. Quhairin we may persaue the greit inconveniences that fallis out in the Mariage betwene age and zouth. Robert Charteris, Edinburgh. [At end are verses beginning ‘What if a day or a month or a zeere’, possibly Campion’s; cf. Bullen, Campion (1903), 270.]
1612. A verie excellent and delectable Comedie.... Andro Hart, Edinburgh.
Editions by J. Pinkerton (1792, Scottish Poems, iii) and for Bannatyne Club (1835).
This has been ascribed to Robert Sempill (1530?-95), but merely because his play before the Regent of Scotland on 17 June 1568 (Diary of Robert Birrel in Dalyell, Fragments of Scottish History, 14) is not otherwise known. R. Brotanek (1898, Festschrift zum viii allgemeinen deutschen Neuphilologentage in Wien; cf. Jahrbuch, xxxv. 302) suggests Alexander Montgomery.
The Puritan. 1606
S. R. 1607, Aug. 6 (Buck). ‘A book called the comedie of “the Puritan Widowe”.’ George Elde (Arber, iii. 358).
1607. The Puritaine Or The Widdow of Watling-streete. Acted by the Children of Paules. Written by W. S. G. Eld. [Running-title ‘The Puritaine Widdow’.]
1664; 1685. [Parts of F3 and F4 of Shakespeare.]
Editions in 1734 (J. Tonson), 1734 (R. Walker), by J. S. Farmer (1911, T. F. T.), and in Sh. Apocrypha.
The W. S. of the title-page was interpreted as William Shakespeare in Archer’s play-list of 1656 (Greg, Masques, c). The attribution is accepted by no modern critic, and guesses at Wentworth Smith and William Smith rest similarly on nothing but the initials. Internal evidence points to an author who was an Oxford man, and familiar with the plays of Shakespeare. Middleton is preferred by Fleay, ii. 92, Bullen (Middleton, i. lxxix), and others; Marston by Brooke, who dwells on a general resemblance to Eastward Hoe, and seems inclined to think that Jonson, whose Bartholomew Fair the play foreshadows, might also have contributed. The character George Pyeboard is clearly meant for Peele, and the play uses episodes which appear in The Merrie Conceited Jests of George Peele Gent. This, though the extant print is of 1607, was entered in S. R. on 14 Dec. 1605. The Paul’s plays seem to have terminated in 1606, and Fleay points out that an almanac allusion in III. vi. 289 is to Tuesday, 15 July, which fits 1606. The attack on the Puritan ministers was resented in W. Crashaw’s Paul’s Cross sermon of 13 Feb. 1608 (cf. App. C, no. lvi).
The Revenger’s Tragedy. 1606 < > 7
S. R. 1607, Oct. 7 (Buck). ‘Twoo plaies, thone called the revengers tragedie.’ George Eld (Arber, iii. 360).
1607. The Revengers Tragœdie. As it hath beene sundry times Acted, by the Kings Maiesties Seruants. G. Eld.
1608. G. Eld.
Editions in Dodsley1–4 (1744–1876), and by W. Scott (1810, A. B. D. ii) and A. H. Thorndike (1912, M. E. D.).
The authorship is ascribed to ‘Tournour’ in Archer’s list of 1656 and to ‘Cyril Tourneur’ in Kirkman’s lists of 1661 and 1671 (Greg, Masques, cii). Fleay, ii. 264, is sceptical, thinking the work too good for the author of The Atheist’s Tragedy, and inclined to suggest Webster. Oliphant (M. P. viii. 427) thinks Tourneur impossible, in view of the difference of manner, and suggests, only to reject, Middleton. E. E. Stoll, John Webster, 107, 212, points out that both plays are much under the influence of Marston, and that the date may be fixed by the borrowing of the name and character of Dandolo from The Fawn (1606).
The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York > 1592
See The Contention of York and Lancaster.
1 Richard the Second c. 1592 < > 5
[MS.] Egerton MS. 1994. The play forms a separate section of this composite MS. It has no title-page and a few lines at the end are missing. The handwriting is of the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century.
Editions by J. O. Halliwell (1870) and W. Keller (1899, Jahrbuch, xxxv. 3.—Dissertations: F. I. Carpenter, Notes on the Anonymous Richard II (1899, Journ. Germ. Phil. iii. 138); F. S. Boas, A Seventeenth Century Theatrical Repertoire (Library for July 1917).
The play deals with an earlier part of the reign than that of Shakespeare’s Richard II. Keller concludes from a study of parallel passages that it was known to Shakespeare, and that the author knew Marlowe’s Edward II and 2 Henry VI. This gives a date of about 1592–5. Fleay, ii. 320, dates the play about 1591 and assigns it, for no apparent reason, to the Queen’s men. Boas accepts the date 1590–5 on internal evidence, but finds the names ‘George’ and ‘Toby’ in the stage-directions as players of servants’ parts, and supposes the MS. to belong to a seventeenth-century revival and to have been collected with others in Egerton MS. 1994 by the younger William Cartwright, who was one of a late King’s Revels company traceable during 1629–37 (Murray, i. 279). He identifies ‘George’, rather hazardously, with George Stutfield, who belonged to this company, and ‘Toby’ with an Edward Tobye, who is not known to have belonged to it, but is found in 1623 among the Children of the Revels to the late Queen Anne (Murray, i. 361; ii. 273). My difficulty about this is that the relation of 1 Rich. II to Shakespeare’s play is so close as to make it natural to regard it as having become a Chamberlain’s play, and therefore unlikely to get into the hands of either of these Revels companies. Any company might have a George. George Bryan, for example, is a possibility. Toby, no doubt, is a rarer name. Toby Mills died in 1585, but might have left a son or godson of his name.
The True Tragedy of Richard the Third > 1594
S. R. 1594, June 19. ‘An enterlude entituled, The Tragedie of Richard the Third wherein is showen the Death of Edward the FFourthe with the smotheringe of the twoo princes in the Tower, with a lamentable end of Shores wife, and the Coniunction of the twoo houses of Lancaster and Yorke.’ Thomas Creede (Arber, ii. 654).
1594. The True Tragedie of Richard the Third: Wherein is showne the death of Edward the fourth, with the smothering of the two yoong Princes in the Tower: With a lamentable ende of Shore’s wife, an example for all wicked women. And lastly the conjunction and ioyning of the two noble Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. As it was playd by the Queenes Maiesties Players. Thomas Creede, sold by William Barley. [Induction; Epilogue.]
Editions in Variorum (1821), xix. 251, and by B. Field (1844, Sh. Soc.) and W. C. Hazlitt (1875, Sh. Libr.).—Dissertation: G. B. Churchill, Richard the Third up to Shakespeare (1900, Palaestra, x).
Collier, Shakespeare, v. 342, put the play earlier than 1588 on the ground that the epilogue in praise of Elizabeth makes no mention of the Armada. But ‘She hath put proud Antichrist to flight’ may pass for such a mention. Fleay, 64, dates it about 1587: in ii. 28 he says ‘1586 or late in 1585’ as a ballad on the subject was entered on the Stationers’ Register on 15 Aug. 1586; in ii. 315 he prefers 1591, regarding the play as a continuation of The Contention between York and Lancaster. He considers a later date as excluded by the close of the court career of the Queen’s men in 1591. This, however, did not close until 1594, and the epilogue was not necessarily given at court. Churchill also thinks the play a continuation of the Contention, and finds influences, not very striking, of Marlowe’s Tamburlaine, Faustus, and Edward II. He concludes for 1590–1. There is very little trace of any use by Shakespeare of this play for his Richard III.
Boswell groundlessly took the author to be that of Locrine (q.v.). Fleay, ii. 315, tries to divide the scenes between Lodge and Peele, and suggests that they were re-writing Kyd.
Robin Hood > 1560
S. R. 1560, Oct. 30. ‘A newe playe called——.’ William Copland (Arber, i. 152).
N.D. A mery geste of Robyn Hoode and of hys lyfe, wyth a newe playe for to be played in Maye games very plesaunte and full of pastyme. [Colophon] Imprinted at London vpon the thre Crane wharfe by Wyllyam Copland.
N.D. For Edward White.
Editions in J. Ritson, Robin Hood (1795), ii. 199, F. J. Child, English and Scottish Popular Ballads, iii (1888) 114, 127, and Manly (1897), ii. 281.
The play, which deals with the episodes of Robin Hood and the Friar and Robin Hood and the Potter, is appended to a reprint of the narrative Geste, originally printed by Wynken de Worde. Manly assigns Copland’s edition to c. 1550, but Arber, v. 32, to ‘c. 1560, by the Printer’s address’, and Furnivall, Captain Cox, to c. 1561. Apparently Copland is not traceable at the Three Cranes before that year and had earlier addresses. If so, I think that his anonymous entry of 1560 in the Stationers’ Register may fairly be supposed to relate to Robin Hood.
Ruff, Cuff and Band c. 1615
[MS.] Add. MS. 23723.
S. R. 1615, Feb. 10 (Taverner). ‘A booke called a Diologue betwene Ruffe Cuffe and Band &c.’ Miles Patriche (Arber, iii. 563).
1615. A merrie Dialogue, Betwene Band, Cuffe, and Ruffe: Done by an excellent Wit, And Lately acted in a Shew in the famous Vniversitie of Cambridge. William Stansby for Miles Partrich.
1615. Exchange Ware at the second hand, Viz. Band, Ruffe and Cuffe, lately out, and now newly dearned vp. Or Dialogue, acted in a Shew in the famous Vniversitie of Cambridge. The second Edition. W. Stansby for Myles Partrich.
1661. [Title as in ed. 1.] For F. K.
Editions in Harleian Miscellany2, x (1813), and by J. O. Halliwell (1849, Contributions to Early English Literature) and C. Hindley, Old Book Collector’s Miscellany, ii (1872).
The Second Maiden’s Tragedy. 1611
[MS.] B.M., Lansdowne MS. 807, f. 29, formerly penes John Warburton. [Greg distinguishes four contemporary hands: (a) a scribe or copyist of the original text and certain additions on inserted slips; (b) a corrector, probably the author; (c) the Master of the Revels, Buck; (d) a theatre official, who added stage-directions. The contributions of (b) and (c) are not wholly distinguishable, especially where mere deletions are in question, as the author may, besides literary corrections, have made others due to the hints, or known views, of Buck as censor. The presence of a second literary corrector is just possible. On the verso of the last leaf Buck has written: ‘This second Maydens tragedy (for it hath no name inscribed) may wth the reformations bee acted publikely. 31 octobr. 1611. G. Buc.’ In later hands are the title ‘The Second Maydens Tragedy’ at the beginning, and a note following Buck’s endorsed licence, which originally ran, ‘The Second Maydens Tragedy October 31th 1611 By Thomas Goffe A Tragedy indeed’. Here Goffe’s name has been cancelled, and two successive correctors have substituted, firstly, ‘George Chapman’, and then ‘By Will Shakspear’. Warburton’s hand is not discernible, and the last correction was probably made after his time, as his list of manuscript plays (3 Library, ii. 232) includes ‘2d. pt. Maidens Trag̃. Geo. Chapman’.]
S. R. 1653, Sept. 9. ‘The Maid’s Tragedie, 2d. part.’ H. Moseley (Eyre, i. 428).
Editions in 1824–5 (O. E. D. i), Chapman’s Works (1875, iii), and Dodsley4 (1875, x), and by W. W. Greg (1909, M. S. R.).—Dissertations: J. Phelan, Philip Massinger (1879, Anglia, ii. 47); A. S. W. Rosenbach, The Curious-Impertinent (1902, M. L. N. xvii. 179); W. Nicholson, The S. M. T. (1912, M. L. N. xxvii. 33).
The play may be assigned to the King’s men, in view of stage-directions to ll. 1724, 1928, which show that ‘Mr Goughe’ played Memphonius and ‘Rich Robinson’ the Lady. Perhaps this also explains the ascription of authorship to Thomas Goffe, which, like those to Chapman and Shakespeare, now finds no favour. Tieck, who translated the play in his Shakespeare’s Vorschule (1829, ii), argued for Massinger, whose lost Tyrant he took the play to be. No doubt the chief character is only entitled ‘Tyrant’ in the manuscript. But the Tyrant has a separate existence both in S. R. and in Warburton’s list. Fleay, ii. 331, thought that the title was originally meant to be The Usurping Tyrant, and that the play was by the author of The Revenger’s Tragedy, generally assigned to Tourneur. Rosenbach doubts Massinger, and thinks Tourneur’s hand traceable. Swinburne seems to have suggested Middleton.
Selimus. 1591 < > 94
1594. The First part of the Tragicall raigne of Selimus, sometime Emperour of the Turkes, and grandfather to him that now raigneth. Wherein is showne how hee most vnnaturally raised warres against his owne father Baiazet, and preuailing therein, in the end caused him to be poysoned: Also with the murthering of his two brethren, Corcut, and Acomat. As it was playd by the Queenes Maiesties Players. Thomas Creede. [Prologue and Conclusion.]
1638. The Tragedy of Selimus Emperour of the Turkes. Written T. G. For John Crooke and Richard Serger. [Re-issue of 1594 sheets with new t.p.]
Editions by A. B. Grosart (1898, T. D.) and W. Bang (1908, M. S. R.), and in collections of Greene (q.v.).—Dissertation: H. Gilbert, Robert Greene’s S. (1899, Kiel diss.); cf. s. Locrine.
The T. G. of the 1638 title-page is probably meant for Thomas Goffe, the author of contemporary plays on Turkish history. He, however, was only born in 1591. Six passages from the play are assigned to Greene in R[obert] A[llot’s] England’s Parnassus (1600). This is fairly strong evidence, and Greene’s authorship is supported by Grosart, Brooke (Sh. Apocrypha, xix), and Gilbert. Ward and Gayley (R. E. C. i. 420) take the opposite view. Crawford, who points out (E. P. xxxv, 407) that Allot is not impeccable, prefers Marlowe. Fleay, ii. 315, would divide the play between Greene and Lodge. The problem is bound up with that of the authorship of Locrine (q.v.), from which Selimus clearly borrows. It can therefore hardly be of earlier date than 1591. The Conclusion, or epilogue, promises a second part, of which nothing is known.
Soliman and Perseda c. 1589 < > 92
S. R. 1592, Nov. 20 (Bp. of London). ‘The tragedye of Salamon and Perceda.’ Edward White (Arber, ii. 622).
N.D. The Tragedye of Solyman and Perseda. Wherein is laide open, Loues constancy, Fortunes inconstancy, and Deaths Triumphs. Edward Allde for Edward White. [Induction.]
1599. E. Allde for E. White. [In some copies ‘newly corrected and amended’ is stamped on the t.p.]
[1815]. [A facs. reprint, with date 1599 and imprint Edward Allde for Edward White, of which two copies, C. 57. c. 15 and G. 18612, are in B.M.; cf. W. W. Greg in M. L. Q. iv. 188, and R. B. McKerrow, Bibl. Evid. 302. Some copies have ‘J. Smeeton, Printer, St. Martin’s Lane’ on the vo. of the t.p.]
Editions by T. Hawkins (1773, O. E. D. ii), in Dodsley4, v (1874), and by F. S. Boas (1901, Works of Kyd) and J. S. Farmer (S. F. T.).—Dissertations: E. Sieper (1897, Z. f. vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte, N. F. x); G. Sarrazin, Die Verfasser von S. u. P. (1891, E. S. xv. 250); E. Koeppel, Beiträge zur Geschichte des elisabethanischen Dramas (1892, E. S. xvi. 357); J. E. Routh, T. Kyd’s Rime Schemes and the Authorship of S. P. and 1 Jeronimo (1905, M. L. N. xx. 49); K. Wiehl, Thomas Kyd und die Autorschaft von S. u. P. (1912, E. S. xliv. 343).
Fleay, ii. 26, Sarrazin, and Boas claim the play for Kyd, partly on grounds of style, partly because the plot is an elaboration of the ‘play within the play’ of The Spanish Tragedy (c. 1589), iv. 4; Wiehl doubts on metrical grounds. Schick (Archiv, xc) suggests Peele, who is said in the Merry Conceited Jests (Bullen, Peele, ii. 389) to have written, or pretended to have written, a play of The Knight of Rhodes, a title which would apply to Soliman and Perseda. Robertson, 109, 150, 166, thinks that Greene collaborated with Kyd.
Captain Thomas Stukeley. 1596
S. R. 1600, Aug. 11 (Vicars). ‘Ye history of the life and Deathe of Captaine Thomas Stucley, with his Mariage to Alexander Curtis his daughter, and his valiant endinge of his life at the battell of Alcazar.’ Thomas Pavier (Arber, iii. 169).
1605. The Famous Historye of the life and death of Captaine Thomas Stukeley. With his marriage to Alderman Curteis Daughter, and valiant ending of his life at the Battaile of Alcazar. As it hath beene Acted. For Thomas Pavier.
Editions by R. Simpson (1878, S. of S. i) and J. S. Farmer (1911, T. F. T.).—Dissertations: E. H. C. Oliphant (1905, 10 N. Q. iii. 301, 342, 382); J. Q. Adams, C. T. S. (1916, J. G. P. xv. 107).
‘Tom Stucley’ is named as a stage hero by Peele in his Farewell (1589); but the present play is probably the Stewtley produced by the Admiral’s on 11 Dec. 1596 (Greg, Henslowe, ii. 181). There are allusions to ‘the Theatre fields’ (611) and ‘her Majesty’ (752), which may only represent historic time. Although Sebastian of Portugal is a character, there is no reference to the legend of his survival, which was well known in England in 1598. Simpson regards the play as belonging to the Chamberlain’s, on the ground of certain political proclivities which he chose to ascribe to that company. The text is incoherent, and several theories representing it as a contamination of two distinct plays have been promulgated. Simpson supposed that part of a play on Don Antonio has been inserted into one dealing in five acts with Stukeley’s adventures in England, Ireland, Spain, Rome, and Africa respectively, and this view is elaborated by Oliphant, who attempts to disentangle several original and revising hands, including that of John Fletcher, to whom he assigns 245–335. Fleay, i. 127, thinks that Dekker made up the play for Paul’s, c. 1600, out of Stewtley and a Mahomet by Peele. Apparently he starts from Satiromastix, 980, where Horace says that Demetrius Fannius ‘cut an innocent Moore i’ the middle, to serue him in twice; & when he had done, made Poules-worke of it’. But surely there is a difference between making two plays out of one and making one play out of two.
1 Tamar Cham > 1592
[MS.] ‘The plott of The First parte of Tamar Cham.’ In the possession of Steevens, but now unknown.
The text is given by Steevens, Variorum (1803), iii. 414; Boswell, Variorum (1821), iii. 356; Greg, Henslowe Papers, 144.
The actors’ names point to a performance by the Admiral’s, near 2 Oct. 1602, when they bought the book from Alleyn (cf. ch. xiii). The play was produced as ‘n. e.’ by the same company on 6 May 1596, but probably Henslowe’s ‘n. e.’ in this case only indicates a substantial revision, as the letters are also attached to the notice of a performance of Part ii on 11 June 1596, and Part ii had already been played as ‘n. e.’ by Strange’s on 28 April 1592. Obviously a Part i must already have existed (Greg, Henslowe, ii. 155).
The Taming of A Shrew c. 1589
S. R. 1594, May 2. ‘A booke intituled A plesant Conceyted historie called “the Tayminge of a Shrowe”.’ Peter Short (Arber, ii. 648).
1594. A Pleasant Conceited Historie, called The taming of a Shrew. As it was sundry times acted by the Right honorable the Earle of Pembrook his seruants. Peter Short, sold by Cuthbert Burby. [Induction.]
1596. Peter Short, sold by Cuthbert Burby.
1607. V. S. for Nicholas Ling.
Editions by J. Nicholls (1779, Six Old Plays, i), T. Amyot (1844, Sh. Soc.), W. C. Hazlitt (1875, Sh. Libr. vi), E. W. Ashbee (1876, facs.), F. J. Furnivall (1886, Sh. Q), F. S. Boas (1908, Sh. Classics), and J. S. Farmer (S. F. T.).
The Admiral’s and Chamberlain’s revived ‘the tamynge of A shrowe’ for Henslowe on 11 June 1594, shortly after the entry in S. R. (Greg, Henslowe, ii. 164). Presumably it belonged to the Chamberlain’s, who had acquired it from Pembroke’s, and the 1594 performance may have been either of the original, or of Shakespeare’s revision, The Taming of The Shrew, for which 1594 is a plausible date. An early reference to the printed book is in Harington’s Metamorphosis of Ajax (1596), 95, ‘For the shrewd wife, read the book of Taming a Shrew, which hath made a number of us so perfect, that now every one can rule a shrew in our country, save he that hath her’. It is to be noted that, unlike Leire (q.v.) and King Lear, the two versions counted, from the copyright point of view, as one, so that the transfer of A Shrew to Smethwick made an entry of The Shrew in S. R. for the purposes of F1 of Shakespeare unnecessary. Probably Pembroke’s in their turn got the play from the earlier Admiral’s or Strange’s. Its date has been placed in or before 1589, because certain lines of it appear to be parodied both in Greene’s Menaphon of that year, and in the prefatory epistle to Menaphon by Nashe. Some such date is confirmed by its direct imitations from Marlowe’s Tamburlaine (c. 1587) and to a less extent from Dr. Faustus (c. 1588), which are collected by Boas, 93. For author, Marlowe, Kyd, Greene, and Peele have all been suggested, but, so far as we know, Marlowe did not repeat himself, and the others did not plagiarize him, in this flagrant manner. Shakespeare also is still often credited with a hand in the old play, as well as in the revision, and the problem can best be discussed in connexion with Shakespeare. Sykes gives part to S. Rowley (q.v.).
The Thracian Wonder c. 1600
1661. Two New Playes: Viz. A Cure for a Cuckold: A Comedy. The Thracian Wonder: A Comical History. As it hath been several times Acted with great Applause. Written by John Webster and William Rowley. Tho. Johnson, sold by Francis Kirkman. [Separate t.p. The Thracian Wonder ... as above. Epistle to the Reader, signed ‘Francis Kirkman’.]
Editions by C. W. Dilke (1815, O. E. P. vi), and in collections of Webster (q.v.).—Dissertations: J. le G. Brereton, The Relation of T. W. to Greene’s Menaphon (1906, M. L. R. ii. 34); J. Q. Adams, Greene’s Menaphon and T. W. (1906, M. P. iii. 317); O. L. Hatcher, The Sources and Authorship of T. W. (1908, M. L. N. xxiii. 16).
The ascription of the title-page is rejected by Stoll, Webster, 34, and modern writers generally, although Stork, Rowley, 61, thinks that Rowley may have added comic touches. The use of Webster’s name may be due to the identity of the plot with that of William Webster’s Curan and Argentile (1617). But William Webster took it from Warner’s Albion’s England (1586), iv. xx. From the same source Greene took it, with a change of names, for Menaphon (1589), and it is Menaphon, with another change of names, that the play follows. Brereton ascribes it to Greene himself; Hatcher thinks that the direct plagiarisms from the source and the archaistic phrase ‘old Menaphon’ (iv. 2), whereas Greene’s hero is a youth, point to an early sixteenth-century admirer of Greene. Adams supports the suggestion of Fleay, i. 287, that this is the War Without Blows and Love Without Suit written by Heywood for the Admiral’s in 1598, but this is a mere guess based on Heywood’s title (Greg, Henslowe, ii. 199). Fleay then supposed that it was revised for Queen Anne’s about 1607; elsewhere (ii. 332) he supposes it a dramatization of Webster’s story for Prince Charles’s about 1617.
Timon c. 1581 < > 90 (?)
[MS.] Dyce MS. 52. [Epilogue. The MS. is a transcript in two hands.]
Editions by A. Dyce (1842, Sh. Soc.) and W. C. Hazlitt (1875, Sh. Libr. ii. 2).—Dissertation: J. Q. Adams, The Timon Plays (1910, J. G. P. ix. 506).
Greek quotations and other pedantries suggest an academic audience, but there is little indication of place or date, beyond parallels with Pedantius, which lead Moore Smith (M. L. R. iii. 143) to suggest Cambridge and c. 1581–90. Adams thinks that the piece may have been performed by London schoolboys, and known to Shakespeare.
Tom Tyler and his Wife > 1563
S. R. 1562–3. ‘These ballettes folowynge ... an other of Tom Tyler.’ Thomas Colwell (Arber, i. 210).
1661. Tom Tyler and His Wife. An Excellent Old Play, As It was Printed and Acted about a hundred Years ago. The second Impression. [Prologue and ‘concluding Song’. There is no imprint, but as most of the extant copies have a variant t.p. with the additional words ‘Together, with an exact Catalogue of all the playes that were ever yet printed’, and as Kirkman’s catalogue of 1661 is appended, he was doubtless the publisher.]
Editions by F. E. Schelling (1900, M. L. A. xv. 253), G. C. Moore Smith and W. W. Greg (1910, M. S. R.), and J. S. Farmer (1912, T. F. T.).
The S. R. entry may refer to a ballad based on the play, or may possibly be a loose description of the play itself. In any case there is no reason to doubt the existence of a print of about that date. The evidence of the 1661 title-page is confirmed by the entry of ‘Tom tyler’ in Archer’s play-list of 1656 (Greg, Masques, cxii). Chetwood, who cannot be relied on, gave the date as 1598, and an inaccurate reproduction of this seems to be responsible for the 1578 of other writers. The text of 1661 has been shown by C. P. G. Scott (in Schelling’s introduction) to be a rendering into seventeenth-century orthography of a play whose vocabulary may be put, with decreasing certainty, within the limits 1530–80, 1540–70, and 1550–60. The prologue says that the play is ‘set out by prettie boyes’, and the ‘concluding Song’ has a prayer for the preservation of the queen, ‘from perilous chance that hath been seen’. Fleay, ii. 295, somewhat arbitrarily thinks the Chapel ‘more likely’ to have presented it than Paul’s. A misinterpretation of Kirkman’s list of 1661 led E. Phillips, Theatrum Poetarum (1675), to assign the authorship to W. Wager (M. S. C. i. 325).
The Trial of Chivalry c. 1600
S. R. 1604, Dec. 4 (Pasfield). ‘A book called The life and Deathe of Cavaliero Dick Boyer.’ Nathaniel Butter (Arber, iii. 277).
1605. The History of the tryall of Cheualry, With the life and death of Caualiero Dicke Bowyer. As it hath bin lately acted by the right Honourable the Earle of Darby his seruants. Simon Stafford for Nathaniel Butter.
1605. This Gallant Caualiero Dicke Bowyer, Newly acted. [Another issue.]
Editions by A. H. Bullen (1884, O. E. P. iii) and J. S. Farmer (1912, T. F. T.).—Dissertation: C. R. Baskervill, Sidney’s Arcadia and the T. of C. (1912, M. P. x. 197).
Bullen thinks this may be Love Parts Friendship, written by Chettle and Smith for the Admiral’s in 1602; Fleay, ii. 318, that it may be the Burbon brought to the Admiral’s by Pembroke’s in 1597, as the Duke of Bourbon is a chief personage, and also the Cutting Dick to which Heywood wrote additions for Worcester’s in 1602 (Greg, Henslowe, ii. 187, 221, 231). There is, of course, no particular reason why a play by Derby’s should appear in Henslowe’s diary at all. They were in London in the winters of 1599–1600 and 1600–1. The only link between them and Henslowe is Heywood, if he was the author of their Edward IV (q.v.). Fleay, i. 289, thinks that the present play may be by the same hands. Probably the Earl of Derby himself wrote for the company.
The Trial of Treasure > 1567
1567. A new and mery Enterlude, called the Triall of Treasure, newly set foorth, and neuer before this tyme imprinted. Thomas Purfoot. [Arrangement for 5 actors; Prologue and Epilogue, headed ‘Praie for all estates’.]
Editions by J. O. Halliwell (1850, Percy Soc. xxviii), in Dodsley4, iii (1874), and by J. S. Farmer (1908, T. F. T.—Dissertation: W. W. Greg, The T. of T., 1567—A Study in Ghosts (1910, 3 Library, i. 28).
Greg shows that there was only one edition, not two, of 1567. The play is a non-controversial morality, and may very well date from about 1567.
1 Troilus and Cressida. 1599 (?)
[MS.] Add. MS. 10449. [A fragmentary ‘plot’ without title, probably from Dulwich.]
The text is given by Greg, Henslowe Papers, 142, who infers from the names of the characters that it may have been the Troilus and Cressida written by Chettle and Dekker for the Admiral’s in April 1599. The few names of actors are not inconsistent with this (cf. ch. xiii).
The Valiant Welshman. 1610 < > 15
S. R. 1615, Feb. 21 (Buck). ‘A play called the valiant welshman.’ Robert Lownes (Arber, iii. 564).
1615. The Valiant Welshman, Or The True Chronicle History of the life and valiant deedes of Caradoc the Great, King of Cambria, now called Wales. As it hath beene sundry times Acted by the Prince of Wales his seruants. Written by R. A. Gent. George Purslowe for Robert Lownes. [Epistle to the Reader; Induction; Epilogue.]
1663. For William Gilbertson.
Editions by V. Kreb (1902) and J. S. Farmer (1913, S. F. T.).
Borrowings from Ben Jonson’s Alchemist (1610) require a late date, and the assertion of Fleay, i. 26, that this is The Welshman revived by the Admiral’s on 29 Nov. 1595 may be disregarded (Greg, Henslowe, ii. 178). There is nothing, beyond the initials, to connect the play with Robert Armin, and Kreb would assign it to some young University man.
A Warning for Fair Women > 1599
S. R. 1599; Nov. 17. ‘A warnynge for fayre women.’ William Aspley (Arber, iii. 151).
1599. A warning for Faire Women. Containing, The most tragicall and lamentable murther of Master George Sanders of London Marchant, nigh Shooters hill. Consented vnto By his owne wife, acted by M. Browne, Mistris Drewry and Trusty Roger agents therin: with their seuerall ends. As it hath beene lately diuerse times acted by the right Honorable, the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruantes. Valentine Sims for William Aspley. [Induction.]
Editions by R. Simpson (1878, S. of S. ii) and J. S. Farmer (S. F. T.).
References to ‘this fair circuit’ and ‘this Round’ are inconclusive as to whether the play was produced before the Chamberlain’s went to the Globe in 1599, as their earlier houses were probably also round. E. Phillips, Theatrum Poetarum (1675), 113, and A. Wood, Athenae (1691), i. 676, assign the authorship, incredibly, to Lyly. Fleay, ii. 54, conjectures Lodge; Bullen, O. E. P. iv. 1, Yarington.
The Wars of Cyrus King of Persia > 1594
1594. The Warres of Cyrus King of Persia, against Antiochus King of Assyria, with the Tragicall ende of Panthæa. Played by the children of her Maiesties Chappell. E. A. for William Blackwal.
Editions by W. Keller (1901, Jahrbuch, xxxvii. 1) and J. S. Farmer (1911, T. F. T.).
The play, clearly influenced by Tamburlaine, may rest on one by Farrant (q.v.) c. 1578. There is no record of any court performance by the Chapel between 1584 and 1601. Fleay, ii. 322, guesses that an allusion in Nashe’s Summer’s Last Will and Testament (q.v.) points to a performance of this play at Croydon twelve months earlier. The text is disordered. A prologue ‘To the audience’ is inserted in Act II at 621 and refers to a chorus, but there is none. At 367 is ‘Finis Actus primi’, but ‘Actus Secundus’ is at 502.
The Weakest Goeth to the Wall > 1600
S. R. 1600, Oct. 23 (Pasfield). ‘A booke called, the Weakest goethe to the Walles.’ Richard Oliff (Arber, iii. 175).
1600. The Weakest goeth to the Wall. As it hath bene sundry times plaide by the right honourable Earle of Oxenford, Lord great Chamberlaine of England his seruants. Thomas Creede for Richard Oliue. [Dumb Show and Prologue.]
1618. G. P. for Richard Hawkins.
Editions by J. S. Farmer (1911, T. F. T.), W. W. Greg (1912, M. S. R.), and with Works of Webster (q.v.).
The ascription of the play to Dekker and Webster by E. Phillips, Theatrum Poetarum (1675), 116, was rejected by Langbaine (1691) and, so far as Webster is concerned, has nothing to recommend it (E. Stoll, Webster, 34). Ward, iii. 56, finds Dekker’s humour, and Hunt, Dekker, 42, thinks it Chettle’s, revised by Dekker. Fleay, ii. 114, gives it to Munday, as the only known writer for Oxford’s, except Oxford himself. But he is thinking of Oxford’s boy company of 1580–4, not of the later company of 1601 or earlier, to whose repertory the play probably belonged, and with whom Munday is not known to have had anything to do.
Wily Beguiled. 1596 < > 1606
S. R. 1606, Nov. 12 (Hartwell). ‘A booke called Wylie beguilde &c.’ Clement Knight (Arber, iii. 333).
1606. A Pleasant Comedie, Called Wily Beguilde. The Chiefe Actors be these: A poore Scholler, a rich Foole, and a Knaue at a shifte. H. L. for Clement Knight. [Induction, Prologue, and Epilogue.]
N.D.; 1623; 1630; 1635; 1638.
Editions by T. Hawkins (1773, O. E. D. iii), in Dodsley4, ix (1874), and by J. S. Farmer (1912, T. F. T.) and W. W. Greg (1912, M. S. R.).—Dissertations: J. W. Hales, Shakespearian Imitations (1875, Ath. 1875, 17 July, 4 Sept.); F. J. Furnivall, Parallels (1875, 5 N. Q. iv. 144); P. A. Daniel, On W. B. (1875, Brooke’s Romeus and Juliet, xxxv, N. S. S.); E. Landsberg, Zur Verfasserfrage des anonymen Lustspiels W. B. (1911, E. S. xliii. 189).
The register of Merton College, Oxford, has for 3 Jan. 1567 the entry, ‘Acta est Wylie Beguylie Comoedia Anglica nocte in aedibus Custodis per scolares, praesentibus Vicecustode, magistris, baccalaureis, cum omnibus domesticis et nonnullis extraneis; merito laudandi recte agendo prae se tulerunt summam spem’ (Boas, 157). No connexion is traceable between this and the extant play, which Greg and Boas regard as of Cambridge origin. But it does not seem to me markedly academic. The character Lelia does not particularly suggest the Cambridge Latin Laelia of 1595, and the epilogue was spoken in a ‘circled rounde’. The description of himself by Churms (l. 68), as ‘at Cambridge a scholler, at Cales a souldier, and now in the country a lawyer, and the next degree shal be a connicatcher’, does not go far in the way of proof. This same passage fixes the date as not earlier than the Cadiz expedition of 1596; obviously the use of the phrase ‘tricke of Wily Beguily’ in Nashe’s Have With You to Saffron Walden of 1596 (Works, iii. 107) proves nothing one way or other as to date, although Dekker naturally knew the play when he described rogues and their ‘knavish comedy of Wily-Beguily’ in his Belman of London of 1608 (Works, iii. 125). If the date is 1596, the authorship of Peele, suggested by the description of the prologue-speaker as ‘humorous George’, although he is clearly distinct from the ‘fiery Poet’, and urged by Fleay, ii. 158, and Landsberg, becomes just possible, chronologically, before his death in November of that year. But the Shakespearian imitations, although most marked of M. V. and earlier plays, seem also to extend to Hamlet, M. W., and T. N., and the right date may be c. 1602–6. If the production was in the ‘circled rounde’ of Paul’s, the quasi-academic note is explicable. Sykes suggests S. Rowley (q.v.) as part author. Fleay, Shakespeare Manual, 272, makes an amazing attempt to interpret the play as a satire on Lyly, Lodge, Marston, Chettle, Dekker, Drayton, Middleton, Chapman, Jonson, Henslowe, the Admiral’s, the Chamberlain’s, the Chapel, and Paul’s. In the Induction, a juggler finds the title Spectrum exhibited, and later, ‘Spectrum is conueied away: and Wily beguiled, stands in the place of it’ (l. 46).
The Wisdom of Doctor Dodipoll. 1599 < > 1600
S. R. 1600, Oct. 7. ‘A booke called The Wisdom of Doctor Dodepole Plaied by the Children of Paules.’ Richard Oliff (Arber, iii. 174).
1600. The Wisdome of Doctor Dodypoll. As it hath bene sundrie times Acted by the Children of Powles. Thomas Creede for Richard Oliue.
Editions by A. H. Bullen (1884, O. E. P. iii) and J. S. Farmer (1912, T. F. T.).—Dissertation: E. Koeppel, Sh.’s J. C. und die Entstehungszeit des anonymen Dramas The W. of D. D. (1907, Jahrbuch, xliii. 210).
Fleay, ii. 155, assigned the play to Peele, chiefly on the ground that a snatch of song is from his Hunting of Cupid (q.v.). But Peele died in 1596, and Koeppel points out that the phrase (Bullen, p. 129), ‘Then reason’s fled to animals, I see’, presupposes the existence of Julius Caesar (1599), III. ii. 109: