Part I

begin

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

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

_Judith c. 1595_ (?)

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

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

_A Knack to Know an Honest Man. 1594_

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

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

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

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

_A Knack to Know a Knave. 1592_

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

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

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

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

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

_Leire > 1594_

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Liberality and Prodigality. 1601_

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

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

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

_Locrine c. 1591_

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

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

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

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

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

That eight and thirtie yeares the scepter swayd,

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

_The London Prodigal. 1603 < > 05_

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

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

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

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

_Look About You. 1599_ (?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Love Feigned and Unfeigned_ (?)

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

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

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

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

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

_The Maid’s Metamorphosis. 1600_

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

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

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

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

_The Marriage of Wit and Science > 1570_

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

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

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

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

_Meleager_ (?)

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

Children of Paules Play. Publij Ovidij Nasonis Meleager.

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

_The Merry Devil of Edmonton c. 1603_

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

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

1612; 1617; 1626; 1631.

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

1655. _For William Gilbertson._

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

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

_Minds. 1575 <_

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

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

_Misogonus. 1560 < > 77_

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

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

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

_Sir Thomas More c. 1596_

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

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

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

_Mucedorus > 1598; 1611_

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

1606. _For William Jones._

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

1611; 1613; 1615.

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

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

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

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

From blemisht Traytors, stayn’d with Periurie.

A bear is introduced in i. 2, as in _W. T._ iii. 3, and I venture to conjecture that both episodes were inspired by the successful bear in Jonson’s _Mask of Oberon_ on 1 Jan. 1611, to which there is also an allusion in his _Love Restored_ of 6 Jan. 1612. If so, the revival must have been on Shrove Sunday, 3 Feb. 1611. In I. i. 50 Anselmo says that he was a shepherd in ‘Lord Iulios Maske’. _Oberon_, however, had no shepherds proper, only satyrs and sylvans. The induction is altered to compliment James instead of Elizabeth, and the following dialogue between Comedie and Envie is introduced:

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

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

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

_Com._ What’s that to th’ purpose?

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

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

Fleay, with 1606 in his mind, finds here an apology for _The Fox_, thinking Jonson the raven and _Eastward Hoe_ the ‘trap for Boyes’. In 1610 there had been no trouble about any London play, although one in Lincolnshire had given offence. But a careful reading of the passage will show that it is no apology at all, but a boast, and an attack upon informers against the stage.

As the play had been in print since 1598, it must not be assumed that, because the King’s revived it in 1610–11, it was originally a Chamberlain’s play. It may have belonged to the Queen’s or some other extinct company. Evidently it was a popular play, as the number of editions shows. _K. B. P._ ind. 91 tells us that Ralph has ‘play’d ... Musidorus before the Wardens of our Company’.

The ascription to Shakespeare is due to Archer’s list of 1656 (Greg, _Masques_, xci) and to the inclusion of the play with _Fair Em_ and _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_ in a volume in Charles II’s library, lettered ‘Shakespeare, vol. i’ (_Variorum_, ii. 682). It now receives little support, even as regards the added passages. Greene is preferred as the original author by Malone and Hopkinson, Peele by von Friesen, and Lodge by Fleay.

After the suppression of the theatres in 1642, _Mucedorus_ was acted by strolling players in various parts of Oxfordshire. An accident during a performance at Witney on 3 Feb. 1654 is recorded in John Rowe, _Tragi-Comoedia. Being a brieff relation of the strange and wonderful hand of God, discovered at Witney in the Comedy acted February the third, where there were some slaine, many hurt and several other remarkable passages_ (1653/4).

Either _Mucedorus_ or Greene’s _Alphonsus_ (q.v.) may have been the play on a king of Arragon given at Dresden in 1626. It has also been suggested (Herz, 95) that _Mucedorus_ influenced Pieter Hooft’s Dutch pastoral _Granida_ (1605).

_Narcissus. 6 Jan. 1603_

[_MS._] _Bodl. MS._ 147303 (_Rawl. Poet. MS._ 212), f. 82^v. ‘A Twelfe Night Merriment. Anno 1602.’ [Porter’s speech ‘at the end of supper’, Wassail Song, Prologue, and Epilogue.]

_Edition_ by M. L. Lee (1893).

The porter’s name is Francis, and from some speeches and a letter composed for him, which appear in the same manuscript, it is clear that he was Francis Clark, who became porter of St. John’s, Oxford, on 8 May 1601, at which house therefore the play was doubtless given. It has borrowings from _M. N. D._ and _1 Hen. IV._

_New Custom. 1558 < > 73_

1573. A new Enterlude No less wittie: then pleasant, entituled new Custome, deuised of late, and for diuerse causes nowe set forthe, neuer before this tyme Imprinted. _William How for Abraham Veale._

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

A moral of Protestant controversy, with typical personages, bearing allegorical names, arranged for four actors.

The final prayer is for Elizabeth, and Avarice played in the days of Queen Mary. Fleay, 64; ii. 294, thinks it a revised Edward VI play, on the ground of an allusion to a ‘square caps’ controversy of 1550. But this was still vigorous in 1565 (cf. Parker’s _Letters_, 240). Fleay also says that the _Nugize_ of Captain Cox’s collection (Laneham, 30) is _Mankind_ (_Med. Stage_, ii. 438) in which New Gyse is a character. But _Mankind_ was first printed in 1897, and probably this play is the one Laneham had in mind.

_Nobody and Somebody > 1606_

_S. R._ 1606, Jan. 8. ‘The picture of No bodye.’ _John Trundell_ (Arber, iii. 308).

1606, March 12 (Wilson). ‘A Booke called no bodie and somme bodie &c.’ _John Trundell_ (Arber, iii. 316).

N.D. No-Body, and Some-Body. With the true Chronicle Historie of Elydure, who was fortunately three seuerall times crowned King of England. The true Coppy thereof, as it hath beene acted by the Queens Maiesties Seruants. _For John Trundle._ [Prologue and Epilogue.]

_Editions_ by A. Smith (1877), R. Simpson (1878, _S. of S._ i), J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._), of the early German translation by F. Bischoff, _Niemand und Jemand in Graz im Jahre 1608_ (1899, _Mitteilungen des historischen Vereins für Steiermark_, xlvii. 127), and of Tieck’s translation by J. Bolte (1894, _Jahrbuch_, xxix. 4).--_Dissertation_: J. Bolte, _Eine Hamburger Aufführung von N. a. S._ (1905, _Jahrbuch_, xli. 188).

The play is probably Jacobean. There is a reference to the unwilling recipients of knighthood (l. 325), and the use of Essex’s nickname for Cobham, Sycophant, as the name of a courtier, must be later than Cobham’s disgrace in 1603. Simpson thought that an allusion to the misuse of the collections for rebuilding Paul’s steeple (l. 754) pointed to an original date _c._ 1592, when the matter caused a scandal, but the steeple was still unbuilt in James’s reign. Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 230, revising a conjecture of Fleay, i. 293, suggests that _Albere Galles_, written by Heywood and Smith for Worcester’s in Sept. 1602, may be this play, and Henslowe’s title a mistake for _Archigallo_, one of the characters. The play seems to have reached Germany by 1608. A performance at Graz in that year was probably the occasion of the dedication by ‘Joannes Grün Nob. Anglus’ to the archduke Maximilian of a manuscript German translation, now in the Rein library. To it is attached a coloured drawing of a bearded man in a doublet which hides his breeches, and with a book and chain in his hands. Above is written ‘Nemo’ and ‘Neminis Virtus ubique Laudabilis.’ A version is also in the Anglo-German collection of 1620 (Herz, 66, 112).

_Parnassus. 1598–1602_ (?)

[_MSS._] _Bodl. Rawlinson MS._ D. 398. ‘The Pilgrimage to Parnassus’, ‘The Returne from Parnassus’. [1 _Parnassus_ with Prologue; 2 _Parnassus_ with Stagekeeper’s speech for Prologue. The cover bears the name of ‘Edmunde Rishton, Lancastrensis’, who took his M.A. from St. John’s, Cambridge, in 1602.]

_Halliwell-Phillipps MS._ ‘The Returne from Pernassus: or The Scourge of Simony.’ [3 _Parnassus_, with induction for Prologue, which says, ‘The Pilgrimage to Pernassus, and the returne from Pernassus have stood the honest Stagekeepers in many a Crownes expence for linckes and vizards: ... this last is the last part of the returne from Pernassus’.]

_S. R._ 1605, Oct. 16 (Gwyn). ‘An Enterlude called The retourne from Pernassus or the scourge of Simony publiquely Acted by the studentes in Sainct Johns College in Cambridg.’ _John Wright_ (Arber, iii. 304).

1606. The Returne from Pernassus: Or The Scourge of Simony. Publiquely acted by the Students in Saint Iohns Colledge in Cambridge. _G. Eld, for Iohn Wright._ [Two issues. 3 _Parnassus_ only.]

_Editions_ of 3 _Parnassus_ by T. Hawkins (1773, _O. E. D._ iii), W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ i), in Dodsley^4 (1874, ix), by E. Arber (1878) and O. Smeaton (1905, _T. D._), and of 1, 2, 3 _Parnassus_ by W. D. Macray (1886) and J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._).--_Dissertations_: B. Corney (1866, 3 _N. Q._ ix. 387); J. W. Hales, _The Pilgrimage to P._ (1887, _Academy_ and _Macmillan’s Magazine_; 1893, _Folia Litteraria_, 165); W. Lühr, _Die drei Cambridger Spiele vom P. in ihren litterarischen Beziehungen_ (1900, Kiel diss.); E. B. Reed, _The College Element in Hamlet_ (1909, _M. P._ vi. 453); G. C. Moore Smith, _The P. Plays_ (1915, _M. L. R._ x. 162).

There are several notes of time and authorship. At the end of 1, which was ‘three daies studie’ (l. 3), the pilgrimage has lasted ‘4 yeares’ (712). Kinsader’s, i.e. Marston’s, _Satires_ and Bastard’s _Epigrams_, both of 1598, are mentioned (212). The prologue to 2, which is a ‘Christmas toy’ (18), deprecates the former courtesy of ‘our stage’:

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

It is now seven years since the scholars started for Parnassus (62). Gullio has been ‘verie latelie in Irelande’ and ‘scapt knightinge’ (878), obviously with Essex in 1599. The _Epigrams_ (1599) of ‘one Weaver fellow’, i.e. John Weever, are alluded to (982). The prologue to 3, also a ‘Christenmas toy’ (30), calls it ‘an old musty show, that hath laine this twelue moneth in the bottome of a coalehouse’ (25). ‘The Authors wit’ (48) has stood ‘hammering upon ... 2 schollers some foure (1606, whole) yeare’ (37). This is the third play of a series (76):

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

_Belvedere_ (1600) is published (179) and Nashe is dead (314). The Dominical letters are C, or for the Annunciation year D and C (1105), and the moon is in ‘the last quarter the 5 day, at 2 of the cloke and 38 minuts in the morning’ (1133). These indications fit Jan. 1602 (Lühr, 15, 105). The siege of Ostend, which extended from 1601 to 1604, has begun (1333). Jonson has ‘brought vp Horace giving the Poets a pill’ (1811), and Kempe is back ‘from dancing the morrice over the Alpes’ (1823). Both events took place in 1601. It is still Elizabeth’s reign (1141).

A quite clear conclusion as to date is not possible. The calendar references, the four years of hammering (in 3), and the probability that the writer would try to have his allusions to literary events up to date, suggest performances at the Christmases of 1598–9, 1599–1600, and 1601–2. This allows for a twelve-months’ delay, followed by a good deal of revision, in the performance of 3. On the other hand, the difference between four (in 1) and seven (in 2) years of pilgrimage points to 1598–9, 1601–2, and 1602–3. On the whole, I lean to the first alternative.

So far as we know, the association of Kempe with the Chamberlain’s men was out of date either in 1601 or 1602; conceivably he returned to the company for a while in 1601, but he was certainly of Worcester’s in 1602.

Moore Smith thinks that the ‘ruder quill’ of the prologue to 3 implies that the author of 2 and 3 was distinct from the author of 1. But the same prologue speaks clearly of a single author. Hales took the account of his troubles in getting his degree literally, and pointed out that foreign students at German universities were called ‘Käsebettler’ and ‘Käsejäger’. Moore Smith doubts, and thinks the degree may have been given at Cambridge by the influence of William Holland, senior fellow of St. John’s, and his name glanced at in ‘Germanie’. The absence alike of matriculation books and college admission registers for the period makes identification difficult. Corney found a copy of the print of 3 with the inscription ‘To my Lovinge Smallocke J. D.’, which he thought in the same hand as the _Lansdowne MS._ of John Day’s _Peregrinatio Scholastica_. Bullen was inclined to support Day’s authorship on internal grounds, but Day was a Caius man, whose university career closed in disgrace, and is not very likely to have written plays for St. John’s some years later. And it is but a slight connexion with Cheshire that ‘dey’ means ‘dairy’ in the dialect of that county. Cheshire ought to be our clue. Charles Chester was not, so far as I know, a writer. Hales seems to have thought that the theatrical Beestons of London may have been connected with the Cheshire family of that name. There was a Cheshire foundation at St. John’s, and Moore Smith cites a suggestion that the author may have been William Dodd, a Cheshire man, who became Scholar of St. John’s in 1597, B.A. in 1599, and Fellow in 1602. The ‘priviledge’ reminds me of the traditional jurisdiction of the Dutton family over minstrelsy in Cheshire (_Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 259), but I do not know whether any Dutton can be traced at St. John’s.

In i. 2 of 3 Judicio is exercising the occupation of a ‘corrector of the presse’, apparently in the employment of a particular printing-house, not of the licensing authorities. The house would be Danter’s, who is himself introduced in i. 3 bargaining with Ingenioso to give him 40s. for a pamphlet. In iv. 3 Burbage and Kempe appear, and here is the famous passage in which Kempe says:

‘Few of the vniuersity men pen plaies well, they smell too much of that writer _Ouid_, and that writer _Metamorphosis_, and talke too much of _Proserpina & Iuppiter_. Why heres our fellow _Shakespeare_ puts them all downe, I and _Ben Ionson_ too. O that _Ben Ionson_ is a pestilent fellow, he brought vp Horace giuing the Poets a pill, but our fellow _Shakespeare_ hath giuen him a purge that made him beray his credit.’

Fleay, _Shakespeare_, 221, suggests that the ‘purge’ was the description of Ajax in _Troilus and Cressida_, I. ii. 15, and is supported by Small, 167. If so, it was very irrelevant to its setting. The purge ought to be _Satiromastix_, and though there is nothing to indicate that Shakespeare had any responsibility for _Satiromastix_, it is just conceivable that a Cambridge man, writing before the play was assigned to Dekker in print, may have thought that he had. The allusion is clearly to Shakespeare as a writer, or one might have thought that he acted Horace-Jonson in _Satiromastix_.

Especially in 3, the writer is much occupied with contemporary literature, but this does not justify the slap-dash attempt of Fleay, ii. 347, to identify nearly all his characters with individual literary men. They are, of course, not individuals, but types, and types of university men. The most that can be said is that there may be something of Marston in Furor Poeticus, and a good deal of Nashe, with probably also a little of Greene, in Ingenioso, who ultimately takes flight, with Furor and Phantasma, to the Isle of Dogs (v. 3, 4):

There where the blattant beast doth rule and raigne Renting the credit of whom ere he please.

_Il Pastor Fido > 1601_

_S. R._ 1601, Sept. 16 (Pasfield). ‘A booke called the faythfull Shepheard’. _Waterson_ (Arber, iii. 192).

1602. Il Pastor Fido: Or The faithfull Shepheard. Translated out of Italian into English. _For Simon Waterson._ [Sonnets by S. Daniel and the Translator to Sir Edward Dymocke; Epistle to the same, dated 31 Dec. 1601, and signed ‘Simon Waterson’.]

1633. _For John Waterson._ [Epistle by John Waterson to Charles Dymock.]

1633. _Augustine Matthewes for William Sheares._ [Another issue.]

The preliminary matter of 1602 and 1633 is shown by Greg, _Pastoral_, 242, to point to a kinsman, but not the son, of Sir Edward Dymocke as the translator. He may be a John Dymmocke, to whom Archer’s play-list of 1656 (Greg, _Masques_, xcvi) assigns in error _The Faithful Shepherdess_. The translation is from G. Battista Guarini’s _Il Pastor Fido_ (1590). For a Latin translation see App. L.

_The Pedlar’s Prophecy > 1594_

_S. R._ 1594, May 13. ‘A plea booke intituled the Pedlers Prophesie.’ _Thomas Creede_ (Arber, ii. 649).

1595. The Pedlers Prophecie. _Thomas Creede, sold by William Barley._ [Prologue.]

_Editions_ by J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._) and W. W. Greg (1914, _M. S. R._).

The analogies of title and date of publication to _The Cobler’s Prophecy_ have led Fleay, ii. 283, and others to ascribe the authorship to Wilson. To me the play reads more like a belated piece of _c._ 1560–70.

_Pericles c. 1607–8_

See Shakespeare (ch. xxiii), except in relation to whose work the play can hardly be discussed.

_Philotus > 1603_

1603. Ane verie excellent and delectabill Treatise intitulit Philotus. Quhairin we may persaue the greit inconveniences that fallis out in the Mariage betwene age and zouth. _Robert Charteris, Edinburgh._ [At end are verses beginning ‘What if a day or a month or a zeere’, possibly Campion’s; cf. Bullen, _Campion_ (1903), 270.]

1612. A verie excellent and delectable Comedie.... _Andro Hart, Edinburgh._

_Editions_ by J. Pinkerton (1792, _Scottish Poems_, iii) and for Bannatyne Club (1835).

This has been ascribed to Robert Sempill (1530?-95), but merely because his play before the Regent of Scotland on 17 June 1568 (Diary of Robert Birrel in Dalyell, _Fragments of Scottish History_, 14) is not otherwise known. R. Brotanek (1898, _Festschrift zum viii allgemeinen deutschen Neuphilologentage in Wien_; cf. _Jahrbuch_, xxxv. 302) suggests Alexander Montgomery.

_The Puritan. 1606_

_S. R._ 1607, Aug. 6 (Buck). ‘A book called the comedie of “the Puritan Widowe”.’ _George Elde_ (Arber, iii. 358).

1607. The Puritaine Or The Widdow of Watling-streete. Acted by the Children of Paules. Written by W. S. _G. Eld._ [Running-title ‘The Puritaine Widdow’.]

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

_Editions_ in 1734 (J. Tonson), 1734 (R. Walker), by J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._), and in _Sh. Apocrypha_.

The W. S. of the title-page was interpreted as William Shakespeare in Archer’s play-list of 1656 (Greg, _Masques_, c). The attribution is accepted by no modern critic, and guesses at Wentworth Smith and William Smith rest similarly on nothing but the initials. Internal evidence points to an author who was an Oxford man, and familiar with the plays of Shakespeare. Middleton is preferred by Fleay, ii. 92, Bullen (_Middleton_, i. lxxix), and others; Marston by Brooke, who dwells on a general resemblance to _Eastward Hoe_, and seems inclined to think that Jonson, whose _Bartholomew Fair_ the play foreshadows, might also have contributed. The character George Pyeboard is clearly meant for Peele, and the play uses episodes which appear in _The Merrie Conceited Jests of George Peele Gent_. This, though the extant print is of 1607, was entered in S. R. on 14 Dec. 1605. The Paul’s plays seem to have terminated in 1606, and Fleay points out that an almanac allusion in III. vi. 289 is to Tuesday, 15 July, which fits 1606. The attack on the Puritan ministers was resented in W. Crashaw’s Paul’s Cross sermon of 13 Feb. 1608 (cf. App. C, no. lvi).

_The Revenger’s Tragedy. 1606 < > 7_

_S. R._ 1607, Oct. 7 (Buck). ‘Twoo plaies, thone called the revengers tragedie.’ _George Eld_ (Arber, iii. 360).

1607. The Revengers Tragœdie. As it hath beene sundry times Acted, by the Kings Maiesties Seruants. _G. Eld._

1608. _G. Eld._

_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–4} (1744–1876), and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ ii) and A. H. Thorndike (1912, _M. E. D._).

The authorship is ascribed to ‘Tournour’ in Archer’s list of 1656 and to ‘Cyril Tourneur’ in Kirkman’s lists of 1661 and 1671 (Greg, _Masques_, cii). Fleay, ii. 264, is sceptical, thinking the work too good for the author of _The Atheist’s Tragedy_, and inclined to suggest Webster. Oliphant (_M. P._ viii. 427) thinks Tourneur impossible, in view of the difference of manner, and suggests, only to reject, Middleton. E. E. Stoll, _John Webster_, 107, 212, points out that both plays are much under the influence of Marston, and that the date may be fixed by the borrowing of the name and character of Dandolo from _The Fawn_ (1606).

_The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York > 1592_

See _The Contention of York and Lancaster_.

_1 Richard the Second c. 1592 < > 5_

[_MS._] _Egerton MS._ 1994. The play forms a separate section of this composite MS. It has no title-page and a few lines at the end are missing. The handwriting is of the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century.

_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1870) and W. Keller (1899, _Jahrbuch_, xxxv. 3.--_Dissertations_: F. I. Carpenter, _Notes on the Anonymous Richard II_ (1899, _Journ. Germ. Phil._ iii. 138); F. S. Boas, _A Seventeenth Century Theatrical Repertoire_ (_Library_ for July 1917).

The play deals with an earlier part of the reign than that of Shakespeare’s _Richard II_. Keller concludes from a study of parallel passages that it was known to Shakespeare, and that the author knew Marlowe’s _Edward II_ and _2 Henry VI_. This gives a date of about 1592–5. Fleay, ii. 320, dates the play about 1591 and assigns it, for no apparent reason, to the Queen’s men. Boas accepts the date 1590–5 on internal evidence, but finds the names ‘George’ and ‘Toby’ in the stage-directions as players of servants’ parts, and supposes the MS. to belong to a seventeenth-century revival and to have been collected with others in _Egerton MS._ 1994 by the younger William Cartwright, who was one of a late King’s Revels company traceable during 1629–37 (Murray, i. 279). He identifies ‘George’, rather hazardously, with George Stutfield, who belonged to this company, and ‘Toby’ with an Edward Tobye, who is not known to have belonged to it, but is found in 1623 among the Children of the Revels to the late Queen Anne (Murray, i. 361; ii. 273). My difficulty about this is that the relation of _1 Rich. II_ to Shakespeare’s play is so close as to make it natural to regard it as having become a Chamberlain’s play, and therefore unlikely to get into the hands of either of these Revels companies. Any company might have a George. George Bryan, for example, is a possibility. Toby, no doubt, is a rarer name. Toby Mills died in 1585, but might have left a son or godson of his name.

_The True Tragedy of Richard the Third > 1594_

_S. R._ 1594, June 19. ‘An enterlude entituled, The Tragedie of Richard the Third wherein is showen the Death of Edward the FFourthe with the smotheringe of the twoo princes in the Tower, with a lamentable end of Shores wife, and the Coniunction of the twoo houses of Lancaster and Yorke.’ _Thomas Creede_ (Arber, ii. 654).

1594. The True Tragedie of Richard the Third: Wherein is showne the death of Edward the fourth, with the smothering of the two yoong Princes in the Tower: With a lamentable ende of Shore’s wife, an example for all wicked women. And lastly the conjunction and ioyning of the two noble Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. As it was playd by the Queenes Maiesties Players. _Thomas Creede, sold by William Barley._ [Induction; Epilogue.]

_Editions_ in _Variorum_ (1821), xix. 251, and by B. Field (1844, _Sh. Soc._) and W. C. Hazlitt (1875, _Sh. Libr._).--_Dissertation_: G. B. Churchill, _Richard the Third up to Shakespeare_ (1900, _Palaestra_, x).

Collier, _Shakespeare_, v. 342, put the play earlier than 1588 on the ground that the epilogue in praise of Elizabeth makes no mention of the Armada. But ‘She hath put proud Antichrist to flight’ may pass for such a mention. Fleay, 64, dates it about 1587: in ii. 28 he says ‘1586 or late in 1585’ as a ballad on the subject was entered on the Stationers’ Register on 15 Aug. 1586; in ii. 315 he prefers 1591, regarding the play as a continuation of _The Contention between York and Lancaster_. He considers a later date as excluded by the close of the court career of the Queen’s men in 1591. This, however, did not close until 1594, and the epilogue was not necessarily given at court. Churchill also thinks the play a continuation of the _Contention_, and finds influences, not very striking, of Marlowe’s _Tamburlaine_, _Faustus_, and _Edward II_. He concludes for 1590–1. There is very little trace of any use by Shakespeare of this play for his _Richard III_.

Boswell groundlessly took the author to be that of _Locrine_ (q.v.). Fleay, ii. 315, tries to divide the scenes between Lodge and Peele, and suggests that they were re-writing Kyd.

_Robin Hood > 1560_

_S. R._ 1560, Oct. 30. ‘A newe playe called----.’ _William Copland_ (Arber, i. 152).

N.D. A mery geste of Robyn Hoode and of hys lyfe, wyth a newe playe for to be played in Maye games very plesaunte and full of pastyme. [_Colophon_] _Imprinted at London vpon the thre Crane wharfe by Wyllyam Copland_.

N.D. _For Edward White._

_Editions_ in J. Ritson, _Robin Hood_ (1795), ii. 199, F. J. Child, _English and Scottish Popular Ballads_, iii (1888) 114, 127, and Manly (1897), ii. 281.

The play, which deals with the episodes of Robin Hood and the Friar and Robin Hood and the Potter, is appended to a reprint of the narrative _Geste_, originally printed by Wynken de Worde. Manly assigns Copland’s edition to _c._ 1550, but Arber, v. 32, to ‘_c._ 1560, by the Printer’s address’, and Furnivall, _Captain Cox_, to _c._ 1561. Apparently Copland is not traceable at the Three Cranes before that year and had earlier addresses. If so, I think that his anonymous entry of 1560 in the Stationers’ Register may fairly be supposed to relate to _Robin Hood_.

_Ruff, Cuff and Band c. 1615_

[_MS._] _Add. MS._ 23723.

_S. R._ 1615, Feb. 10 (Taverner). ‘A booke called a Diologue betwene Ruffe Cuffe and Band &c.’ _Miles Patriche_ (Arber, iii. 563).

1615. A merrie Dialogue, Betwene Band, Cuffe, and Ruffe: Done by an excellent Wit, And Lately acted in a Shew in the famous Vniversitie of Cambridge. _William Stansby for Miles Partrich._

1615. Exchange Ware at the second hand, Viz. Band, Ruffe and Cuffe, lately out, and now newly dearned vp. Or Dialogue, acted in a Shew in the famous Vniversitie of Cambridge. The second Edition. _W. Stansby for Myles Partrich._

1661. [Title as in ed. 1.] _For F. K._

_Editions_ in _Harleian Miscellany_^2, x (1813), and by J. O. Halliwell (1849, _Contributions to Early English Literature_) and C. Hindley, _Old Book Collector’s Miscellany_, ii (1872).

_The Second Maiden’s Tragedy. 1611_

[_MS._] _B.M._, _Lansdowne MS._ 807, f. 29, formerly _penes_ John Warburton. [Greg distinguishes four contemporary hands: (_a_) a scribe or copyist of the original text and certain additions on inserted slips; (_b_) a corrector, probably the author; (_c_) the Master of the Revels, Buck; (_d_) a theatre official, who added stage-directions. The contributions of (_b_) and (_c_) are not wholly distinguishable, especially where mere deletions are in question, as the author may, besides literary corrections, have made others due to the hints, or known views, of Buck as censor. The presence of a second literary corrector is just possible. On the verso of the last leaf Buck has written: ‘This second Maydens tragedy (for it hath no name inscribed) may w^{th} the reformations bee acted publikely. 31 octob^r. 1611. G. Buc.’ In later hands are the title ‘The Second Maydens Tragedy’ at the beginning, and a note following Buck’s endorsed licence, which originally ran, ‘The Second Maydens Tragedy October 31^{th} 1611 By Thomas Goffe A Tragedy indeed’. Here Goffe’s name has been cancelled, and two successive correctors have substituted, firstly, ‘George Chapman’, and then ‘By Will Shakspear’. Warburton’s hand is not discernible, and the last correction was probably made after his time, as his list of manuscript plays (3 _Library_, ii. 232) includes ‘2^d. p^t. Maidens Trag̃. Geo. Chapman’.]

_S. R._ 1653, Sept. 9. ‘The Maid’s Tragedie, 2^d. part.’ _H. Moseley_ (Eyre, i. 428).

_Editions_ in 1824–5 (_O. E. D._ i), Chapman’s _Works_ (1875, iii), and Dodsley^4 (1875, x), and by W. W. Greg (1909, _M. S. R._).--_Dissertations_: J. Phelan, _Philip Massinger_ (1879, _Anglia_, ii. 47); A. S. W. Rosenbach, _The Curious-Impertinent_ (1902, _M. L. N._ xvii. 179); W. Nicholson, _The S. M. T._ (1912, _M. L. N._ xxvii. 33).

The play may be assigned to the King’s men, in view of stage-directions to ll. 1724, 1928, which show that ‘M^r Goughe’ played Memphonius and ‘Rich Robinson’ the Lady. Perhaps this also explains the ascription of authorship to Thomas Goffe, which, like those to Chapman and Shakespeare, now finds no favour. Tieck, who translated the play in his _Shakespeare’s Vorschule_ (1829, ii), argued for Massinger, whose lost _Tyrant_ he took the play to be. No doubt the chief character is only entitled ‘Tyrant’ in the manuscript. But the _Tyrant_ has a separate existence both in S. R. and in Warburton’s list. Fleay, ii. 331, thought that the title was originally meant to be _The Usurping Tyrant_, and that the play was by the author of _The Revenger’s Tragedy_, generally assigned to Tourneur. Rosenbach doubts Massinger, and thinks Tourneur’s hand traceable. Swinburne seems to have suggested Middleton.

_Selimus. 1591 < > 94_

1594. The First part of the Tragicall raigne of Selimus, sometime Emperour of the Turkes, and grandfather to him that now raigneth. Wherein is showne how hee most vnnaturally raised warres against his owne father Baiazet, and preuailing therein, in the end caused him to be poysoned: Also with the murthering of his two brethren, Corcut, and Acomat. As it was playd by the Queenes Maiesties Players. _Thomas Creede._ [Prologue and Conclusion.]

1638. The Tragedy of Selimus Emperour of the Turkes. Written T. G. _For John Crooke and Richard Serger._ [Re-issue of 1594 sheets with new t.p.]

_Editions_ by A. B. Grosart (1898, _T. D._) and W. Bang (1908, _M. S. R._), and in collections of Greene (q.v.).--_Dissertation_: H. Gilbert, _Robert Greene’s S._ (1899, Kiel diss.); cf. s. _Locrine_.

The T. G. of the 1638 title-page is probably meant for Thomas Goffe, the author of contemporary plays on Turkish history. He, however, was only born in 1591. Six passages from the play are assigned to Greene in R[obert] A[llot’s] _England’s Parnassus_ (1600). This is fairly strong evidence, and Greene’s authorship is supported by Grosart, Brooke (_Sh. Apocrypha_, xix), and Gilbert. Ward and Gayley (_R. E. C._ i. 420) take the opposite view. Crawford, who points out (_E. P._ xxxv, 407) that Allot is not impeccable, prefers Marlowe. Fleay, ii. 315, would divide the play between Greene and Lodge. The problem is bound up with that of the authorship of _Locrine_ (q.v.), from which _Selimus_ clearly borrows. It can therefore hardly be of earlier date than 1591. The Conclusion, or epilogue, promises a second part, of which nothing is known.

_Soliman and Perseda c. 1589 < > 92_

_S. R._ 1592, Nov. 20 (Bp. of London). ‘The tragedye of Salamon and Perceda.’ _Edward White_ (Arber, ii. 622).

N.D. The Tragedye of Solyman and Perseda. Wherein is laide open, Loues constancy, Fortunes inconstancy, and Deaths Triumphs. _Edward Allde for Edward White._ [Induction.]

1599. _E. Allde for E. White._ [In some copies ‘newly corrected and amended’ is stamped on the t.p.]

[1815]. [A facs. reprint, with date 1599 and imprint _Edward Allde for Edward White_, of which two copies, C. 57. c. 15 and G. 18612, are in B.M.; cf. W. W. Greg in _M. L. Q._ iv. 188, and R. B. McKerrow, _Bibl. Evid._ 302. Some copies have ‘J. Smeeton, Printer, St. Martin’s Lane’ on the v^o. of the t.p.]

_Editions_ by T. Hawkins (1773, _O. E. D._ ii), in Dodsley^4, v (1874), and by F. S. Boas (1901, _Works of Kyd_) and J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._).--_Dissertations_: E. Sieper (1897, _Z. f. vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte_, N. F. x); G. Sarrazin, _Die Verfasser von S. u. P._ (1891, _E. S._ xv. 250); E. Koeppel, _Beiträge zur Geschichte des elisabethanischen Dramas_ (1892, _E. S._ xvi. 357); J. E. Routh, _T. Kyd’s Rime Schemes and the Authorship of S. P. and 1 Jeronimo_ (1905, _M. L. N._ xx. 49); K. Wiehl, _Thomas Kyd und die Autorschaft von S. u. P._ (1912, _E. S._ xliv. 343).

Fleay, ii. 26, Sarrazin, and Boas claim the play for Kyd, partly on grounds of style, partly because the plot is an elaboration of the ‘play within the play’ of _The Spanish Tragedy_ (_c._ 1589), iv. 4; Wiehl doubts on metrical grounds. Schick (_Archiv_, xc) suggests Peele, who is said in the _Merry Conceited Jests_ (Bullen, _Peele_, ii. 389) to have written, or pretended to have written, a play of _The Knight of Rhodes_, a title which would apply to _Soliman and Perseda_. Robertson, 109, 150, 166, thinks that Greene collaborated with Kyd.

_Captain Thomas Stukeley. 1596_

_S. R._ 1600, Aug. 11 (Vicars). ‘Ye history of the life and Deathe of Captaine Thomas Stucley, with his Mariage to Alexander Curtis his daughter, and his valiant endinge of his life at the battell of Alcazar.’ _Thomas Pavier_ (Arber, iii. 169).

1605. The Famous Historye of the life and death of Captaine Thomas Stukeley. With his marriage to Alderman Curteis Daughter, and valiant ending of his life at the Battaile of Alcazar. As it hath beene Acted. For _Thomas Pavier_.

_Editions_ by R. Simpson (1878, _S. of S._ i) and J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._).--_Dissertations_: E. H. C. Oliphant (1905, 10 _N. Q._ iii. 301, 342, 382); J. Q. Adams, _C. T. S._ (1916, _J. G. P._ xv. 107).

‘Tom Stucley’ is named as a stage hero by Peele in his _Farewell_ (1589); but the present play is probably the _Stewtley_ produced by the Admiral’s on 11 Dec. 1596 (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 181). There are allusions to ‘the Theatre fields’ (611) and ‘her Majesty’ (752), which may only represent historic time. Although Sebastian of Portugal is a character, there is no reference to the legend of his survival, which was well known in England in 1598. Simpson regards the play as belonging to the Chamberlain’s, on the ground of certain political proclivities which he chose to ascribe to that company. The text is incoherent, and several theories representing it as a contamination of two distinct plays have been promulgated. Simpson supposed that part of a play on Don Antonio has been inserted into one dealing in five acts with Stukeley’s adventures in England, Ireland, Spain, Rome, and Africa respectively, and this view is elaborated by Oliphant, who attempts to disentangle several original and revising hands, including that of John Fletcher, to whom he assigns 245–335. Fleay, i. 127, thinks that Dekker made up the play for Paul’s, _c._ 1600, out of _Stewtley_ and a _Mahomet_ by Peele. Apparently he starts from _Satiromastix_, 980, where Horace says that Demetrius Fannius ‘cut an innocent Moore i’ the middle, to serue him in twice; & when he had done, made Poules-worke of it’. But surely there is a difference between making two plays out of one and making one play out of two.

_1 Tamar Cham > 1592_

[_MS._] ‘The plott of The First parte of Tamar Cham.’ In the possession of Steevens, but now unknown.

The text is given by Steevens, _Variorum_ (1803), iii. 414; Boswell, _Variorum_ (1821), iii. 356; Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 144.

The actors’ names point to a performance by the Admiral’s, near 2 Oct. 1602, when they bought the book from Alleyn (cf. ch. xiii). The play was produced as ‘n. e.’ by the same company on 6 May 1596, but probably Henslowe’s ‘n. e.’ in this case only indicates a substantial revision, as the letters are also attached to the notice of a performance of Part ii on 11 June 1596, and Part ii had already been played as ‘n. e.’ by Strange’s on 28 April 1592. Obviously a