Book iii
, ch. 54, ‘The Originall occasions of the yeerely Triumphs in England’.
Segar’s account is reproduced by Nichols, _Eliz._ iii. 41, and both in the editions of Peele (q.v.) by Dyce and Bullen. A manuscript copy with variants from the Q. is at St. John’s College, Oxford (F. S. Boas in _M. L. R._ xi. 300). _Polyhymnia_ mainly consists of a blank verse description and eulogy of the twenty-six tilters, in couples according to the order of the first running of six courses each, viz. Sir Henry Lee and the Earl of Cumberland, Lord Strange and Thomas Gerrard, Lord Compton and Henry Nowell, Lord Burke and Sir Edward Denny, the Earl of Essex and Fulk Greville, Sir Charles Blount and Thomas Vavasor, Robert Carey and William Gresham, Sir William Knowles and Anthony Cooke, Sir Thomas Knowles and Sir Philip Butler, Robert Knowles and Ralph Bowes, Thomas Sidney and Robert Alexander, John Nedham and Richard Acton, Charles Danvers and Everard Digby. The colours and in some cases the ‘device’ or ‘show’ are indicated. Lee is described as
Knight of the crown, in rich embroidery, And costly fair caparison charged with crowns, O’ershadowed with a withered running vine, As who would say, ‘My spring of youth is past’, In corselet gilt of curious workmanship.
Strange entered ‘in costly ship’, with the eagle for his device; Essex
In stately chariot full of deep device, Where gloomy Time sat whipping on the team, Just back to back with this great champion.
Blount’s badge was the sun, Carey’s a burning heart, Cooke’s a hand and heart,
And Life and Death he portray’d in his show.
The three Knowles brothers bore golden boughs. A final section of the poem describes how, after the running, Sir Henry Lee, ‘knight of the Crown’, unarmed himself in a pavilion of Vesta, and petitioned the Queen to allow him to yield his ‘honourable place’ to Cumberland, to whom he gave his armour and lance, vowing to betake himself to orisons.
Segar gives a fuller account of Lee’s fantasy. He had vowed, ‘in the beginning of her happy reigne’, to present himself yearly in arms on the day of Elizabeth’s accession. The courtiers, incited by his example, had yearly assembled, ‘not vnlike to the antient Knighthood della Banda in Spaine’, but in 1590, ‘being now by age ouertaken’, Lee resigned his office to Cumberland. The ceremony took place ‘at the foot of the staires vnder her gallery-window in the Tilt-yard at Westminster’, where Elizabeth sat with the French ambassador, Viscount Turenne. A pavilion, representing the Temple of the Vestal Virgins, arose out of the earth. Within was an altar, with gifts for the queen; before the door a crowned pillar, embraced by an eglantine, and bearing a complimentary inscription. As the knights approached, ‘M. Hales her maiesties seruant’ sang verses beginning:
My golden locks time hath to siluer turned.
The vestals then gave the Queen a veil and a cloak and safeguard, the buttons of which bore the ‘emprezes’ or ‘badges’ of many nobles, friends of Lee, each fixed to an embroidered pillar, the last being ‘like the character of _&c._’ Finally Lee doffed his armour, presented Cumberland, armed and horsed him, and himself donned a side-coat of black velvet and a buttoned cap of the country fashion. ‘After all these ceremonies, for diuers dayes hee ware vpon his cloake a crowne embrodered, with a certaine motto or deuice, but what his intention therein was, himselfe best knoweth.’
The Queen appointed Lee to appear yearly at the exercises, ‘to see, suruey, and as one most carefull and skilfull to direct them’. Segar dwells on Lee’s virtues and valour, and concludes by stating that the annual actions had been performed by 1 Duke, 19 Earls, 27 Barons, 4 Knights of the Garter, and above 150 other Knights and Esquires.
On 20 Nov. 1590 Richard Brakinbury wrote to Lord Talbot (Lodge, ii. 419): ‘These sports were great, and done in costly sort, to her Majesty’s liking, and their great cost. To express every part, with sundry devices, is more fit for them that delight in them, than for me, who esteemeth little such vanities, I thank God.’
P. A. Daniel (_Athenaeum_ for 8 Feb. 1890) notes that a suit of armour in Lord Hothfield’s collection, which once belonged to Cumberland and is represented in certain portraits of him, is probably the identical suit given him by Lee, as it bears a monogram of Lee’s name.
There has been some controversy about the authorship of the verses sung by ‘M. Hales’, who was Robert Hales, a lutenist. They appear, headed ‘A Sonnet’, and unsigned, on a page at the end of _Polyhymnia_, and have therefore been ascribed to Peele. The evidence, though inconclusive, is better than the wanton conjecture which led Mr. Bond to transfer them to Lyly (_Works_, i. 410). But a different version in _Rawl. Poet. MS._ 148, f. 19, is subscribed ‘q^d S^r Henry Leigh’, and some resemblances of expression are to be found in other verses assigned to Lee in R. Dowland, _Musicall Banquet_ (1610), No. 8 (Bond, i. 517; Fellowes, 459). It is not impossible that Lee himself may have been the author. One of the pieces in the _Ferrers MS._ (_vide_ p. 406 _infra_) refers to his ‘himmes & songes’. If the verses, which also appear anonymously in J. Dowland, _First Booke of Songs or Ayres_ (1597, Fellowes, 418), are really Lee’s, Wyatt’s nephew was no contemptible poet. Finally, there are echoes of the same theme in yet another set of anonymous verses in J. Dowland, _Second Book of Airs_ (1600, Fellowes, 422), which are evidently addressed to Lee.
_The Second Woodstock Entertainment, 20 Sept. 1592, and Other Fragments_
[_MSS._] (_a_) _Ferrers MS._, a collection made by Henry Ferrers of Baddesley Clinton, Warwickshire (1549–1633).
(_b_) _Inner Temple Petyt MS._ 538, 43, ff. 284–363.
[A collection of verses by Lady Pembroke, Sir John Harington, Francis Bacon (q.v.) and others, bound as part of a composite MS.]
(_c_) Viscount Dillon kindly informs me that a part of the entertainment, dated ‘20 Sept.’, is in his possession.
_Editions_ (_Ferrers MS._ only) by W. Hamper, _Masques: Performed before Queen Elizabeth_ (1820), and in _Kenilworth Illustrated_ (1821), Nichols, _Eliz._^2 iii. 193 (1828), and R. W. Bond, _Lyly_, i. 412, 453 (1902).
The Ferrers MS. seems to contain ten distinct pieces, separated from each other only by headings, to which I have prefixed the numbers.
(i) ‘A Cartell for a Challeng.’
Three ‘strange forsaken knightes’ offer to maintain ‘that Loue is worse than hate, his Subiectes worse than slaues, and his Rewarde worse than naught: And that there is a Ladie that scornes Loue and his power, of more vertue and greater bewtie than all the Amorouse Dames that be at this day in the worlde’. This cannot be dated. Sir Robert Carey (_Memoirs_, 33) tilted as a ‘forsaken knight’ on 17 Nov. 1593 (not 1592, as stated by Brotanek, 60), but he was not a challenger, and was alone. The tone resembles that of Sir Henry Lee, and if he took part, the date must be earlier than 1590.
(ii) ‘Sir Henry Lee’s challenge before the Shampanie.’
A ‘strange knight that warres against hope and fortune’ will maintain the cause of Despair in a green suit.
Hamper explained ‘Shampanie’ as ‘the lists or field of contention, from the French _campagne_’; but Segar, _Honor, Military and Ciuill_, 197, records, from an intercepted letter of ‘Monsieur de Champany ... being ambassador in England for causes of the Low Countreys’, an occasion on which Sir Henry Lee, ‘the most accomplished cavaliero I had euer seene’, broke lances with other gentlemen in his honour at Greenwich. M. de Champagny was an agent of the native Flemish Catholics, and visited England in 1575 and 1585 (Froude, x. 360; xii. 39). As his letter named ‘Sir’ C. Hatton, who was knighted in 1578, the visit of 1585 must be in question. The Court was at Greenwich from March to July of that year.
(iii) ‘The Supplication of the Owld Knight.’
A speech to the ‘serveres of this English Holiday, or rather Englandes Happie Daye’, in which a knight disabled by age, ‘yet once (thowe unwoorthie) your fellowe in armes, and first celebrator, in this kinde, of this sacred memorie of that blessed reigne’, begs them to ‘accepte to your fellowshippe this oneley sonne of mine’.
This is evidently a speech by Lee, on some 17 Nov. later than 1590. Lee’s own sons died in childhood; probably the ‘son’ introduced was a relative, but possibly only a ‘son’ in chivalry.
(iv) ‘The Message of the Damsell of the Queene of Fayries.’
An ‘inchanted knight’ sends the Queen an image of Cupid. She is reminded how ‘at the celebrating the joyfull remembraunce of the most happie daye of your Highnes entrance into Gouerment of this most noble Islande, howe manie knightes determined, not far hence, with boulde hartes and broken launces, to paye there vowes and shewe theire prowes’. The ‘inchanted knight’ could not ‘chardge staffe, nor strike blowe’, but entered the jousts, and bore the blows of others.
If this has reference to the first celebration of 17 Nov., it may be of near date to the Woodstock Entertainment of 1575 in which the fairy queen appeared. The knight, ‘full hardie and full haples’, is enchanted, but is not said to be old.
(v) ‘The Olde Knightes Tale.’
‘Not far from hence, nor verie long agoe,’ clearly in 1575, ‘the fayrie Queene the fayrest Queene saluted’, and the pleasures included ‘justes and feates of armed knightes’, and ‘enchaunted pictures’ in a bower. The knight was bidden by the fairy queen to guard the pictures and keep his eyes on the crowned pillar. He became ‘a stranger ladies thrall’, neglected this duty, and was cast into a deadly sleep. Now he is freed, apparently through the intervention of Elizabeth, to whom the verses are addressed.
(vi) ‘The Songe after Dinner at the two Ladies entrance.’
Celebrates the setting free by a prince’s grace, of captive knights and ladies, and bids farewell to inconstancy.
(vii) ‘The Ladies Thankesgeuing for theire Deliuerie from Unconstancie.’
A speech to the Queen, in the same vein as (vi), followed by a dialogue between Li[berty], or Inconstancy, and Constancy. This is datable in 1592 from another copy printed in _The Phoenix Nest_ (1593), with the title ‘An Excellent Dialogue betweene Constancie and Inconstancie: as it was by speech presented to her maiestie, in the last Progresse at Sir Henrie Leighes house’. Yet another copy, in _Inner Temple Petyt MS._ 538, 43, f. 299. ‘A Dialogue betweene Constancie and Inconstancie spoken before the Queenes Majestie at Woodstock’ is ascribed to ‘Doctor Edes’.
(viii) ‘The last Songe.’
A rejoicing on the coming of Eliza, with references to constancy and inconstancy, the aged knight, and the pillar and crown.
(ix) ‘The second daies woorke where the Chaplayne maketh this Relation.’
An Oration to the Queen by the chaplain of Loricus, ‘an owlde Knight, now a newe religiouse Hermite’. The story of Loricus was once told [in 1575] ‘by a good father of his owne coate, not farr from this coppies’. Once he ‘rann the restles race of desire.... Sometymes he consorted with couragious gentelmen, manifesting inward joyes by open justes, the yearly tribute of his dearest Loue. Somtimes he summoned the witnesse of depest conceiptes, Himmes & Songes & Emblemes, dedicating them to the honor of his heauenlye mistres’. Retiring, through envy and age, to the country, he found the speaker at a homely cell, made him his chaplain, and built for their lodging and that of a page ‘the Crowne Oratory’, with a ‘Piller of perpetual remembraunce’ as his device on the entrance. Here he lies, at point of death, and has addressed his last testament to the Queen. This is in verse, signed ‘Loricus, columnae coronatae custos fidelissimus’, and witnessed by ‘Stellatus, rectoriae coronatae capellanus’, and ‘Renatus, equitis coronatae servus obseruantissimus’.
(x) ‘The Page bringeth tydings of his Maister’s Recouerie & presenteth his Legacie.’
A further address to the Queen, with a legacy in verse of the whole Mannor of Loue, signed by Loricus and witnessed by Stellatus and Renatus.
This exhausts the _Ferrers MS._, but I can add from the _Petyt MS._ f. 300^v--
(xi) ‘The melancholie Knights complaint in the wood.’
This, like (vii), is ascribed in the MS. to ‘Doctor Edes’. It consists of 35 lines in 6 stanzas of 6 lines each (with one line missing) and begins:
What troupes are theis, which ill aduised, presse Into this more than most vnhappie place.
Allusions to the freeing of enchanted knights and ladies and to constancy and inconstancy connect it closely with (vi)-(viii).
Obviously most of these documents, and therefore probably all, belong to devices presented by Sir Henry Lee. But they are of different dates, and not demonstrably in chronological order. A single occasion accounts for (vi)-(viii) and (xi), and a single occasion, which the mention of ‘the second daie’ suggests may have been the same, for (ix) and (x); and probably Mr. Bond is justified in regarding all these as forming part with (vii) of the entertainment at Lee’s house in the progress of 1592. But I do not see his justification for attaching (iv) and (v) to them, and I think that these are probably fragments of the Woodstock Entertainment of 1575, or not far removed from that in time. Nor has he any evidence for locating the entertainment of 1592 at Quarrendon, which was only one of several houses belonging to Sir Henry Lee, and could not be meant by the ‘coppies’ near Woodstock of (ix). It was doubtless, as the Petyt MS. version of (vii) tells us, at Woodstock, either at one of Lee’s lodges, or at Ditchley, during the royal visit to Woodstock of 18–23 Sept. 1592. I learn from Viscount Dillon that a MS. of part of this entertainment, dated 20 Sept., is still at Ditchley. Finally, Bond’s attribution of all the pieces (i)-(x) to Lyly is merely guesswork. Hamper assigned them to George Ferrers, probably because the owner of his MS. was a Ferrers. George Ferrers did in fact help in the Kenilworth Entertainment of 1575, and might therefore have helped in that at Woodstock; but he died in 1579, too early for (vi)-(xi). No doubt (vii) and (xi) are by Richard Edes (q.v.). He may have written the whole of this Woodstock Entertainment. On the other hand, a phrase in (ix) suggests that Lee may have penned some of his own conceits. Brotanek, 62, suggests that the two ladies of (vi) are Lee’s wife and his mistress Anne Vavasour, and that Elizabeth came to Lee’s irregular household to set it in order. This hardly needs refuting, but in fact Lee’s wife died in 1590 and his connexion with Anne Vavasour was probably of later date.
ROBERT LEE.
For his career as an actor, see ch. xv.
He may have been, but was not necessarily, the author of _The Miller_ which the Admiral’s bought from him for £1 on 22 Feb. 1598 (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 191).
THOMAS LEGGE (1535–1607).
Of Norwich origin, Legge entered Corpus Christi, Cambridge, in 1552, and took his B.A. in 1557, his M.A. in 1560, and his LL.D. in 1575. After migration to Trinity and Jesus, he had become Master of Caius in 1573. In 1593 he was Vice-Chancellor, and in that capacity took
## part in the negotiations of the University with the Privy Council for
a restraint of common plays in Cambridge (_M. S. C._ i. 200). His own reputation as a dramatist is acknowledged by Meres, who in 1598 placed him among ‘our best for Tragedie’, and added that, ‘as M. Anneus Lucanus writ two excellent Tragedies, one called _Medea_, the other _de Incendio Troiae cum Priami calamitate_: so Doctor _Leg_ hath penned two famous tragedies, y^e one of _Richard the 3_, the other of _The destruction of Ierusalem_’.
_Richardus Tertius. March 1580_
[_MSS._] _Cambridge Univ. Libr. MS._ M^m iv. 40, ‘Thome Legge legum doctoris Collegij Caiogonevilensis in Academia Cantabrigiensi magistri ac Rectoris Richardus tertius Tragedia trivespera habita Collegij divi Johannis Evangeliste Comitiis Bacchelaureorum Anno Domini 1579 Tragedia in tres acciones diuisa.’ [_Argumentum_ to each _Actio_; Epilogue.]
_Emmanuel, Cambridge, MS._ 1. 3. 19, with date ‘1579’ and actor-list.
_Clare, Cambridge, MS._ Kk, 3, 12, with date ‘1579’.
_Caius, Cambridge, MS._ 62, ‘tragoedia trium vesperum habita in collegio Divi Johannis Evangelistae, Comitiis Bacchalaureorum Anno 1573.’
_Bodl. Tanner MS._ 306, including first _Actio_ only, with actor-list and note, ‘Acted in St. John’s Hall before the Earle of Essex’, to which has been apparently added later, ‘17 March, 1582’.
_Bodl. MS._ 29448, dated α, φ, π, γ (= 1583).
_Harl. MS._ 6926, a transcript by Henry Lacy, dated 1586.
_Harl. MS._ 2412, a transcript dated 1588.
_Hatton MS._ (cf. _Hist. MSS._ i. 32).
_Editions_ by B. Field (1844, _Sh. Soc._) and W. C. Hazlitt (1875, _Sh. L._ ii. 1).--_Dissertation_: G. B. Churchill, _Richard III bis Shakespeare_ (1897, 1900).
The names in the actor-lists, which agree, confirm those MSS. which date a production in March 1580 (Boas, 394), and as Essex left Cambridge in 1581, the date in the _Tanner MS._, in so far as it relates to a performance before him, is probably an error. It does not seem so clear to me that the _Caius MS._ may not point to an earlier production in 1573. And it is quite possible that there may have been revivals in some or all of the later years named in the MSS. The reputation of the play is indicated, not only by the notice of it by Meres (_vide supra_), but also by allusions in Harington’s _Apologie of Poetrie_ (1591); cf. App. C, No. xlv. and Nashe’s _Have With You to Saffron Walden_ (1596, _Works_, iii. 13). It may even, directly or indirectly, have influenced _Richard III_. The argument to the first _Actio_ is headed ‘Chapman, Argumentum primae actionis’, but it seems difficult to connect George Chapman with the play.
_Lost Play_
_The Destruction of Jerusalem_
Meres calls this tragedy ‘famous’. Fuller, _Worthies_ (1662), ii. 156, says that ‘Having at last refined it to the purity of the publique standard, some Plageary filched it from him, just as it was to be acted’. Apparently it was in English and was printed, as it appears in the lists of Archer and Kirkman (Greg, _Masques_, lxii). It can hardly have been the _Jerusalem_ revived by Strange’s in 1592 (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 155). Can any light be thrown on Fuller’s story by the fact that in 1584 a ‘new Play of the Destruction of Jerusalem’ was adopted by the city of Coventry as a craft play in place of the old Corpus Christi cycle, and a sum of £13 6_s._ 8_d._ paid to John Smythe of St. John’s, Oxford, ‘for hys paynes for writing of the tragedye’ (_Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 361; H. Craig, _Coventry Corpus Christi Plays_ (_E. E. T. S._), 90, 92, 93, 102, 103, 109)?
THOMAS LODGE (_c._ 1557–1625).
Lodge, who uses the description ‘gentleman’, was son of Sir Thomas Lodge, a Lord Mayor of London. His elder brother, William, married Mary, daughter of Thomas Blagrave, Clerk of the Revels (cf. ch. iii). He entered Merchant Taylors in 1571, Trinity College, Oxford, in 1573, whence he took his B.A. in 1577, and Lincoln’s Inn in 1578. In 1579 (cf. App. C, No. xxiii) he plunged into controversy with a defence of the stage in reply to Stephen Gosson’s _Schoole of Abuse_. Gosson speaks slightingly of his opponent as ‘hunted by the heavy hand of God, and become little better than a vagrant, looser than liberty, lighter than vanity itself’, and although Lodge took occasion to defend his moral character from aspersion, it is upon record that he was called before the Privy Council ‘to aunswere certen maters to be by them objected against him’, and was ordered on 27 June 1581 to give continued attendance (Dasent, xiii. 110). By 1583 he had married. His literary work largely took the form of romances in the manner of Lyly and Greene. _Rosalynde: Euphues’ Golden Legacy_, published (S. R. 6 Oct. 1590) on his return from a voyage to Terceras and the Canaries with Captain Clarke, is typical and was Shakespeare’s source for _As You Like It_. His acknowledged connexion with the stage is slight; and the attempt of Fleay, ii. 43, to assign to him a considerable share in the anonymous play-writing of his time must be received with caution, although he was still controverting Gosson in 1583 (cf. App. C, No. xxxv), and too much importance need not be attached to his intention expressed in _Scylla’s Metamorphosis_ (S. R. 22 Sept. 1589):
To write no more of that whence shame doth grow, Or tie my pen to penny knaves’ delight, But live with fame, and so for fame to write.
He is less likely than Nashe to be the ‘young Juvenal, that biting satirist, that lastly with me together writ a Comedy’ of Greene’s _Groats-worth of Wit_ epistle in 1592 (cf. App. C, No. xlviii). I should not cavil at the loose description of _A Looking Glass for London and England_ as a comedy; but ‘biting satirist’ hardly suits Lodge; and at the time of Greene’s last illness he was out of England on an expedition led by Thomas Cavendish to South America and the Pacific, which started on 26 Aug. 1591 and returned on 11 June 1593. After his return Lodge essayed lyric in _Phillis_ (1593) and satire in _A Fig for Momus_ (1595); but he cannot be shown to have resumed writing for the stage, although the Dulwich records make it clear that he had relations with Henslowe, who had in Jan. 1598 to satisfy the claims which Richard Topping, a tailor, had made against him before three successive Lord Chamberlains, as Lodge’s security for a long-standing debt (Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 44, 172). Lodge himself was then once more beyond the seas. One of the documents was printed by Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_, 45, with forged interpolations intended to represent Lodge as an actor, for which there is no other evidence. Subsequently Lodge took a medical degree at Avignon, was incorporated at Oxford in 1602, and obtained some reputation as a physician. He also became a Catholic, and had again to leave the country for recusancy, but was allowed to return in Jan. 1610 (cf. F. P. Wilson in _M. L. R._ ix. 99). About 1619 he was engaged in legal proceedings with Alleyn, and for a time practised in the Low Countries, returning to London before his death in 1625. Small, 50, refutes the attempts of Fleay, i. 363, and Penniman, _War_, 55, 85, to identify him with Fungoso in _E. M. O._ and Asotus in _Cynthia’s Revels_. Fleay, ii. 158, 352, adds Churms and Philomusus in the anonymous _Wily Beguiled_ and _Return from Parnassus_.
_Collection_
1878–82. E. Gosse, _The Works of Thomas Lodge_ (_Hunterian Club_). [Introduction reprinted in E. Gosse, _Seventeenth Century Studies_ (1883).]
_Dissertations_: D. Laing, _L.’s Defence of Poetry, Music, and Stage Plays_ (1853, _Sh. Soc._); C. M. Ingleby, _Was T. L. an Actor?_ (1868) and _T. L. and the Stage_ (1885, _6 N. Q._ xi, 107, 415); R. Carl, _Ueber T. L.’s Leben und Werke_ (1887, _Anglia_, x. 235); E. C. Richard, _Ueber T. L.’s Leben und Werke_ (1887, _Leipzig diss._).
_The Wounds of Civil War. c. 1588_
_S. R._ 1594, May 24. ‘A booke intituled the woundes of Civill warre lively sett forthe in the true Tragedies of Marius and Scilla.’ _John Danter_ (Arber, ii. 650).
1594. The Wounds of Ciuill War. Liuely set forth in the true Tragedies of Marius and Scilla. As it hath beene publiquely plaide in London, by the Right Honourable the Lord high Admirall his Seruants. Written by Thomas Lodge Gent. _John Danter._
_Editions_ in Dodsley^{3, 4} (1825–75) and by J. D. Wilson (1910, _M. S. R._).
The play contains a clear imitation of Marlowe’s _Tamburlaine_ in the chariot drawn by four Moors of Act III, and both Fleay, ii. 49, and Ward, i. 416, think that it was written shortly after its model, although not on very convincing grounds. No performance of it is recorded in Henslowe’s diary, which suggests a date well before 1592.
_A Looking Glass for London and England, c. 1590_
_With_ Robert Greene (q.v.).
_Doubtful Plays_
Lodge’s hand has been sought in _An Alarum for London_, _Contention of York and Lancaster_, _George a Greene_, _Leire_, _Mucedorus_, _Selimus_, _Sir Thomas More_, _Troublesome Reign of King John_, and _Warning for Fair Women_ (cf. ch. xxiv), and in Greene’s _James IV_ and Shakespeare’s _Henry VI_.
JANE, LADY LUMLEY (_c._ 1537–77).
Jane, daughter of Henry Fitzalan, 12th Earl of Arundel, married John, Lord Lumley, _c._ 1549.
_Iphigenia_ (?)
[_MS._] _Brit. Mus. MS. Reg._ 15 A. ix, ‘The doinge of my Lady Lumley dowghter to my L. Therle of Arundell ... [f. 63] The Tragedie of Euripides called Iphigeneia translated out of Greake into Englisshe.’
_Editions_ by H. H. Child (1909, _M. S. R._) and G. Becker (1910, _Jahrbuch_, xlvi. 28).
The translation is from the _Iphigenia in Aulis_. It is likely to be pre-Elizabethan, but I include it here, as it is not noticed in _The Mediaeval Stage_.
THOMAS LUPTON (?-?).
Several miscellaneous works by Lupton appeared during 1572–84. He may be the ‘Mr. Lupton’ whom the Corporation of Worcester paid during the progress of 1575 (Nichols, i. 549) ‘for his paynes for and in devising [and] instructing the children in their speeches on the too Stages’.
_All For Money. 1558 < > 77_
_S. R._ 1577, Nov. 25. ‘An Enterlude intituled all for money.’ _Roger Ward_ (Arber, ii. 321).
1578. A Moral and Pitieful Comedie, Intituled, All for Money. Plainly representing the manners of men, and fashion of the world noweadayes. Compiled by T. Lupton. _Roger Ward and Richard Mundee._
_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1851, _Literature of Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries_), E. Vogel (1904, _Jahrbuch_, xl. 129), J. S. Farmer (1910, _T. F. T._).
A final prayer for the Queen who ‘hath begon godly’ suggests an earlier date than that of Lupton’s other recorded work. Fleay, ii. 56, would identify the play with _The Devil and Dives_ named in the anonymous _Histriomastix_, but Dives only appears once, and not with Satan.
JOHN LYLY (1554?-1606).
Lyly was of a gentle Hampshire family, the grandson of William, high master of St. Paul’s grammar school, and son of Peter, a diocesan official at Canterbury, where he was probably born some seventeen years before 8 Oct. 1571, when he matriculated from Magdalen College, Oxford. He took his B.A. in 1573 and his M.A. in 1575, after a vain attempt in 1574 to secure a fellowship through the influence of Burghley. He went to London and dwelt in the Savoy. By 1578, when he published _Euphues_, _The Anatomy of Wit_, he was apparently in the service of Lord Delawarr, and by 1580 in that of Burghley’s son-in-law, Edward, Earl of Oxford. It is a pleasing conjecture that he may have been the author of ‘the two prose books played at the Belsavage, where you shall find never a word without wit, never a line without pith, never a letter placed in vain’, thus praised in _The Schoole of Abuse_ (1579) of his fellow euphuist, Stephen Gosson. He incurred the enmity of Gabriel Harvey by suggesting to Oxford that he was aimed at in the _Speculum Tuscanismi_ of Harvey’s _Three Letters_ (1580). In 1582 he had himself incurred Oxford’s displeasure, but the trouble was surmounted, and about 1584 he held leases in the Blackfriars (cf. ch. xvii), one at least of which he obtained through Oxford, for the purposes of a theatrical speculation, in the course of which he took to Court a company which bore Oxford’s name, but was probably made up of boys from the Chapel and St. Paul’s choirs. Presumably the speculation failed, for in June 1584 Lyly, who on 22 Nov. 1583 had married Beatrice Browne of Mexborough, Yorks., was in prison for debt, whence he was probably relieved by a gift from Oxford, in reward for his service, of a rent-charge which he sold for £250. His connexion with the stage was not, however, over, for he continued to write for the Paul’s boys until they stopped playing about 1591. Harvey calls Lyly the ‘Vicemaster of Paules and the Foolemaster of the Theatre’. From this it has been inferred that he held an ushership at the Paul’s choir school. But ‘vice’ is a common synonym for ‘fool’ and ‘vicemaster’, like ‘foolemaster’, probably only means ‘playwright’. Nothing written by Lyly for the Theater in particular or for any adult stage is known to exist, but he seems to have taken part with Nashe in the retorts of orthodoxy during 1589 and 1590 to the Martin Marprelate pamphleteers, probably writing the tract called _Pappe with a Hatchett_ (1589), and he may have been responsible for some of the plays which certainly formed an element in that retort. Lyly’s ambitions were in the direction of courtly rather than of academic preferment. He seems to have had some promise of favour from Elizabeth about 1585 and to have been more definitely ‘entertained her servant’ as Esquire of the Body, probably ‘extraordinary’, in or about 1588, with a hint to ‘aim his courses at the Revels’, doubtless at the reversion of the Mastership, then held by Edmund Tilney. Mr. R. W. Bond bases many conjectures about Lyly’s career on a theory that he actually held the post of Clerk Comptroller in the Revels Office, but the known history of the post (cf. ch. iii) makes this impossible. From 1596 he is found living in the parish of St. Bartholomew the Less. He seems to have ceased writing plays for some while in 1590, and may be the ‘pleasant Willy’ spoken of as ‘dead of late’ and sitting ‘in idle Cell’ in Spenser’s _Tears of the Muses_ (1591), although it is possible that Tarlton (q.v.) is intended. But _The Woman in the Moon_ at least is of later date, and it is possible that both the Chapel and the Paul’s boys were again acting his old plays by the end of the century. In 1595 he was lamenting the overthrow of his fortunes, and by about 1597 the reversion of the Mastership of the Revels had been definitely promised to George Buck. There exist several letters written by Lyly to the Queen and to Sir Robert Cecil between 1597 and 1601, in which he complains bitterly of the wrong done him. Later letters of 1603 and 1605 suggest that at last he had obtained his reward, possibly something out of the Essex forfeitures for which he was asking in 1601. In any case, he did not live to enjoy it long, as the register of St. Bartholomew’s the Less records his burial on 30 Nov. 1606.
_Collections_
_S. R._ 1628, Jan. 9 (by order of a full court). ‘Sixe playes of Peter Lillyes to be printed in one volume ... viz^t. Campaste, Sapho, and Phao. Galathea: Endimion Midas and Mother Bomby.’ _Blount_ (Arber, iv. 192). [‘Peter’ is due to a confusion with Lyly’s brother, a chaplain of the Savoy, who had acted as licenser for the press.]
1632. Sixe Court Comedies. Often Presented and Acted before Queene Elizabeth, by the Children of her Maiesties Chappell, and the Children of Paules. Written by the onely Rare Poet of that Time. The Witie, Comicall, Facetiously-Quicke and vnparalelld: Iohn Lilly, Master of Arts. _William Stansby for Edward Blount._ [Epistles to Viscount Lumley and to the Reader, both signed ‘Ed. Blount’. This edition adds many songs not in the Qq, and W. W. Greg (_M. L. R._ i. 43) argues that they are not by Lyly, but mid-seventeenth-century work and possibly by Dekker.]
1858. F. W. Fairholt, _The Dramatic Works of J. L._ 2 vols. (_Library of Old Authors_).
1902. R. W. Bond, _The Complete Works of J. L._ 3 vols.
_Dissertations_: H. Morley, _Euphuism_ (1861, _Quarterly Review_, cix); W. L. Rushton, _Shakespeare’s Euphuism_ (1871); R. F. Weymouth, _On Euphuism_ (1870–2, _Phil. Soc. Trans._); C. C. Hense, _J. L. und Shakespeare_ (1872–3, _Jahrbuch_, vii. 238; viii. 224); F. Landmann, _Der Euphuismus, sein Wesen, seine Quelle, seine Geschichte_ (1881), _Shakespeare and Euphuism_ (1880–5, _N. S. S. Trans._ 241); J. Goodlet, _Shakespeare’s Debt to J. L._ (1882, _E. S._ v. 356); K. Steinhäuser, _J. L. als Dramatiker_ (1884); J. M. Hart, _Euphuism_ (1889, _Ohio College Trans._); C. G. Child, _J. L. and Euphuism_ (1894); J. D. Wilson, _J. L._ (1905); W. W. Greg, _The Authorship of the Songs in L.’s Plays_ (1905, _M. L. R._ i. 43); A. Feuillerat, _J. L._ (1910); F. Brie, _L. und Greene_ (1910, _E. S._ xlii. 217).
_Campaspe. 1584_
(_a_) 1584. A moste excellent Comedie of Alexander, Campaspe, and Diogenes. Played before the Queenes Maiestie on twelfe day at night by her Maiesties Children and the Children of Poules. _For Thomas Cadman._ [Huth Collection. Prologue and Epilogue at the Blackfriars; Prologue and Epilogue at Court. Running title, ‘A tragical Comedie of Alexander and Campaspe’.]
(_b_) 1584. Campaspe, Played ... on newyeares day at night, by her Maiesties Children.... _For Thomas Cadman._ [Dyce Collection.]
(_c_) 1584. Campaspe, Played ... on newyeares day at night, by her Maiesties Childrẽ.... _For Thomas Cadman._ [B.M.; Bodleian.]
1591. Campaspe, Played ... on twelfe day.... _Thomas Orwin for William Broome._
_S. R._ 1597, Apr. 12 (in full court). ‘Sapho and Phao and Campaspe ... the which copies were Thomas Cadmans.’ _Joan Broome_ (Arber, iii. 82).
1601, Aug. 23 (in full court). ‘Copies ... which belonged to Mystres Brome ... viz. Sapho and Phao, Campaspe, Endimion, Mydas, Galathea.’ _George Potter_ (Arber, iii. 191).
_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–3} (1825, ii), and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ i), J. M. Manly (1897, _Specimens_, ii. 273), G. P. Baker (1903, _R. E. C._)--_Dissertations_: R. Sprenger, _Zu J. L.’s C._ (1892, _E. S._ xvi. 156); E. Koeppel, _Zu J. L.’s A. und C._ (1903, _Archiv_, cx).
The order of the 1584 prints is not quite clear; (_c_) follows (_b_), but the absence of any collation of (_a_) leaves its place conjectural. I conjecture that it came first, partly because a correction in the date of Court performance is more likely to have been made after one inaccurate issue than after two, partly because its abandoned t.p. title serves as running title in all three issues. I do not think the reversion to ‘twelfe day’ in 1591, when the facts may have been forgotten, carries much weight. If so, the Court production was on a 1 Jan., and although the wording of the t.p. suggests, rather than proves, that it was 1 Jan. in the year of publication, this date fits in with the known facts of Lyly’s connexion with the Blackfriars (cf. ch. xvii). The _Chamber Accounts_ (App. B) give the performers on this day as Lord Oxford’s servants, but I take this company to have been a combination of Chapel and Paul’s children (cf. chh. xii, xiii). Fleay, ii. 39, and Bond, ii. 310, with imperfect lists of Court performances before them, suggest 31 Dec. 1581, taking ‘newyeares day at night’, rather lamely, for New Year’s Eve. So does Feuillerat, 574, but I am not sure that his view will have survived his Blackfriars investigations. In any case, the play must have been written later than Jan. 1580, as Lyly uses Sir T. North’s English translation of Plutarch, of which the preface is dated in that month. In a prefatory note by N. W. to S. Daniel, _The Worthy Tract of Paulus Jovius_ (1585), that work is commended above ‘Tarlton’s toys or the silly enterlude of Diogenes’ (Grosart, _Daniel_, iv. 8).
_Sapho and Phao. 3 Mar. 1584_
_S. R._ 1584, Apr. 6. ‘Yt is graunted vnto him yat yf he gett ye comedie of Sappho laufully alowed vnto him, then none of this cumpanie shall interrupt him to enjoye yt’ (_in margin_ ‘Lyllye’). _Thomas Cadman_ (Arber, ii. 430).
1584. Sapho and Phao, Played beefore the Queenes Maiestie on Shrouetewsday, by her Maiesties Children, and the Boyes of Paules. _Thomas Dawson for Thomas Cadman._ [Prologues ‘at the Black fryers’ and ‘at the Court’, and Epilogue.]
1591. _Thomas Orwin for William Broome._
_S. R._ 1597, Apr. 12 } 1601, Aug. 23 } _vide supra_ s.v. _Campaspe_.
I date the Court production on the Shrove-Tuesday before the S. R. entry, on which day Oxford’s boys, whom I regard as made up of Chapel and Paul’s boys, played under Lyly (cf. App. B). Fleay, ii. 40, Bond, ii. 367, and Feuillerat, 573, prefer Shrove-Tuesday (27 Feb.) 1582.
_Galathea. 1584 < > 88_
_S. R._ 1585, Apr. 1. ‘A Commoedie of Titirus and Galathea’ (no fee recorded). _Gabriel Cawood_ (Arber, ii. 440).
1591, Oct. 4 (Bp. of London). ‘Three Comedies plaied before her maiestie by the Children of Paules thone called Endimion, thother Galathea and thother Midas.’ _Widow Broome_ (Arber, ii. 596).
1592. Gallathea. As it was playde before the Queenes Maiestie at Greenewiche, on Newyeeres day at Night. By the Chyldren of Paules. _John Charlwood for Joan Broome._ [Prologue and Epilogue.]
The only performance by Paul’s, on a 1 Jan. at Greenwich, which can be referred to in the t.p. is that of 1588 (cf. App. B), and in III. iii. 41 is an allusion to the approaching year _octogesimus octavus_, which would of course begin on 25 March 1588. Fleay, ii. 40, and Feuillerat, 575, accept this date. Bond, ii. 425, prefers 1586 or 1587, regardless of the fact that the New Year plays in these years were by the Queen’s men. A phrase in V. iii. 86 proves it later than _Sapho and Phao_. But if, as seems probable, the 1585 entry in the Stationers’ Register was of this play, the original production must have been at least as early as 1584–5, and that of 1588 a revival.
_Endymion. 1588_
_S. R._ 1591, Oct. 4. _Vide supra_ s.v. _Galathea_.
1591. Endimion, The Man in the Moone. Playd before the Queenes Maiestie at Greenewich on Candlemas Day at night, by the Chyldren of Paules. _John Charlwood for Joan Broome._ [Epistle by the Printer to the Reader; Prologue and Epilogue.]
_Editions_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ ii), G. P. Baker (1894) and W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertations_: N. J. Halpin, _Oberon’s Vision in M. N. D. Illustrated by a Comparison with L.’s E._ (1843, _Sh. Soc._); J. E. Spingarn, _The Date of L.’s E._ (1894, _Athenaeum_, ii. 172, 204); P. W. Long, _The Purport of L.’s E._ (1909, _M. L. A._ xxiv. 1), _L.’s E., an Addendum_ (1911, _M. P._ viii. 599).
The prologue and epilogue were evidently for the Court. The epistle describes this as the first of certain comedies which had come into the printer’s hands ‘since the plays in Pauls were dissolved’. Baker, lxxxiii, suggested a date of composition in the autumn of 1579, while Spingarn, Bond, iii. 11, and Feuillerat, 577, take the Candlemas of the t.p. to be that of 1586, but the only available Candlemas performance by the Paul’s boys is that of 1588 (cf. App. B). With Long I find no conviction in the attempts of Halpin, Baker, Bond, and Feuillerat to trace Elizabeth’s politics and amours in the play. If Lyly had meant half of what they suggest, he would have ruined his career in her service at the outset.
_Midas. 1589–90_
_S. R._ 1591, Oct. 4. _Vide supra_, s.v. _Galathea_.
1592. Midas. Plaied before the Queenes Maiestie upon Twelfe day at night. By the Children of Paules. _Thomas Scarlet for J. B._ [Prologue ‘in Paules’.]
_Edition_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ i).
Internal allusions suggest a date as late as 1589, and the Twelfth Night of the t.p. must therefore be 6 Jan. 1590. Fleay, ii. 42, and Bond, iii. 111, accept this date. Feuillerat, 578, prefers 6 Jan. 1589, because Gabriel Harvey alludes to the play in his _Advertisement to Pap-Hatchet_, dated 5 Nov. 1589. But there was no Court performance on that day, and Harvey may have seen the play ‘in Paules’.
_Mother Bombie. 1587 < > 90_
_S. R._ 1594, June 18. ‘A booke intituled mother Bumbye beinge an enterlude.’ _Cuthbert Burby_ (Arber, ii. 654).
1594. Mother Bombie. As it was sundrie times plaied by the Children of Powles. _Thomas Scarlet for Cuthbert Burby._
1598. _Thomas Creede for Cuthbert Burby._
_Edition_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ i).
The play doubtless belongs to the Paul’s series of 1587–90. It seems hardly possible to date it more closely. Feuillerat, 578, thinks it later in style than _Midas_.
_Love’s Metamorphosis. 1589–90_ (?)
_S. R._ 1600, Nov. 25 (Pasfield). ‘A booke Called Loves metamorphesis wrytten by master John Lylly and playd by the Children of Paules.’ _William Wood_ (Arber, iii. 176).
1601. Loves Metamorphosis. A Wittie and Courtly Pastorall. Written by M^r Iohn Lyllie. First playd by the Children of Paules, and now by the Children of the Chapell. _For William Wood._
F. Brie (_E. S._ xlii. 222) suggests that the play borrowed from Greene’s _Greenes Metamorphosis_ (S. R. 9 Dec. 1588). Probably the Paul’s boys produced it _c._ 1589–90, and the Chapel revived it in 1600–1.
_The Woman in the Moon. 1590 < > 5_ (?)
_S. R._ 1595, Sept. 22. ‘A booke intituled a woman in the moone.’ _Robert Fynche_ (Arber, iii. 48).
1597. The Woman in the Moone. As it was presented before her Highnesse. By Iohn Lyllie Maister of Arts. _William Jones._ [Prologue.]
The prologue says:
Remember all is but a poet’s dream, The first he had in Phoebus holy bower, But not the last, unless the first displease.
This has been taken as indicating that the play was Lyly’s first; but it need only mean that it was his first in verse. All the others are in prose. The blank verse is that of the nineties, rather than that of the early eighties. There is nothing to show who were the actors, but it is not unlikely that, after the plays in Paul’s were dissolved, Lyly tried his hand in a new manner for a new company. Feuillerat, 232, 580, suggests that Elizabeth may have taken the satire of women amiss and that the ‘overthwartes’ of Lyly’s fortunes of which he complained in Jan. 1595 may have been the result. He puts the date, therefore, in 1593–4.
_Doubtful Work_
Lyly has been suggested as the author of _Maid’s Metamorphosis_ and _A Warning for Fair Women_ (cf. ch. xxiv) and of several anonymous entertainments and fragments of entertainments (ibid., and _supra_, s.vv. Cecil, Clifford, Lee).
LEWIS MACHIN (_fl. c._ 1608).
Nothing is known of Machin’s personality. He is probably the L. M. who contributed ‘eglogs’ to the _Mirrha_ (1607) of the King’s Revels actor William Barksted (q.v.). A Richard Machin was an actor in Germany, 1600–6. There is no traceable connexion between either Richard or Lewis and Henry Machyn the diarist.
Machin collaborated with Gervase Markham in _The Dumb Knight_ (q.v.).
The anonymous _Every Woman in Her Humour_ and _Fair Maid of the Exchange_ have also been ascribed to him (cf. ch. xxiv).
GERVASE MARKHAM (_c._ 1568–1637).
There were two Gervase Markhams, as to both of whom full details are given in C. R. Markham, _Markham Memorials_ (1913). The dramatist was probably the third son of Robert Markham of Cotham, Notts., a soldier and noted horseman, whose later life was devoted to an industrious output of books, verses, romance, translations, and treatises on horsemanship, farming, and sport. He was, said Jonson to Drummond in 1619, ‘not of the number of the faithfull, i.e. Poets, and but a base fellow’ (Laing, 11). Fleay, ii. 58, suggested, on the basis of certain phrases in his _Tragedy of Sir Richard Grenville_ (1595), which has a dedication, amongst others, to the Earl of Southampton, that he might be the ‘rival poet’ of Shakespeare’s _Sonnets_. The other Gervase Markham was of Sedgebrook and later of Dunham, Notts., and is not known to have been a writer. C. W. Wallace thinks he has found a third in an ‘adventurer’ whose wagers with actors and others on the success of an intended walk to Berwick in 1618 led to a suit in the Court of Requests (_Jahrbuch_, xlvi. 345). But as he, like Markham of Cotham, had served in Ireland, the two may conceivably be identical, although the adventurer had a large family, and it is not known that Markham of Cotham had any. Markham of Dunham, who had also served in Ireland, had but two bastards. Conceivably Markham wrote for the Admiral’s in 1596–7 (cf. vol. ii, p. 145). Beyond the period dealt with, he collaborated with William Sampson in _Herod and Antipater_ (1622) acted by the Revels company at the Red Bull.
_The Dumb Knight. 1607–8_
_S. R._ 1608, Oct. 6 (Buck). ‘A playe of the Dumbe Knight.’ _John Bache_ (Arber, iii. 392).
1610. Nov. 19. Transfer from Bache to Robert Wilson (Arber, iii. 449).
1608. The dumbe Knight. A pleasant Comedy, acted sundry times by the children of his Maiesties Reuels. Written by Iaruis Markham. _N. Okes for J. Bache._ [Epistle to Reader, signed ‘Lewes Machin’. There were two reissues of 1608 with altered t.ps. Both omit the ascription to Markham. One has ‘A historicall comedy’; the other omits the description.]
1633. _A. M. for William Sheares._
_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–4} (1744–1875) and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ ii).--_Dissertation_: J. Q. Adams, _Every Woman in Her Humour and The Dumb Knight_ (1913, _M. P._ x. 413).
The Epistle says that ‘Rumour ... hath made strange constructions on this Dumb Knight’, and that ‘having a partner in the wrong whose worth hath been often approved ... I now in his absence make this apology, both for him and me’. Presumably these ‘constructions’ led to the withdrawal of Markham’s name from the title-page. Fleay, ii. 58, assigned him the satirical comedy of the underplot, but Adams points out that Markham’s books reveal no humour, and that the badly linked underplot was probably inserted by Machin. It borrows passages from the anonymous unprinted _Every Woman in Her Humour_ (q.v.). The production of a King’s Revels play is not likely to be before 1607, but Herz, 102, thinks that an earlier version underlies the _Vom König in Cypern_ of Jacob Ayrer, who died 1605. A later German version also exists, and was perhaps the _Philole und Mariana_ played at Nuremberg in 1613.
CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE (1564–93).
Marlowe, whose name was also spelt Marley and Marlin, was the son of John and Catherine Marlowe of Canterbury. He was born 6 Feb. 1564. John Marlowe was a shoemaker and subsequently became parish clerk of St. Mary’s. He entered the King’s School, Canterbury, in 1579 and in March 1581 matriculated with a pension on Abp. Parker’s foundation at Corpus Christi or Benet’s College, Cambridge. He took his B.A. in 1584 and his M.A. in 1587. In this year he probably began his literary career in London, with _Tamburlaine_. A ballad, printed by Collier, which represents him as a player and breaking his leg in a lewd scene on the stage of the Curtain, is now discredited. There are satirical allusions to him in the preface to the _Perimedes_ (S. R. 29 March 1588) and in the _Menaphon_ (23 Aug. 1589) of Robert Greene, but it is very doubtful whether, as usually assumed, Nashe had him especially in mind when he criticized certain tragic poets of the day in his epistle to the latter pamphlet (cf. App. C, No. xlii). On 1 Oct. 1588 ‘Christofer Marley, of London, gentleman,’ had to give bail to appear at the next Middlesex Sessions. The exact nature of the charge is unknown; but it cannot be doubted that his personal reputation, even in the free-living Elizabethan London, did not stand high. He is clearly the ‘famous gracer of tragedians’ reproved for atheism in Greene’s _Groats-worth of Wit_ (1592) and it is probably to him that Chettle alludes in his apology when he says, ‘With neither of them that take offence was I acquainted and with one of them I care not if I never be’ (cf. App. C, Nos. xlviii, xlix). The charge of atheism doubtless arose from Marlowe’s association with the group of freethinkers which centred round Sir Walter Raleigh. In 1593 these speculative tendencies brought him into trouble. About 1591, while writing for the players of a certain lord, as yet unidentified, he had shared a room with Thomas Kyd (q.v.), who was then in the service of the same lord. Certain theological notes of his got amongst Kyd’s papers and were found there when Kyd was arrested on a charge of libel on 12 May 1593. On 18 May the Privy Council sent a messenger to the house of Thomas Walsingham, at Scadbury in Kent, to arrest Marlowe, and on 20 May he was ordered to remain in attendance on the Council. There exists a ‘Note’ drawn up at this time by one Richard Baines or Bame, containing a report of some loose conversation of Marlowe’s which their Lordships could hardly be expected to regard as anything but blasphemous. But, so far as Marlowe was concerned, the proceedings were put a stop to by his sudden death. The register of St. Nicholas, Deptford, records that he was ‘slain by Francis Archer’ and buried there on 1 June 1593. Francis Meres’s _Palladis Tamia_ (1598) tells us that he was ‘stabbed to death by a bawdy servingman, a rival of his in his lewde love’. Somewhat different versions of the story are given by Thomas Beard, _The Theater of God’s Judgments_ (1597), and William Vaughan, _The Golden Grove_ (1600), both of whom use Marlowe’s fate to point the moral against atheism. There are some rather incoherent allusions to the event in verses affixed by Gabriel Harvey to his _A New Letter of Notable Contents_, which is dated 16 Sept. 1593:
Sonet
Gorgon, or the Wonderfull yeare
... The fatall yeare of yeares is Ninety Three: ... Weepe Powles, thy Tamberlaine voutsafes to dye.
L’envoy
The hugest miracle remaines behinde, The second Shakerley Rash-swash to binde.
* * * * *
The Writer’s Postscript; or a friendly Caveat to the Second Shakerley of Powles.
Slumbring I lay in melancholy bed Before the dawning of the sanguin light: When Eccho shrill, or some Familiar Spright, Buzzed an Epitaph into my hed.
Magnifique Mindes, bred of Gargantuas race. In grisly weedes His Obsequies waiment Whose Corps on Powles, whose mind triumph’d on Kent, Scorning to bate Sir Rodomont an ace.
I mus’d awhile: and having mus’d awhile, Iesu, (quoth I) is that Gargantua minde Conquerd, and left no Scanderbeg behinde? Vowed he not to Powles A Second bile? What bile or kibe (quoth that same early Spright) Have you forgot the Scanderbegging wight?
Glosse
Is it a Dreame? or is it the Highest Minde That ever haunted Powles, or hunted winde, Bereaft of that same sky-surmounting breath, That breath, that taught the Tempany to swell? He, and the Plague contested for the game:
* * * * *
The grand Dissease disdain’d his toade Conceit, And smiling at his tamberlaine contempt, Sternely struck-home the peremptory stroke....
Harvey seems to have thought in error that Marlowe died of the plague. I do not infer from the allusions to ‘Powles’ that Marlowe wrote for the Paul’s boys; but rather that _Tamburlaine_, like Nashe’s pamphlets, was sold by the booksellers in St. Paul’s Churchyard. The ‘second Shakerley’ is certainly Nashe. Surely ‘Scanderbeg’, who is ‘left behinde’, must also be Nashe, and I do not see how Fleay, ii. 65, draws the inference that Marlowe was the author of the lost play entered on the Stationers’ Register by Edward Allde on 3 July 1601 as ‘the true historye of George Scanderbarge, as yt was lately playd by the right honorable the Earle of Oxenford his servantes’ (Arber, iii. 187). There is much satire both of Marlowe and of Nashe in the body of _A New Letter_ (Grosart, _Harvey_, i. 255).
_Collections_
1826. [G. Robinson] _The Works of C. M._ 3 vols.
1850. A. Dyce, _The Works of C. M._ 3 vols. [Revised 1858, and in 1 vol. 1865, &c.]
1870. F. Cunningham, _The Works of C. M._
1885. A. H. Bullen, _The Works of C. M._ 3 vols.
1885–9. H. Breymann and A. Wagner, _C. M. Historisch-kritische Ausgabe._ 3 parts. [_Tamburlaine_, _Dr. Faustus_, _Jew of Malta_ only issued.]
1887. H. Ellis, _The Best Plays of C. M._ (_Mermaid Series_). [_Tamburlaine_, _Dr. Faustus_, _Jew of Malta_, _Edward II_.]
1910. C. F. Tucker Brooke, _The Works of C. M._ [Larger edition in progress.]
1912. W. L. Phelps. _Marlowe_ [_M. E. D._]. [_Tamburlaine_, _Dr. Faustus_, _Jew of Malta_, _Edward II_.]
_Dissertations_: H. Ulrici, _C. M. und Shakespeare’s Verhältniss zu ihm_ (1865, _Jahrbuch_, i. 57); J. Schipper, _De versu Marlowii_ (1867); T. Mommsen, _M. und Shakespeare_ (1886); A. W. Verity, _M.’s Influence on Shakespeare_ (1886); E. Faligan, _De Marlovianis Fabulis_ (1887); O. Fischer, _Zur Charakteristik der Dramen M.’s_ (1889); J. G. Lewis, _C. M.: Outlines of his Life and Works_ (1891); F. S. Boas, _New Light on M._ (1899, _Fortnightly Review_, lxxi, 212); J. H. Ingram, _C. M. and his Associates_ (1904); H. Jung, _Das Verhältniss M.’s zu Shakespeare_ (1904); W. L. Courtney, _C. M._ (_Fortnightly Review_, 1905, ii. 467, 678); A. Marquardsen, _C. M.’s Kosmologie_ (1905, _Jahrbuch_, xli. 54); J. Le G. Brereton, _The Case of Francis Ingram_ (_Sydney Univ. Publ._ v); G. C. Moore Smith, _Marlowe at Cambridge_ (1909, _M. L. R._ iv. 167); F. C. Danchin, _Études critiques sur C. M._ (1912–13, _Revue Germanique_, viii. 23; ix. 566); C. Crawford, _The Marlowe Concordance_ (1911, _Materialien_, xxxiv, pt. i only); F. K. Brown, _M. and Kyd_ (_T. L. S._, 2 June, 1921).
_Tamburlaine. c. 1587_
_S. R._ 1590, Aug. 14 (Hartwell). ‘The twooe commicall discourses of Tomberlein the Cithian shepparde.’ _Richard Jones_ (Arber, ii. 558).
1590. Tamburlaine the Great. Who, from a Scythian Shephearde by his rare and wonderfull Conquests became a most puissant and mightye Monarque. And (for his tyranny, and terrour in Warre) was tearmed, The Scourge of God. Deuided into two Tragicall Discourses, as they were sundrie times shewed vpon Stages in the Citie of London, By the right honorable the Lord Admyrall, his seruantes. Now first, and newlie published. _Richard Jones_ [8vo]. [Epistle to the Readers, signed ‘R. I. Printer’; Prologues to both Parts. See Greg, _Plays_, 66; _Masques_, cxxv. Ingram, 281, speaks of two 4tos and one 8vo of 1590, probably through some confusion.]
1592. _R. Jones._ [Greg, _Masques_, cxxv, thinks that the date may have been altered in the B.M. copy from 1593. Langbaine mentions an edition of 1593.]
1597. [An edition apparently known to Collier; cf. Greg, _Masques_, cxxv.]
1605. _For Edward White._ [ Part i .]
1606. _E. A. for E. White._ [ Part ii .]
_Editions_ by A. Wagner (1885) and K. Vollmöller (1885) and of