Part i

, dealing with Byron’s visit to England, has been suppressed or altered. The Epistle offers ‘these poor dismembered poems’, and they are probably the subject of two undated and unsigned letters printed by Dobell in _Ath._ (1901), i. 433. The first, to one Mr. Crane, secretary to the Duke of Lennox, inquires whether the writer can leave a ‘shelter’ to which ‘the austeritie of this offended time’ has sent him. The other is by ‘the poor subject of your office’ and evidently addressed to the Master of the Revels, and complains of his strictness in revising for the press what the Council had passed for presentment. Worcester’s men had an anonymous play of _Byron_ (_Burone_ or _Berowne_) in 1602, and Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 231) thinks that to this Chapman’s may have borne some relation. But Chapman’s source was Grimeston, _General Inventorie of the History of France_ (1607).

_The Revenge of Bussy D’Ambois. c. 1610_

_S. R._ 1612, Apr. 17 (Buck). ‘Twoo play bookes, th’ one called, The revenge of Bussy D’Amboys, beinge a tragedy, thother called, The wydowes teares, beinge a Comedy, bothe written by George Chapman.’ _Browne_ (Arber, iii. 481). [Only a 6_d._ fee charged for the two.]

1613. The Revenge of Bussy D’Ambois. A Tragedie. As it hath beene often presented at the priuate Play-house in the White-Fryers. Written by George Chapman, Gentleman. _T. S., sold by Iohn Helme._ [Epistle to Sir Thomas Howard, signed ‘Geo. Chapman’.]

_Edition_ by F. S. Boas (1905, _B. L._).

Boas has shown that Chapman used Grimeston, _General Inventorie of the History of France_ (1607). Probably the play was written for the Queen’s Revels to accompany _Bussy_. But whether it was first produced at Whitefriars in 1609–12, or at Blackfriars in 1608–9, can hardly be settled. The title-page and the probability that the _Byron_ affair would render it judicious to defer further plays by Chapman rather point to the Whitefriars. The Epistle commends the play because ‘Howsoever therefore in the scenical presentation it might meet with some maligners, yet considering even therein it passed with approbation of more worthy judgments’.

_Chabot Admiral of France, c. 1613_ (?)

_S. R._ 1638, Oct. 24 (Wykes). ‘A Booke called Phillip Chalbott Admirall of France and the Ball. By James Shirley. vj^d.’ _Crooke and William Cooke_ (Arber, iv. 441).

1639. The Tragedie of Chabot Admirall of France. As it was presented by her Majesties Servants, at the private House in Drury Lane. Written by George Chapman, and James Shirly. _Tho. Cotes for Andrew Crooke and William Cooke._

_Edition_ by E. Lehman (1906, _Pennsylvania Univ. Publ._).

The play was licensed by Herbert as Shirley’s on 29 April 1635 (_Variorum_, iii. 232). But critics agree in finding much of Chapman in it, and suppose Shirley to have been a reviser rather than a collaborator. Parrott regards I. i, II. iii, and V. ii as substantially Chapman; II. i and III. i as substantially Shirley; and the rest as Chapman revised. He suggests that Chapman’s version was for the Queen’s Revels _c._ 1613. Fleay, ii. 241, put it in 1604, but it cannot be earlier than the 1611 edition of its source, E. Pasquier, _Les Recherches de la France_.

_Caesar and Pompey, c. 1613_ (?)

_S. R._ 1631, May 18 (Herbert). ‘A Playe called Caesar and Pompey by George Chapman.’ _Harper_ (Arber, iv. 253).

1631. The Warres of Pompey and Caesar. Out of whose euents is euicted this Proposition. Only a iust man is a freeman. By G. C. _Thomas Harper, sold by Godfrey Emondson, and Thomas Alchorne._ [Epistle to the Earl of Middlesex, signed ‘Geo. Chapman’.]

1631.... Caesar and Pompey: A Roman Tragedy, declaring their Warres.... By George Chapman. _Thomas Harper_ [&c.]. [Another issue.]

1653.... As it was Acted at the Black Fryers.... [Another issue.]

Chapman says that the play was written ‘long since’ and ‘never touched at the stage’. Various dates have been conjectured; the last, Parrott’s 1612–13, ‘based upon somewhat intangible evidence of style and rhythm’ will do as well as another. Parrott is puzzled by the 1653 title-page and thinks that, in spite of the Epistle, the play was acted. Might it not have been acted by the King’s after the original publication in 1631? Plays on Caesar were so common that it is not worth pursuing the suggestion of Fleay, i. 65, that fragments of the Admiral’s anonymous _Caesar and Pompey_ of 1594–5 may survive here.

_Doubtful and Lost Plays_

Chapman’s lost plays for the Admiral’s men of 1598–9 have already been noted. Two plays, ‘The Fatall Love, a French Tragedy’, and ‘A Tragedy of a Yorkshire Gentlewoman and her sonne’, were entered as his in the _S. R._ by Humphrey Moseley on 29 June 1660 (Eyre, ii. 271). They appear, without Chapman’s name, in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (W. W. Greg in _3 Library_, ii. 231). The improbable ascriptions to Chapman of _The Ball_ (1639) and _Revenge for Honour_ (1654) on their t.ps. and of _Two Wise Men and All the Rest Fools_ (1619) by Kirkman in 1661 do not inspire confidence in this late entry, and even if they were Chapman’s, the plays were not necessarily of our period. But it has been suggested that _Fatal Love_ may be the anonymous _Charlemagne_ (q.v.). J. M. Robertson assigns to Chapman _A Lover’s Complaint_, accepts the conjecture of Minto and Acheson that he was the ‘rival poet’ of Shakespeare’s _Sonnets_, believes him to be criticized in the Holophernes of _L. L. L._ and regards him as the second hand of _Timon of Athens_, and with varying degrees of assurance as Shakespeare’s predecessor, collaborator or reviser, in _Per._, _T. C._, _Tp._, _Ham._, _Cymb._, _J. C._, _T. of S._, _Hen. VI_, _Hen. V_, _C. of E._, _2 Gent._, _All’s Well_, _M. W._, _K. J._, _Hen. VIII_. These are issues which cannot be discussed here. The records do not suggest any association between Chapman and the Chamberlain’s or King’s men, except possibly in Caroline days.

For other ascriptions to Chapman, see in ch. xxiv, _Alphonsus_, _Fedele and Fortunio_, _Sir Giles Goosecap_, _Histriomastix_, and _Second Maiden’s Tragedy_.

MASK

_Middle Temple and Lincoln’s Inn Mask. 15 Feb. 1613_

_S. R._ 1613, 27 Feb. (Nidd). ‘A booke called the [description] of the maske performed before the kinge by the gent. of the Myddle temple and Lincolns Inne with the maske of Grayes Inne and the Inner Temple.’ _George Norton_ (Arber, iii. 516).

N.D. The Memorable Maske of the two Honorable Houses or Inns of Court; the Middle Temple, and Lyncolnes Inne. As it was performed before the King, at White-Hall on Shroue Munday at night; being the 15. of February 1613. At the princely Celebration of the most Royall Nuptialls of the Palsgraue, and his thrice gratious Princesse Elizabeth, &c. With a description of their whole show; in the manner of their march on horse-backe to the Court from the Maister of the Rolls his house: with all their right Noble consorts, and most showfull attendants. Inuented, and fashioned, with the ground, and speciall structure of the whole worke, By our Kingdomes most Artfull and Ingenious Architect Innigo Iones. Supplied, Aplied, Digested, and Written, By Geo. Chapman. _G. Eld for George Norton._ [Epistle by Chapman to Sir Edward Philips, Master of the Rolls, naming him and Sir Henry Hobart, the Attorney-General, as furtherers of the mask; after text, _A Hymne to Hymen_. R. B. McKerrow, _Bibl. Evidence_ (_Bibl. Soc. Trans._ xii. 267), shows the priority of this edition. Parts of the description are separated from the speeches to which they belong, with an explanation that Chapman was ‘prevented by the unexpected haste of the printer, which he never let me know, and never sending me a proofe till he had past their speeches, I had no reason to imagine hee could have been so forward’.]

N.D. _F. K. for George Norton._

_Edition_ in Nichols, _James_ (1828), ii. 566.

The maskers, in cloth of silver embroidered with gold, olive-coloured vizards, and feathers on their heads, were Princes of Virginia; the torchbearers also Virginians; the musicians Phoebades or Priests of Virginia; the antimaskers a ‘mocke-maske’ of Baboons; the presenters Plutus, Capriccio a Man of Wit, Honour, Eunomia her Priest, and Phemis her Herald.

The locality was the Hall at Whitehall, whither the maskers rode from the house of the Master of the Rolls, with their musicians and presenters in chariots, Moors to attend their horses, and a large escort of gentlemen and halberdiers. They dismounted in the tiltyard, where the King and lords beheld them from a gallery. The scene represented a high rock, which cracked to emit Capriccio, and had the Temple of Honour on one side, and a hollow tree, ‘the bare receptacle of the baboonerie’, on the other. After ‘the presentment’ and the ‘anticke’ dance of the ‘ante-maske’, the top of the rock opened to disclose the maskers and torchbearers in a mine of gold under the setting sun. They descended by steps within the rock. First the torchbearers ‘performed another ante-maske, dancing with torches lighted at both ends’. Then the maskers danced two dances, followed by others with the ladies, and finally a ‘dance, that brought them off’ to the Temple of Honour.

For general notices of the wedding masks, see ch. xxiv and the account of Campion’s Lords’ mask. The German _Beschreibung_ (1613) gives a long abstract of Chapman’s (extract in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxix. 172), but this is clearly paraphrased from the author’s own description. It was perhaps natural for Sir Edward Philips to write to Carleton on 25 Feb. (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxii. 46) that this particular mask was ‘praised above all others’. But Chamberlain is no less laudatory (Birch, i. 226):

‘On Monday night, was the Middle Temple and Lincoln’s Inn mask prepared in the hall at court, whereas the Lords’ was in the banqueting room. It went from the Rolls, all up Fleet Street and the Strand, and made such a gallant and glorious show, that it is highly commended. They had forty gentlemen of best choice out of both houses, and the twelve maskers, with their torchbearers and pages, rode likewise upon horses exceedingly well trapped and furnished, besides a dozen little boys, dressed like baboons, that served for an antimask, and, they say, performed it exceedingly well when they came to it; and three open chariots, drawn with four horses apiece, that carried their musicians and other personages that had parts to speak. All which, together with their trumpeters and other attendants, were so well set out, that it is generally held for the best show that hath been seen many a day. The King stood in the gallery to behold them, and made them ride about the Tilt-yard, and then they were received into St. James’ Park, and so out, all along the galleries, into the hall, where themselves and their devices, which they say were excellent, made such a glittering show, that the King and all the company were exceedingly pleased, and especially with their dancing, which was beyond all that hath been seen yet. The King made the masters [? maskers] kiss his hand on parting, and gave them many thanks, saying, he never saw so many proper men together, and himself accompanied them at the banquet, and took care it should be well ordered, and speaks much of them behind their backs, and strokes the Master of the Rolls and Dick Martin, who were chief doers and undertakers.’

Chamberlain wrote more briefly, but with equal commendation, to Winwood (iii. 435), while the Venetian ambassador reported that the mask was danced ‘with such finish that it left nothing to be desired’ (_V. P._ xii. 532).

The mask is but briefly noticed in the published records of the Middle Temple (Hopwood, 40, 42); more fully in those of Lincoln’s Inn (Walker, ii. 150–6, 163, 170, 198, 255, 271). The Inn’s share of the cost was £1,086 8_s._ 11_d._ and presumably that of the Middle Temple as much. A levy was made of from £1 10_s._ to £4, according to status, and some of the benchers and others advanced funds. A dispute about the repayment of an advance by Lord Chief Justice Richardson was still unsettled in 1634. An account of Christopher Brooke as ‘Expenditour for the maske’ includes £100 to Inigo Jones for works for the hall and street, £45 to Robert Johnson for music and songs, £2 to Richard Ansell, matlayer, £1 to the King’s Ushers of the Hall, and payments for a pair of stockings and other apparel to ‘Heminge’s boy’, and for the services of John and Robert Dowland, Philip Rosseter and Thomas Ford as musicians. The attitude of the young lawyer may be illustrated from a letter of Sir S. Radcliffe on 1 Feb. (_Letters_, 78), although I do not know his Inn: ‘I have taken up 30^s of James Singleton, which or y^e greater part thereof is to be paid toward y^e great mask at y^e marriage at Shrovetide. It is a duty for y^e honour of our Inn, and unto which I could not refuse to contribute with any credit.’

A letter by Chapman, partly printed by B. Dobell in _Ath._ (1901), i. 466, is a complaint to an unnamed paymaster about his reward for a mask given in the royal presence at a date later than Prince Henry’s death. While others of his faculty got 100 marks or £50, he is ‘put with taylors and shoomakers, and such snipperados, to be paid by a bill of

## particulars’. Dobell does not seem to think that this was the wedding

mask, but I see no clear reason why it should not have been.

HENRY CHEKE (_c._ 1561).

If the translator, as stated in _D. N. B._, was Henry the son of Sir John Cheke and was born _c._ 1548, he must have been a precocious scholar.

_Free Will > 1561_

_S. R._ 1561, May 11. ‘ij. bokes, the one called ... and the other of Frewill.’ _John Tysdayle_ (Arber, i. 156).

N.D. A certayne Tragedie wrytten fyrst in Italian, by F. N. B. entituled, Freewyl, and translated into Englishe, by Henry Cheeke. _John Tisdale._ [Epistles to Lady Cheyne, signed H. C., and to the Reader. Cheyne arms on v^o of t.p.]

The translation is from the _Tragedia del Libero Arbitrio_ (1546) of Francesco Nigri de Bassano. It is presumably distinct from that which Sir Thomas Hoby in his _Travaile and Life_ (_Camden Misc._ x. 63) says he made at Augsburg in Aug.–Nov. 1550, and dedicated to the Marquis of Northampton.

HENRY CHETTLE (_c._ 1560–> 1607).

Chettle was apprenticed, as the son of Robert Chettle of London, dyer, to Thomas East, printer, on 29 Sept. 1577, and took up the freedom of the Stationers’ Company on 6 Oct. 1584. During 1589–91 he was in partnership as a printer with John Danter and William Hoskins. The partnership was then dissolved, and Chettle’s imprint is not found on any book of later date (McKerrow, _Dictionary_, 68, 84, 144). But evidently his connexion with the press and with Danter continued, for in 1596 Nashe inserted into _Have With You to Saffron Walden_ (_Works_, iii. 131) a letter from him offering to set up the book and signed ‘Your old Compositer, Henry Chettle’. Nashe’s _Strange News_ (1592) and _Terrors of the Night_ (1594) had come, like _Have With You to Saffron Walden_ itself, from Danter’s press. The object of the letter was to defend Nashe against a charge in Gabriel Harvey’s _Pierce’s Supererogation_ (1593) of having abused Chettle. He had in fact in _Pierce Penilesse_ (1592) called _Greenes Groats-worth of Wit_ ‘a scald triuial lying pamphlet’, and none of his doing. And of the _Groats-worth_ Chettle had acted as editor, as he himself explains in the Epistle to his _Kind Hearts Dream_ (cf. App. C, No. xlix), in which, however, he exculpates Nashe from any share in the book. By 1595 he was married and had lost a daughter Mary, who was buried at St. John’s, Windsor (E. Ashmole, _Antiquities of Berkshire_, iii. 75). By 1598 he had taken to writing for the stage, and in his _Palladis Tamia_ of that year Meres includes him in ‘the best for Comedy amongst vs’. Of all Henslowe’s band of needy writers for the Admiral’s and Worcester’s from 1598 to 1603, he was the most prolific and one of the neediest. Of the forty-eight plays in which he had a hand during this period, no more than five, or possibly six, survive. His personal loans from Henslowe were numerous and often very small. Some were on account of the Admiral’s; others on a private account noted in the margin of Henslowe’s diary. On 16 Sept. 1598 he owed the Admiral’s £8 9_s._ in balance, ‘al his boockes & recknynges payd’. In Nov. 1598 he had loans ‘for to areste one with Lord Lester’. In Jan. 1599 he was in the Marshalsea, and in May borrowed to avoid arrest by one Ingrome. On 25 Mar. 1602 he was driven, apparently in view of a payment of £3, to seal a bond to write for the Admiral’s. This did not prevent him from also writing for Worcester’s in the autumn. More than once his manuscript had to be redeemed from pawn (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 250). His _England’s Mourning Garment_, a eulogy of Elizabeth, is reprinted in C. M. Ingleby, _Shakespere Allusion-Books_,