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 Part i must already have
existed (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 155).
_The Taming of A Shrew c. 1589_
_S. R._ 1594, May 2. ‘A booke intituled A plesant Conceyted historie
called “the Tayminge of a Shrowe”.’ _Peter Short_ (Arber, ii. 648).
1594. A Pleasant Conceited Historie, called The taming of a Shrew. As
it was sundry times acted by the Right honorable the Earle of Pembrook
his seruants. _Peter Short, sold by Cuthbert Burby._ [Induction.]
1596. _Peter Short, sold by Cuthbert Burby._
1607. _V. S. for Nicholas Ling._
_Editions_ by J. Nicholls (1779, _Six Old Plays_, i), T. Amyot (1844,
_Sh. Soc._), W. C. Hazlitt (1875, _Sh. Libr._ vi), E. W. Ashbee (1876,
facs.), F. J. Furnivall (1886, _Sh. Q_), F. S. Boas (1908, _Sh.
Classics_), and J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._).
The Admiral’s and Chamberlain’s revived ‘the tamynge of A shrowe’ for
Henslowe on 11 June 1594, shortly after the entry in S. R. (Greg,
_Henslowe_, ii. 164). Presumably it belonged to the Chamberlain’s, who
had acquired it from Pembroke’s, and the 1594 performance may have been
either of the original, or of Shakespeare’s revision, _The Taming of
The Shrew_, for which 1594 is a plausible date. An early reference to
the printed book is in Harington’s _Metamorphosis of Ajax_ (1596), 95,
‘For the shrewd wife, read the book of Taming a Shrew, which hath made
a number of us so perfect, that now every one can rule a shrew in our
country, save he that hath her’. It is to be noted that, unlike _Leire_
(q.v.) and _King Lear_, the two versions counted, from the copyright
point of view, as one, so that the transfer of _A Shrew_ to Smethwick
made an entry of _The Shrew_ in S. R. for the purposes of F_{1} of
Shakespeare unnecessary. Probably Pembroke’s in their turn got the
play from the earlier Admiral’s or Strange’s. Its date has been placed
in or before 1589, because certain lines of it appear to be parodied
both in Greene’s _Menaphon_ of that year, and in the prefatory epistle
to _Menaphon_ by Nashe. Some such date is confirmed by its direct
imitations from Marlowe’s _Tamburlaine_ (_c._ 1587) and to a less
extent from _Dr. Faustus_ (_c._ 1588), which are collected by Boas, 93.
For author, Marlowe, Kyd, Greene, and Peele have all been suggested,
but, so far as we know, Marlowe did not repeat himself, and the others
did not plagiarize him, in this flagrant manner. Shakespeare also is
still often credited with a hand in the old play, as well as in the
revision, and the problem can best be discussed in connexion with
Shakespeare. Sykes gives part to S. Rowley (q.v.).
_The Thracian Wonder c. 1600_
1661. Two New Playes: Viz. A Cure for a Cuckold: A Comedy. The Thracian
Wonder: A Comical History. As it hath been several times Acted with
great Applause. Written by John Webster and William Rowley. _Tho.
Johnson, sold by Francis Kirkman._ [Separate t.p. The Thracian Wonder
... _as above_. Epistle to the Reader, signed ‘Francis Kirkman’.]
_Editions_ by C. W. Dilke (1815, _O. E. P._ vi), and in collections of
Webster (q.v.).--_Dissertations_: J. le G. Brereton, _The Relation of
T. W. to Greene’s Menaphon_ (1906, _M. L. R._ ii. 34); J. Q. Adams,
_Greene’s Menaphon and T. W._ (1906, _M. P._ iii. 317); O. L. Hatcher,
_The Sources and Authorship of T. W._ (1908, _M. L. N._ xxiii. 16).
The ascription of the title-page is rejected by Stoll, _Webster_, 34,
and modern writers generally, although Stork, _Rowley_, 61, thinks
that Rowley may have added comic touches. The use of Webster’s name
may be due to the identity of the plot with that of William Webster’s
_Curan and Argentile_ (1617). But William Webster took it from Warner’s
_Albion’s England_ (1586), iv. xx. From the same source Greene took it,
with a change of names, for _Menaphon_ (1589), and it is _Menaphon_,
with another change of names, that the play follows. Brereton ascribes
it to Greene himself; Hatcher thinks that the direct plagiarisms from
the source and the archaistic phrase ‘old Menaphon’ (iv. 2), whereas
Greene’s hero is a youth, point to an early sixteenth-century admirer
of Greene. Adams supports the suggestion of Fleay, i. 287, that this
is the _War Without Blows and Love Without Suit_ written by Heywood
for the Admiral’s in 1598, but this is a mere guess based on Heywood’s
title (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 199). Fleay then supposed that it was
revised for Queen Anne’s about 1607; elsewhere (ii. 332) he supposes it
a dramatization of Webster’s story for Prince Charles’s about 1617.
_Timon c. 1581 < > 90_ (?)
[_MS._] _Dyce MS._ 52. [Epilogue. The MS. is a transcript in two hands.]
_Editions_ by A. Dyce (1842, _Sh. Soc._) and W. C. Hazlitt (1875, _Sh.
Libr._ ii. 2).--_Dissertation_: J. Q. Adams, _The Timon Plays_ (1910,
_J. G. P._ ix. 506).
Greek quotations and other pedantries suggest an academic audience,
but there is little indication of place or date, beyond parallels with
_Pedantius_, which lead Moore Smith (_M. L. R._ iii. 143) to suggest
Cambridge and _c._ 1581–90. Adams thinks that the piece may have been
performed by London schoolboys, and known to Shakespeare.
_Tom Tyler and his Wife > 1563_
_S. R._ 1562–3. ‘These ballettes folowynge ... an other of Tom Tyler.’
_Thomas Colwell_ (Arber, i. 210).
1661. Tom Tyler and His Wife. An Excellent Old Play, As It was Printed
and Acted about a hundred Years ago. The second Impression. [Prologue
and ‘concluding Song’. There is no imprint, but as most of the extant
copies have a variant t.p. with the additional words ‘Together, with
an exact Catalogue of all the playes that were ever yet printed’,
and as Kirkman’s catalogue of 1661 is appended, he was doubtless the
publisher.]
_Editions_ by F. E. Schelling (1900, _M. L. A._ xv. 253), G. C. Moore
Smith and W. W. Greg (1910, _M. S. R._), and J. S. Farmer (1912, _T. F.
T._).
The S. R. entry may refer to a ballad based on the play, or may
possibly be a loose description of the play itself. In any case there
is no reason to doubt the existence of a print of about that date.
The evidence of the 1661 title-page is confirmed by the entry of ‘Tom
tyler’ in Archer’s play-list of 1656 (Greg, _Masques_, cxii).
Chetwood, who cannot be relied on, gave the date as 1598, and an
inaccurate reproduction of this seems to be responsible for the 1578 of
other writers. The text of 1661 has been shown by C. P. G. Scott (in
Schelling’s introduction) to be a rendering into seventeenth-century
orthography of a play whose vocabulary may be put, with decreasing
certainty, within the limits 1530–80, 1540–70, and 1550–60. The
prologue says that the play is ‘set out by prettie boyes’, and the
‘concluding Song’ has a prayer for the preservation of the queen,
‘from perilous chance that hath been seen’. Fleay, ii. 295, somewhat
arbitrarily thinks the Chapel ‘more likely’ to have presented it than
Paul’s. A misinterpretation of Kirkman’s list of 1661 led E. Phillips,
_Theatrum Poetarum_ (1675), to assign the authorship to W. Wager
(_M. S. C._ i. 325).
_The Trial of Chivalry c. 1600_
_S. R._ 1604, Dec. 4 (Pasfield). ‘A book called The life and Deathe of
Cavaliero Dick Boyer.’ _Nathaniel Butter_ (Arber, iii. 277).
1605. The History of the tryall of Cheualry, With the life and death
of Caualiero Dicke Bowyer. As it hath bin lately acted by the right
Honourable the Earle of Darby his seruants. _Simon Stafford for
Nathaniel Butter._
1605. This Gallant Caualiero Dicke Bowyer, Newly acted. [Another issue.]
_Editions_ by A. H. Bullen (1884, _O. E. P._ iii) and J. S. Farmer
(1912, _T. F. T._).--_Dissertation_: C. R. Baskervill, _Sidney’s
Arcadia and the T. of C._ (1912, _M. P._ x. 197).
Bullen thinks this may be _Love Parts Friendship_, written by Chettle
and Smith for the Admiral’s in 1602; Fleay, ii. 318, that it may be the
_Burbon_ brought to the Admiral’s by Pembroke’s in 1597, as the Duke
of Bourbon is a chief personage, and also the _Cutting Dick_ to which
Heywood wrote additions for Worcester’s in 1602 (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii.
187, 221, 231). There is, of course, no particular reason why a play by
Derby’s should appear in Henslowe’s diary at all. They were in London
in the winters of 1599–1600 and 1600–1. The only link between them and
Henslowe is Heywood, if he was the author of their _Edward IV_ (q.v.).
Fleay, i. 289, thinks that the present play may be by the same hands.
Probably the Earl of Derby himself wrote for the company.
_The Trial of Treasure > 1567_
1567. A new and mery Enterlude, called the Triall of Treasure, newly
set foorth, and neuer before this tyme imprinted. _Thomas Purfoot._
[Arrangement for 5 actors; Prologue and Epilogue, headed ‘Praie for all
estates’.]
_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1850, _Percy Soc._ xxviii),
in Dodsley^4, iii (1874), and by J. S. Farmer (1908, _T. F.
T._--_Dissertation_: W. W. Greg, _The T. of T._, 1567--_A Study in
Ghosts_ (1910, 3 _Library_, i. 28).
Greg shows that there was only one edition, not two, of 1567. The play
is a non-controversial morality, and may very well date from about 1567.
_1 Troilus and Cressida. 1599_ (?)
[_MS._] _Add. MS._ 10449. [A fragmentary ‘plot’ without title, probably
from Dulwich.]
The text is given by Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 142, who infers from
the names of the characters that it may have been the _Troilus and
Cressida_ written by Chettle and Dekker for the Admiral’s in April
1599. The few names of actors are not inconsistent with this (cf. ch.
xiii).
_The Valiant Welshman. 1610 < > 15_
_S. R._ 1615, Feb. 21 (Buck). ‘A play called the valiant welshman.’
_Robert Lownes_ (Arber, iii. 564).