Part i

, Bullen, _Introd._ 8 and Fleay, i. 107, make divergent suggestions as to the division of responsibility between Day and Chettle. At l. 2177 is the s.d. ‘Enter Captain Westford, Sill Clark’; probably the performance in which this actor took part was a Caroline one.

_Law Tricks, or Who Would Have Thought It. 1604_

_S. R._ 1608, March 28 (Buck). ‘A booke called A most wytty and merry conceited comedie called who would a thought it or Lawetrykes.’ _Richard Moore_ (Arber, iii. 372).

1608. Law-Trickes or, who would have Thought it. As it hath bene diuers times Acted by the Children of the Reuels. Written by John Day. _For Richard More._ [Epistle by the Book to the Reader; Epilogue.]

The name given to the company suggests that the play was on the stage in 1605–6. But I think the original production must have been in 1604, as the dispute between Westminster and Winchester for ‘terms’, in which Winchester is said to have been successful, ‘on Saint Lukes day, coming shalbe a twelue-month’ (ed. Bullen, p. 61) can only refer to the term held at Winchester in 1603. An inundation in July is also mentioned (p. 61), and Stowe, _Annales_ (1615), 844, has a corresponding record for 1604, but gives the day as 3 Aug.

_The Isle of Gulls. 1606_

1606. The Ile of Guls. As it hath been often playd in the blacke Fryars, by the Children of the Reuels. Written by Iohn Day. _Sold by John Hodgets._ [Induction and Prologue.]

1606. _For John Trundle, sold by John Hodgets._

1633. _For William Sheares._

The play is thus referred to by Sir Edward Hoby in a letter of 7 March 1606 to Sir Thomas Edmondes (Birch, i. 59): ‘At this time (_c._ 15 Feb.) was much speech of a play in the Black Friars, where, in the “Isle of Gulls”, from the highest to the lowest, all men’s parts were acted of two divers nations: as I understand sundry were committed to Bridewell.’ A passage in iv. 4 (Bullen, p. 91), probably written with _Eastward Ho!_ in mind, refers to the ‘libelling’ ascribed to poets by ‘some Dor’ and ‘false informers’; and the Induction defends the play itself against the charge that a ‘great mans life’ is ‘charactred’ in Damoetas. Nevertheless, Damoetas, the royal favourite, ‘a little hillock made great with others ruines’ (p. 13) inevitably suggests Sir Robert Carr, and Fleay, i. 109, points out that the ‘Duke’ and ‘Duchess’ of the dramatis personae have been substituted for a ‘King’ and ‘Queen’. It may not be possible now to verify all the men whose ‘parts’ were acted; evidently the Arcadians and Lacedaemonians stand for the two ‘nations’ of English and Scotch. I do not see any ground for Fleay’s attempt to treat the play, not as a political, but as a literary satire, identifying Damoetas with Daniel, and tracing allusions to Jonson, Marston, and Chapman in the Induction. Hoby’s indication of date is confirmed by references to the ‘Eastward, Westward or Northward hoe’ (p. 3; cf. s.vv. Chapman, Dekker), to the quartering for treason on 30 Jan. 1606 (pp. 3, 51), and conceivably to Jonson’s _Volpone_ of 1605 or early 1606 (p. 88, ‘you wil ha my humor brought ath stage for a vserer’).

_The Travels of Three English Brothers. 1607_

_S. R._ 1607, June 29 (Buck). ‘A playe called the trauailles of the Three Englishe brothers as yt was played at the Curten.’ _John Wright_ (Arber, iii. 354).

1607. The Travailes of The three English Brothers.

Sir Thomas } Sir Anthony } Shirley. Mr. Robert }

As it is now play’d by her Maiesties Seruants. _For John Wright._ [Epistle to the Family of the Sherleys, signed ‘Iohn Day, William Rowley, George Wilkins’, Prologue and Epilogue.]

The source was a pamphlet on the Sherleys by A. Nixon (S. R. 8 June 1607) and the play seems to have been still on the stage when it was printed. Some suggestions as to the division of authorship are in Fleay, ii. 277, Bullen, _Introd._ 19, and C. W. Stork, _William Rowley_, 57. A scene at Venice (Bullen, p. 55) introduces Will Kempe, who mentions Vennar’s _England’s Joy_ (1602), and prepares to play an ‘extemporall merriment’ with an Italian Harlaken. He has come from England with a boy. The Epilogue refers to ‘some that fill up this round circumference’.

_Humour out of Breath. 1607–8_

_S. R._ 1608, April 12 (Buck). ‘A booke called Humour out of breathe.’ _John Helme_ (Arber, iii. 374).

1608. Humour out of breath. A Comedie Diuers times latelie acted, By the Children Of The Kings Reuells. Written by Iohn Day. _For John Helme._ [Epistle to Signior Nobody, signed ‘Iohn Daye’.]

_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1860), A. Symons in _Nero and Other Plays_ (1888, _Mermaid Series_).

The date must be taken as 1607–8, since the King’s Revels are not traceable before 1607. Fleay, i. 111, notes a reference in iii. 4 to the ‘great frost’ of that Christmas. The Epistle speaks of the play as ‘sufficiently featur’d too, had it been all of one man’s getting’, which may be a hint of divided authorship.

_The Parliament of Bees. 1608 < > 16_

[_MS._] _Lansdowne MS._ 725, with title. ‘An olde manuscript conteyning the Parliament of Bees, found in a Hollow Tree in a garden at Hibla, in a Strange Languadge, And now faithfully Translated into Easie English Verse by John Daye, Cantabridg.’ [Epistles to William Augustine, signed ‘John Day, Cant.’ and to the Reader, signed ‘Jo: Daye’.]

_S. R._ 1641, March 23 (Hansley). ‘A booke called The Parliam^t of Bees, &c., by John Day.’ _Will Ley_ (Eyre, i. 17).

1641. The Parliament of Bees, With their proper Characters. Or A Bee-hive furnisht with twelve Honycombes, as Pleasant as Profitable. Being an Allegoricall description of the actions of good and bad men in these our daies. By John Daye, Sometimes Student of Caius Colledge in Cambridge. _For William Lee._ [Epistle to George Butler, signed ‘John Day’, The Author’s Commission to his Bees, similarly signed, and The Book to the Reader. The text varies considerably from that of the manuscript.]

_Edition_ by A. Symons in _Nero and Other Plays_ (1888, _Mermaid Series_).

This is neither a play nor a mask, but a set of twelve short ‘Characters’ or ‘Colloquies’ in dialogue. The existence of an edition of 1607 is asserted in Gildon’s abridgement (1699) of Langbaine, but cannot be verified, and is most improbable, since the manuscript Epistle refers to an earlier work already dedicated by Day, as ‘an unknowing venturer’, to Augustine, and this must surely be the allegorical treatise _Peregrinatio Scholastica_ printed by Bullen (_Introd._ 35) from _Sloane MS._ 3150 with an Epistle by Day to William Austin, who may reasonably be identified with Augustine. But the _Peregrinatio_, although Day’s first venture in dedication, was not a very early work, for Day admits that ‘I boast not that gaudie spring of credit and youthfull florish of opinion as some other filde in the same rancke with me’. Moreover, it describes (p. 50) an ‘ante-maske’, and this term, so far as we know, first came into use about 1608 (cf. ch. vi). The _Bees_ therefore must be later still. On the other hand, it can hardly be later than about 1616, when died Philip Henslowe, whom it is impossible to resist seeing with Fleay, i. 115, in the Fenerator or Usuring Bee (p. 63). Like Henslowe he is a ‘broaker’ and ‘takes up’ clothes; and

Most of the timber that his state repairs, He hew’s out o’ the bones of foundred players: They feed on Poets braines, he eats their breath.

Now of the twelve Characters of the _Bees_, five (2, 3, 7, 8, 9) are reproduced, in many parts verbatim, subject to an alteration of names, in _The Wonder of a Kingdom_, printed as Dekker’s (q.v.) in 1636, but probably identical with _Come See a Wonder_, licensed by Herbert as Day’s in 1623. Two others (4, 5) are similarly reproduced in _The Noble Soldier_, printed in 1634 under the initials ‘S. R.’, probably indicating Samuel Rowley, but possibly also containing work by Dekker. The precise relation of Day to these plays is indeterminate, but the scenes more obviously ‘belong’ to the _Bees_ than to the plays, and if the _Bees_ was written but not printed in 1608–16, the chances are that Day used it as a quarry of material when he was called upon to work, as reviser or collaborator, on the plays. Meanwhile, Austin, if he was the Southwark and Lincoln’s Inn writer of that name (_D. N. B._), died in 1634, and when the _Bees_ was ultimately printed in 1641 a new dedicatee had to be found.

_Lost and Doubtful Plays_

For the Admiral’s, 1598–1603.

Day appears to have sold the company an old play _1 The Conquest of Brute_ in July 1598, and to have subsequently written or collaborated in the following plays:

1599–1600: _Cox of Collumpton_, with Haughton; _Thomas Merry_, or _Beech’s Tragedy_, with Haughton; _The Seven Wise Masters_, with Chettle, Dekker, and Haughton; _Cupid and Psyche_, with Chettle and Dekker; _1 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_, with Chettle; and the unfinished _Spanish Moor’s Tragedy_, with Dekker and Haughton.

1600–1: _2 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_, with Haughton; _Six Yeomen of the West_, with Haughton.

1601–2: _The Conquest of the West Indies_, with Haughton and Smith; _3 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_, with Haughton; _Friar Rush and The Proud Woman of Antwerp_, with Chettle and Haughton; _The Bristol Tragedy_; and the unfinished _2 Tom Dough_, with Haughton.

1602–3: _Merry as May Be_, with Hathway and Smith; _The Boss of Billingsgate_, with Hathway and another.

For Worcester’s men.

1602–3: _1 and 2 The Black Dog of Newgate_, with Hathway, Smith, and another; _The Unfortunate General_, with Hathway, Smith, and a third; and the unfinished _Shore_, with Chettle.

Of the above only _The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ and a note of _Cox of Collumpton_ (cf. ch. xiii, s.v. Admiral’s) survive; for speculations as to others see Heywood, _Pleasant Dialogues and Dramas_ (_Cupid and Psyche_), Marlowe, _Lust’s Dominion_ (_Spanish Moor’s Tragedy_), Yarington, _Two Lamentable Tragedies_ (_Thomas Merry_), and the anonymous _Edward IV_ (_Shore_) and _Fair Maid of Bristol_ (_Bristow Tragedy_).

Henslowe’s correspondence (_Henslowe Papers_, 56, 127) contains notes from Day and others about some of the Admiral’s plays and a few lines which may be from _The Conquest of the Indies_.

Day’s _Mad Pranks of Merry Mall of the Bankside_ (S. R. 7 Aug. 1610) was probably a pamphlet (cf. Dekker, _The Roaring Girl_). Bullen, _Introd._ 11, thinks the _Guy Earl of Warwick_ (1661), printed as ‘by B. J.’, too bad to be Day and Dekker’s _Life and Death of Guy of Warwick_ (S. R. 15 Jan. 1620). On 30 July 1623 Herbert licensed a _Bellman of Paris_ by Day and Dekker for the Prince’s (Herbert, 24). _The Maiden’s Holiday_ by Marlowe (q.v.) and Day (S. R. 8 April 1654) appears in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (_3 Library_, ii. 231) as Marlowe’s.

For other ascriptions to Day see _The Maid’s Metamorphosis_ and _Parnassus_ in ch. xxiv.

THOMAS DEKKER (_c._ 1572–_c._ 1632).

Thomas Dekker was of London origin, but though the name occurs in Southwark, Cripplegate, and Bishopsgate records, neither his parentage nor his marriage, if he was married, can be definitely traced. He was not unlettered, but nothing is known of his education, and the conjecture that he trailed a pike in the Netherlands is merely based on his acquaintance with war and with Dutch. The Epistle to his _English Villanies_, with its reference to ‘my three score years’, first appeared in the edition of 1632; he was therefore born about 1572. He first emerges, in Henslowe’s diary, as a playwright for the Admiral’s in 1598, and may very well have been working for them during 1594–8, a period for which Henslowe records plays only and not authors. The further conjecture of Fleay, i. 119, that this employment went as far back as 1588–91 is hazardous, and in fact led Fleay to put his birth-date as far back as 1567. It was based on the fact that the German repertories of 1620 and 1626 contain traces of his work, and on Fleay’s erroneous belief (cf. ch. xiv) that all the plays in these repertories were taken to Germany by Robert Browne as early as 1592. But it is smiled upon by Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 256) as regards _The Virgin Martyr_ alone. Between 1598 and 1602 Dekker wrote busily, and as a rule in collaboration, first for the Admiral’s at the Rose and Fortune, and afterwards for Worcester’s at the Rose. He had a hand in some forty-four plays, of which, in anything like their original form, only half a dozen survive. _Satiromastix_, written for the Chamberlain’s men and the Paul’s boys in 1601, shows that his activities were not limited to the Henslowe companies. This intervention in the _Poetomachia_ led Jonson to portray him as Demetrius Fannius ‘the dresser of plays’ in _The Poetaster_; that he is also Thersites in _Troilus and Cressida_ is a not very plausible conjecture. Long after, in 1619, Jonson classed him among the ‘rogues’ (Laing, 4). In 1604, however, he shared with Jonson the responsibility for the London devices at James’s coronation entry. About this time began his career as a writer of popular pamphlets, in which he proved the most effective successor of Thomas Nashe. These, and in particular _The Gull’s Hornbook_ (1609), are full of touches drawn from his experience as a dramatist. Nor did he wholly desert the stage, collaborating with Middleton for the Prince’s and with Webster for Paul’s, and writing also, apparently alone, for the Queen’s. In 1612 he devised the Lord Mayor’s pageant. In 1613 he fell upon evil days. He had always been impecunious, and Henslowe (i. 83, 101, 161) had lent him money to discharge him from the Counter in 1598 and from an arrest by the Chamberlain’s in 1599. Now he fell into the King’s Bench for debt, and apparently lay there until 1619. The relationship of his later work to that of Ford, Massinger, Day, and others, lies rather beyond the scope of this inquiry, but in view of the persistent attempts to find early elements in all his plays, I have made my list comprehensive. He is not traceable after 1632, and is probably the Thomas Decker, householder, buried at St. James’s, Clerkenwell, on 25 Aug. 1632. A Clerkenwell recusant of this name is recorded in 1626 and 1628 (_Middlesex County Records_, iii. 12, 19).

_Collections_

1873. [R. H. Shepherd], _The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker_. 4 vols. (_Pearson Reprints_). [Contains 15 plays and 4 Entertainments.]

1884–6. A. B. Grosart, _The Non-Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker_. 5 vols. (Huth Library). [Contains nearly all the pamphlets, with _Patient Grissell_. A better edition of _The Gull’s Hornbook_ is that by R. B. McKerrow (1904); a chapter is in App. H.]

1887. E. Rhys, _Thomas Dekker_ (_Mermaid Series_). [Contains _The Shoemaker’s Holiday_, _1, 2 The Honest Whore_, _Old Fortunatus_, _The Witch of Edmonton_.]

_Dissertations_: M. L. Hunt, _Thomas Dekker: A Study_ (1911, _Columbia Studies in English_); W. Bang, _Dekker-Studien_ (1900, _E. S._ xxviii. 208); F. E. Pierce, _The Collaboration of Webster with Dekker_ (1909, _Yale Studies_, xxxvii) and _The Collaboration of Dekker and Ford_ (1912, _Anglia_, xxxvi, 141, 289); E. E. Stoll, _John Webster_ (1905), ch. ii, and _The Influence of Jonson on Dekker_ (1906, _M. L. N._ xxi. 20); R. Brooke, _John Webster and the Elizabethan Drama_ (1916); F. P. Wilson, _Three Notes on Thomas Dekker_ (1920, _M. L. R._ xv. 82).

PLAYS

_Old Fortunatus. 1599_

_S. R._ 1600, Feb. 20. ‘A commedie called old Fortunatus in his newe lyuerie.’ _William Aspley_ (Arber, iii. 156).

1600. The Pleasant Comedie of Old Fortunatus. As it was plaied before the Queenes Maiestie this Christmas, by the Right Honourable the Earle of Nottingham, Lord high Admirall of England his Seruants. _S. S. for William Aspley_. [Prologue at Court, another Prologue, and Epilogue at Court; signed at end Tho. Dekker.]

_Editions_ by Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ iii), H. Scherer (1901, _Münchener Beiträge_, xxi), O. Smeaton (1904, _T. D._).

The Admiral’s revived, from 3 Feb. to 26 May 1596, ‘the 1 parte of Forteunatus’. Nothing is heard of a second part, but during 9–30 Nov. 1599 Dekker received £6 on account of the Admiral’s for ‘the hole history of Fortunatus’, followed on 1 Dec. by £1 for altering the book and on 12 Dec. £2 ‘for the eande of Fortewnatus for the corte’. The company were at Court on 27 Dec. 1599 and 1 Jan. 1600. _The Shoemaker’s Holiday_ was played on 1 Jan.; _Fortunatus_ therefore on 27 Dec. The Prologue (l. 21) makes it ‘a iust yeere’ since the speaker saw the Queen, presumably on 27 Dec. 1598. The S. R. entry suggests that the 1599 play was a revision of the 1596 one. Probably Dekker boiled the old two parts down into one play; the juncture may, as suggested by Fleay, i. 126, and Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 179), come about l. 1315. The Court additions clearly include, besides the Prologue and the Epilogue with its reference to Elizabeth’s forty-second regnal year (1599–1600), the compliment of ll. 2799–834 at the ‘eande’ of the play. The ‘small circumference’ of the theatrical prologue was doubtless the Rose. Dekker may or may not have been the original author of the two-part play; probably he was not, if Fleay is right in assigning it to _c._ 1590 on the strength of the allusions to the Marprelate controversy left in the 1600 text, e.g. l. 59. I should not wonder if Greene, who called his son Fortunatus, were the original author. A Fortunatus play is traceable in German repertories of 1608 and 1626 and an extant version in the collection of 1620 owes something to Dekker’s (Herz, 97; cf. P. Harms, _Die deutschen Fortunatus-Dramen_ in _Theatergeschichtliche Forschungen_, v). But Dekker’s own source, directly or indirectly, was a German folk-tale, which had been dramatized by Hans Sachs as early as 1553.

_The Shoemaker’s Holiday. 1599_

_S. R._ 1610, April 19. Transfer from Simmes to J. Wright of ‘A booke called the shoomakers holyday or the gentle crafte’ subject to an agreement for Simmes to ‘haue the workmanshipp of the printinge thereof for the vse of the sayd John Wrighte duringe his lyfe, yf he haue a printinge house of his owne’ (Arber, iii. 431).

1600. The Shomakers Holiday. Or The Gentle Craft. With the humorous life of Simon Eyre, shoomaker, and Lord Maior of London. As it was acted before the Queenes most excellent Maiestie on New yeares day at night last, by the right honourable the Earle of Notingham, Lord high Admirall of England, his seruants. _Valentine Simmes_. [Epistle to Professors of the Gentle Craft and Prologue before the Queen.]

1610, 1618, 1624, 1631, 1657.

_Editions_ by E. Fritsche (1862), K. Warnke and E. Proescholdt (1886), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._), and A. F. Lange (1914, _R. E. C._ iii).

Henslowe advanced £3 ‘to bye a boocke called the gentle Craft of Thomas Dickers’ on 15 July 1599. Probably the hiatus in the Diary conceals other payments for the play, and there is nothing in the form of the entry to justify the suspicions of Fleay, i. 124, that it was not new and was not by Dekker himself. Moreover, the source was a prose tract of _The Gentle Craft_ by T. D[eloney], published in 1598. The Admiral’s were at Court on 1 Jan. 1600, but not on 1 Jan. 1601. A writer signing himself Dramaticus, in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 110, describes a copy in which a contemporary hand has written the names ‘T. Dekker, R. Wilson’ at the end of the Epistle, together with the names of the actors in the margin of the text. A few of these are not otherwise traceable in the Admiral’s. Fleay and Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 203) unite in condemning this communication as an obvious forgery; but I rather wish they had given their reasons.

_Patient Grissell. 1600_

_With_ Chettle and Haughton.

_S. R._ 1600, March 28. ‘The Plaie of Patient Grissell.’ _Cuthbert Burby_ (Arber, iii. 158).

1603. The Pleasant Comodie of Patient Grissill. As it hath beene sundrie times lately plaid by the right honorable the Earle of Nottingham (Lord high Admirall) his seruants. _For Henry Rocket._

_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1841, _Sh. Soc._), A. B. Grosart (1886, _Dekker_, v. 109), G. Hübsch (1893, _Erlanger Beiträge_, xv), J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._).--_Dissertations_ by A. E. H. Swaen in _E. S._ xxii. 451, Fr. v. Westenholz, _Die Griseldis-Sage in der Literaturgeschichte_ (1888).

Henslowe paid £10 10_s._ to Dekker, Chettle, and Haughton for the play between 16 Oct. and 29 Dec. 1599, also £1 for Grissell’s gown on 26 Jan. 1600 and £2 ‘to staye the printing’ on 18 March 1600. The text refers to ‘wonders of 1599’ (l. 2220) and to ‘this yeare’ as ‘leap yeare’ (l. 157). The production was doubtless _c._ Feb.–March 1600. Fleay, i. 271, attempts to divide the work amongst the three contributors; cf. Hunt, 60. I see nothing to commend the theory of W. Bang (_E. S._ xxviii. 208) that the play was written by Chettle _c._ 1590–4 and revised with Dekker, Haughton, and Jonson. No doubt the dandy’s duel, in which clothes alone suffer, of Emulo-Sir Owen resembles that of Brisk-Luculento in _Every Man Out of his Humour_, but this may be due to a common origin in fact (cf. Fleay, i. 361; Penniman, _War_, 70; Small, 43). Fleay, followed by Penniman, identifies Emulo with Samuel Daniel, but Small, 42, 184, satisfactorily disposes of this suggestion. There seems no reason to regard _Patient Grissell_ as part of the _Poetomachia_. A ‘Comoedia von der Crysella’ is in the German repertory of 1626; the theme had, however, already been dealt with in a play of _Griseldis_ by Hans Sachs (Herz, 66, 78).

_Satiromastix. 1601_

_With_ Marston?

_S. R._ 1601, Nov. 11. ‘Vppon condicon that yt be lycensed to be printed, A booke called the vntrussinge of the humorous poetes by Thomas Decker.’ _John Barnes_ (Arber, iii. 195).

1602. Satiromastix. Or The vntrussing of the Humorous Poet. As it hath bin presented publikely, by the Right Honorable, the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants; and priuately, by the Children of Paules. By Thomas Dekker. _For Edward White._ [Epistle to the World, note _Ad Lectorem_ of _errata_, and Epilogue. Scherer, xiv, distinguishes two editions, but T. M. Parrott’s review in _M. L. R._ vi. 398 regards these as only variant states of one edition.]

_Editions_ by T. Hawkins (1773, _O. E. D._ iii), H. Scherer (1907, _Materialien_, xx), J. H. Penniman (1913, _B. L._).

The Epistle refers to the _Poetomachia_ between ‘Horace’ and ‘a band of leane-witted Poetasters’, and on the place of _Satiromastix_ in this fray there is little to be added to Small, 119. Jonson is satirized as Horace. Asinius Bubo is some unknown satellite of his, probably the same who appears as Simplicius Faber in Marston’s _What You Will_ (q.v.). Crispinus, Demetrius, and Tucca are taken over from Jonson’s _Poetaster_ (q.v.). The satirical matter is engrafted on to a play with a tragic plot and comic sub-plot, both wholly unconcerned with the _Poetomachia_. Jonson must have known that the attack was in preparation, when he made Tucca abuse Histrio for threatening to ‘play’ him, and Histrio say that he had hired Demetrius [Dekker] ‘to abuse Horace, and bring him in, in a play’ (_Poetaster_, III. iv. 212, 339). But obviously Dekker cannot have done much of his satire until he had seen _Poetaster_, to many details of which it retorts. It is perhaps rather fantastic to hold that, as he chaffs Jonson for the boast that he wrote _Poetaster_ in fifteen weeks (_Satiromastix_, 641), he must himself have taken less. In any case a date of production between that of _Poetaster_ in the spring of 1601 and the S. R. entry on 11 Nov. 1601 is indicated. The argument of Scherer, x, for a date about Christmas 1601, and therefore after the S. R. entry, is rebutted by Parrott. It is generally held that Marston helped Dekker with the play, in spite of the single name on the title-page. No doubt Tucca in _Poetaster_, III. iv. 352, suggests to Histrio that Crispinus shall help Demetrius, and the plural is used in _Satiromastix_ (_Epistle_, 12, and _Epilogue_, 2700) and in Jonson’s own _Apologetical Dialogue_ to _Poetaster_ (l. 141) of the ‘poetasters’ who were Jonson’s ‘untrussers’. Small, 122, finds Marston in the plot and characterization, but not in the style.

_Sir Thomas Wyatt. 1602_

_With_ Webster, and possibly Chettle, Heywood, and Smith.

1607. The Famous History of Sir Thomas Wyat. With the Coronation of Queen Mary, and the coming in of King Philip. As it was plaied by the Queens Maiesties Seruants. Written by Thomas Dickers and Iohn Webster. _E. A. for Thomas Archer._

1612. _For Thomas Archer._

_Editions_ by J. Blew (1876), and J. S. Farmer (1914, _S. F. T._) and with _Works_ of Webster (q.v.).

Henslowe, on behalf of Worcester’s men, paid Chettle, Dekker, Heywood, Smith, and Webster, for _1 Lady Jane_ in Oct. 1602. He then bought properties for _The Overthrow of Rebels_, almost certainly the same play, and began to pay Dekker for a _2 Lady Jane_, which apparently remained unfinished, at any rate at the time. One or both of these plays, or possibly only the shares of Dekker and Webster in one or both of them, may reasonably be taken to survive in _Sir Thomas Wyatt_. Stoll, 49, thinks the play, as we have it, is practically Dekker’s and that there is ‘no one thing’ that can be claimed ‘with any degree of assurance’ for Webster. But this is not the general view. Fleay, ii. 269, followed in the main by Hunt, 76, gives Webster scc. i-ix, Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 233) scc. i-x and xvi (with hesitation as to iii-v), Pierce, after a careful application of a number of ‘tests’ bearing both on style and on matter, scc. ii, v, vi, x, xiv, xvi; but he thinks that some or all of these were retouched by Dekker. Brooke inclines to trace Webster in scc. ii, xvi, Heywood in scc. vi, x, and a good deal of Dekker. Hunt thinks the planning due to Chettle.

_The Honest Whore. 1604, c. 1605_

_With_ Middleton.

_S. R._ 1604, Nov. 9 (Pasfield). ‘A Booke called The humors of the patient man, The longinge wyfe and the honest whore.’ _Thomas Man the younger_ (Arber, iii. 275).

1608, April 29 (Buck). ‘A booke called the second parte of the conuerted Courtisan or honest Whore.’ _Thomas Man Junior_ (Arber, iii. 376). [No fee entered.]

1630, June 29 (Herbert). ‘The second parte of the Honest Hoore by Thomas Dekker.’ _Butter_ (Arber, iv. 238).

1604. The Honest Whore, With, The Humours of the Patient Man, and the Longing Wife. Tho: Dekker. _V. S. for John Hodgets._ [ Part i .]

1605, 1615, 1616, N.D. [All