Part I

closely resembles Drayton’s _Ballad of Agincourt_ (ed. Brett, 81), and must, I think, be his. _Jane Shore_ is mentioned as a play visited by citizens in _The Knight of the Burning Pestle_ (1607), ind. 57, and ‘the well-frequented play of Shore’ in _Pimlyco or Runne Redcap_ (1609). A play, apparently on the same subject, was performed by English actors at Graz on 19 Nov. 1607 (Herz, 98).

_Every Woman in Her Humour. 1607–8?_

1609. Everie Woman in her Humor. _E. A. for Thomas Archer._ [Prologue.]

_Editions_ by A. H. Bullen (1885, _O. E. P._ iv) and J. S. Farmer (1913, _S. F. T._).--_Dissertation_: J. Q. Adams, _E. W. I. and The Dumb Knight_ (1913, _M. P._ x. 413).

Fleay, ii. 321, suggests a date _c._ 1602 on the ground of apparent reference to the _Poetomachia_. But this is not conclusive, and Adams points to the use of a song (p. 335) from Bateson’s _Madrigals_ (1604). He thinks that Lewis Machin was the author, as the style resembles that of the comic part of _The Dumb Knight_ (vide s. Markham), and two passages are substantially reproduced in the latter. If so, this also may be a King’s Revels play. Allusions on p. 270 to the ‘babones’ (cf. s.v. _Sir Giles Goosecap_) and on p. 316 to the Family of Love (cf. s.v. Middleton) are consistent with a date of 1603–8.

_Fair Em c. 1590_

N.D. _For T. N. and I. W._

[In Bodleian. Greg says that this is ‘considerably earlier’ than 1631. The t.p. is as in 1631. Chetwood mentions three early editions, including one undated and one of 1619. This is not now known.]

1631. A Pleasant Comedie of Faire Em, the Millers Daughter of Manchester. With the loue of William the Conqueror. As it was sundry times publiquely acted in the Honourable Citie of London, by the right Honourable the Lord Strange his Seruants. _For John Wright._

_Editions_ by R. Simpson (1878, _S. of S._ ii), J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._), and in collections of _Sh. Apocrypha._--_Dissertations_: R. Simpson, _Some Plays Attributed to Sh._ (1875–6, _N. S. S. Trans._ 155); K. Elze, _Nachträgliche Bemerkungen zu Mucedorus und F. E._ (1880, _Jahrbuch_, xv. 339); P. Lohr, _Le Printemps d’Yver und die Quelle zu F. E._ (1912).

The play has a double plot. One theme is the contest of William the Conqueror and the Marquess Lubeck for the loves of Princess Blanch of Denmark and of Mariana, a Swedish captive; the other is the contest of Manvile, Mountney and Valingford for Em, daughter of the Miller of Manchester. A ‘ballad intituled The Miller’s daughter of Manchester’ was entered on the Stationers’ Register by Henry Carr on 2 March 1581 (Arber, ii. 390). _Fair Em_ has been included in the Shakespeare _Apocrypha_ on the strength of a volume formerly in the collection of Charles II, and then in that of Garrick, in which it was bound up with _Mucedorus_ and _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_ and lettered ‘Shakespeare, vol. i’. On the other hand, Edward Phillips, in his _Theatrum Poetarum_ (1675), assigned it to Greene. Clearly Greene is not the author, although there are certain resemblances of situation between the play and _Friar Bacon_; for he satirizes it in the preface to _Farewell to Folly_ (_Works_, ix. 232), quoting one or two of its expressions and blaming them as borrowed out of Scripture. Of the author he says, ‘He that cannot write true English without the help of clerks of parish churches will needs make himself the father of interludes’, and, ‘The sexton of St. Giles without Cripplegate would have been ashamed of such blasphemous rhetoric’. _Farewell to Folly_ seems to have appeared in 1591 (cf. s.v. Greene), and _Fair Em_ may perhaps therefore be dated between this pamphlet and _Friar Bacon_ (_c._ 1589). Simpson adopts the theory, which hardly deserves serious discussion, of Shakespeare’s authorship. He finds numerous (but impossible) attacks by Greene upon Shakespeare from the _Planetomachia_ (1585) onwards, and thinks that Shakespeare retorted in _Fair Em_, satirizing Greene as Manvile and Marlowe as Mountney, and depicting himself as Valingford. ‘Fair Em’ herself is the Manchester stage. In the story of William the Conqueror he finds an allusion to the travels of William Kempe and other actors in Denmark and Saxony. Fleay, _Shakespeare Manual_ (1878), 281, adopts much of this fantasy, but turns ‘Fair Em’ into the Queen’s company and Valingford into Peele. In 1891 (ii. 282) he makes ‘Fair Em’ Strange’s company. His minor identifications, whether of 1878 or of 1891, may be disregarded. More plausible is his suggestion that the author of the play may be Robert Wilson (q.v.), which would explain the attack upon Greene (q.v.) for his _Farewell to Folly_ in R. W.’s _Martin Mar-sixtus_ (1591). The suggestion that the play was the _Sir John Mandeville_ revived by Strange’s for Henslowe in 1592 rests on a confusion between Mandeville and Manvile, but it may have been the _William the Conqueror_ similarly revived by Sussex’s on 4 Jan. 1594 (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 151, 158).

_The Fair Maid of Bristow > 1604_

_S. R._ 1605, Feb. 8. ‘A commedy called “the fayre Mayd of Bristoe” played at Hampton Court by his Maiesties players.’ _Thomas Pavier_ (Arber, iii. 283).

1605. The Faire Maide of Bristow. As it was plaide at Hampton, before the King and Queenes most excellent Maiesties. _For Thomas Pavier._

_Editions_ by A. H. Quinn (1902, _Pennsylvania Univ. Publ._) and J. S. Farmer (1912, _T. F. T._).

The court performance must have been during the Christmas of 1603–4, which was at Hampton Court. Bullen, _Works of Day_, 10, rejects the theory of Collier that this was Day’s _Bristol Tragedy_, written for the Admiral’s in May 1602, on the grounds that it is not a tragedy and does not resemble the known work of Day. Moreover, the King’s men are not likely to have acquired an Admiral’s play.

_The Fair Maid of the Exchange c. 1602_

_S. R._ 1607, April 24 (Buck). ‘A booke called the faire Mayde of the Exchaunge.’ _Henry Rocket_ (Arber, iii. 347).

1607. The Fayre Mayde of the Exchange. With the pleasaunt Humours of the Cripple of Fanchurch. Very delectable, and full of mirth. _For Henry Rockit._ [Dramatis Personae headed ‘Eleauen may easily acte this Comedie’, and Prologue.]

1525. _I. L._

1637. _A. G._

_Edition_ by B. Field (1845, _Sh. Soc._).--_Dissertations_: L. A. Hibberd, _The Authorship and Date of the Fair Maid of the Exchange_ (_M. P._ vii. 383); P. Aronstein, _Die Verfasserschaft des Dramas The Fair Maid of the Exchange_ (1912, _E. S._ xlv. 45).

Heywood’s authorship was asserted by Kirkman in 1671 (Greg, _Masques_, lxvii), denied by Langbaine in 1687, accepted by Charles Lamb and out of respect to him by Ward, ii. 572, and is still matter of dispute. Fleay, ii. 329, assigned it to Machin on quite inadequate grounds. Hibberd argues the case for Heywood, and Aronstein attempts a compromise by giving ii. I, iv. I, and V to Heywood and the rest to some young academic student of Shakespeare and Jonson. The imitations of these point to a date _c._ 1602. I do not offer an opinion.

_Fedele and Fortunio or Two Italian Gentlemen c. 1584_

_S. R._ 1584, Nov. 12. ‘A booke entituled Fedele et Fortuna. The deceiptes in love Discoursed in a Commedie of ij Italyan gent and translated into Englishe.’ _Thomas Hackett_ (Arber, ii. 437).

1585. Fedele and Fortunio. The deceites in Loue: excellently discoursed in a very pleasaunt and fine conceited Comoedie, of two Italian Gentlemen. Translated out of Italian, and set downe according as it hath beene presented before the Queenes moste excellent Maiestie. _For Thomas Hacket._

[In the Mostyn sale (1919). Epistle ‘To the Woorshipfull, and very courteous Gentleman, Maister M. R. M.A. commendeth this pleasaunt and fine conceited comœdie’, signed M.A.; Prologue before the Queene; Epilogue at the Court, signed M.A. The compiler of the Mostyn sale catalogue says that this differs from the imperfect print in the Chatsworth collection, containing sheets B to G only, without t.p., epistle, prologue, or epilogue, which is the basis of the modern editions. Both have the running title, ‘A pleasant Comœdie of two Italian Gentlemen’. Collier, iii. 60, had seen a copy with the epistle as found in the Mostyn print, but addressed to John Heardson and signed A.M. This has been recently found in the Huntington collection.

_Editions_ by P. Simpson (1909, _M. S. R._) and F. Flügge (1909, _Archiv_, cxxiii, 45), and extracts by _Halliwell_ (1852, _Literature of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries_, 15).--_Dissertations_: W. W. Greg, _Notes on Publications_ (1909, _M. S. C._ i. 218); F. Flügge, _Fidele und Fortunio_ (1912, Breslau diss.).

The epistle says ‘I commende to your freendly viewe this prettie Conceit, as well for the inuention, as the delicate conueiance thereof: not doubting but you will so esteeme thereof, as it dooth very well deserue, and I hartely desire’. This praise of the ‘conueiance’ (which I take to mean either ‘style’ or possibly ‘translation’) does not suggest that M. A. (or A. M.) was the translator. It is true that ll. 224–41 appear in _England’s Helicon_ (1600) signed ‘Shep. Tonie’, and that this signature is often taken to indicate Munday. On the other hand, two lines of this passage also appear in _England’s Parnassus_ (1600, ed. Crawford, 306) over the initials S. G., which suggest Gosson. Another passage in _E. P._ (231) combines ll. 661–2 and 655–6 of the play over the signature G. Chapman. This has led Crawford (_E. S._ xliii. 203), with some support from Greg, to suggest Chapman’s authorship. I do not think the suggestion very convincing, in view of the inconsistency and general unreliability of _E. P._ and the fact that Chapman’s first clear appearance as a writer is ten years later, in 1594. The evidence is quite indecisive, but of Munday, Chapman, Gosson, I incline to think Gosson the most likely candidate. On the other hand, if M. R. is Matthew Roydon, he was the dedicatee of poems by Chapman in 1594 and 1595. For M. A. I hardly dare guess Matthew Arundel. In any case, the play is only a translation from L. Pasqualigo’s _Il Fedele_ (1576).

_2 Fortune’s Tennis c. 1602_

[_MS._] _Add. MS._ 10449. ‘The [plott of the sec]ond part of fortun[s Tenn]is.’ [A fragment, probably from Dulwich.]

The text is given by Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 143. The actors named show that it belonged to the Admiral’s, and Greg suggests that it may be Dekker’s ‘fortewn tenes’ of Sept. 1600. Is it not more likely to have been a sequel to that, possibly Munday’s _Set at Tennis_ of Dec. 1602?

_Frederick and Basilea. 1597_

[_MS._] _Add. MS._ 10449. ‘The plott of Frederick & Basilea.’ [Probably from Dulwich.]

The text is given by Steevens, _Variorum_ (1803), iii. 414; Boswell, _Variorum_ (1821), iii. 356; Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 135; and a facsimile by Halliwell, _The Theatre Plats of Three Old English Dramas_ (1860).

The play was produced by the Admiral’s on 3 June 1597, and the actors named represent that company at that date (cf. ch. xiii).

_George a Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield > 1593_

_S. R._ 1595, April 1. ‘An Enterlude called the Pynder of Wakefeilde.’ _Cuthbert Burby_ (Arber, ii. 295).

1599. A Pleasant Conceyted Comedie of George a Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield. As it was sundry times acted by the seruants of the right Honourable the Earle of Sussex. _Simon Stafford for Cuthbert Burby._

_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–3} (1744–1825), by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ i), F. W. Clarke (1911, _M. S. R._), and J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._), and in collections of Greene.--_Dissertation_: O. Mertins, _Robert Greene and the Play of G. a G._ (1885, Breslau diss.).

Sussex’s men revived the play for Henslowe on 29 Dec. 1593 (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 158). The Chatsworth copy has on the title-page the following notes in two early seventeenth-century hands: ‘Written by ... a minister, who ac[ted] the piñers p̄t in it himself. Teste W. Shakespea[re]’, and ‘Ed Iuby saith that the play was made by Ro. Gree[ne]’. These, though first produced by Collier, appear (_M. S. C._ i. 288) to be genuine. Greene’s authorship has been very commonly accepted. Fleay, i. 264, ii. 51, supposed first Greene and Peele, then added Lodge, but, although the text has been abridged, there is no evidence of double authorship. Oliphant’s suggestion (_M. P._ viii. 433) of revision by Heywood only rests on the inclusion of the play next his in the Cockpit list of 1639 (_Variorum_, iii. 159). R. B. McKerrow thinks (_M. S. C._ i. 289) that the ‘by Ro. Greene’ of the note may mean ‘about Ro. Greene’ as a leading incident is apparently based on an episode of Greene’s life. An allusion in I. i. 42 to _Tamburlaine_ gives an anterior limit of date.

_Sir Giles Goosecap. 1601 < > 3_

_S. R._ 1606, Jan. 10. (Wilson). ‘An Comedie called Sir Gyles Goosecap Provided that yt be printed accordinge to the Copie wherevnto master Wilson’s hand ys at.’ _Edward Blount_ (Arber, iii. 309).

1606. Sir Gyles Goosecappe. Knight. A Comedie presented by the Chil: of the Chappell. _John Windet for Edward Blount._

1636....A Comedy lately Acted with great applause at the private House in Salisbury Court. _For Hugh Perry, sold by Roger Bell._ [Epistle to Richard Young of Woolley Farm, Berks. Signed ‘Hugh Perry’.]

_Editions_ by A. H. Bullen (1884, _O. E. P._ iii), W. Bang and R. Brotanek (1909, _Materialien_, xxvi), J. S. Farmer (1912, _T. F. T._), and T. M. Parrott (1914, _Chapman_, ii).--_Dissertations_: G. L. Kittredge, _Notes on Elizabethan Plays_ (1898, _J. G. P._ ii. 10); T. M. Parrott, _The Authorship of S. G. G._ (1906, _M. P._ iv. 25).

Bullen thought the author, who is stated in Perry’s epistle to be dead in 1636, might be some imitator of Chapman. Fleay, ii. 322, suggests Chapman himself. This view receives elaborate support from Parrott, and appears very plausible. As ‘your greatest gallants, for men, in France were here lately’ (III. i. 47) the date is after the visit of Biron in Sept. 1601 and possibly after that of Nevers in April 1602. It cannot be later than the beginning of 1603, as ‘She is the best scholar of any woman, but one, in Europe’ (I. i. 140) points to Elizabeth’s lifetime. Moreover, Dekker, in his _Wonderful Year_ of 1603 (Grosart, i. 116), has ‘Galen could do no more good, than Sir Giles Goosecap’, and though ‘goosecap’ is a known term for a booby, e.g. in Nashe’s _Four Letters Confuted_ of 1592 (_Works_, i. 281), the play seems to be responsible for the ‘Sir Giles’. The phrase ‘comparisons odorous’ in IV. ii. 64 echoes _Much Ado_, III. v. 18. The later part of the period 1601–3 would perhaps best fit the allusions to the Family of Love (II. i. 263), as to which cf. s.v. Middleton’s play of that name, and to the baboons (I. i. 11), the memory of which is still alive in _Volpone_ (1606) and _Ram Alley_ (1607–8). Probably these had already amused London before 1605, as on Oct. 5 of that year the Norwich records (Murray, ii. 338) note that ‘This day John Watson ironmonger brought the Kyngs maiesties warrant graunted to Roger Lawrence & the deputacion to the seid Watson to shewe two beasts called Babonnes’. So, too, Kelly, 247, has a Leicester payment of 1606 ‘to the M^r of the Babons, lycensed to travell by the Kings warrant’. There is a story of a country fellow who wanted to go to a market town ‘to haue seene the Baboones’ as late as J. Taylor’s _Wit and Mirth_ in 1629 (Hazlitt, _Jest Books_, iii. 43). Fleay’s identifications of Chapman himself with Clarence and Drayton with Goosecap hardly deserve consideration.

_Grim the Collier of Croydon. 1600_

[Alleged prints of 1599 (Chetwood), 1600 (Ward, i. 263), and 1606 (Jacob) probably rest on no authority.]

1662. Grim the Collier of Croyden; Or, The Devil and his Dame: With The Devil and Saint Dunston. [Part of Gratiae Theatrales, or, A choice Ternary of English plays. Composed upon especial occasions by several ingenious persons; viz.... Grim the Collier ... a Comedy, by I. T. Never before published: but now printed at the request of sundry ingenious friends. R. D. 1662, 12^{mo}.]

_Editions_ by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ iii), in Dodsley^4, viii (1876), and by J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._).--_Dissertation_: H. D. Sykes, _The Authorship of G. the C. of C._ (1919, _M. L. R._ xiv. 245).

Of I. T. nothing is known. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 213) regards the play as clearly of the sixteenth century on internal evidence, and points out that Henslowe, on behalf of the Admiral’s, paid Haughton 5s. on 6 May 1600, ‘in earneste of a boocke which he wold calle the devell & his dame’. The entry was subsequently cancelled, and presumably Haughton transferred the play to another company. Sykes calls attention to analogies with _Englishmen for my Money_, which confirm the probability of Haughton’s authorship. It is only the ascription of 1662 to I. T. which causes hesitation. Farmer (_Hand List_, 19) suggests that this was John Tatham. Grim and the Devil both appear in the _Like Will to Like_ of Ulpian Fulwell (q.v.), but I do not understand what kind of indirect connexion Greg thinks may have existed between Haughton’s play and a possible revival of Fulwell’s by Pembroke’s men in Oct. 1600.

_The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth > 1588_

_S. R._ 1594, May 14. ‘A booke intituled, The famous victories of Henrye the Fyft, conteyninge the honorable battell of Agincourt.’ _Thomas Creede_ (Arber, ii. 648).

1598. The Famous Victories of Henry the fifth: Containing the Honourable Battell of Agincourt: As it was plaide by the Queenes Maiesties Players. _Thomas Creede._

1617.... as it was Acted by the Kinges Maiesties Seruants. _Bernard Alsop._ [Another issue of the same sheets.]

_Editions_ by J. Nichols (1779, _Six Old Plays_, ii. 317), W. C. Hazlitt (1875, _Shakespeare’s Library_, v. 321), P. A. Daniel (1887, _Sh. Q._), and J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._).

In _Tarlton’s Jests_ (ed. Halliwell for _Sh. Soc._ 24) is a story of Knell acting Henry V and Tarlton doubling the parts of the judge and the clown, which clearly refers to this play. The performance took place ‘at the Bull in Bishopsgate’. Tarlton died in 1588. Fleay, 67; ii. 259, suggests that Tarlton was the author. Nashe in _Pierce Penilesse_ (1592, _Works_, i. 213) speaks of ‘_Henrie_ the fifth represented on the stage’. This is obviously too early to be the new play of ‘harey the V’, given thirteen times for Henslowe between 28 Nov. 1595 and 15 July 1596 by the Admiral’s, in whose inventories of March 1598 Harry the Fifth’s doublet and gown appear. An earlier Henslowe entry on 14 May 1592, sometimes quoted as ‘harey the v^{th}’ by Collier, is really ‘harey the 6’ (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 152, 177; _Henslowe Papers_, 121). Sykes thinks the author S. Rowley (q.v.).

_Histriomastix. 1589 (?), 1599_

_S. R._ 1610, Oct. 31 (Buck). ‘A booke called, Histriomastix or the player whipte.’ _Thomas Thorpe_ (Arber, iii. 447).

1610. Histrio-Mastix. Or, the Player whipt. _For Thomas Thorp._

_Editions_ by R. Simpson (1878, _S. of S._ ii. 1) and J. S. Farmer (1912, _T. F. T._).--_Dissertation_: F. Hoppe, _Histriomastix-Studien_ (1906, Breslau diss.).

Fleay, ii. 69, gives the whole play to Marston, but the sounder view of Simpson that Marston, whose style in places is unmistakable, was only the reviser of an earlier play, is revived in the elaborate and mainly satisfactory study of Small, 67. The passages assigned by Small to Marston are ii. 63–9, 128–9, 247–79; iii. 179–v. 191; v. 234; vi. 259–95. I should be inclined to add v. 244–67, but to omit ii. 128–9; iii. 218–64; iv. 159–201; v. 61–102; v. 147–180; vi. 259–95, which may just as well belong to the original play. No doubt vi. 259–95 is an addition, constituting an alternative ending for a court performance before Elizabeth; but this may just as well have been a contemporary as a Marstonian addition, and in fact there is no court performance at the end of the century available for it, while the attempt to find one led Fleay to the impossible theory that it was given by Derby’s men. As its whole substance is a satire on professional players, it must have been both produced and revived by amateurs or boys; and the same conclusion is pointed to by the enormous number of characters. The original matter is so full of the technical learning of the schools as to suggest an academic audience; I think it was a University or possibly an Inns of Court, not a choirboy, play. The theme is the cyclical progression of a state through the stages Peace, Plenty, Pride, Envy, War, Poverty, and Peace again. It is illustrated by the fortunes of a company of players, who wax insolent in prosperity, and when war comes, are pressed for soldiers. Their poet Posthaste is clearly Munday and not, as Simpson and others have vainly imagined, Shakespeare. With him is contrasted the scholar-poet, Chrisoganus, a philosopher with whom the players will have nothing to do. He seems to belong to the order of ideas connected with the scientific school of Thomas Harriott. Small thinks that the date was 1596, when there was scarcity of food, a persecution of players, and a pressing of men for service against Spain; and that the author might be Chapman. Certainly Chapman was an early admirer of Harriott. But I disagree as to the date. The style seems to me to be that of Peele or some imitator, the attitude to the players an academic reflection of the attacks of Greene, and the political atmosphere that of the years following the Armada, when the relief of peace was certainly not unbroken by fears of renewed Spanish attempts. Impressment was not a device of 1596 alone. The only notice of it known to me in which players are known to have especially suffered is in an undated letter of Philip Gawdy, assigned by his editor to 1602 (Gawdy, 121), ‘All the playe howses wer besett in one daye and very many pressed from thence, so that in all ther ar pressed ffowre thowsand besydes fyve hundred voluntaryes, and all for flaunders’. This is too late for the _proto-Histriomastix_, and probably also for the revival, but men were being pressed for foreign service as early as 1585, and again in 1588 and possibly in 1589 and 1591 (Cheyney, i. 158, 197, 219, 255; _Procl._ 805, 809). As to the revival, Small puts it definitely in August 1599, when a scare of a Spanish invasion, which had lasted for a month, came to a crisis in London on Aug. 7 (Stowe, _Annales_, 788; Chamberlain, 59; _Sydney Papers_, ii. 113; _Hist. MSS._ xv, app. v, 66), and he thinks that the words ‘The Spaniards are come!’ (v. 234) are an insertion of this date. They are not ‘extra-metrical’, as Fleay says, for the passage is not in metre. There had, however, been earlier scares, e.g. in Oct. 1595 (_Sydney Papers_, i. 355; cf. Arber, iii. 55, 56) and in Oct. 1597 (_Edmondes Papers_, 303). The date of 1599 would agree well enough with the career of Marston, and with that of the Paul’s boys, to whom the revival was probably due, although I do not agree with Small that it was their court play of 1 Jan. 1601, because I see no evidence that the court ending belongs to the revision. I take it that _Histriomastix_ was one of the ‘musty fopperies of antiquity’ with which we learn from _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_, v. 112, that the Paul’s boys began. The revision leaves Posthaste untouched, save for the characteristic Marstonian sneer of ‘goosequillian’ (iii. 187). Munday of course was still good sport in 1599. But Chrisoganus is turned from a scientific into a ‘translating’ scholar (ii. 63). I agree with Small that Marston has given him Jonsonian traits, and that he intended to be complimentary rather than the reverse. I do not know that it is necessary to suppose that Jonson misunderstood this and took offence, for the real offence was given by _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_ in the next year. But certainly some of the ‘fustian’ words put in the mouth of Clove in _Every Man Out of His Humour_, III. i. 177 sqq., later in 1599 come from _Histriomastix_, and their origin is pointed by the phrase ‘as you may read in Plato’s Histriomastix’. One of the fragments of plays recited by the players contains the lines (ii. 269):

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

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

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

_The Honest Lawyer > 1615_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Impatient Poverty (?)_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Jack Drum’s Entertainment. 1600_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our _Fortune_ laughes, and all content abounds,

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

_The Life and Death of Jack Straw > 1593_

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

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

1604. _For Thomas Pavier._

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

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

_Jacob and Esau > 1558_

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

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

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

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

_1 Jeronimo c. 1604_

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

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

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

_The Troublesome Reign of King John 1587< >91_

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

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

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

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

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