Transcriber’s Note:
This book contains some very large tables. A wide screen is necessary
to view these.
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE
VOL. IV
Oxford University Press
_London_ _Edinburgh_ _Glasgow_ _Copenhagen_
_New York_ _Toronto_ _Melbourne_ _Cape Town_
_Bombay_ _Calcutta_ _Madras_ _Shanghai_
Humphrey Milford Publisher to the UNIVERSITY
[Illustration: DESIGN BY INIGO JONES FOR THE COCKPIT THEATRE AT
WHITEHALL
NOW IN THE LIBRARY OF WORCESTER COLLEGE OXFORD]
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE
BY E. K. CHAMBERS. VOL. IV
OXFORD: AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
M.CMXXIII
Printed in England
CONTENTS
VOLUME IV
PAGE
XXIV. ANONYMOUS WORK 1
A. Plays 1
B. Masks 55
C. Receptions and Entertainments 60
APPENDICES
A. A Court Calendar 75
B. Court Payments 131
C. Documents of Criticism 184
D. Documents of Control 259
E. Plague Records 345
F. The Presence-Chamber at Greenwich 351
G. Serlio’s _Trattato sopra le Scene_ 353
H. _The Gull’s Hornbook_ 365
I. Restoration Testimony 369
K. Academic Plays 373
L. Printed Plays 379
M. Lost Plays 398
N. Manuscript Plays 404
INDEXES
I. Plays 409
II. Persons 425
III. Places 445
IV. Subjects 454
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Design for Cockpit Theatre at Whitehall. By
Inigo Jones. From Library of Worcester
College, Oxford _Frontispiece_
The _Profilo_ or Section of a Stage. From
Sebastiano Serlio, _Architettura_ (1551) p. 354
The _Pianta_ or Ground-Plan of a Stage (_ibid._) p. 357
Elevation of a _Scena Comica_ (_ibid._) p. 359
Elevation of a _Scena Tragica_ (_ibid._) p. 361
Elevation of a _Scena Satyrica_ (_ibid._) p. 362
NOTE
I have found it convenient, especially in Appendix A, to use the symbol
< following a date, to indicate an uncertain date not earlier than that
named, and the symbol > followed by a date, to indicate an uncertain
date not later than that named. Thus 1903 < > 23 would indicate the
composition date of any part of this book. I have sometimes placed the
date of a play in italics, where it was desirable to indicate the date
of production rather than publication.
The documents from J. R. Dasent, _Acts of the Privy Council_
(1890–1907), are reprinted by permission of the Controller of His
Majesty’s Stationery Office.
XXIV
ANONYMOUS WORK
[Here I bring together, giving them the same treatment as the
individual works in ch. xxiii, pieces of which the authorship, as
regards the whole or a large part, is unknown or conjectural. They are
grouped as (A) Plays, (B) Masks, (C) Receptions and Entertainments. It
has been convenient, for the sake of classification, to include in the
third group a few which might alternatively have been brought into ch.
xxiii under the name of a part-author or describer.]
A. PLAYS
_An Alarum for London > 1600_
_S. R._ 1600, May 27. ‘Allarum to London’ is included in a memorandum
of ‘my lord chamberlens menns plaies Entred’ and noted as entered on
this day to J. Roberts (Arber, iii. 37).
1600, May 29. ‘The Allarum to London, provided that yt be not printed
without further Aucthoritie.’ _John Roberts_ (Arber, iii. 161).
1602. A Larum for London, or The Siedge of Antwerpe. With the ventrous
actes and valorous deeds of the lame Soldier. As it hath been playde by
the right Honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants. _For William
Ferbrand._ [Prologue and Epilogue.]
_Editions_ by R. Simpson (1872), J. S. Farmer (1912, _T.F.T._), and W.
W. Greg (1913, _M.S.R._).
The play has been ascribed to Shakespeare by Collier, to Shakespeare
and Marston by Simpson, and to Lodge by Fleay, _Shakespeare_, 291,
but no serious case has been made out for any of these claims. Bullen,
_Marlowe_, 1, lxxiv, says that Collier had a copy with doggerel
rhymes on the t.p. including the line,
Our famous Marloe had in this a hand,
which Bullen calls ‘a very ridiculous piece of forgery’.
_Albion Knight > 1566_
_S. R._ 1565–6. ‘A play intituled a merye playe bothe pytthy and
pleasaunt of Albyon knyghte.’ _Thomas Colwell_ (Arber, i. 295).
Fragment in Devonshire collection.
[The t.p. is lost, but the seventeenth-century play lists (Greg,
_Masques_, xlvii) include an interlude called _Albion_. A fragment on
Temperance and Humility, conjecturally assigned by Collier, i. 284, to
the same play, is of earlier printing by thirty years or so (_M.S.C._
i. 243).]
_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1844, _Sh. Soc. Papers_, i. 55) and W.
W. Greg (1910, _M. S. C._ i. 229).--_Dissertations_: M. H. Dodds,
_The Date of A. K._ (1913, 3 _Library_, iv. 157); G. A. Jones, _The
Political Significance of A. K._ (1918, _J. G. P._ xvii. 267).
Collier suggests that this was the play disliked at court on 31 Dec.
1559, but, as Fleay, 66, points out, that would hardly have been
licensed for printing. Dodds thinks it motived by the Pilgrimage of
Grace (1536–7) and written shortly after.
_Alice and Alexis_
A fragment (to iii. 1) of a play on the loves of Alice and Alexis,
thwarted by Tanto, with an argument of the whole, is in _Douce MS._
171 (_Bodl._ 21745), f. 48^v. The date ‘1604’ is scribbled amongst the
pages. The manuscript also contains sixteenth-century accounts. There
seems nothing to connect this with Massinger’s _Alexius, or the Chaste
Lover_, licensed by Herbert on 25 Sept. 1639 and apparently included in
Warburton’s list of burnt plays (3 _Library_, ii. 232, 249).
_Alphonsus, Emperor of Germany > 1636_
_S. R._ 1653, Sept. 9. ‘A play called Alphonso, Emperor of Germany, by
John Poole.’ _H. Moseley_ (Eyre, i. 428).
1654. The Tragedy of Alphonsus Emperour of Germany. As it hath
been very often Acted (with great applause) at the Privat house in
Black-Friers by his late Maiesties Servants. By George Chapman Gent.
_For Humphrey Moseley._ [Epistle to the Reader. The B.M. copy of the
play is dated ‘Novemb. 29, 1653’.]
_Editions_ by K. Elze (1867) and H. F. Schwarz (1913), and in
collections of Chapman (q.v.).
_Alphonsus_ may reasonably be identified with the _Alfonso_ given
before the Queen and the Elector Palatine at the Blackfriars on 5 May
1636 (Cunningham, xxiv). The ascription on the title-page to Chapman
is repeated therefrom by Langbaine who rejects that of Kirkman in 1661
and 1671 (Greg, _Masques_, xlviii) to Peele, but the intimate knowledge
of German shown in the dialogue has led Elze and Ward, ii. 428, to
give Chapman a German collaborator, conceivably one Rudolf Weckerlin
of Würtemberg, who after a preliminary visit before 1614 settled
permanently in England about 1624 and obtained political employment,
which he varied with literary exercises. Later critics are inclined to
reject Chapman’s authorship altogether, and the case against it has
been effectively put by E. Koeppel, _Quellen-Studien zu den Dramen
Chapman’s_, 78, and Parrott. The ascription to Peele has been revived
by Robertson, _T. A._ 123, and though Parrott does not accept the full
argument, he agrees in regarding the play as originally of Peele’s
date, possibly by him, with or without a collaborator, and drastically
revised at a later period, perhaps by Weckerlin in 1636. Fleay, ii.
156, 311, also accepts Peele and identifies the play with _Harry of
Cornwall_, revived by Strange’s for Henslowe on 25 Feb. 1592, but, as
Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 151) points out, the character in _Alphonsus_ is
not Henry, but Richard of Cornwall. It must be observed that no critic
has noticed the _S. R._ ascription to John Poole, which may quite well
be the origin of Kirkman’s ‘Peele’. Who John Poole was, I do not know.
_Apius and Virginia > 1567–8_
_S. R._ 1567–8. ‘A Tragedy of Apius and Virgine.’ _Richard Jones_
(Arber, i. 357).
1575. A new Tragicall Comedie of Apius and Virginia, Wherein is liuely
expressed a rare example of the vertue of Chastitie, by Virginias
constancy, in wishing rather to be slaine at her owne Fathers handes,
then to be deflowred of the wicked Iudge Apius. By R. B. _William How
for Richard Jones._ [Prologue and Epilogue.]
_Editions_ in Dodsley^{3, 4} (1825–76), and by J. S. Farmer (1908,
_T. F. T._) and R. B. McKerrow (1911, _M. S. R._).
‘Haphazard, the Vice’ is a character. The stage-directions name ‘the
stage’, ‘the scaffold’. A prologue addresses ‘lordings’; an epilogue
has a prayer for the queen, nobles, and commons. The play is not
controversial, but the tone is Protestant. Fleay, 61, thinks it a
Westminster play of 1563–4; but no Westminster play of 1563–4 is on
record. If Fleay means 1564–5, the Westminster play of that Christmas
was _Miles Gloriosus_. There is nothing but the initials to
identify the author with Richard Bower of the Chapel (q.v.), but
the suggestion is more plausible than that of Wallace, i. 108, who
gives the play to Richard Edwardes (q.v.), finding that the ‘R. E.’
subscribed to some of his manuscript poems is capable of being misread
‘R. B.’.
_Arden of Feversham > 1592_
_S. R._ 1592, April 3 (Bishop of London). ‘The tragedie of Arden of
Feuersham and Blackwall.’ _Edward White_ (Arber, ii. 607). [See s.v.
Kyd, _Spanish Tragedy_, for the record of a piracy of the play in 1592
by Abel Jeffes.]
1592. The Lamentable and True Tragedie of M. Arden of Feuersham in
Kent. Who was most wickedlye murdered, by the meanes of his disloyall
and wanton wyfe, who for the love she bare to one Mosbie, hyred two
desperat ruffins Blackwill and Shakbag, to kill him. Wherin is shewed
the great mallice and discimulation of a wicked woman, the vnsatiable
desire of filthie lust and the shamefull end of all murderers. _For
Edward White._ [Epilogue.]
1599. _J. Roberts for Edward White._
1633. _Eliz. Allde._
_Editions_ by E. Jacob (1770), A. H. Bullen (1887), R. Bayne
(1897, _T. D._), J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._), and in _Sh.
Apocrypha_.--_Dissertations_: C. E. Donne, _Essay on the Tragedy of
A. of F._ (1873); C. Crawford, _The Authorship of A. of F._ (1903,
_Jahrbuch_, xxxix. 74; _Collectanea_, i. 101); W. Miksch, _Die
Verfasserschaft des A. of F._ (1907, Breslau diss.); K. Wiehl, _Thomas
Kyd und die Autorschaft von ... A. of F._ (1912, _E. S._ xliv. 356); H.
D. Sykes, _Sidelights upon Shakespeare_, 48 (1919); L. Cust, _A. of F._
(1920, _Arch. Cant._ xxxiv. 101).
Jacob first claimed the authorship for Shakespeare. In spite of the
advocacy of Swinburne (_Study of Sh._, 129) modern criticism remains
wholly unconvinced. The play has tragic merit, but it is not of a
Shakespearian character, and it is impossible to fit its manner, before
1592, into any coherent theory of Shakespeare’s development. More
plausible is the case for Kyd, suggested by Fleay, ii. 28, who puts
the date as far back as 1585 on quite unreliable grounds of improbable
guess-work, and supported by Robertson, _T. A._ 151, and elaborately
argued by Crawford and Sykes. But Boas, _Kyd_, lxxxix, thinks that the
author was more likely an imitator of Kyd, and opinion remains divided.
Oliphant (_M. P._ viii. 420) suggests Kyd and Marlowe, possibly with
a third. The theme may also have been that of the _Murderous Michael_
played at court by Sussex’s in 1579.
_The Birth of Hercules. 1597 <_
[_MS._] _B.M. Add. MS._ 28722. ‘The birthe of hercules.’ [Prologus
Laureatus; Mercurius Prologus; after text, ‘Testamentum poetae, ad
peleum. Comoedarum pariter et histrionum princeps Peleu, tuo pro
iudicio, volo hanc meam Comoediam, vel recitari, vel reticeri: hoc est:
aut vivere aut mori. Scripsi, nec poeta, nec moriens: et tamen poeta
moriens’. Written in one hand, with stage-directions by a second and
corrections by a third and possibly a fourth, on paper datable by the
watermark in 1597.]
_Editions_ by M. W. Wallace (1903) and R. W. Bond (1911, _M. S. R._).
This is pretty clearly a University play, and any connexion with the
_Hercules_ of the Admiral’s men in 1595 is highly improbable. As
George Peele died in 1596, it seems difficult to identify him with
the Peleus of the MS. Bond thinks that ‘the styles of composition and
writing agree in placing a date before 1600 out of the question’.
_Caesar’s Revenge > 1606_
_S. R._ 1606, June 5. ‘A booke called Julius Caesars reuenge.’ _J.
Wright and N. Fosbrook_, licensed by Dr. Covell and the wardens (Arber,
iii. 323).
N.D. The Tragedie of Caesar and Pompey Or Caesars Reuenge. _G. E. for
Iohn Wright._
1607.... Priuately acted by the Studentes of Trinity Colledge in
Oxford. _For Nathaniel Fosbrook and Iohn Wright._ [Re-issue with cancel
t.p.]
_Editions_ by F. S. Boas (1911, _M. S. R._) and W. Mühlfeld (1911,
1912, _Jahrbuch_, xlvii. 132; xlviii. 37), and J. S. Farmer (_S. F.
T._).--_Dissertations_: T. M. Parrott, _The Academic Tragedy of C. and
P._ (1910, _M. L. R._ v. 435); H. M. Ayres, _C. R._ (1915, _M. L. A._
xxx. 771); G. C. Moore Smith, _The Tragedy of C. R._ (1916, 12 _N. Q._
ii. 305).
There is no traceable connexion between this and any other of the
several plays on Caesar, extant and lost, which are upon record. C.
Crawford (_M. S. C._ i. 290) indicates some parallels which suggest a
date of authorship between 1592 and 1596.
_Charlemagne or The Distracted Emperor c. 1600_
[_MS._] _Egerton MS._ 1994. At the end is the note, ‘Nella Φ δ Φ ν ρ la
B’ = ‘Nella fedeltà finirò la vita’.
_Editions_ by A. H. Bullen (1884, _O. E. P._ iii) and F. L. Schoell
(1920).--_Dissertation_: F. L. Schoell, _Un Drame Élisabéthain Anonyme
C_ (1912, _Revue Germanique_, viii. 155).
Bullen suggests that the author was Chapman, and also thinks Tourneur
or Marston conceivable. He quotes Fleay’s opinion in favour of Field.
Fleay, ii. 319, withdraws Field and substitutes Dekker. He identifies
the play with the ‘King Charlemagne’ of Peele’s _Farewell_ of 1589 (cf.
s.v. Peele, _Battle of Alcazar_). Schoell makes an elaborate case for
Chapman, and thinks that the play might be _The Fatall Love, a French
Tragedy_, entered as his in _S. R._ on 29 June 1660, and included,
without author’s name, in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (3 _Library_,
ii. 231). A date later than 1584 is indicated by the use of Du Bartas’s
_Seconde Semaine_ of that year. It may be added that the style points
to _c._ 1600 rather than _c._ 1590.
_Claudius Tiberius Nero > 1607_
_S. R._ 1607, April 10 (Buck). ‘A booke called the tragicall Life and
Death of Claudius Tiberius Nero.’ _Francis Burton_ (Arber, iii. 346).
1607. The Tragedie of Claudius Tiberius Nero, Rome’s greatest Tyrant.
Truly represented out of the purest Records of those Times. _For
Francis Burton._ [Epistle to Sir Arthur Mannering, son of Sir George of
Eithfield, Shropshire; Verses _Ad Lectores_.]
1607. The Statelie Tragedie of Claudius Tiberius Nero.... _For Francis
Burton_. [Another issue.]
_Edition_ by J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._).
The play, which is on Tiberius, not Nero, is to be distinguished from
_Nero_ (1624). The epistle, not apparently by the author, says that the
play’s ‘Father was an Academician’.
_Club Law. 1599–1600_
[_MS._] St. John’s College, Cambridge, MS. S. 62. [Without t.p. and
imperfect; probably identical with a MS. of the play owned by Richard
Farmer.]
_Edition_ by G. C. Moore Smith (1907). [Epilogue.]--_Dissertation_: G.
C. Moore Smith, _The Date of C. L._ (1909, _M. L. R._ iv. 268).
The play is described by Fuller, _Hist. of Cambridge_ (1655), 156, as
given at Clare Hall in 1597–8. But J. S. Hawkins, in his edition of
Ruggle’s _Ignoramus_ (1787), xvi, gives the alternative date 1599,
and this has now been confirmed by the discovery of manuscript annals
of Cambridge, probably by Fuller himself, with the entry, under the
academic year 1599–1600, ‘Aula Clarensis. Club Law fabula festivissima
data multum ridentibus Academicis, frustra Oppidanis dolentibus’. The
play is a satire on the townsmen, and especially the anti-gown mayor of
1599–1600, John Yaxley. Fuller says that the townsmen were invited to
the performance and made to sit it through, and that they complained
to the Privy Council, who first ‘sent some slight and private check to
the principall Actors therein’, and then, when pressed, said that they
would come to Cambridge, and see the comedy acted over again in the
presence of the townsmen. The fact that there is no record of these
letters in the extant register of the Council hardly disproves the
substance of Fuller’s story. Hawkins ascribed the play to Ruggle (q.v.)
on the authority of an eighteenth-century memorandum.
_Sir Clyomon and Clamydes c. 1570_
1599. The Historie of the two valiant Knights, Syr Clyomon knight of
the Golden Sheeld, sonne to the King of Denmarke: And Clamydes the
White Knight, sonne to the King of Suauia. As it hath been sundry times
Acted by her Maiesties Players. _Thomas Creede._ [Prologue.]
_Editions_ by W. W. Greg (1913, _M. S. R._) and J. S. Farmer (_S. F.
T._), and in collections of Peele.
Subtle Shift ‘the vice’, Providence, and Rumour are among the
characters.
Dyce ascribed the play to George Peele on the strength of a manuscript
note ‘in a very old hand’ on a copy of the 1599 edition. Bullen thinks
it of earlier date than Peele. Greg agrees, regarding it as about
contemporary with _Common Conditions_. L. Kellner, in _Englische
Studien_, xiii. 187, compares the language and style at great length
with Peele’s and concludes against his authorship, unless indeed he
wrote it in a spirit of parody. His arguments are challenged by R.
Fischer in _Englische Studien_, xiv. 344. Fleay, 70, assigned it, with
_Common Conditions_, to R. Wilson. Later (ii. 295), he substituted
R[ichard] B[ower]. He noted a parallel to Thomas Preston’s _Cambyses_,
and suggested as a date 1570 or 1578, the years, according to him,
of the original production and of a revival of _Cambyses_. G. L.
Kittredge, in _Journal of Germanic Philology_, ii. 8, suggests that
Preston himself was the author of _Sir Clyomon and Clamydes_. If the
‘her Maiesties Players’ of the title-page means the later company of
that name, the play, if not written, must have been revived 1583–94.
Fleay, ii. 296, further identifies it with _The Four Kings_ licensed
for Henslowe (i. 103) in March 1599; but an old Queen’s play would not
have needed a licence. An Anglo-German repertory of 1626 includes a
‘Tragikomödie vom König in Dänemark und König in Schweden’ (Herz, 66,
72).
_Common Conditions > 1576_
_S. R._ 1576, July 26. ‘A newe and pleasant comedie or plaie after the
maner of common condycons.’ _John Hunter_ (Arber, ii. 301). [Clearly
‘maner’ is a misreading of the ‘name’ of the t.p.]
Q_{1}, N.D. An excellent and pleasant Comedie, termed after the name of
the Vice, Common Condicions, drawne out of the most famous historie of
Galiarbus Duke of Arabia, and of the good and eeuill successe of him
and his two children, Sedmond his sun, and Clarisia his daughter: Set
foorth with delectable mirth, and pleasant shewes. _William How for
John Hunter._ [T.p. adds ‘The Players names’ and ‘Six may play this
Comedie’; Prologue.]
Q_{2}. Fragment, without t.p. or date, under r.t. ‘A pleasant Comedie
called Common Conditions’.
_Editions_ in Brandl, 597 (1898), and by J. S. Farmer (1908, _Five
Anonymous Plays_) from Q_{2}, and by Tucker Brooke (1915, _Yale
Elizabethan Club Reprints_, i) from Q_{1}.
The prologue refers to the audience ‘that sit in place’ and the
‘actours’ that ‘redy stand’. Fleay, ii. 296, suggests the authorship of
Richard Bower, on grounds of style.
_The Contention of York and Lancaster > 1592_
_S. R._ 1594, March 12. ‘A booke intituled, the firste parte of the
Contention of the twoo famous houses of York and Lancaster with the
deathe of the good Duke Humfrey and the banishement and Deathe of
the Duke of Suffolk and the tragicall ende of the prowd Cardinall of
Winchester, with the notable rebellion of Jack Cade and the Duke of
Yorkes ffirste clayme vnto the Crowne. _Thomas Millington_ (Arber, ii.
646). [Part i.]
1602, April 19. Transfer from T. Millington to T. Pavier, ‘The first
and Second parte of Henry the Vj^t, ij bookes’ (Arber, iii. 204).
[Parts i and ii.]
1594. The First Part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of
Yorke and Lancaster, with the death of the good Duke Humphrey: And the
banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolke, and the Tragicall end of
the proud Cardinall of Winchester, with the notable Rebellion of Iacke
Cade: And the Duke of Yorkes first claime vnto the Crowne. _Thomas
Creede for Thomas Millington._ [Part i.]
1595. The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and the death of
good King Henrie the Sixt, with the whole contention betweene the two
Houses Lancaster and Yorke, as it was sundrie times acted by the Right
Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke his seruants. _P. S. for Thomas
Millington._ [Part ii.]
1600. _Valentine Simmes for Thomas Millington._ [Part i.]
1600. _W. W. for Thomas Millington._ [Part ii.]
[1619] N.D. The Whole Contention betweene the two Famous Houses,
Lancaster and Yorke. With the Tragicall ends of the good Duke
Humfrey, Richard Duke of Yorke, and King Henrie the sixt. Diuided
into two Parts: And newly corrected and enlarged. Written by William
Shakespeare, Gent. _For T. P._ [Parts i and ii, printed continuously
with _Pericles_, 1619 (q.v.).]
_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1843, _Sh. Soc._), Wright and Clark
(1863–6, 1893, _Cambridge Shakespeare_), W. C. Hazlitt (1875, _Sh.
Libr._ v, vi), F. J. Furnivall and T. Tyler (1886, 1889, 1891, _Sh.
Q_), and J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._).--_Dissertations_: E. Malone, _On
the Three Parts of Hen. 6_ (1821, _Variorum_, xviii. 553); R. Grant
White, _On the Authorship of Hen. 6_ (_Works of Sh._ 1859–65, vii); J.
Lee, _On the Authorship of 2, 3 Hen. vi and their Originals_ (_N. S. S.
Trans._ 1875–6, 219); C. F. T. Brooke, _The Authorship of 2, 3 Hen. 6_
(1912, _Trans. of Connecticut Academy_, xvii. 141).
The various claims of Marlowe, Kyd, Greene, Peele, Lodge, and
Shakespeare himself to the _Contention_ can only be discussed in
relation to Shakespeare’s revision of them as _2, 3 Henry VI_, which
probably belongs approximately to the date of _1 Henry vi_, produced by
Strange’s on 3 March 1592.
_Thomas Lord Cromwell > 1602_
_S. R._ 1602, Aug. 11 (Jackson). ‘A booke called the lyfe and Deathe of
the Lord Cromwell, as yt was lately Acted by the Lord Chamberleyn his
servantes.’ _William Cotton_ (Arber, iii. 214).
1602. The True Chronicle Historie of the whole life and death of Thomas
Lord Cromwell. As it hath beene sundrie times publikely Acted by the
Right Honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants. Written by W. S.
_For William Jones._
_S. R._ 1611, Dec. 16. Transfer from William Jones to John Browne
of a ‘booke called the lyfe and death of the Lord Cromwell, by W: S.’
(Arber, iii. 474).
1613.... As it hath been sundry times publikely Acted by the Kings
Maiesties Seruants. Written by W. S. _Thomas Snodham._
1664; 1685. [Parts of F_{3} and F_{4} of Shakespeare.]
_Editions_ printed by R. Walker (1734) and by T. E. Jacob (1889,
_Old English Dramas_), J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._), and in _Sh.
Apocrypha._--_Dissertation_: W. Streit, _The L. and D. of T. L. C._
(1904, Jena diss.).
The W. S. of the title-page was interpreted as William Shakespeare in
Archer’s play-list of 1656 (Greg, _Masques_, lx). No modern critic
accepts the attribution, except Hopkinson, who thinks that the original
author was Greene, and that Shakespeare revised his work. Heywood was
suggested by R. Farmer, and Drayton by Fleay, _Shakespeare_, 298;
_B.C._ i. 152, 160. The guesses at Wentworth Smith and William Sly
rest merely on their initials.
_King Darius > 1565_
_S. R._ 1565–6. ‘A playe intituled of the story of kyng Daryous beyinge
taken oute of the iij^{de} and iiij^{th} chapeter of the iij^{de} boke
of Esdras &c.’. _Thomas Colwell_ (Arber, i. 298).
1565, October. A Pretie new Enterlude both pithie & pleasaunt of the
Story of Kyng Daryus, Beinge taken out of the third and fourth Chapter
of the thyrd booke of Esdras. _Colwell._ [On t.p. ‘Syxe persons
may easely play it’.]
1577. _Hugh Jackson._ [B.M. C. 34, i. 21, from Irish sale of 1906.]
_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1860), A. Brandl (1898), 359, J. S.
Farmer (1907, 1909, _T. F. T._).
The characters, other than Darius and Zorobabell, are mainly abstract,
and include Iniquitie, ‘the Vyce’. There is a Prolocutor.
_The Dead Mans Fortune > 1591_
[_MS._] _Add. MS._ 10449. ‘The plotte of the deade mans fortune.’
[Probably from Dulwich.]
The text is given by Steevens, _Variorum_ (1803), iii. 414; Boswell,
_Variorum_ (1821), iii. 356; Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 133; and a
facsimile by Halliwell, _The Theatre Plats of Three Old English Dramas_
(1860).
The names of actors who took part in the play point to a performance by
the Admiral’s, about 1590–1 (cf. ch. xiii).
_The Reign of King Edward the Third > 1595_
_S. R._ 1595, Dec. 1. ‘A book Intitled Edward the Third and the Blacke
Prince their warres with kinge John of Fraunce.’ _Burby_ (Arber, iii.
55).
1596. The Raigne of King Edward the third: As it hath bin sundrie times
plaied about the Citie of London. _For Cuthbert Burby._
1599. _Simon Stafford for Cuthbert Burby._
_Editions_ with Shakespeare _Apocrypha_, and by E. Capel (1759–60,
_Prolusiones_), F. J. Furnivall (1877, _Leopold Sh._), J. P. Collier
(1878, _Shakespeare_), G. C. Moore Smith (1897, _T. D._), J. S.
Farmer (1910, _T. F. T._).--_Dissertations_: H. von Friesen, _Ed.
iii, angeblich ein Stück von Sh._ (1867, _Jahrbuch_, ii. 64); J. P.
Collier, _K. Edw. III, a Historical Play by W. Sh._ (1874); A. Teetgen,
_Sh’s. K. Edw. iii, absurdly called, and scandalously treated, as a
‘Doubtful Play’: an Indignation Pamphlet_ (1875); A. C. Swinburne, _On
the Historical Play of K. Edw. iii_ (1879, _Gent. Mag._, 1880, &c.,
_Study of Sh._); G. von Vincke, _K. Edw. iii, ein Bühnenstück?_ (1879,
_Jahrbuch_, xiv. 304); E. Phipson, _Ed. iii_ (1889, _N. S. S. Trans._
58*); G. Liebau, _K. Ed. iii von England und die Gräfin von Salisbury_
(1900, 1901), _K. Ed. iii von England im Lichte europäischer Poesie_
(1901); R. M. Smith, _Edw. III_ (1911, _J. G. P._ x. 90).
The authorship was first ascribed to Shakespeare (with that of _Edw.
IV_ and _Edw. II_!) in Rogers and Ley’s play-list of 1656 (Greg,
_Masques_, lxiv). The theory was advocated by Capell, and has received
much support, largely owing to the assent of Tennyson, against whose
authority, however, may be set that of Swinburne. In its latest and not
altogether unplausible form, Shakespeare is regarded as the author, not
of the whole play, but of i. 2 and ii, which deal with the episode of
the wooing of Lady Salisbury by the king, and are possibly, although
by no means certainly, due to another hand than that of the chronicle
narrative, to which they are only slightly linked. The style of these
scenes is not demonstrably un-Shakespearian, and they, and in less
degree the play as a whole, contain many parallels with _Hen. V_ and
other works of the ‘nineties, of which the repetition in II. i. 451 and
in Sonnet XCIV of the line
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds
is the most striking. The controversy cannot be dealt with in detail
here. Shakespeare’s contribution, if any, may with most probability
be assigned to the winter of 1594–5; but it does not follow that
the original play may not have been of earlier date. No importance
is to be attached to the argument of Fleay (ii. 62; _Shakespeare_,
282) that the use of the phrase ‘Ave, Caesar’ in I. i. 164 caused
its use in Greene’s _Francesco’s Fortunes_ of 1590 (cf. App. C, no.
xliii), but it is noteworthy that a play on the subject was produced,
apparently under Anglo-German influence, at Danzig in 1591 (Herz, 5).
Of non-Shakespearian authors, for the whole or a part of the play as
extant, Marlowe is preferred by Fleay, Greene by Liebau and Robertson,
and Kyd by Sarrazin.
_Edward the Fourth > 1599_
_S. R._ 1599, Aug. 28. ‘Twoo playes beinge the ffirst and Second parte
of Edward the iiij^{th} and the Tanner of Tamworth With the history of
the life and deathe of master Shore and Jane Shore his Wyfe as yt was
lately acted by the Right honorable the Erle of Derbye his seruantes.’
_John Oxonbridge and John Burby_ (Arber, iii. 147).
1600, Feb. 23. Transfer of Busby’s interest to Humphrey Lownes (Arber,
iii. 156).
1600. The First and Second Parts of King Edward the Fourth. Containing
His mery pastime with the Tanner of Tamworth, as also his loue to faire
mistrisse Shoare, her great promotion, fall and miserie and lastly the
lamentable death of both her and her husband. Likewise the besieging
of London, by the Bastard Falconbridge, and the valiant defence of
the same by the Lord Maior and the Citizens. As it hath diuers times
beene publikely played by the Right Honorable the Earle of Derbie his
seruants. _F. K. for Humfrey Lownes and John Oxenbridge._
1605; 1613; 1619; 1626.
_Edition_ by B. Field (1842, _Sh. Soc._).--_Dissertation_: A. Sander,
_T. Heywood’s Historien von König Edward iv und ihre Quellen_ (1907,
Jena diss.).
Sander and others date the play 1594, by an identification with the
anonymous _Siege of London_ revived by the Admiral’s on 26 Dec. 1594.
Greg (Henslowe, ii. 173) more cautiously says that the play of 1594
‘may underlie’ certain scenes of _1 Edward iv_. He regards _Edward
iv_, ‘on internal evidence, as unquestionably Heywood’s’. This is the
usual view, but Fleay, ii. 288, had doubted it. There is no external
evidence for Heywood’s authorship, or for any connexion between him and
Derby’s men. Moreover, in May 1603, he authorized Henslowe, on behalf
of Worcester’s, to pay Chettle and Day for ‘the Booke of Shoare, now
newly to be written’, also described as ‘a playe wherein Shores wiffe
is writen’. If this was a revision of his own play, he would hardly
have left it to others. It is fair to add that in the previous January
he had himself received payment with Chettle for an unnamed play,
which might be the same (Henslowe, ii. 234). The ‘three-mans song’ on
Agincourt in iii. 2 of 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.).