VOLUME IV

PAGE

XXIV. ANONYMOUS WORK 1

A. Plays 1 B. Masks 55 C. Receptions and Entertainments 60

APPENDICES

A. A Court Calendar 75 B. Court Payments 131 C. Documents of Criticism 184 D. Documents of Control 259 E. Plague Records 345 F. The Presence-Chamber at Greenwich 351 G. Serlio’s _Trattato sopra le Scene_ 353 H. _The Gull’s Hornbook_ 365 I. Restoration Testimony 369 K. Academic Plays 373 L. Printed Plays 379 M. Lost Plays 398 N. Manuscript Plays 404

INDEXES

I. Plays 409 II. Persons 425 III. Places 445 IV. Subjects 454

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Design for Cockpit Theatre at Whitehall. By Inigo Jones. From Library of Worcester College, Oxford _Frontispiece_

The _Profilo_ or Section of a Stage. From Sebastiano Serlio, _Architettura_ (1551) p. 354

The _Pianta_ or Ground-Plan of a Stage (_ibid._) p. 357

Elevation of a _Scena Comica_ (_ibid._) p. 359

Elevation of a _Scena Tragica_ (_ibid._) p. 361

Elevation of a _Scena Satyrica_ (_ibid._) p. 362

NOTE

I have found it convenient, especially in Appendix A, to use the symbol < following a date, to indicate an uncertain date not earlier than that named, and the symbol > followed by a date, to indicate an uncertain date not later than that named. Thus 1903 < > 23 would indicate the composition date of any part of this book. I have sometimes placed the date of a play in italics, where it was desirable to indicate the date of production rather than publication.

The documents from J. R. Dasent, _Acts of the Privy Council_ (1890–1907), are reprinted by permission of the Controller of His Majesty’s Stationery Office.

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,

Our famous Marloe had in this a hand,

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. 48^v. 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 Dodsley^{3, 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.]

Q_{1}, 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.]

Q_{2}. 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 Q_{2}, and by Tucker Brooke (1915, _Yale Elizabethan Club Reprints_, i) from Q_{1}.

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 Vj^t, 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 F_{3} and F_{4} 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 iij^{de} and iiij^{th} chapeter of the iij^{de} 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

Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds

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 iiij^{th} 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 Dodsley^{1–3} (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 M^r 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, 12^{mo}.]

_Editions_ by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ iii), in Dodsley^4, 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 v^{th}’ 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):

Come Cressida, my Cresset light, Thy face doth shine both day and night; Behold behold thy garter blue Thy knight his valiant elbow wears, That when he shakes his furious Speare The foe in shivering fearful sort May lay him down in death to snort.

I am not convinced with Small that this belongs to the revision, even though it seems discontinuous with the following fragment of a Prodigal Child play. But in any case the hit at Shakespeare, if there really is one, remains unexplained. There is nothing else which points to so early a date as 1599 for his _Troilus and Cressida_. I note the following parallel from S. Rowlands, _The Letting of Humors Blood in the Head-Veine_ (1600), Sat. iv:

Be thou the Lady Cressit-light to mee, Sir Trollelolle I will proue to thee.

_The Honest Lawyer > 1615_

_S. R._ 1615, Aug. 14. (Taverner). ‘A play called The Honest Lawyer.’ _Richard Redmer_ (Arber, iii. 571). [Assigned by Redmer, apparently at once, to Richard Woodriffe.]

1616. The Honest Lawyer. Acted by the Queenes Maiesties Seruants. Written by S. S. _George Purslowe for Richard Woodroffe._ [Epilogue.]

_Edition_ by J. S. Farmer (1914, _S. F._).

A conceivable author is Samuel Sheppard (q.v.), but the absence of extant early work by him makes a definite attribution hazardous.

_How a Man may Choose a Good Wife from a Bad c. 1602_

1602. A pleasant conceited Comedie, Wherein is shewed how a man may chuse a good Wife from a bad. As it hath bene sundry times Acted by the Earle of Worcesters Seruants. _For Mathew Law._

1605; 1608; 1614; 1621; 1630; 1634.

_Editions_: 1824 (for Charles Baldwin), in _O. E. D._ (1825, i) and Dodsley^4 (1876–9, ix), and by A. E. H. Swaen (1912, _Materialien_, xxxv) and J. S. Farmer (1912, _T. F. T._).--_Dissertations_: C. R. Baskervill, _Sources and Analogues of H._ (1909, _M. L. A._ xxiv. 711); J. Q. Adams, _Thomas Heywood and H._ (1912, _E. S._ xlv. 30).

The B.M. copy of 1602 (C. 34, b. 53) has the note ‘Written by Ioshua Cooke’ in ink on the title-page. Presumably the author of _Greene’s Tu Quoque_ (q.v.) is meant, with which Swaen, xiii, declares that the play shows ‘absolutely no similarity or point of agreement’. Fleay, i. 289, suggested an ascription to Heywood on the ground of parallelisms with _The Wise Woman of Hogsdon_, and this case is elaborately and plausibly argued by Swaen and Adams. The date must be before Worcester’s begin to appear in Henslowe’s diary, 17 Aug. 1602. Fleay’s attempt to twist its mentions of a certain ‘Thomas’ in the text (l. 790) into references to Heywood himself and Thomas Blackwood, the actor, is mere childishness.

_Impatient Poverty (?)_

_S. R._ 1560, June 10. ‘ ... nyce wanton; impaciens poverte ...’ _John King_ (Arber, i. 128).

1560. A Newe Interlude of Impacyente pouerte newlye Imprynted. _John King._ [B.M. C. 34, i. 26, from Irish sale of 1906 (cf. _Jahrbuch_, xliii. 310). Engraved t.p.; on tablet at foot ‘T. R.’ Thomas Petit’s mark after colophon. The t.p. has also ‘Foure men may well and easelye playe thys Interlude’, with an arrangement of the parts.]

N.D. An new enterlude of Impacient pouerte newly Imprynted. [In Mostyn sale (1919). The t.p. has three woodcut figures. There is no imprint, but as the woodcuts are also found in W. Copland’s print of _Youth_ and as King’s copy of _Lusty Juventus_ also passed to Copland (1548–69), he was probably the printer.]

_S. R._ 1582, Jan. 15. Transfer from Sampson Awdeley to John Charlwood (Arber, ii. 405).

_Editions_ by J. S. Farmer (1907, _T. F. T._) and R. B. McKerrow (1911, _Materialien_, xxxiii).

The play has come to light since the issue of _The Mediaeval Stage_, and I therefore include it here, although it is pre-Elizabethan. The characters are Peace, Envy, Impatient Poverty (afterwards Prosperity), Conscience, Abundance, Misrule, ‘Collhasarde’, and a Summoner. The drama is a moral, non-controversial, and not even necessarily Protestant in tone. It sets out the mutability of the world and the defects of poverty and prosperity. The scene is a ‘place’, and there are allusions to Newgate and Tyburn. If the T. R. of the title-page is the same whose name is at the end of _Nice Wanton_, the play is probably not later than the reign of Edward VI; but the Summoner and allusions to penance and courts spiritual suggest an even earlier date. The final address to the ‘Soueraynes’ contains the following stanza:

Let vs pray al to that lorde of great magnificence To send amonge vs peace rest and vnyte And Jesu preserue our soueraigne Quene of preclare preeminence With al her noble consanguynyte And to sende them grace so the yssue to obtayne After them to rule this most chrysten realme.

The form of the companion stanzas suggests that the two last lines originally rhymed, and that a line has dropped out before them. Possibly an ending originally meant for Henry VIII and Jane Seymour has been altered with a view to making it appropriate to Elizabeth. The play is offered with other pre-Elizabethan plays by the company in _Sir Thomas More_, IV. i. 42, and was also in the obsolete library of Captain Cox (_Robert Laneham’s Letter_, ed. Furnivall, 30).

_Jack Drum’s Entertainment. 1600_

_S. R._ 1600, Sept. 8. ‘A booke Called Jack Drum’s enterteynmente. A commedy as yt bathe ben diuerse tymes Acted by the Children of Paules.’ _Felix Norton_ (Arber, iii. 172).

1600, Oct. 23. Transfer from Norton to Richard Oliff (Arber, iii. 175).

1601. Iacke Drums Entertainment: Or the Comedie of Pasquill and Katherine. As it hath bene sundry times plaide by the Children of Powles. _For Richard Olive._ [Introduction, i.e. Induction.]

1616.... Newly Corrected. _W. Stansby for Philip Knight._

1618.... The Actors 12 men, and 4 women. _For Nathaniel Fosbrooke._

_Editions_ by R. Simpson (1878, _S. of S._ ii. 125) and J. S. Farmer (1912, _T. F. T._).

All critics have recognized the style as Marston’s and some of the vocabulary is vomited in _Poetaster_; cf. Small, 93. The date is fixed to 1600 by allusions to hopes of ‘peace with Spaine’, ‘Kemps morice’, and ‘womens yeare’ (i. 37, 45, 166). There is little doubt that the critical Brabant Senior is Jonson, and that the play is that in which he told Drummond that Marston staged him. The cuckolding of Brabant Senior is based upon a story narrated by Jonson to Drummond (Laing, 21) as one in which he had played the active, not the passive, part. If he had imparted the same story to Marston, he not unnaturally resented the use made of it. The minor identifications suggested by Fleay, ii. 74, have nothing to commend them, except possibly that of Sir Edward Fortune with Edward Alleyn, who was building the Fortune in 1600. Were not this a Paul’s play, one might infer from the closing line,

Our _Fortune_ laughes, and all content abounds,

that it was given at the Fortune. Can the Admiral’s have shared it with Paul’s, as the Chamberlain’s shared _Satiromastix_? In iv. 37–48 Brabant Senior criticizes three ‘moderne wits’ whom he calls ‘all apes and guls’ and ‘vile imitating spirits’. They are Mellidus, Musus, and Decius. I take them to be Marston, Middleton, and Dekker, all writers for Paul’s; others take Decius for Drayton, to whom Sir John Davies applied the name, and Musus, by a confusion with Musaeus, for Chapman or Daniel. For v. 102–14, which bears on the history of the company, cf. ch. xii (Paul’s).

_The Life and Death of Jack Straw > 1593_

_S. R._ 1593, Oct. 23. ‘An enterlude of the lyfe and deathe of Jack Strawe.’ _John Danter_ (Arber, ii. 639).

1593. [Colophon, 1594]. The Life and Death of Iacke Straw, A notable Rebell in England: Who was kild in Smithfield by the Lord Maior of London. _John Danter, sold by William Barley._

1604. _For Thomas Pavier._

_Editions_ in Dodsley^4 (1874, v), and by H. Schütt (1901) and J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._).

Fleay, ii. 153, Schütt, and Robertson, 121, all incline to suggest the authorship, whole or in part, of Peele. Schütt would date _c._ 1588, but the theme is that of T. Nelson’s pageant of 1590–1, for which year a member of Walworth’s company, the Fishmongers, was Lord Mayor. The text of the play is very short, with only four acts.

_Jacob and Esau > 1558_

_S. R._ 1557–8. ‘An enterlude vpon the history of Jacobe and Esawe out of the xxvii chapeter of the fyrste boke of Moyses Called genyses.’ _Henry Sutton_ (Arber, i. 77).

1568. A newe mery and wittie Comedie or Enterlude, newely imprinted, treating vpon the Historie of Iacob and Esau, taken out of the xxvij. Chap. of the first booke of Moses, entituled Genesis. _Henrie Bynneman._

_Editions_ in Dodsley^4 (1874, ii), and by J. S. Farmer (1908, _T. F. T._).

The play must necessarily, from the date of the S. R. entry, be pre-Elizabethan, and should have been included in Appendix X of _The Mediaeval Stage_. C. C. Stopes, _Hunnis_, 265, and in _Athenaeum_ (28 April 1900), claims the authorship for Hunnis; W. Bang has suggested Udall, which seems plausible. The parts of Mido and Abra point to boy-actors.

_1 Jeronimo c. 1604_

1605. The First Part of Ieronimo. With the Warres of Portugall, and the life and death of Don Andræa. _For Thomas Pavier._ [Dumbshows.]

_Editions_ by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ i), in Dodsley^4 (1874, iv), and by F. S. Boas (1901, _Works of Kyd_).--_Dissertations_: J. E. Routh, _T. Kyd’s Rime Schemes and the Authorship of Soliman and Perseda and 1 J._ (1905, _M. L. N._ xx. 49); A. L. Elmquist, _Zur Frage nach dem Verfasser von 1 J._ (1909, _E. S._ xl. 309); A. Seeberger (1909, _Archiv für Stenographie_, iv. 306); K. Wiehl, _Thomas Kyd und die Autorschaft von ... 1 J._ (1912, _E. S._ xliv. 343); B. Neuendorff, _Zur Datierung des 1 J._ (1914, _Jahrbuch_, l. 88).

The ascription by Fleay, ii. 27, and Sarrazin to Kyd is rejected on stylistic grounds by R. Fischer, _Zur Kunstentwicklung der Englischen Tragödie_, 100, with whom Boas and other writers concur. A reference to the jubilee of 1600 (I. i. 25) points to a date at the beginning of the seventeenth century. If so, the play cannot be that revived by Strange’s for Henslowe in Feb. 1592 and given, sometimes under the title of _Don Horatio_, and sometimes under that of the _Comedy of Jeronimo_, during a run of, and several times on the night before, the _Spanish Tragedy_ (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 150, 154). It is, moreover, not a comedy. It may, however, be a later version of the same theme, motived by another revival of the _Spanish Tragedy_ by the Admiral’s in 1601–2. If so, it was probably itself due, not to the Admiral’s, but to the Chamberlain’s, and a piracy of their property by the Revels boys explains the jest at ‘Ieronimo _in decimo sexto_’ in the induction to the 1604 version of Marston’s _Malcontent_. It must be uncertain whether _1 Jeronimo_ was the ‘Komödie vom König in Spanien und dem Vice-Roy in Portugall’ given at Dresden in 1626 (Herz, 66, 76).

_The Troublesome Reign of King John 1587< >91_

1591. The Troublesome Raigne of Iohn King of England, with the discouerie of King Richard Cordelions Base sonne (vulgarly named, The Bastard Fawconbridge): also the death of King Iohn at Swinstead Abbey. As it was (sundry times) publikely acted by the Queenes Maiesties Players, in the honourable Citie of London. _For Sampson Clarke._ There is a Second part with separate signatures and title-page. The Second part of the troublesome Raigne of King Iohn, conteining the death of Arthur Plantaginet, the landing of Lewes, and the poysning of King Iohn at Swinstead Abbey. As ... London ... 1591. [The text of each part is preceded by lines ‘To the Gentlemen Readers’, and a head-piece, which has the initials W. D.]

1611. The First and Second Part ... As they were (sundry times) lately acted by the Queenes Maiesties Players. Written by W. Sh. _Valentine Simmes for John Helme._ [The signatures are continuous through both parts.]

1622.... as they were (sundry times) lately acted. Written by W. Shakespeare. _Augustine Mathewes for Thomas Dewes._

_Editions_ by G. Steevens (1760, _T. P._ ii), J. Nichols (1779, _Six Old Plays_, ii), W. C. Hazlitt (1875, _Sh. Libr._ v), F. G. Fleay, _King John_ (1878), F. J. Furnivall (1888, _Sh. Q_), J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._), F. J. Furnivall and J. Munro (1913, _Sh. Classics_).--_Dissertations_: E. Rose, _Shakespeare as an Adapter_ (_Macmillan’s Magazine_, Nov. 1878); G. C. Moore Smith, _Sh.’s K. J. and the T. R._ (1901, _Furnivall Miscellany_, 335); H. D. Sykes, _Sidelights on Shakespeare_, 99 (1919).

The authorship was assigned by Malone to Marlowe, by Pope to Shakespeare and W. Rowley, by Fleay, ii. 53, and _King John_, 34, to Greene, Peele, and Lodge, working on a Marlowian plot. Furnivall and Munro accept none of these theories, and the latter suggests a common authorship with the early _Leir_. Sykes argues strongly for Peele. The lines prefixed to Part I begin

You that with friendly grace of smoothed brow Have entertained the Scythian Tamburlaine.

They do not claim to be a prologue, and may have been added on publication. The play is not therefore necessarily later than _Tamburlaine_ (_c._ 1587). But the tone is that of the Armada period. Shakespeare used the play, with which, from the booksellers’ point of view, his _King John_ seems to have been treated as identical.

_Judith c. 1595_ (?)

[_MS._] _National Library of Wales, Peniarth_ (formerly _Hengwrt_), _MS._ 508.

G. A. Jones, _A Play of Judith_ (1917, _M. L. N._ xxxii. 1) describes the MS. which contains the Latin text of the _Judithae Constantia_ of Cornelius Schonaeus, of which a reprint was issued in London in 1595, together with an incomplete English translation in unrhymed verse written as prose, perhaps as a school exercise, in a late sixteenth-century or early seventeenth-century hand.

_A Knack to Know an Honest Man. 1594_

_S. R._ 1595, Nov. 26. ‘A booke intituled The most Rare and plesaunt historie of A knack to knowe an honest man.’ _Cuthbert Burby_ (Arber, iii. 54).

1596. A Pleasant Conceited Comedie, called, A knacke to know an honest Man. As it hath beene sundrie times plaied about the Citie of London. _For Cuthbert Burby._

_Editions_ by H. De Vocht (1910, _M. S. R._) and J. S. Farmer (1912, _T. F. T._).

The play was produced by the Admiral’s on 22 Oct. 1594, and twenty-one performances were given between that date and 3 Nov. 1596 (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 171). The text is confused and probably surreptitious.

_A Knack to Know a Knave. 1592_

_S. R._ 1594, Jan. 7. ‘A commedie entitled “a Knack to knowe a knave” newlye sett fourth as it hath sundrye tymes been plaid by Ned. Allen and his Companie with Kemps applauded Merymentes of the menn of Goteham.’ _Richard Jones_ (Arber, ii. 643).

1594. A most pleasant and merie new Comedie, Intituled, A Knacke to knowe a knave. Newlie set foorth, as it hath sundrie tymes bene played by Ed. Allen and his Companie. With Kemps applauded Merrimentes of the men of Goteham, in receiuing the King into Goteham. _Richard Jones._

_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1851, _Five Old Plays_), in Dodsley^4 (1874, vi), and by J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._).

Strange’s men produced ‘the Knacke to Knowe a Knave’ on 10 June 1592, and played it seven times to 24 Jan. 1593. Henslowe usually enters it as ‘the cnacke’. Fleay, 100, suggests that the _Osric_, revived by the Admiral’s men on 3 and 7 Feb. 1597, may also be this play. Both Fleay, ii. 310, and Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 156, suggest that Kempe’s ‘merriments’ are to be found in sc. 12, and that of the rest the romantic part may be Peele’s and the moral part Wilson’s. Gayley (_R. E. C._ i. 422) would like to find in the play the comedy written by Greene and the ‘young Juvenall’, Nashe. The character Cuthbert Cutpurse the Conicatcher is from the pamphlet (cf. s.v. Greene) entered in S. R. on 21 April 1592, and the story of Titus Andronicus is alluded to in F_{2}^v:

As Titus was vnto the Roman Senators, When he had made a conquest on the Goths.

_Leire > 1594_

_S. R._ 1594, May 14. ‘A booke entituled, The moste famous Chronicle historye of Leire kinge of England and his Three Daughters.’ _Adam Islip_ (Arber, ii. 649). [Islip’s name is crossed out, and Edward White’s substituted.]

1605, May 8. ‘A booke called “the Tragecall historie of kinge Leir and his Three Daughters &c”, As it was latelie Acted.’ _Simon Stafford_ (Arber, iii. 289). [Assigned the same day by Stafford with the consent of William Leake to John Wright, ‘provided that Simon Stafford shall haue the printinge of this booke’.]

1605. The True Chronicle History of King Leir, and his three daughters, Gonorill, Ragan, and Cordelia. As it hath bene diuers and sundry times lately acted. _Simon Stafford for John Wright._

_S. R._ 1624, June 29. Transfer of ‘Leire and his daughters’ from Mrs. White to E. Alde (Arber, iv. 120).

_Editions_ by J. Nichols (1779, _S. O. P._ ii), W. C. Hazlitt (1875, _Sh. Libr._ ii. 2), W. W. Greg (1907, _M. S. R._), S. Lee (1909, _Sh. Classics_), J. S. Farmer (1910, _T. F. T._), R. Fischer (1914, _Quellen zu König Lear_).--_Dissertations_: W. Perrett, _The Story of King Lear_ (1904, _Palaestra_, xxxv); R. A. Law, _The Date of King Lear_ (1906, _M. L. A._ xxi. 462); H. D. Sykes, _Sidelights on Shakespeare_, 126 (1919).

The Queen’s and Sussex’s revived ‘kinge leare’ for Henslowe on 6 and 8 April 1594, shortly before the first S. R. entry (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 162). As the play is not named in the Sussex’s repertory of 1593–4, there is a presumption that it belonged to the Queen’s. The authorship is quite obscure. Fleay, 90, assigns it to Lodge and Peele; Fleay, 97, to Lodge and Greene; Fleay, ii. 51, to Lodge and Kyd. Robertson, 176, thinks the claim for Lodge indecisive, and surmises the presence of Greene. Sykes argues for Peele. Lee hints at Rankins. The publishing history is also difficult. The entries of 1605 appear to ignore White’s copyright, although this was still alive in his son’s widow in 1624. Lee suggests that the Stafford-Wright enterprise was due to negotiation between Wright and White, whose apprentice he had been. The play was clearly regarded as distinct from that of Shakespeare, which was entered to N. Butter and J. Busby on 22 Nov. 1607, and it, though based on its predecessor, is far more than a revision of it. It seems a little improbable that _Leire_ should have been revived as late as 1605, and the ‘Tragecall’ and ‘lately acted’ of the title-page, taken by themselves, would point to an attempt by Stafford to palm off the old play as Shakespeare’s. But although 1605 is not an impossible date for Shakespeare’s production, 1606 is on other grounds more probable.

_Liberality and Prodigality. 1601_

1602. A Pleasant Comedie, Shewing the contention betweene Liberalitie and Prodigalitie. As it was playd before her Maiestie. _Simon Stafford for George Vincent._ [Prologue and Epilogue.]

_Editions_ by J. S. Farmer (1912, _T. F. T._) and W. W. Greg (1913, _M. S. R._).

A reference to ‘childish yeeres’ in the prologue points to boy actors. The trial (l. 1261) is for an alleged crime on 4 Feb., 43 Eliz. (1601), and the next court performance after this date was on 22 Feb. 1601 by the Chapel, to which occasion the production may be assigned. Elizabeth could be described as a ‘prince’, so that the use of this term does not bear out Fleay, ii. 323, in assuming a revival of an Edwardian play, but the characters are mainly abstract and the style archaic for the seventeenth century, and it is conceivable that the _Prodigality_ of 1567–8 had been revived.

_Locrine c. 1591_

_S. R._ 1594, July 20. ‘The lamentable Tragedie of Locrine, the eldest sonne of Kinge Brutus, discoursinge the warres of the Brittans, &c.’ _Thomas Creede_ (Arber, ii. 656).

1595. The Lamentable Tragedie of Locrine, the eldest sonne of King Brutus, discoursing the warres of the Britaines, and Hunnes, with their discomfiture: The Britaines victorie with their Accidents, and the death of Albanact. No lesse pleasant then profitable. Newly set foorth, ouerseene and corrected, By W. S. _Thomas Creede_. [Prologue and Epilogue.]

1664; 1685. [F_{3}; F_{4} of Shakespeare.]

_Editions_ of 1734 (J. Tonson), 1734 (R. Walker), and by R. B. McKerrow (1908, _M. S. R._), J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._), and in _Sh. Apocrypha_.--_Dissertations_: R. Brotanek (1900, _Anglia-Beiblatt_, xi. 202); C. Crawford, _Edmund Spenser, L. and Selimus_ (1901, 9 _N. Q._ vii. 61; _Collectanea_, i. 47); W. S. Gaud, _The Authorship of L._ (1904, _M. P._ i. 409); T. Erbe, _Die L.-Sage_ (1904); J. M. Robertson, _Did Sh. Write T. A.?_ (1905); E. Köppel, _L. und Selimus_ (1905, _Jahrbuch_, xli. 193); A. Neubner, _König Lokrin. Deutsche Übersetzung mit literar-historischer Einleitung_ (1908); F. G. Hubbard (_MS._ cited by J. W. Cunliffe in _C. H._ v. 84); C. A. Harper, _L. and the Faerie Queene_ (1913, _M.L.R._ viii. 369).

The interpretation of the W. S. of the title-page in F_{3} of 1664 as indicating Shakespeare may be accurate, but does not suggest anything more than revision for a revival, or perhaps only for the press. Some revision is proved by the allusion in the epilogue to Elizabeth,

That eight and thirtie yeares the scepter swayd,

an allusion which was not chronologically accurate until the close of the thirty-eighth regnal year on 16 Nov. 1596, after the play was in print, and could hardly have been made before the beginning of that year on 17 Nov. 1595, after it had been entered in S. R. As to the original author, one is bound to be sceptical of the unconfirmed notice by J. P. Collier (_Bibliographical Account_, i. 95) of an ‘inscription on an existing copy of the play ... assigning the authorship of it to Charles Tylney’. This, says Collier, ‘is the handwriting of Sir George Buck. He adds the information that he himself had written the dumb shows by which it was illustrated, and that it was originally called _Elstrild_’. Charles Tilney was a cousin of the Master of the Revels, and was executed for complicity in the Babington plot in 1586 (Camden, _transl._ 303). The statement, if true, would give an early date to the play, which the dumb shows and other ‘Senecan’ characteristics have been supposed to confirm. Fleay, ii. 321, boldly conjectures that the epilogue originally referred to ‘eight and twentie yeares’, and that the play was ‘by’ in the sense of ‘about’, Tilney, supposing the moral drawn against ‘ciuill discord’ instigated by ‘priuate amours’ to point at Mary of Scots. Recent investigations, however, concerning the relations of the play to Spenser on the one hand, and to _Selimus_ (q.v.) on the other, suggest a date not earlier and not much later than 1591, either for the original composition of the play, or for a very substantial revision of it. Most of the points are well summed up by Cunliffe in _C. H._ v. 84. _Locrine_ may borrow historical facts from the _Faerie Queene_ (1590); it does not borrow phrases from it. It does, however, borrow phrases and whole lines, with more than Elizabethan plagiarism, from Spenser’s _Complaints_ (1591). There is also an apparent loan from Wilmot’s _Tancred and Gismund_ (1591). Some of the _Complaints_ passages are also borrowed by _Selimus_, which makes similar booty both of _Locrine_ itself and of the _Faerie Queene_. I agree with Cunliffe that the evidence is clearly in favour of _Selimus_ being the later of the two plays, but am not so certain that the second borrowing of the _Complaints_ passages tells against a common authorship of the two. It would be so, ordinarily, but here we have to do with an abnormal plagiarist. Whoever the author, he belongs to the school of the university wits. Marlowe is preferred by Malone, Peele by Fleay, Ward, Gaud, and for all but the comic scenes by Hopkinson, Greene by Brooke, Peele and Greene by Robertson.

_The London Prodigal. 1603 < > 05_

1605. The London Prodigall. As it was plaide by the Kings Maiesties seruants. By William Shakespeare. _T. C. for Nathaniel Butter._

1664; 1685. [F_{3}; F_{4} of Shakespeare.]

_Editions_ in 1709, 1734 (J. Tonson), 1734 (R. Walker), by J. S. Farmer (1910, T. F. T.), and in _Sh. Apocrypha_.

Shakespeare’s authorship is accepted by few modern critics. An exception is Hopkinson. Fleay, _Shakespeare_, 299; _B. C._ i. 152, thinks that he may have ‘plotted’ the play, but that the writer is the same as that of _Thomas Lord Cromwell_, whom he believes to be Drayton. Perhaps he is right in regarding an allusion to service ‘under the king’ (II. i. 16) as pointing to a Jacobean date. Brooke suggests Marston or Dekker. A play ‘von einem ungehorsamen Khauffmanns Sohn’ appears in Anglo-German repertories of 1604 and 1606 (Herz, 65, 94).

_Look About You. 1599_ (?)

1600. A Pleasant Commodie, Called Looke about you. As it was lately played by the right honourable the Lord High Admirall his seruaunts. _For William Ferbrand._

_Editions_ in Dodsley^4 (1874, vii), and by J. S. Farmer (1912, _T. F. T._) and W. W. Greg (1913, _M. S. R._).

At the end of the play Gloucester proposes to fight the Saracens in Portugal, and as Anthony Wadeson (q.v.) was writing _The Honourable Life of the Humorous Earl of Gloster with his Conquest of Portugal_ in June or July 1601, it has been suggested by Fleay, ii. 267, and Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 204, that Wadeson was also the author of _Look About You_. The play ought itself to appear somewhere in Henslowe’s diary, and Fleay may be right in identifying it with the _Bear a Brain_ of 1599, although the only recorded payment for that play was not to Wadeson, but to Dekker. There are reminiscences of _R.J._ II. iv. 42; III. v. 221 in l. 2329, and of _1 Hen. IV_, II. iv. 295 in l. 2426.

_The Rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune. 1582_ (?)

1589. The Rare Triumphs of Loue and Fortune. Plaide before the Queenes most excellent Maiestie: wherein are many fine Conceites with great delight. _E. A. for Edward White._

_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1851, Roxb. Club) and in Dodsley^4 (1874, vi).

Fleay, ii. 26, assigns the play to Kyd on account of the similarity of the plot to that of _Soliman and Perseda_, but this is hardly convincing. On 30 Dec. 1582 Derby’s players performed _A History of Love and Fortune_ at court, for which a city and battlement were provided by the Revels office. If the two plays were identical, as dates and style make not improbable, the city presumably served as a background for the scenes at court, while the battlement was used for the presenters Venus and Fortune, who are said in Act I to be ‘set sunning like a crow in a gutter’.

_Love Feigned and Unfeigned_ (?)

[_MS._] On first and last leaves (sig. a 1 and ii. 8 of a copy (Brit. Mus. IB. 2172) of Johannes Herolt, _Sermones Discipuli_ (1492).

_Edition_ by A. Esdaile (1908, _M. S. C._ i. 17).--_Dissertation_: E. B. Daw, _L. F. and U. and the English Anabaptists_ (1917, _M. L. A._ xxxii. 267).

The text is a fragment, but there may have been more, as the original fly-leaves and end papers of the volume are gone. Sir G. F. Warner thinks the hand ‘quite early seventeenth century’. The corrections in the same hand are such as rather to suggest an original composition, but may also be those of an expert copyist. Miss Daw thinks that the date of composition was in the seventeenth century, and that the play represents ideas belonging to (_a_) the Anabaptists and (_b_) the Family of Love, both of which were then active. She even suggests the possible authorship of the controversialist Edmond Jessop. Personally, I find it difficult to assign to the seventeenth century a moral written precisely in the vein of the middle of the sixteenth century, even to the notes (2, 69, 103) of action ‘in place’ (cf. ch. xix), and a phrase (76),

Why stare ye at me thus I wene ye be come to se a play,

closely parallel to _Wit and Wisdom_, 12, which is probably pre-Elizabethan. The Jacobean activity of Anabaptism and Familism only revived movements which had been familiar in England from Edwardian times, were particularly vigorous in 1575, and had apparently died down during the last decade of Elizabeth’s reign; cf. for Anabaptists C. Burrage, _The Early English Dissenters_ (1912), and for Familists s.v. Middleton, _Family of Love_.

_The Maid’s Metamorphosis. 1600_

_S. R._ 1600, July 24 (Hartwell). ‘Two plaies or thinges thone called the maides metamorphosis thother gyve a man luck and throw him into the Sea.’ _Richard Oliffe_ (Arber, iii. 168).

1600. The Maydes Metamorphosis. As it hath beene sundrie times Acted by the Children of Powles. _Thomas Creede for Richard Olive._ [Prologue.]

_Editions_ by A. H. Bullen (1882, _O. E. P._ i), R. W. Bond (1902, _Lyly_, iii. 341), and J. S. Farmer (1912, _T. F. T._).

Archer’s play list of 1656 (Greg, _Masques_, lxxxvi) started an ascription to Lyly, which was probably suggested by the similarity of name to _Love’s Metamorphosis_. Daniel, with Lyly as reviser, is substituted by Fleay, ii. 324; Day by Gosse and Bullen; Day, with Lyly as reviser, by Bond. A limit of date is given by the reopening of Paul’s in 1599, and IV. i. 157 points to the ‘leape yeare’ 1600. Fleay thinks that the play was performed at Anne Russell’s wedding on 16 June 1600 (cf. ch. V), but, though ‘three or foure Muses’ dance at the end of the play, there is no indication of a mask, while the accounts of the wedding say nothing of a play.

_The Marriage of Wit and Science > 1570_

_S. R._ 1569–70. ‘A play intituled the maryage of Wytt and Scyence.’ _Thomas Marsh_ (Arber, i. 399).

N.D. A new and Pleasant enterlude intituled the mariage of Witte and Science. _Thomas Marsh._

_Editions_ in Dodsley^4 (1874, ii) and by J. S. Farmer (1909, _T. F. T._).

An allegorical moral, indebted to John Redford’s _Wit and Science_ (_Med. Stage_, ii. 454). Fleay, 64; ii. 288, 294, proposes to identify this with the _Wit and Will_ played at court in 1567–8 (cf. App. B), as Will is a character.

_Meleager_ (?)

B. Dobell, in _Athenaeum_ for 14 Sept. 1901, described a MS. in his possession with the title A Register of all the Noble Men of England sithence the Conquest Created. The date of compilation is probably 1570–90. On f. 3 is the argument in English of a play headed:

Children of Paules Play. Publij Ovidij Nasonis Meleager.

Presumably the play was in English also. It was classical in manner with five acts, a chorus, and dumb-shows. Act I opened with a dumb-show before Melpomene of the Fates, Althea and the burning brand. It seems distinct from the _Meleager_ of W. Gager (q.v.).

_The Merry Devil of Edmonton c. 1603_

_S. R._ 1607, Oct. 22 (Buck). ‘A Plaie called the Merry Devill of Edmonton.’ _Arthur Johnson_ (Arber, iii. 362). [_The Life and Death of the Merry Devil of Edmonton_, entered 5 April 1608, is a pamphlet by T. B.]

1608. The Merry Devill of Edmonton. As it hath beene sundry times Acted, by his Maiesties Seruants, at the Globe, on the banke-side. _Henry Ballard for Arthur Johnson._ [Prologue; Induction.]

1612; 1617; 1626; 1631.

_S. R._ 1653, Sept. 9. ‘The merry devil of Edmonton, by W^m: Shakespeare.’ _H. Moseley_ (Eyre, i. 429).

1655. _For William Gilbertson._

_Editions_ in Dodsley (1875, x), and by H. Walker (1897, _T. D._), J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._), J. M. Manly (1913, _R. E. C._ ii), and in collections of _Sh. Apocrypha_.

Moseley’s attribution was repeated in the play lists of Archer in 1656 and Kirkman in 1661 (Greg, _Masques_, lxxxix), and the play was bound with _Mucedorus_ and _Fair Em_ as ‘Shakespeare, vol. i’ in Charles II’s library. The attempt of Fleay, ii. 313 (cf. his _Shakespeare_, 294), to show that Sir John the priest was originally called Oldcastle and gave a name to the play is too far-fetched, but it leads him to support a tradition originally based on a note by Coxeter (_Dodsley_^2, v. 247) that the author was Drayton. He puts it in 1597, apparently because Jessica calls Lancelot a ‘merry devil’ in _M. V._ II. iii. 2. But the Host is pretty clearly copied from him of the _Merry Wives_ (_c._ 1599), and allusions to the king’s hunting (IV. i. 158, 186), although perhaps merely part of the historic action, might also have been topical under James I. The play existed by 1604, when it is mentioned in T. M.’s _Black Book_ (Bullen, _Middleton_, viii. 36). Jonson calls it ‘your dear delight’ in the prologue to _The Devil is an Ass_ (1616), and it was revived at court on 3 May 1618 (Cunningham, xlv).

_Minds. 1575 <_

N.D. Comoedia. A worke in ryme, contayning an Enterlude of Myndes, witnessing the Mans Fall from God and Christ. Set forth by H. N. and by him newly perused and amended. Translated out of Base-Almayns into English. [_No imprint or colophon._] [Preface to the Reader; Prologue in dialogue.]

This is a translation of the Low German _Comoedia: Ein Gedicht des Spels van Sinnen, anno 1575_ of Henrick Niklaes, the founder of the mystical sect known as the Family of Love (cf. s.v. Middleton).

_Misogonus. 1560 < > 77_

[_MS._] In collection of the Duke of Devonshire. [By two hands, of which one is only responsible for the t.p. and some corrections in the text. The t.p. has the heading ‘A mery and ρ ... Misogonus’, followed by the names of the speakers and ‘Laurentius Bariωna Ketthering die 20 Novembris Anno 1577’. The text, which is apparently imperfect, stopping in iv. 4, is probably all in one other hand, together with a prologue, at the end of which is ‘Thomas Rychardes’. The inscriptions ‘Anthony Rice’ on the title-page, ‘Thomas Warde Barfold 1577’ on the prologue-page, and ‘W. Wyll[~m]’ and ‘John York Jesu’ in margins of the text, are all in later hands, some of them not of the sixteenth century.]

_Editions_ by A. Brandl (1898, _Q. W. D._), J. S. Farmer (1906), and R. W. Bond (1911, _E. P. I._).--_Dissertation_: G. L. Kittredge, _The M. and Laurence Johnson_ (1901, _J. G. P._ iii. 335).

Brandl, following Collier, ii. 368, 378, dates the play in 1560, on the ground of an allusion in IV. i. 131 to ‘the rising rection ith north’, i.e. the Pilgrimage of Grace of 1536, as twenty-four years before the time of action, but it is not quite clear that the rambling dialogue of rustics, in which the passage occurs, justifies the interpretation put upon it; nor is the allusion in III. ii. 3 to the weathercock of Paul’s, set up in 1553 and destroyed in 1561, any more conclusive, as the phrase may have become proverbial. The style might be either of _c._ 1560 or, in a provincial play, of _c._ 1577, or, as Bond suggests, a reviser of _c._ 1577 might have revised a text of ten or twelve years earlier. For author, Fleay, 16, 58, 60, taking the piece to be that disliked at court on 31 Dec. 1559, offered Richard Edwardes, and is followed by Wallace, i. III. There is nothing to suggest that the play was ever performed at court at all. It seems more natural to look for him, either in the Thomas Richards or in the Laurence Barjona of the MS. Conceivably Richards might be the T. R. whose initials appear on the prints of _Impatient Poverty_ and _Nice Wanton_ (cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 460) in 1560. Barjona might be the name of a converted Jew. But Kittredge regards it as an anagram of Johnson, and points out that a Laurence Johnson matriculated at Christ’s College, Cambridge, in 1570, and took his B.A. in 1574 and his M.A. in 1577, while a Thomas Richards of Trinity took his B.A. in 1571, and a Thomas Ward of Jesus in 1580. A reference to Cambridge learning (III. iii. 74) does not, of course, go far to prove Cambridge authorship. Anyway, the Barjona of the title-page is probably the ‘Laur. Bariona’ who signed, also from Kettering, the epistle to a book called _Cometographia_ on 20 Jan. 1579. It is the work of an Anglican; not therefore of the Laurence Johnson, who was an Oxford Jesuit. I can add a few facts. A Laurence Jonson, with one Chr. Balam and George Haysyll of Cambridge, made a complaint through Lord North to the queen against the Bishop of Ely in Dec. 1575 (_S. P. D. Eliz._ cv. 88). This is interesting, because George Haysell of Wisbech was apparently one of Worcester’s players (cf. ch. xiii) in 1583. There is also a Laurence Johnson who on 12 June 1572 wrote to Lord Burghley about his service in the Mint (_S. P. D. Eliz._ lxxxviii. 17); possibly the same of whom Burghley wrote to his ‘brother’ William Herlle on 3 April 1575, that he could do nothing for him (_S. P. D. Eliz._ ciii. 24). Finally a Laurence Johnson engraved plates in 1603 (_D. N. B._).

_Sir Thomas More c. 1596_

[_MS._] _B.M. Harleian MS._ 7368. [The wrapper is endorsed, ‘The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore’, and is in part composed of a vellum leaf also used for that of Munday’s _John a Kent and John a Cumber_. The character of the damp stains on the two MSS. shows that they must for some time have lain together. Two passages of the original text have disappeared, and six passages have been inserted, on fresh leaves or slips, to replace these and other cancelled matter. One of these leaves appears to have been misplaced. Greg finds seven distinct hands: (_a_) the writer of the original text, whom he has now identified (_M. L. R._ viii. 89) with Munday; (_b_) five contributors to the insertions, of whom one appears also to have acted as a playhouse corrector, another (writing 30 lines) seems clearly to be Dekker, and a third (writing 148 lines) has been taken (v. _infra_) for Shakespeare; (_c_) the Master of the Revels, Edmund Tilney, who has given some directions as censor, of which the most important, at the beginning, runs: ‘Leaue out the insurrection wholy & the Cause ther off & begin with S^r Tho: Moore att the mayors sessions with a reportt afterwardes off his good service don being Shriue off London vppon a mutiny Agaynst the Lumbardes only by A shortt reporte & nott otherwise att your own perrilles E. Tyllney’. Whether Greg is right in calling this a ‘conditional licence’ I am not sure, but he corrects earlier writers by pointing out that the extant insertions do not carry out Tilney’s instructions, and were probably made before the play reached him. Although therefore the appearance of an actor’s name in a s.d. suggests that the play was cast for performance, it is not likely that it was actually performed, at any rate in its present state.]

_Editions_ by A. Dyce (1844, _Sh. Soc._), A. F. Hopkinson (1902), C. F. Tucker Brooke (1908, _Sh. Apocrypha_), J. S. Farmer (1910, photo-facsimile in _T. F. S._), and W. W. Greg (1911, _M. S. R._).--_Dissertations_: R. Simpson, _Are there any extant MSS. in Sh.’s Handwriting?_ (1871, 4 _N. Q._ viii. 1); J. Spedding, _Sh.’s Handwriting_ (1872, 4 _N. Q._ x. 227), _On a Question concerning a Supposed Specimen of Sh.’s Handwriting_ (1879, _Reviews and Discussions_); B. Nicholson, _The Plays of S. T. M. and Hamlet_ (1884, 6 _N. Q._ x. 423); C. R. Baskervill, _Some Parallels to Bartholomew Fair_ (1908, _M. P._ vi. 109); W. W. Greg, _Autograph Plays by A. Munday_ (1913, _M. L. R._ viii. 89); L. L. Schücking, _Das Datum der pseudo-Sh. S. T. M._ (1913, _E. S._ xlvi. 228); E. M. Thompson, _Shakespeare’s Handwriting_ (1916) and _The Autograph MSS. of Anthony Munday_ (1919, _Bibl. Soc. Trans._ xiv. 325); P. Simpson, _The Play of S. T. M. and Sh.’s Hand in It_ (1917, 3 _Library_, viii. 79); J. D. Wilson and others, _Sh.’s Hand in the Play of S. T. M._ (1919, _T. L. S._ 24 April onwards); W. J. Lawrence and others, _Was S.T.M. ever Acted?_ (1920, _T.L.S._ 1 July onwards); M. A. Bayfield and E. M. Thompson, _Shakespeare’s Handwriting_ (1921, _T. L. S._ 30 June, 4 Aug.).

The play has been dated _c._ 1586 and _c._ 1596, in both of which years there were disturbances with some analogy to the ‘Ill May Day’ of the plot, and an early date has been regarded as favoured by mentions (ll. 1006, 1148) of Oagle a wigmaker, since men of the name were serving the Revels Office in this and similar capacities from 1571 to 1585 (Feuillerat, _Eliz., passim_), and by the appearance as a messenger in a stage-direction (Greg, p. 89) of T. Goodal, an actor traceable with Berkeley’s men in 1581 and with the Admiral’s or Strange’s in the plot of _The Seven Deadly Sins_, _c._ 1590–1. But Goodal may have acted much longer, and the Admiral’s men had business relations with a ‘Father Ogell’ in Feb. 1600 (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 300). Greg, after comparing Munday’s script in the play with other and better datable examples of that script, inclines to put it ‘between 1596 and 1602, say 1598–1600’, and Sir E. M. Thompson, on a further review of the same evidence, suggests 1592 or 1593. This, however, involves putting the MS. of _John a Kent and John a Cumber_ (cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Munday) back to 1590, which, although palaeographically possible, is inconsistent with evidence pointing to its production by the Admiral’s in 1594. Certain parallels with _Julius Caesar_ and _Hamlet_ might suggest the latter part of the possible period, although the parallel suggested by Schücking with Fletcher’s _The Tamer Tamed_ is too slight to bear out his date of 1605–8, and the attempt of Fleay (ii. 312; _Shakespeare_, 292) to identify the play with the _Abuses_ of Paul’s in 1606 is guess-work. Jonson’s apparent debt to _S. T. M._ in _Bartholomew Fair_, pointed out by Baskervill, is also in favour of a latish date. Obviously the mention of ‘Mason among the Kings players’ (l. 1151) does not prove a Jacobean date, as Henry VIII had players. No actor of the name in either reign is known, although an Alexander Mason was marshal of the royal minstrels in 1494 (Collier, i. 45). Account must be taken of the support given by Sir E. M. Thompson to the theory of R. Simpson and Spedding that three of the added pages are in the hand of Shakespeare. This is based on a minute comparison with the few undoubted fragments, almost entirely signatures, of Shakespeare’s writing. Both hands use ‘the native English script’ and are ‘of an ordinary type’, without marked individual character ‘to any great extent’, although slight peculiarities, such as ‘the use of the fine upstroke as an ornamental adjunct to certain letters’, are common to them. The demonstration would have been more convincing had the hands been less ‘ordinary’, but Sir E. M. Thompson’s authority is great, and some support is furnished by P. Simpson from the character of the punctuation in the addition, and by J. D. Wilson from some orthographic resemblances to the more reliable Shakespearian quartos. Sir E. M. Thompson’s views are criticized in G. Greenwood, _Shakespeare’s Handwriting_ (1920). If Shakespeare was the author, the analogies between the matter of the addition and the Jack Cade scenes of _Henry VI_ would be in favour of an earlier date, if that were possible, than 1596 or even 1594, although I should not like to be committed to the view that Shakespeare might not have scribbled the fragment at any time in the sixteenth century. On a balance of the mixed literary and palaeographical evidence before us, the safest guess seems to be 1596. As to the rest of the authorship, Dr. Greg’s discoveries point to Munday, with some help from Dekker. Fleay’s argument (_Sh._ 292) for Lodge and Drayton is flimsy. If Shakespeare had a share, the company was probably the Chamberlain’s. Goodal’s name proves nothing as to this.

_Mucedorus > 1598; 1611_

1598. A most pleasant Comedie of Mucedorus, the Kings sonne of Valentia and Amadine the Kings daughter of Arragon, with the merie conceites of Mouse. Newly set foorth, as it hath bin sundrie times plaide in the honorable Cittie of London. Very delectable and full of mirth. _For William Jones._ [Arrangement of parts for eight actors; Induction.]

1606. _For William Jones._

1610.... Amplified with new additions, as it was acted before the Kings Maiestie at Whitehall on Shroue-sunday night. By his Highness Seruants vsually playing at the Globe. Very delectable, and full of conceited Mirth. _For William Jones._ [Arrangement of parts for ten actors; Prologue. Collier professes to follow a print of 1609 with this altered title, otherwise unknown; cf. Greg in _Jahrbuch_, xl. 104.]

1611; 1613; 1615.

_S. R._ 1618, Sept. 17. Transfer by Sarah, widow of William Jones, to John Wright (Arber, iii. 632).

1618; 1619; 1621; 1626; N.D. [1629] fragm.; 1631; 1634; 1639; N.D. [1639 < > 63]; 1663; 1668.

_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1824) and with _Shakespeare_ (1878), N. Delius (1874), in Dodsley^4, vii (1874), Warnke-Proescholdt (1878), J. S. Farmer (1910, _T. F. T._), and with _Sh. Apocrypha._--_Dissertations_: R. Simpson, _On Some Plays Attributed to Sh._ (1875, _N. S. S. Trans._ 155); W. Wagner, _Ueber und zu M._ (1876, _Jahrbuch_, xi. 59), _Neue Conjecturen zum M._ (1879, _Jahrbuch_, xiv. 274); K. Elze, _Noten und Conjecturen_ (1878, _Jahrbuch_, xiii. 45), _Nachträgliche Bemerkungen zu M._ (1880, _Jahrbuch_, xv. 339), _Last Notes on M._ (1883, _E. S._ vi. 217); E. Soffé, _ IST M. ein Schauspiel Sh.’s?_ (1887, Brünn Progr.); W. W. Greg, _On the Editions of M._ (1904, _Jahrbuch_, xl. 95).

It is difficult to date with precision the revival for which the additions printed in the Q. of 1610 (1610/1?) were written, especially as the genuineness of the Q. of 1609, in which Collier stated that he found these additions, cannot be verified, since the accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber do not specify the exact days on which the numerous appearances of the King’s men at court during the winters of 1608–9, 1609–10, and 1610–11 took place. The conjecture of Fleay (ii. 50; _Shakespeare_, 303) that the additions date from 1606 was largely based on a guess that they appeared in the Q. of 1606, which he had not seen. The added or altered passages are the prologue; i. 1, 2; iv. 1; parts of v. 2; and the final lines of the induction. The prologue wishes James security

From blemisht Traytors, stayn’d with Periurie.

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:

_Envie._ Comedie, thou art a shallow Goose; Ile ouerthrow thee in thine owne intent, And make thy fall my Comick merriment.

_Comedie._ Thy pollicie wants grauitie; thou art Too weake. Speake, Fiend, as how?

_Env._ Why, thus: From my foule Studie will I hoyst a Wretch, A leane and hungry Meager Canniball, Whose iawes swell to his eyes with chawing Malice: And him Ile make a Poet.

_Com._ What’s that to th’ purpose?

_Env._ This scrambling Rauen, with his needie Beard, Will I whet on to write a Comedie, Wherein shall be compos’d darke sentences, Pleasing to factious braines: And euery other where place me a Iest, Whose high abuse shall more torment then blowes: Then I my selfe (quicker then Lightning) Will flie me to a puisant Magistrate, And waighting with a Trencher at his backe, In midst of iollitie, rehearse those gaules, (With some additions) So lately vented in your Theator. He, vpon this, cannot but make complaint, To your great danger, or at least restraint.

_Com._ Ha, ha, ha! I laugh to hear thy folly; This is a trap for Boyes, not Men, nor such, Especially desertfull in their doinges, Whose stay’d discretion rules their purposes. I and my faction do eschew those vices.

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. 82^v. ‘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 Dodsley^4 (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 Dodsley^4 (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’:

Surelie it made our poet a staide man, Kept his proude necke from baser lambskins weare, Had like to have made him senior sophister. He was faine to take his course by Germanie Ere he could gett a silie poore degree. Hee never since durst name a peece of cheese, Thoughe Chessire seems to priviledge his name. His looke was never sanguine since that daye; Nere since he laughte to see a mimick playe.

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):

In Scholers fortunes twise forlorne and dead Twise hath our weary play earst laboured. Making them Pilgrims to Pernassus hill, Then penning their return with ruder quill.

_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,