This consists only of short speeches by the three Hours to James

(in English) and Christian (in Latin) on their entry into the Inner

Court at Lord Salisbury’s house of Theobalds, Herts. (24 July), and

some Latin inscriptions and epigrams hung on the walls. But the visit

lasted until 28 July, and further details are given, not only in the

well-known letter of Sir John Harington (cf. ch. vi) but also in _The

King of Denmarkes Welcome_ (1606; cf. ch. xxiv), whose author, while

omitting to describe ‘manie verie learned, delicate and significant

showes and deuises’, because ‘there is no doubt but the author thereof

who hath his place equall with the best in those Artes, will himselfe

at his leasurable howers publish it in the best perfection’, gives a

Song of Welcome, sung under an artificial oak of silk at the gates.

Probably this was not Jonson’s, as he did not print it. Bond, i. 505,

is hardly justified in reprinting it as Lyly’s.

_Theobalds Entertainment. 1607_

1616. An Entertainment of King Iames and Queene Anne, at Theobalds,

When the House was deliuered vp, with the posession, to the Queene, by

the Earle of Salisburie, 22. of May, 1607. The Prince Ianvile, brother

to the Duke of Guise, being then present. [Part of F_{1}.]

_Editions_ in _Works_ and by Nichols, _James_ (1828), ii. 128.

The Genius of the house mourns the departure of his master, but is

consoled by Mercury, Good Event, and the three Parcae, and yields the

keys to Anne. The performance took place in a gallery, known later as

the green gallery, 109 feet long by 12 wide. Boderie, ii. 253, notes

the ‘espéce de comedie’, and the presence of Prince de Joinville.

_Prince Henry’s Barriers. 6 Jan. 1610_

1616. The Speeches at Prince Henries Barriers. [Part of F_{1}.]

_Editions_ in _Works_ and by Nichols, _James_ (1828), ii. 271.

The barriers had a spectacular setting. The Lady of the Lake is

‘discovered’ and points to her lake and Merlin’s tomb. Arthur is

‘discovered as a star above’. Merlin rises from his tomb. Their

speeches lament the decay of chivalry, and foretell its restoration,

now that James ‘claims Arthur’s seat’, through a knight, for whom

Arthur gives the Lady a shield. The Knight, ‘Meliadus, lord of the

isles’, is then ‘discovered’ with his six assistants in a place

inscribed ‘St. George’s Portico’. Merlin tells the tale of English

history. Chivalry comes forth from a cave, and the barriers take place,

after which Merlin pays final compliments to the King and Queen, Henry,

Charles, and Elizabeth.

Jonson does not date the piece, but it stands in F_{1} between the

_Masque of Queens_ (2 Feb. 1609) and _Oberon_ (1 Jan. 1611), and

this, with the use of the name Meliadus, enables us to attach it to

the barriers of 6 Jan. 1610, of which there is ample record (Stowe,

_Annales_, 574; Cornwallis, _Life of Henry_, 12; Birch, i. 102;

Winwood, iii. 117; _V. P._ xi. 400, 403, 406, 410, 414). It was

Henry’s first public appearance in arms, and he had some difficulty

in obtaining the King’s consent, but His Majesty did not wish to

cross him. The challenge, speeches for which are summarized by

Cornwallis, was on 31 Dec. in the presence-chamber, and until 6 Jan.

Henry kept open table at St. James’s at a cost of £100 a day. With

him as challengers were the Duke of Lennox, the Earls of Arundel and

Southampton, Lord Hay, Sir Thomas Somerset, and Sir Richard Preston.

There were fifty-eight defendants, of whom prizes were adjudged to the

Earl of Montgomery, Thomas Darcy, and Sir Robert Gordon. Each bout

consisted of two pushes with the pike and twelve sword-strokes, and the

young prince gave or received that night thirty-two pushes and about

360 strokes. Drummond of Hawthornden, who called his elegy on Henry

_Tears on the Death of Moeliades_, explains the name as an anagram,

_Miles a Deo_.

_A Challenge at Tilt. 1 Jan. 1614_

1616. A Challenge at Tilt, at a Marriage. [Part of F_{1} where it

follows upon the mask _Love Restored_ (q.v.), and the type is perhaps

arranged so as to suggest a connexion, which can hardly have existed.]

_Editions_ in _Works_ and by Nichols, _James_ (1828),

ii. 716.

On the day after the marriage, two Cupids, as pages of the bride and

bridegroom, quarrelled and announced the tilt. On 1 Jan. each came in

a chariot, with a company of ten knights, of whom the Bride’s were

challengers, and introduced and followed the tilting with speeches.

Finally, Hymen resolved the dispute.

This tilt was on 1 Jan. 1614, after the wedding of the Earl of Somerset

on 26 Dec. 1613, as is clearly shown by a letter of Chamberlain (Birch,

i. 287). The bride’s colours were murrey and white, the bridegroom’s

green and yellow. The tilters included the Duke of Lennox, the

Earls of Rutland, Pembroke, Montgomery, and Dorset, Lords Chandos,

Scrope, Compton, North, Hay, Norris, and Dingwall, Lord Walden and his

brothers, and Sir Henry Cary.

_Lost Entertainment_

When James dined with the Merchant Taylors on 16 July 1607 (cf. ch.

iv), Jonson wrote a speech of eighteen verses, for recitation by an

Angel of Gladness. This ‘pleased his Majesty marvelously well’, but

does not seem to have been preserved (Nichols, _James_, ii. 136; Clode,

i. 276).

FRANCIS KINWELMERSHE (>1577–?1580).

A Gray’s Inn lawyer, probably of Charlton, Shropshire, verses by whom

are in _The Paradise of Dainty Devices_ (1576).

_Jocasta. 1566_

Translated with George Gascoigne (q.v.).

THOMAS KYD (1558–94).

Kyd was baptized on 6 Nov. 1558. His father, Francis Kyd, was a London

citizen and a scrivener. John Kyd, a stationer, may have been a

relative. Thomas entered the Merchant Taylors School in 1565, but there

is no evidence that he proceeded to a university. It is possible that

he followed his father’s profession before he drifted into literature.

He seems to be criticized as translator and playwright in Nashe’s

Epistle to Greene’s _Menaphon_ in 1589 (cf. App. C), and a reference

there has been rather rashly interpreted as implying that he was the

author of an early play on Hamlet. About the same time his reputation

was made by _The Spanish Tragedy_, which came, with _Titus Andronicus_,

to be regarded as the typical drama of its age. Ben Jonson couples

‘sporting Kyd’ with ‘Marlowe’s mighty line’ in recording the early

dramatists outshone by Shakespeare. Towards the end of his life Kyd’s

relations with Marlowe brought him into trouble. During the years

1590–3 he was in the service of a certain noble lord for whose players

Marlowe was in the habit of writing. The two sat in the same room

and certain ‘atheistic’ papers of Marlowe’s got mixed up with Kyd’s.

On 12 May 1593 Kyd was arrested on a suspicion of being concerned in

certain ‘lewd and mutinous libels’ set up on the wall of the Dutch

churchyard; the papers were discovered and led to Marlowe (q.v.) being

arrested also. Kyd, after his release, wrote to the Lord Keeper, Sir

John Puckering, to repudiate the charge of atheism and to explain away

his apparent intimacy with Marlowe. It is not certain who the ‘lord’

with whom the two writers were connected may have been; possibly

Lord Pembroke or Lord Strange, for whose players Marlowe certainly

wrote; possibly also Henry Radcliffe, fourth Earl of Sussex, to whose

daughter-in-law Kyd dedicated his translation of _Cornelia_, after

his disgrace, in 1594. Before the end of 1594 Kyd had died intestate

in the parish of St. Mary Colchurch, and his parents renounced the

administration of his goods.

_Collection_

1901. F. S. Boas, _The Works of T. K._ [Includes _1 Jeronimo_ and

_Soliman and Perseda_.]

_Dissertations_: K. Markscheffel, _T. K.’s Tragödien_ (1886–7,

_Jahresbericht des Realgymnasiums zu Weimar_); A. Doleschal,

_Eigenthümlichkeiten der Sprache in T. K.’s Dramen_ (1888), _Der

Versbau in T. K.’s Dramen_ (1891); E. Ritzenfeldt, _Der Gebrauch des

Pronomens, Artikels und Verbs bei T. K._; G. Sarrazin, _T. K. und sein

Kreis_ (1892, incorporating papers in _Anglia_ and _E. S._); J. Schick,

_T. K.’s Todesjahr_ (1899, _Jahrbuch_, xxxv. 277); O. Michael, _Der

Stil in T. K.’s Originaldramen_ (1905, _Berlin diss._); C. Crawford,

_Concordance to the Works of T. K._ (1906–10, _Materialien_, xv); F. C.

Danchin, _Études critiques sur C. Marlowe_ (1913, _Revue Germanique_,

ix. 566); _T. L. S._ (June, 1921).

_The Spanish Tragedy, c. 1589_

_S. R._ 1592, Oct. 6 (Hartwell). ‘A booke whiche is called the

_Spanishe tragedie_ of Don Horatio and Bellmipeia.’ _Abel Jeffes_

(Arber, ii. 621). [Against the fee is a note ‘Debitum hoc’.

Herbert-Ames, _Typographical Antiquities_, ii. 1160, quotes from a

record in Dec. 1592 of the Stationers’ Company, not given by Arber:

‘Whereas Edw. White and Abell Jeffes have each of them offended, viz.

E. W. in having printed the Spanish tragedie belonging to A. J. And A.

J. in having printed the Tragedie of Arden of Kent, belonginge to E. W.

It is agreed that all the bookes of each impression shalbe confiscated

and forfayted according to thordonances to thuse of the poore of the

company ... either of them shall pay for a fine 10_s._ a pece.’]

N.D. The Spanish Tragedie, Containing the lamentable end of Don

Horatio, and Bel-Imperia: with the pittiful death of olde Hieronimo.

Newly corrected, and amended of such grosse faults as passed in the

first impression. _Edward Allde for Edward White._ [Induction. Greg,

_Plays_, 61, and Boas, xxvii, agree in regarding this as the earliest

extant edition. Boas suggests that either it may be White’s illicit

print, or, if that print was the ‘first impression’, a later one

printed for him by arrangement with Jeffes.]

1594. _Abell Jeffes, sold by Edward White._

_S. R._ 1599, Aug. 13. Transfer ‘salvo iure cuiuscunque’ from Jeffes to

W. White (Arber, iii. 146).

1599. _William White._

_S. R._ 1600, Aug. 14. Transfer to Thomas Pavier (Arber, iii. 169).

1602.... Newly corrected, amended, and enlarged with new additions of

the Painters part, and others, as it hath of late been diuers times

acted. _W. White for Thomas Pavier._

1602 (colophon 1603); 1610 (colophon 1611); 1615 (two issues); 1618;

1623 (two issues); 1633.

_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–4} (1744–1874, v), and by T. Hawkins (1773,

_O. E. D._ ii), W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ i), J. M. Manly (1897,

_Specimens_, ii), J. Schick (1898, _T. D._; 1901, _Litterarhistorische

Forschungen_, xix). _Dissertations_: J. A. Worp, _Die Fabel der Sp.

T._ (1894, _Jahrbuch_, xxix, 183); G. O. Fleischer, _Bemerkungen über

Thomas Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy_ (1896).

Kyd’s authorship of the play is recorded by Heywood, _Apology_, 45

(cf. App. C, No. lvii). The only direct evidence as to the date is Ben

Jonson’s statement in the Induction to _Bartholomew Fair_ (1614), ‘He

that will swear _Ieronimo_ or _Andronicus_ are the best plays yet,

shall pass unexcepted at here as a man whose judgment shows it is

constant, and hath stood still these five and twenty or thirty years’.

This yields 1584–9. Boas, xxx, argues for 1585–7; W. Bang in _Englische

Studien_, xxviii. 229, for 1589. The grounds for a decision are slight,

but the latter date seems to me the more plausible in the absence of

any clear allusion to the play in Nashe’s (q.v.) _Menaphon_ epistle of

that year.

Strange’s men revived _Jeronymo_ on 14 March 1592 and played it

sixteen times between that date and 22 Jan. 1593. I agree with Greg

(_Henslowe_, ii. 150, 153) that by _Jeronymo_ Henslowe meant _The

Spanish Tragedy_, and that the performances of it are distinguishable

from those which the company was concurrently giving of a related piece

called _Don Horatio_ or ‘the comedy of Jeronimo’, which is probably

not to be identified with the extant anonymous _1 Jeronimo_ (q.v.).

On 7 Jan. 1597 the play was revived by the Admiral’s and given twelve

times between that date and 19 July. Another performance, jointly with

Pembroke’s, took place on 11 Oct. Finally, on 25 Sept. 1601 and 22 June

1602, Henslowe made payments to Jonson, on behalf of the Admiral’s,

for ‘adicyons’ to the play. At first sight, it would seem natural to

suppose that these ‘adicyons’ are the passages (II. v. 46–133; III. ii.

65–129; III. xii^a. 1–157; IV. iv. 168–217) which appear for the first

time in the print of 1602. But many critics have found it difficult

to see Jonson’s hand in these, notably Castelain, 886, who would

assign them to Webster. And as Henslowe marked the play as ‘n. e.’ in

1597, it is probable that there was some substantial revision at that

date. There is a confirmation of this view in Jonson’s own mention

of ‘the old Hieronimo (as it was first acted)’ in the induction to

_Cynthia’s Revels_ (1600). Perhaps the 1597 revival motived Jonson’s

quotation of the play by the mouth of Matheo in _E. M. I._ I. iv, and

in _Satiromastix_, 1522, Dekker suggests that Jonson himself ‘took’st

mad Ieronimoes part, to get service among the Mimickes’. Lines from

the play are also recited by the page in _Poetaster_, III. iv. 231. In

the Induction, 84, to Marston’s _Malcontent_ (1604) Condell explains

the appropriation of that play by the King’s from the Chapel with

this retort, ‘Why not Malevole in folio with us, as well as Jeronimo

in decimo sexto with them’. Perhaps _1 Jeronimo_ is meant; in view of

the stage history of _The Spanish Tragedy_, as disclosed by Henslowe’s

diary, the King’s could hardly have laid claim to it.

The play was carried by English actors to Germany (Boas, xcix;

Creizenach, xxxiii; Herz, 66, 76), and a German adaptation by Jacob

Ayrer is printed by Boas, 348, and with others in German and Dutch, in

R. Schönwerth, _Die niederländischen und deutschen Bearbeitungen von

T. K.’s Sp. T._ (1903, _Litterarhistorische Forschungen_, xxvi).

_Cornelia. 1593_

_S. R._ 1594, Jan. 26 (Dickins). ‘A booke called Cornelia, Thomas Kydd

beinge the Authour.’ _Nicholas Ling and John Busbye_ (Arber, ii. 644).

1594. Cornelia. _James Roberts for N. L. and John Busby._ [‘Tho. Kyd’

at end of play.]

1595. Pompey the Great, his fair Corneliaes Tragedie. Effected by her

Father and Husbandes downe-cast, death, and fortune. Written in French,

by that excellent Poet Ro: Garnier; and translated into English by

Thomas Kid. _For Nicholas Ling._ [A reissue of the 1594 sheets

with a new title-page.]

_Editions_ in Dodsley^4, iv. 5 (1874) and by H. Gassner (1894).

A translation of the _Cornélie_ (1574) of Robert Garnier, reissued

in his _Huit Tragédies_ (1580). In a dedication to the Countess of

Sussex Kyd expressed his intention of also translating the _Porcie_

(1568) of the same writer, but this he did not live to do. He speaks of

‘bitter times and privy broken passions’ endured during the writing of

_Cornelia_ which suggests a date after his arrest on 12 May 1593.

_Lost and Doubtful Plays_

_The ‘Ur-Hamlet’_

_Dissertations_: J. Corbin, _The German H. and Earlier English

Versions_ (1896, _Harvard Studies_, v); J. Schick, _Die Entstehung des

H._ (1902, _Jahrbuch_, xxxviii. xiii); M. B. Evans, _Der bestrafte

Brudermord, sein Verhältniss zu Shakespeare’s H._ (1902); K. Meier

(1904, _Dresdner Anzeiger_); W. Creizenach, _Der bestrafte Brudermord

and its Relation to Shakespeare’s H._ (1904, _M. P._ ii. 249), _Die

vorshakespearesche Hamlettragödie_ (1906, _Jahrbuch_, xlii. 76); A. E.

Jack, _Thomas Kyd and the Ur-Hamlet_ (1905, _M. L. A._ xx. 729); J. W.

Cunliffe, _Nash and the Earlier Hamlet_ (1906, _M. L. A._ xxi. 193); J.

Allen, _The Lost H. of K._ (1908, _Westminster Review_); J. Fitzgerald,

_The Sources of the H. Tragedy_ (1909); M. J. Wolff, _Zum Ur-Hamlet_

(1912, _E. S._ xlv. 9); J. M. Robertson, _The Problem of Hamlet_ (1919).

The existence of a play on Hamlet a decade or more before the end

of the sixteenth century is established by Henslowe’s note of its

revival by the Admiral’s and Chamberlain’s on 11 June 1594 (cf. Greg,

_Henslowe_, ii. 164), and some corroborative allusions, but its

relationship to Shakespeare’s play is wholly conjectural. The possible

coupling of ‘Kidde’ and ‘Hamlet’ in Nashe’s epistle to _Menaphon_ has

led to many speculations as to Kyd’s authorship and as to the lines

on which the speculators think he would have treated the theme. Any

discussion of these is matter for an account of _Hamlet_.

Kyd’s hand has also been sought in _Arden of Feversham_, _Contention

of York and Lancaster_, _Edward III_, _1 Jeronimo_, _Leire_, _Rare

Triumphs of Love and Fortune_, _Soliman and Perseda_, _Taming of A

Shrew_, and _True Tragedy of Richard III_ (cf. ch. xxiv), and in

Shakespeare’s _Titus Andronicus_.

MAURICE KYFFIN (?-1599).

A Welshman by birth, he left the service of John Dee, with whom he

afterwards kept up friendly relations, on 25 Oct. 1580 (_Diary_,

10, 15, 48). His epistles suggest that in 1587 he was tutor to Lord

Buckhurst’s sons. In 1592 he was vice-treasurer in Normandy. His

writings, other than the translation, are unimportant.

_Andria of Terence > 1587_

1588. Andria The first Comoedie of Terence, in English. A furtherance

for the attainment vnto the right knowledge, & true proprietie, of

the Latin Tong. And also a commodious meane of help, to such as

haue forgotten Latin, for their speedy recouering of habilitie, to

vnderstand, write, and speake the same. Carefully translated out of

Latin, by Maurice Kyffin. _T. E. for Thomas Woodcocke._ [Epistle by

Kyffin to Henry and Thomas Sackville; commendatory verses by ‘W.

Morgan’, ‘Th. Lloid’, ‘G. Camdenus’, ‘Petrus Bizarus’, ‘R. Cooke’;

Epistle to William Sackville, dated ‘London, Decemb. 3, 1587’, signed

‘Maurice Kyffin’; Preface to the Reader; Preface by Kyffin to all young

Students of the Latin Tongue, signed ‘M. K.’; Argument.]

_S. R._ 1596, Feb. 9. Transfer of Woodcock’s copies to Paul Linley

(Arber, iii. 58).

_S. R._ 1597, Apr. 21 (Murgetrode). ‘The second Comedy of Terence

called Eunuchus.’ _Paul Lynley_ (Arber, iii. 83).

_S. R._ 1600, June 26. Transfer of ‘The first and second commedie of

Terence in Inglishe’ from Paul Linley to John Flasket (Arber, iii. 165).

Presumably the _Andria_ is the ‘first’ comedy of the 1600 transfer, and

if so the lost _Eunuchus_ may also have been by Kyffin. The _Andria_ is

in prose; Kyffin says he had begun seven years before, nearly finished,

and abandoned a version in verse.

JOHN LANCASTER (_c._ 1588).

A Gray’s Inn lawyer, one of the devisers of dumb-shows and director for

the _Misfortunes of Arthur_ of Thomas Hughes (q.v.) in 1588.

SIR HENRY LEE (1531–1611).

[The accounts of Lee in _D. N. B._ and by Viscount Dillon in _Bucks.,

Berks. and Oxon. Arch. Journ._, xii (1906) 65, may be supplemented from

Aubrey, ii. 30, J. H. Lea, _Genealogical Notes on the Family of Lee of

Quarrendon_ (_Genealogist_, n.s. viii-xiv), and F. G. Lee in _Bucks.

Records_, iii. 203, 241; iv. 189, _The Lees of Quarrendon_ (_Herald and

Genealogist_, iii. 113, 289, 481), and _Genealogy of the Family of Lee_

(1884).]

Lee belonged to a family claiming a Cheshire origin, which had long

been settled in Bucks. From 1441 they were constables and farmers of

Quarrendon in the same county, and the manor was granted by Henry

VIII to Sir Robert Lee, who was Gentleman Usher of the Chamber and

afterwards Knight of the Body. His son Sir Anthony married Margaret,

sister of Sir Thomas Wyatt, the poet. Their son Henry was born in

1531, and Aubrey reports the scandal that he was ‘supposed brother to

Elizabeth’. He was page of honour to the King, and by 1550 Clerk of

the Armoury. He was knighted in 1553. By Sept. 1575 he was Master of

the Game at Woodstock (Dasent, ix. 23), and by 1577 Lieutenant of the

manor and park (Marshall, _Woodstock_, 160), holding ‘le highe lodge’

and other royal houses in the locality. Probably he was concerned with

the foundation of Queen’s Day (cf. ch. i) in 1570, which certainly

originated near Oxford, and when the annual tilting on this day at

Whitehall was instituted, Lee acted as Knight of the Crown until his

retirement in 1590. He used as his favourite device a crowned pillar.

He took some part in the military enterprises of the reign, and in

1578 became Master of the Armoury. In 1597 he was thought of as

Vice-Chamberlain, and on 23 April was installed as K.G. He was a great

sheep-farmer and encloser of land, and a great builder or enlarger of

houses, including Ditchley Hall, four or five miles from Woodstock, in

the parish of Spelsbury, where he died on 12 Feb. 1611. By his wife,

Anne, daughter of William Lord Paget, who died in 1590, he had two

sons and a daughter, who all predeceased him. His will of 6 Oct. 1609

provides for the erection of a tomb in Quarrendon Chapel near his own

for ‘M^{rs}. Ann Vavasor alias Finch’. There are no tombs now, but the

inscriptions on Lee’s tomb and on a tablet in the chancel, also not

preserved, are recorded. The former says:

‘In courtly justs his Soveraignes knight he was’,

and the latter adds:

‘He shone in all those fayer partes that became his profession

and vowes, honoring his highly gracious Mistris with reysing

those later Olympiads of her Courte, justs and tournaments ...

wherein still himself lead and triumphed.’

The writer is William Scott, who also, with Richard Lee, witnessed

the will. Anne Vavasour does not in fact appear to have been buried

at Quarrendon. Aubrey describes her as ‘his dearest deare’, and says

that her effigy was placed at the foot of his on the tomb, and that the

bishop threatened to have it removed. Anne’s tomb was in fact defaced

as early as 1611. Anne was daughter of Sir Henry and sister of Sir

Thomas Vavasour of Copmanthorpe, Yorks. She was a new maid of honour

who ‘flourished like the lily and the rose’ in 1590 (Lodge, ii. 423).

Another Anne Vavasour came to Court as ‘newly of the beddchamber’

after being Lady Bedford’s ‘woman’, about July 1601 (Gawdy, 112,

conjecturally dated; cf. vol. iv, p. 67). Anne Clifford tells us that

‘my cousin Anne Vavisour’ was going with her mother Lady Cumberland and

Lady Warwick and herself to meet Queen Anne in 1603, and married Sir

Richard Warburton the same year (Wiffen, ii. 69, 72). The Queen is said

to have visited Sir Henry and his mistress at a lodge near Woodstock

called ‘Little Rest’, now ‘Lee’s Rest’, in 1608. After Lee’s death his

successor brought an action against Anne and her brother for illegal

detention of his effects (_5 N. Q._ iii. 294), and the feud was

still alive and Anne had added other sins to her score in 1618, when

Chamberlain wrote (Birch, ii. 86):

‘M^{rs}. Vavasour, old Sir Henry Lee’s woman, is like to be

called in question for having two husbands now alive. Young

Sir Henry Lee, the wild oats of Ireland, hath obtained the

confiscation of her, if he can prove it without touching her

life.’

Aubrey’s story that Lee’s nephew was disinherited in favour of ‘a

keeper’s sonne of Whitchwood-forest of his owne name, a one-eied young

man, no kinne to him’, is exaggerated gossip. Lee entailed his estate

on a second cousin.

I have brought together under Lee’s name two entertainments and

fragments of at least one other, which ought strictly to be classed

as anonymous, but with which he was certainly concerned, and to which

he may have contributed some of the ‘conceiptes, Himmes, Songes &

Emblemes’, of which one of the fragments speaks.

_The Woodstock Entertainment. Sept. 1575_

[_MS._] _Royal MS._ 18 A. xlviii (27). ‘The Tale of Hemetes the

Heremyte.’ [The tale is given in four languages, English, Latin,

Italian, and French. It is accompanied by pen-and-ink drawings, and

preceded by verses and an epistle to Elizabeth. The latter is dated

‘first of January, 1576’ and signed ‘G. Gascoigne’. The English text

is, with minor variations, that of the tale as printed in 1585. Its

authorship is not claimed by Gascoigne, who says that he has ‘turned

the eloquent tale of _Hemetes the Heremyte_ (wherw^{th} I saw yo^r

lerned judgment greatly pleased at Woodstock) into latyne, Italyan and

frenche’, and contrasts his own ignorance with ‘thaucto^{rs} skyll’.]

_S. R._ 1579, Sept. 22. ‘A paradox provinge by Reason and Example that

Baldnes is muche better than bushie heare.’ _H. Denham_ (Arber, ii.

360).

1579. A Paradoxe, Proving by reason and example, that Baldnesse is much

better than bushie haire.... Englished by Abraham Fleming. Hereunto is

annexed the pleasant tale of Hemetes the Heremite, pronounced before

the Queenes Majestie. Newly recognized both in Latine and Englishe, by

the said A. F. _H. Denham._ [Contains the English text of the Tale

and Gascoigne’s Latin version.]

1585. _Colophon_: ‘Imprinted at London for Thomas Cadman, 1585.’

[Originally contained a complete description of an entertainment,

of which the tale of Hemetes only formed part; but sig. A, with the

title-page, is missing. The unique copy, formerly in the Rowfant

library, is now in the B.M. The t.p. is a modern type-facsimile, based

on the head-line and colophon (McKerrow, _Bibl. Evidence_, 306).]

_Editions_ (_a_) from 1579, by J. Nichols, _Eliz._ i. 553 (1823), and

W. C. Hazlitt, _Gascoigne_, ii. 135 (1870); (_b_) from _MS._ by J.

W. Cunliffe, _Gascoigne_, ii. 473 (1910); (_c_) from 1585, by A. W.

Pollard (1910, partly printed 1903) and J. W. Cunliffe (1911, _M. L.

A._ xxvi. 92).

Gascoigne’s manuscript is chiefly of value as fixing the locality of

the entertainment, which is not mentioned in the mutilated print of

1585. The date can hardly be doubtful. Elizabeth spent considerable

periods at Woodstock in 1572, 1574, and 1575, but it so happens that

only in 1575 was she there on the 20th of a month (_vide infra_ and

App. B). Moreover, Laurence Humphrey’s _Oratio_ delivered at Woodstock

on 11 Sept. 1575 (Nichols, i. 590) refers to the entertainment in the

phrase ‘an ... Gandina spectacula ... dabit’. The description takes

the form of a letter from an eyewitness, evidently not the deviser,

and professing ignorance of Italian; not, therefore, Gascoigne, as

pointed out by Mr. Pollard. At the beginning of sig. B, Hemetes, a

hermit, has evidently just interrupted a fight between Loricus and

Contarenus. He brings them, with the Lady Caudina, to a bower, where

Elizabeth is placed, and tells his Tale, of which the writer says,

‘hee shewed a great proofe of his audacity, in which tale if you marke

the woords with this present world, or were acquainted with the state

of the deuises, you should finde no lesse hidden then vttered, and no

lesse vttered then shoulde deserue a double reading ouer, euen of those

(with whom I finde you a companion) that haue disposed their houres to

the study of great matters’. The Tale explains how the personages have

come together. Contarenus loved Caudina, daughter of Occanon Duke of

Cambia. At Occanon’s request, an enchantress bore him away, and put him

in charge of the blind hermit, until after seven years he should fight

the hardiest knight and see the worthiest lady in the world. Caudina,

setting out with two damsels to seek him, met at the grate of Sibilla

with Loricus, a knight seeking renown as a means to his mistress’s

favour. Sibilla bade them wander, till they found a land in all things

best, and with a Princess most worthy. Hemetes himself has been blinded

by Venus for loving books as well as a lady, and promised by Apollo the

recovery of his sight, where most valiant knights fight, most constant

lovers meet, and the worthiest lady looks on. Obviously it is all a

compliment to the worthiest lady. Thus the Tale ends. The Queen is

now led to the hermit’s abode, an elaborate sylvan banqueting-house,

built on a mound forty feet high, roofed by an oak, and hung with

pictures and posies of ‘the noble or men of great credite’, some of

which the French ambassador made great suit to have. Here Elizabeth was

visited by ‘the Queen of the Fayry drawen with 6 children in a waggon

of state’, who presented her with an embroidered gown. Couplets or

‘posies’ set in garlands were also given to the Queen, to the Ladies

Derby, Warwick, Hunsdon, Howard, Susan and Mary Vere, and to Mistresses

Skidmore, Parry, Abbington, Sidney, Hopton, Katherine Howard, Garret,

Bridges, Burrough, Knowles, and Frances Howard. After a speech from

Caudina, Elizabeth departed, as it was now dark, well pleased with her

afternoon, and listening to a song from an oak tree as she went by.

A somewhat cryptic passage follows. Elizabeth is said to have left

‘earnest command that the whole in order as it fell, should be brought

her in writing, which being done, as I heare, she vsed, besides her

owne skill, the helpe of the deuisors, & how thinges were made I know

not, but sure I am her Maiesty hath often in speech some part hereof

with mirth at the remembrance.’ Then follows a comedy acted on ‘the 20

day of the same moneth’, which ‘was as well thought of, as anye thing

ever done before her Maiestie, not onely of her, but of the rest: in

such sort that her Graces passions and other the Ladies could not [?

but] shew it selfe in open place more than euer hath beene seene’. The

comedy, in 991 lines of verse, is in fact a sequel to the Tale. In it

Occanon comes to seek Caudina, who is persuaded by his arguments and

the mediation of Eambia, the Fairy Queen, to give up her lover for her

country’s sake.

Pollard suggests Gascoigne as the author of the comedy, but of this

there is no external evidence. He also regards the intention of the

whole entertainment as being the advancement of Leicester’s suit.

Leicester was no doubt at Woodstock, even before the Queen, for he

wrote her a letter from there on 4 Sept. (_S. P. D. Eliz_. cv. 36);

but the undated letter which Pollard cites (cv. 38), and in which

Leicester describes himself as ‘in his survey to prepare for her

coming’, probably precedes the Kenilworth visit. Pollard dates it 6

Sept., but Elizabeth herself seems to have reached Woodstock by that

date. Professor Cunliffe, on the other hand, thinks that the intention

was unfavourable to Leicester’s suit, and thus explains the stress

laid on Caudina’s renunciation of her lover for political reasons. I

doubt if there is any reference to the matter at all; it would have

been dangerous matter for a courtly pen. Doubtless the writer of the

description talks of ‘audacity’, in the Tale, not the comedy. But has

he anything more in mind than Sir Henry Lee, whom we are bound to find,

here as elsewhere, in Loricus, and his purely conventional worship of

Elizabeth?

_The Tilt Yard Entertainment. 17 Nov. 1590_

There are two contemporary descriptions, viz.:

1590. Polyhymnia Describing, the Honourable Triumph at Tylt, before her

Maiestie, on the 17 of Nouember last past, being the first day of the

three and thirtith yeare of her Highnesse raigne. With Sir Henrie Lea,

his resignation of honour at Tylt, to her Maiestie, and receiued by the

right honorable, the Earle of Cumberland. _R. Jones._ [Dedication by

George Peele to Lord Compton on verso of t.p.]

1602. W. Segar, Honor, Military and Ciuill, Book iii, ch. 54, ‘The

Originall occasions of the yeerely Triumphs in England’.

Segar’s account is reproduced by Nichols, _Eliz._ iii. 41, and both

in the editions of Peele (q.v.) by Dyce and Bullen. A manuscript copy

with variants from the Q. is at St. John’s College, Oxford (F. S. Boas

in _M. L. R._ xi. 300). _Polyhymnia_ mainly consists of a blank verse

description and eulogy of the twenty-six tilters, in couples according

to the order of the first running of six courses each, viz. Sir Henry

Lee and the Earl of Cumberland, Lord Strange and Thomas Gerrard, Lord

Compton and Henry Nowell, Lord Burke and Sir Edward Denny, the Earl of

Essex and Fulk Greville, Sir Charles Blount and Thomas Vavasor, Robert

Carey and William Gresham, Sir William Knowles and Anthony Cooke, Sir

Thomas Knowles and Sir Philip Butler, Robert Knowles and Ralph Bowes,

Thomas Sidney and Robert Alexander, John Nedham and Richard Acton,

Charles Danvers and Everard Digby. The colours and in some cases the

‘device’ or ‘show’ are indicated. Lee is described as

Knight of the crown, in rich embroidery,

And costly fair caparison charged with crowns,

O’ershadowed with a withered running vine,

As who would say, ‘My spring of youth is past’,

In corselet gilt of curious workmanship.

Strange entered ‘in costly ship’, with the eagle for his device; Essex

In stately chariot full of deep device,

Where gloomy Time sat whipping on the team,

Just back to back with this great champion.

Blount’s badge was the sun, Carey’s a burning heart, Cooke’s a hand and

heart,

And Life and Death he portray’d in his show.

The three Knowles brothers bore golden boughs. A final section of the

poem describes how, after the running, Sir Henry Lee, ‘knight of the

Crown’, unarmed himself in a pavilion of Vesta, and petitioned the

Queen to allow him to yield his ‘honourable place’ to Cumberland, to

whom he gave his armour and lance, vowing to betake himself to orisons.

Segar gives a fuller account of Lee’s fantasy. He had vowed, ‘in the

beginning of her happy reigne’, to present himself yearly in arms

on the day of Elizabeth’s accession. The courtiers, incited by his

example, had yearly assembled, ‘not vnlike to the antient Knighthood

della Banda in Spaine’, but in 1590, ‘being now by age ouertaken’,

Lee resigned his office to Cumberland. The ceremony took place ‘at

the foot of the staires vnder her gallery-window in the Tilt-yard at

Westminster’, where Elizabeth sat with the French ambassador, Viscount

Turenne. A pavilion, representing the Temple of the Vestal Virgins,

arose out of the earth. Within was an altar, with gifts for the queen;

before the door a crowned pillar, embraced by an eglantine, and bearing

a complimentary inscription. As the knights approached, ‘M. Hales her

maiesties seruant’ sang verses beginning:

My golden locks time hath to siluer turned.

The vestals then gave the Queen a veil and a cloak and safeguard,

the buttons of which bore the ‘emprezes’ or ‘badges’ of many nobles,

friends of Lee, each fixed to an embroidered pillar, the last being

‘like the character of _&c._’ Finally Lee doffed his armour, presented

Cumberland, armed and horsed him, and himself donned a side-coat of

black velvet and a buttoned cap of the country fashion. ‘After all

these ceremonies, for diuers dayes hee ware vpon his cloake a crowne

embrodered, with a certaine motto or deuice, but what his intention

therein was, himselfe best knoweth.’

The Queen appointed Lee to appear yearly at the exercises, ‘to see,

suruey, and as one most carefull and skilfull to direct them’. Segar

dwells on Lee’s virtues and valour, and concludes by stating that the

annual actions had been performed by 1 Duke, 19 Earls, 27 Barons, 4

Knights of the Garter, and above 150 other Knights and Esquires.

On 20 Nov. 1590 Richard Brakinbury wrote to Lord Talbot (Lodge,

ii. 419): ‘These sports were great, and done in costly sort, to her

Majesty’s liking, and their great cost. To express every part, with

sundry devices, is more fit for them that delight in them, than for me,

who esteemeth little such vanities, I thank God.’

P. A. Daniel (_Athenaeum_ for 8 Feb. 1890) notes that a suit of armour

in Lord Hothfield’s collection, which once belonged to Cumberland and

is represented in certain portraits of him, is probably the identical

suit given him by Lee, as it bears a monogram of Lee’s name.

There has been some controversy about the authorship of the verses sung

by ‘M. Hales’, who was Robert Hales, a lutenist. They appear, headed ‘A

Sonnet’, and unsigned, on a page at the end of _Polyhymnia_, and have

therefore been ascribed to Peele. The evidence, though inconclusive, is

better than the wanton conjecture which led Mr. Bond to transfer them

to Lyly (_Works_, i. 410). But a different version in _Rawl. Poet. MS._

148, f. 19, is subscribed ‘q^d S^r Henry Leigh’, and some resemblances

of expression are to be found in other verses assigned to Lee in R.

Dowland, _Musicall Banquet_ (1610), No. 8 (Bond, i. 517; Fellowes,

459). It is not impossible that Lee himself may have been the author.

One of the pieces in the _Ferrers MS._ (_vide_ p. 406 _infra_) refers

to his ‘himmes & songes’. If the verses, which also appear anonymously

in J. Dowland, _First Booke of Songs or Ayres_ (1597, Fellowes, 418),

are really Lee’s, Wyatt’s nephew was no contemptible poet. Finally,

there are echoes of the same theme in yet another set of anonymous

verses in J. Dowland, _Second Book of Airs_ (1600, Fellowes, 422),

which are evidently addressed to Lee.

_The Second Woodstock Entertainment, 20 Sept. 1592, and

Other Fragments_

[_MSS._] (_a_) _Ferrers MS._, a collection made by Henry Ferrers of

Baddesley Clinton, Warwickshire (1549–1633).

(_b_) _Inner Temple Petyt MS._ 538, 43, ff. 284–363.

[A collection of verses by Lady Pembroke, Sir John Harington, Francis

Bacon (q.v.) and others, bound as part of a composite MS.]

(_c_) Viscount Dillon kindly informs me that a part of the

entertainment, dated ‘20 Sept.’, is in his possession.

_Editions_ (_Ferrers MS._ only) by W. Hamper, _Masques: Performed

before Queen Elizabeth_ (1820), and in _Kenilworth Illustrated_ (1821),

Nichols, _Eliz._^2 iii. 193 (1828), and R. W. Bond, _Lyly_, i. 412, 453

(1902).

The Ferrers MS. seems to contain ten distinct pieces, separated from

each other only by headings, to which I have prefixed the numbers.

(i) ‘A Cartell for a Challeng.’

Three ‘strange forsaken knightes’ offer to maintain ‘that Loue is worse

than hate, his Subiectes worse than slaues, and his Rewarde worse than

naught: And that there is a Ladie that scornes Loue and his power, of

more vertue and greater bewtie than all the Amorouse Dames that be

at this day in the worlde’. This cannot be dated. Sir Robert Carey

(_Memoirs_, 33) tilted as a ‘forsaken knight’ on 17 Nov. 1593 (not

1592, as stated by Brotanek, 60), but he was not a challenger, and was

alone. The tone resembles that of Sir Henry Lee, and if he took part,

the date must be earlier than 1590.

(ii) ‘Sir Henry Lee’s challenge before the Shampanie.’

A ‘strange knight that warres against hope and fortune’ will maintain

the cause of Despair in a green suit.

Hamper explained ‘Shampanie’ as ‘the lists or field of contention, from

the French _campagne_’; but Segar, _Honor, Military and Ciuill_, 197,

records, from an intercepted letter of ‘Monsieur de Champany ... being

ambassador in England for causes of the Low Countreys’, an occasion

on which Sir Henry Lee, ‘the most accomplished cavaliero I had euer

seene’, broke lances with other gentlemen in his honour at Greenwich.

M. de Champagny was an agent of the native Flemish Catholics, and

visited England in 1575 and 1585 (Froude, x. 360; xii. 39). As his

letter named ‘Sir’ C. Hatton, who was knighted in 1578, the visit of

1585 must be in question. The Court was at Greenwich from March to July

of that year.

(iii) ‘The Supplication of the Owld Knight.’

A speech to the ‘serveres of this English Holiday, or rather Englandes

Happie Daye’, in which a knight disabled by age, ‘yet once (thowe

unwoorthie) your fellowe in armes, and first celebrator, in this kinde,

of this sacred memorie of that blessed reigne’, begs them to ‘accepte

to your fellowshippe this oneley sonne of mine’.

This is evidently a speech by Lee, on some 17 Nov. later than 1590.

Lee’s own sons died in childhood; probably the ‘son’ introduced was a

relative, but possibly only a ‘son’ in chivalry.

(iv) ‘The Message of the Damsell of the Queene of Fayries.’

An ‘inchanted knight’ sends the Queen an image of Cupid. She is

reminded how ‘at the celebrating the joyfull remembraunce of the most

happie daye of your Highnes entrance into Gouerment of this most

noble Islande, howe manie knightes determined, not far hence, with

boulde hartes and broken launces, to paye there vowes and shewe theire

prowes’. The ‘inchanted knight’ could not ‘chardge staffe, nor strike

blowe’, but entered the jousts, and bore the blows of others.

If this has reference to the first celebration of 17 Nov., it may

be of near date to the Woodstock Entertainment of 1575 in which the

fairy queen appeared. The knight, ‘full hardie and full haples’, is

enchanted, but is not said to be old.

(v) ‘The Olde Knightes Tale.’

‘Not far from hence, nor verie long agoe,’ clearly in 1575, ‘the fayrie

Queene the fayrest Queene saluted’, and the pleasures included ‘justes

and feates of armed knightes’, and ‘enchaunted pictures’ in a bower.

The knight was bidden by the fairy queen to guard the pictures and keep

his eyes on the crowned pillar. He became ‘a stranger ladies thrall’,

neglected this duty, and was cast into a deadly sleep. Now he is freed,

apparently through the intervention of Elizabeth, to whom the verses

are addressed.

(vi) ‘The Songe after Dinner at the two Ladies entrance.’

Celebrates the setting free by a prince’s grace, of captive knights and

ladies, and bids farewell to inconstancy.

(vii) ‘The Ladies Thankesgeuing for theire Deliuerie from Unconstancie.’

A speech to the Queen, in the same vein as (vi), followed by a dialogue

between Li[berty], or Inconstancy, and Constancy. This is datable in

1592 from another copy printed in _The Phoenix Nest_ (1593), with

the title ‘An Excellent Dialogue betweene Constancie and Inconstancie:

as it was by speech presented to her maiestie, in the last Progresse

at Sir Henrie Leighes house’. Yet another copy, in _Inner Temple

Petyt MS._ 538, 43, f. 299. ‘A Dialogue betweene Constancie and

Inconstancie spoken before the Queenes Majestie at Woodstock’ is

ascribed to ‘Doctor Edes’.

(viii) ‘The last Songe.’

A rejoicing on the coming of Eliza, with references to constancy and

inconstancy, the aged knight, and the pillar and crown.

(ix) ‘The second daies woorke where the Chaplayne maketh this

Relation.’

An Oration to the Queen by the chaplain of Loricus, ‘an owlde Knight,

now a newe religiouse Hermite’. The story of Loricus was once told [in

1575] ‘by a good father of his owne coate, not farr from this coppies’.

Once he ‘rann the restles race of desire.... Sometymes he consorted

with couragious gentelmen, manifesting inward joyes by open justes, the

yearly tribute of his dearest Loue. Somtimes he summoned the witnesse

of depest conceiptes, Himmes & Songes & Emblemes, dedicating them to

the honor of his heauenlye mistres’. Retiring, through envy and age,

to the country, he found the speaker at a homely cell, made him his

chaplain, and built for their lodging and that of a page ‘the Crowne

Oratory’, with a ‘Piller of perpetual remembraunce’ as his device

on the entrance. Here he lies, at point of death, and has addressed

his last testament to the Queen. This is in verse, signed ‘Loricus,

columnae coronatae custos fidelissimus’, and witnessed by ‘Stellatus,

rectoriae coronatae capellanus’, and ‘Renatus, equitis coronatae servus

obseruantissimus’.

(x) ‘The Page bringeth tydings of his Maister’s Recouerie & presenteth

his Legacie.’

A further address to the Queen, with a legacy in verse of the whole

Mannor of Loue, signed by Loricus and witnessed by Stellatus and

Renatus.

This exhausts the _Ferrers MS._, but I can add from the _Petyt

MS._ f. 300^v--

(xi) ‘The melancholie Knights complaint in the wood.’

This, like (vii), is ascribed in the MS. to ‘Doctor Edes’. It consists

of 35 lines in 6 stanzas of 6 lines each (with one line missing) and

begins:

What troupes are theis, which ill aduised, presse

Into this more than most vnhappie place.

Allusions to the freeing of enchanted knights and ladies and to

constancy and inconstancy connect it closely with (vi)-(viii).

Obviously most of these documents, and therefore probably all, belong

to devices presented by Sir Henry Lee. But they are of different dates,

and not demonstrably in chronological order. A single occasion accounts

for (vi)-(viii) and (xi), and a single occasion, which the mention of

‘the second daie’ suggests may have been the same, for (ix) and (x);

and probably Mr. Bond is justified in regarding all these as forming

part with (vii) of the entertainment at Lee’s house in the progress of

1592. But I do not see his justification for attaching (iv) and (v) to

them, and I think that these are probably fragments of the Woodstock

Entertainment of 1575, or not far removed from that in time. Nor has

he any evidence for locating the entertainment of 1592 at Quarrendon,

which was only one of several houses belonging to Sir Henry Lee, and

could not be meant by the ‘coppies’ near Woodstock of (ix). It was

doubtless, as the Petyt MS. version of (vii) tells us, at Woodstock,

either at one of Lee’s lodges, or at Ditchley, during the royal visit

to Woodstock of 18–23 Sept. 1592. I learn from Viscount Dillon that

a MS. of part of this entertainment, dated 20 Sept., is still at

Ditchley. Finally, Bond’s attribution of all the pieces (i)-(x) to Lyly

is merely guesswork. Hamper assigned them to George Ferrers, probably

because the owner of his MS. was a Ferrers. George Ferrers did in fact

help in the Kenilworth Entertainment of 1575, and might therefore

have helped in that at Woodstock; but he died in 1579, too early for

(vi)-(xi). No doubt (vii) and (xi) are by Richard Edes (q.v.). He may

have written the whole of this Woodstock Entertainment. On the other

hand, a phrase in (ix) suggests that Lee may have penned some of his

own conceits. Brotanek, 62, suggests that the two ladies of (vi) are

Lee’s wife and his mistress Anne Vavasour, and that Elizabeth came

to Lee’s irregular household to set it in order. This hardly needs

refuting, but in fact Lee’s wife died in 1590 and his connexion with

Anne Vavasour was probably of later date.

ROBERT LEE.

For his career as an actor, see ch. xv.

He may have been, but was not necessarily, the author of _The Miller_

which the Admiral’s bought from him for £1 on 22 Feb. 1598 (Greg,

_Henslowe_, ii. 191).

THOMAS LEGGE (1535–1607).

Of Norwich origin, Legge entered Corpus Christi, Cambridge, in 1552,

and took his B.A. in 1557, his M.A. in 1560, and his LL.D. in 1575.

After migration to Trinity and Jesus, he had become Master of Caius

in 1573. In 1593 he was Vice-Chancellor, and in that capacity took

part in the negotiations of the University with the Privy Council for

a restraint of common plays in Cambridge (_M. S. C._ i. 200). His

own reputation as a dramatist is acknowledged by Meres, who in 1598

placed him among ‘our best for Tragedie’, and added that, ‘as M. Anneus

Lucanus writ two excellent Tragedies, one called _Medea_, the other

_de Incendio Troiae cum Priami calamitate_: so Doctor _Leg_ hath penned

two famous tragedies, y^e one of _Richard the 3_, the other of _The

destruction of Ierusalem_’.

_Richardus Tertius. March 1580_

[_MSS._] _Cambridge Univ. Libr. MS._ M^m iv. 40, ‘Thome Legge legum

doctoris Collegij Caiogonevilensis in Academia Cantabrigiensi magistri

ac Rectoris Richardus tertius Tragedia trivespera habita Collegij divi

Johannis Evangeliste Comitiis Bacchelaureorum Anno Domini 1579 Tragedia

in tres acciones diuisa.’ [_Argumentum_ to each _Actio_; Epilogue.]

_Emmanuel, Cambridge, MS._ 1. 3. 19, with date ‘1579’ and actor-list.

_Clare, Cambridge, MS._ Kk, 3, 12, with date ‘1579’.

_Caius, Cambridge, MS._ 62, ‘tragoedia trium vesperum habita in

collegio Divi Johannis Evangelistae, Comitiis Bacchalaureorum Anno

1573.’

_Bodl. Tanner MS._ 306, including first _Actio_ only, with

actor-list and note, ‘Acted in St. John’s Hall before the Earle of

Essex’, to which has been apparently added later, ‘17 March, 1582’.

_Bodl. MS._ 29448, dated α, φ, π, γ (= 1583).

_Harl. MS._ 6926, a transcript by Henry Lacy, dated 1586.

_Harl. MS._ 2412, a transcript dated 1588.

_Hatton MS._ (cf. _Hist. MSS._ i. 32).

_Editions_ by B. Field (1844, _Sh. Soc._) and W. C. Hazlitt (1875,

_Sh. L._ ii. 1).--_Dissertation_: G. B. Churchill, _Richard III bis

Shakespeare_ (1897, 1900).

The names in the actor-lists, which agree, confirm those MSS. which

date a production in March 1580 (Boas, 394), and as Essex left

Cambridge in 1581, the date in the _Tanner MS._, in so far as it

relates to a performance before him, is probably an error. It does not

seem so clear to me that the _Caius MS._ may not point to an earlier

production in 1573. And it is quite possible that there may have been

revivals in some or all of the later years named in the MSS. The

reputation of the play is indicated, not only by the notice of it by

Meres (_vide supra_), but also by allusions in Harington’s _Apologie

of Poetrie_ (1591); cf. App. C, No. xlv. and Nashe’s _Have With You

to Saffron Walden_ (1596, _Works_, iii. 13). It may even, directly or

indirectly, have influenced _Richard III_. The argument to the first

_Actio_ is headed ‘Chapman, Argumentum primae actionis’, but it seems

difficult to connect George Chapman with the play.

_Lost Play_

_The Destruction of Jerusalem_

Meres calls this tragedy ‘famous’. Fuller, _Worthies_ (1662), ii. 156,

says that ‘Having at last refined it to the purity of the publique

standard, some Plageary filched it from him, just as it was to be

acted’. Apparently it was in English and was printed, as it appears

in the lists of Archer and Kirkman (Greg, _Masques_, lxii). It can

hardly have been the _Jerusalem_ revived by Strange’s in 1592 (Greg,

_Henslowe_, ii. 155). Can any light be thrown on Fuller’s story by the

fact that in 1584 a ‘new Play of the Destruction of Jerusalem’ was

adopted by the city of Coventry as a craft play in place of the old

Corpus Christi cycle, and a sum of £13 6_s._ 8_d._ paid to John Smythe

of St. John’s, Oxford, ‘for hys paynes for writing of the tragedye’

(_Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 361; H. Craig, _Coventry Corpus Christi Plays_

(_E. E. T. S._), 90, 92, 93, 102, 103, 109)?

THOMAS LODGE (_c._ 1557–1625).

Lodge, who uses the description ‘gentleman’, was son of Sir Thomas

Lodge, a Lord Mayor of London. His elder brother, William, married

Mary, daughter of Thomas Blagrave, Clerk of the Revels (cf. ch. iii).

He entered Merchant Taylors in 1571, Trinity College, Oxford, in 1573,

whence he took his B.A. in 1577, and Lincoln’s Inn in 1578. In 1579

(cf. App. C, No. xxiii) he plunged into controversy with a defence

of the stage in reply to Stephen Gosson’s _Schoole of Abuse_. Gosson

speaks slightingly of his opponent as ‘hunted by the heavy hand of

God, and become little better than a vagrant, looser than liberty,

lighter than vanity itself’, and although Lodge took occasion to defend

his moral character from aspersion, it is upon record that he was

called before the Privy Council ‘to aunswere certen maters to be by

them objected against him’, and was ordered on 27 June 1581 to give

continued attendance (Dasent, xiii. 110). By 1583 he had married. His

literary work largely took the form of romances in the manner of Lyly

and Greene. _Rosalynde: Euphues’ Golden Legacy_, published (S. R. 6

Oct. 1590) on his return from a voyage to Terceras and the Canaries

with Captain Clarke, is typical and was Shakespeare’s source for _As

You Like It_. His acknowledged connexion with the stage is slight; and

the attempt of Fleay, ii. 43, to assign to him a considerable share in

the anonymous play-writing of his time must be received with caution,

although he was still controverting Gosson in 1583 (cf. App. C, No.

xxxv), and too much importance need not be attached to his intention

expressed in _Scylla’s Metamorphosis_ (S. R. 22 Sept. 1589):

To write no more of that whence shame doth grow,

Or tie my pen to penny knaves’ delight,

But live with fame, and so for fame to write.

He is less likely than Nashe to be the ‘young Juvenal, that biting

satirist, that lastly with me together writ a Comedy’ of Greene’s

_Groats-worth of Wit_ epistle in 1592 (cf. App. C, No. xlviii). I

should not cavil at the loose description of _A Looking Glass for

London and England_ as a comedy; but ‘biting satirist’ hardly suits

Lodge; and at the time of Greene’s last illness he was out of England

on an expedition led by Thomas Cavendish to South America and the

Pacific, which started on 26 Aug. 1591 and returned on 11 June 1593.

After his return Lodge essayed lyric in _Phillis_ (1593) and satire

in _A Fig for Momus_ (1595); but he cannot be shown to have resumed

writing for the stage, although the Dulwich records make it clear

that he had relations with Henslowe, who had in Jan. 1598 to satisfy

the claims which Richard Topping, a tailor, had made against him

before three successive Lord Chamberlains, as Lodge’s security for a

long-standing debt (Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 44, 172). Lodge himself

was then once more beyond the seas. One of the documents was printed by

Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_, 45, with forged interpolations intended

to represent Lodge as an actor, for which there is no other evidence.

Subsequently Lodge took a medical degree at Avignon, was incorporated

at Oxford in 1602, and obtained some reputation as a physician. He also

became a Catholic, and had again to leave the country for recusancy,

but was allowed to return in Jan. 1610 (cf. F. P. Wilson in _M. L. R._

ix. 99). About 1619 he was engaged in legal proceedings with Alleyn,

and for a time practised in the Low Countries, returning to London

before his death in 1625. Small, 50, refutes the attempts of Fleay,

i. 363, and Penniman, _War_, 55, 85, to identify him with Fungoso in

_E. M. O._ and Asotus in _Cynthia’s Revels_. Fleay, ii. 158, 352, adds

Churms and Philomusus in the anonymous _Wily Beguiled_ and _Return from

Parnassus_.

_Collection_

1878–82. E. Gosse, _The Works of Thomas Lodge_ (_Hunterian Club_).

[Introduction reprinted in E. Gosse, _Seventeenth Century Studies_

(1883).]

_Dissertations_: D. Laing, _L.’s Defence of Poetry, Music, and Stage

Plays_ (1853, _Sh. Soc._); C. M. Ingleby, _Was T. L. an Actor?_

(1868) and _T. L. and the Stage_ (1885, _6 N. Q._ xi, 107, 415); R.

Carl, _Ueber T. L.’s Leben und Werke_ (1887, _Anglia_, x. 235); E. C.

Richard, _Ueber T. L.’s Leben und Werke_ (1887, _Leipzig diss._).

_The Wounds of Civil War. c. 1588_

_S. R._ 1594, May 24. ‘A booke intituled the woundes of Civill warre

lively sett forthe in the true Tragedies of Marius and Scilla.’ _John

Danter_ (Arber, ii. 650).

1594. The Wounds of Ciuill War. Liuely set forth in the true Tragedies

of Marius and Scilla. As it hath beene publiquely plaide in London, by

the Right Honourable the Lord high Admirall his Seruants. Written by

Thomas Lodge Gent. _John Danter._

_Editions_ in Dodsley^{3, 4} (1825–75) and by J. D. Wilson (1910, _M.

S. R._).

The play contains a clear imitation of Marlowe’s _Tamburlaine_ in

the chariot drawn by four Moors of Act III, and both Fleay, ii. 49,

and Ward, i. 416, think that it was written shortly after its model,

although not on very convincing grounds. No performance of it is

recorded in Henslowe’s diary, which suggests a date well before 1592.

_A Looking Glass for London and England, c. 1590_

_With_ Robert Greene (q.v.).

_Doubtful Plays_

Lodge’s hand has been sought in _An Alarum for London_, _Contention

of York and Lancaster_, _George a Greene_, _Leire_, _Mucedorus_,

_Selimus_, _Sir Thomas More_, _Troublesome Reign of King John_, and

_Warning for Fair Women_ (cf. ch. xxiv), and in Greene’s _James IV_ and

Shakespeare’s _Henry VI_.

JANE, LADY LUMLEY (_c._ 1537–77).

Jane, daughter of Henry Fitzalan, 12th Earl of Arundel, married John,

Lord Lumley, _c._ 1549.

_Iphigenia_ (?)

[_MS._] _Brit. Mus. MS. Reg._ 15 A. ix, ‘The doinge of my Lady Lumley

dowghter to my L. Therle of Arundell ... [f. 63] The Tragedie of

Euripides called Iphigeneia translated out of Greake into Englisshe.’

_Editions_ by H. H. Child (1909, _M. S. R._) and G. Becker (1910,

_Jahrbuch_, xlvi. 28).

The translation is from the _Iphigenia in Aulis_. It is likely to be

pre-Elizabethan, but I include it here, as it is not noticed in _The

Mediaeval Stage_.

THOMAS LUPTON (?-?).

Several miscellaneous works by Lupton appeared during 1572–84. He may

be the ‘Mr. Lupton’ whom the Corporation of Worcester paid during the

progress of 1575 (Nichols, i. 549) ‘for his paynes for and in devising

[and] instructing the children in their speeches on the too Stages’.

_All For Money. 1558 < > 77_

_S. R._ 1577, Nov. 25. ‘An Enterlude intituled all for money.’ _Roger

Ward_ (Arber, ii. 321).

1578. A Moral and Pitieful Comedie, Intituled, All for Money. Plainly

representing the manners of men, and fashion of the world noweadayes.

Compiled by T. Lupton. _Roger Ward and Richard Mundee._

_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1851, _Literature of Sixteenth and

Seventeenth Centuries_), E. Vogel (1904, _Jahrbuch_, xl. 129), J. S.

Farmer (1910, _T. F. T._).

A final prayer for the Queen who ‘hath begon godly’ suggests an

earlier date than that of Lupton’s other recorded work. Fleay, ii. 56,

would identify the play with _The Devil and Dives_ named in the

anonymous _Histriomastix_, but Dives only appears once, and not

with Satan.

JOHN LYLY (1554?-1606).

Lyly was of a gentle Hampshire family, the grandson of William, high

master of St. Paul’s grammar school, and son of Peter, a diocesan

official at Canterbury, where he was probably born some seventeen

years before 8 Oct. 1571, when he matriculated from Magdalen College,

Oxford. He took his B.A. in 1573 and his M.A. in 1575, after a vain

attempt in 1574 to secure a fellowship through the influence of

Burghley. He went to London and dwelt in the Savoy. By 1578, when he

published _Euphues_, _The Anatomy of Wit_, he was apparently in the

service of Lord Delawarr, and by 1580 in that of Burghley’s son-in-law,

Edward, Earl of Oxford. It is a pleasing conjecture that he may have

been the author of ‘the two prose books played at the Belsavage,

where you shall find never a word without wit, never a line without

pith, never a letter placed in vain’, thus praised in _The Schoole of

Abuse_ (1579) of his fellow euphuist, Stephen Gosson. He incurred the

enmity of Gabriel Harvey by suggesting to Oxford that he was aimed at

in the _Speculum Tuscanismi_ of Harvey’s _Three Letters_ (1580). In

1582 he had himself incurred Oxford’s displeasure, but the trouble

was surmounted, and about 1584 he held leases in the Blackfriars (cf.

ch. xvii), one at least of which he obtained through Oxford, for the

purposes of a theatrical speculation, in the course of which he took to

Court a company which bore Oxford’s name, but was probably made up of

boys from the Chapel and St. Paul’s choirs. Presumably the speculation

failed, for in June 1584 Lyly, who on 22 Nov. 1583 had married Beatrice

Browne of Mexborough, Yorks., was in prison for debt, whence he was

probably relieved by a gift from Oxford, in reward for his service,

of a rent-charge which he sold for £250. His connexion with the stage

was not, however, over, for he continued to write for the Paul’s

boys until they stopped playing about 1591. Harvey calls Lyly the

‘Vicemaster of Paules and the Foolemaster of the Theatre’. From this

it has been inferred that he held an ushership at the Paul’s choir

school. But ‘vice’ is a common synonym for ‘fool’ and ‘vicemaster’,

like ‘foolemaster’, probably only means ‘playwright’. Nothing written

by Lyly for the Theater in particular or for any adult stage is known

to exist, but he seems to have taken part with Nashe in the retorts of

orthodoxy during 1589 and 1590 to the Martin Marprelate pamphleteers,

probably writing the tract called _Pappe with a Hatchett_ (1589), and

he may have been responsible for some of the plays which certainly

formed an element in that retort. Lyly’s ambitions were in the

direction of courtly rather than of academic preferment. He seems to

have had some promise of favour from Elizabeth about 1585 and to have

been more definitely ‘entertained her servant’ as Esquire of the Body,

probably ‘extraordinary’, in or about 1588, with a hint to ‘aim his

courses at the Revels’, doubtless at the reversion of the Mastership,

then held by Edmund Tilney. Mr. R. W. Bond bases many conjectures about

Lyly’s career on a theory that he actually held the post of Clerk

Comptroller in the Revels Office, but the known history of the post

(cf. ch. iii) makes this impossible. From 1596 he is found living in

the parish of St. Bartholomew the Less. He seems to have ceased writing

plays for some while in 1590, and may be the ‘pleasant Willy’ spoken

of as ‘dead of late’ and sitting ‘in idle Cell’ in Spenser’s _Tears

of the Muses_ (1591), although it is possible that Tarlton (q.v.) is

intended. But _The Woman in the Moon_ at least is of later date, and it

is possible that both the Chapel and the Paul’s boys were again acting

his old plays by the end of the century. In 1595 he was lamenting the

overthrow of his fortunes, and by about 1597 the reversion of the

Mastership of the Revels had been definitely promised to George Buck.

There exist several letters written by Lyly to the Queen and to Sir

Robert Cecil between 1597 and 1601, in which he complains bitterly of

the wrong done him. Later letters of 1603 and 1605 suggest that at

last he had obtained his reward, possibly something out of the Essex

forfeitures for which he was asking in 1601. In any case, he did not

live to enjoy it long, as the register of St. Bartholomew’s the Less

records his burial on 30 Nov. 1606.

_Collections_

_S. R._ 1628, Jan. 9 (by order of a full court). ‘Sixe playes of Peter

Lillyes to be printed in one volume ... viz^t. Campaste, Sapho, and

Phao. Galathea: Endimion Midas and Mother Bomby.’ _Blount_ (Arber, iv.

192). [‘Peter’ is due to a confusion with Lyly’s brother, a chaplain of

the Savoy, who had acted as licenser for the press.]

1632. Sixe Court Comedies. Often Presented and Acted before Queene

Elizabeth, by the Children of her Maiesties Chappell, and the Children

of Paules. Written by the onely Rare Poet of that Time. The Witie,

Comicall, Facetiously-Quicke and vnparalelld: Iohn Lilly, Master of

Arts. _William Stansby for Edward Blount._ [Epistles to Viscount Lumley

and to the Reader, both signed ‘Ed. Blount’. This edition adds many

songs not in the Qq, and W. W. Greg (_M. L. R._ i. 43) argues that

they are not by Lyly, but mid-seventeenth-century work and possibly by

Dekker.]

1858. F. W. Fairholt, _The Dramatic Works of J. L._ 2 vols. (_Library

of Old Authors_).

1902. R. W. Bond, _The Complete Works of J. L._ 3 vols.

_Dissertations_: H. Morley, _Euphuism_ (1861, _Quarterly Review_,

cix); W. L. Rushton, _Shakespeare’s Euphuism_ (1871); R. F. Weymouth,

_On Euphuism_ (1870–2, _Phil. Soc. Trans._); C. C. Hense, _J. L. und

Shakespeare_ (1872–3, _Jahrbuch_, vii. 238; viii. 224); F. Landmann,

_Der Euphuismus, sein Wesen, seine Quelle, seine Geschichte_ (1881),

_Shakespeare and Euphuism_ (1880–5, _N. S. S. Trans._ 241); J. Goodlet,

_Shakespeare’s Debt to J. L._ (1882, _E. S._ v. 356); K. Steinhäuser,

_J. L. als Dramatiker_ (1884); J. M. Hart, _Euphuism_ (1889, _Ohio

College Trans._); C. G. Child, _J. L. and Euphuism_ (1894); J. D.

Wilson, _J. L._ (1905); W. W. Greg, _The Authorship of the Songs in

L.’s Plays_ (1905, _M. L. R._ i. 43); A. Feuillerat, _J. L._ (1910); F.

Brie, _L. und Greene_ (1910, _E. S._ xlii. 217).

_Campaspe. 1584_

(_a_) 1584. A moste excellent Comedie of Alexander, Campaspe, and

Diogenes. Played before the Queenes Maiestie on twelfe day at night

by her Maiesties Children and the Children of Poules. _For Thomas

Cadman._ [Huth Collection. Prologue and Epilogue at the Blackfriars;

Prologue and Epilogue at Court. Running title, ‘A tragical Comedie of

Alexander and Campaspe’.]

(_b_) 1584. Campaspe, Played ... on newyeares day at night, by her

Maiesties Children.... _For Thomas Cadman._ [Dyce Collection.]

(_c_) 1584. Campaspe, Played ... on newyeares day at night, by her

Maiesties Childrẽ.... _For Thomas Cadman._ [B.M.; Bodleian.]

1591. Campaspe, Played ... on twelfe day.... _Thomas Orwin for William

Broome._

_S. R._ 1597, Apr. 12 (in full court). ‘Sapho and Phao and Campaspe ...

the which copies were Thomas Cadmans.’ _Joan Broome_ (Arber, iii. 82).

1601, Aug. 23 (in full court). ‘Copies ... which belonged to Mystres

Brome ... viz. Sapho and Phao, Campaspe, Endimion, Mydas, Galathea.’

_George Potter_ (Arber, iii. 191).

_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–3} (1825, ii), and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B.

D._ i), J. M. Manly (1897, _Specimens_, ii. 273), G. P. Baker (1903,

_R. E. C._)--_Dissertations_: R. Sprenger, _Zu J. L.’s C._ (1892, _E.

S._ xvi. 156); E. Koeppel, _Zu J. L.’s A. und C._ (1903, _Archiv_, cx).

The order of the 1584 prints is not quite clear; (_c_) follows (_b_),

but the absence of any collation of (_a_) leaves its place conjectural.

I conjecture that it came first, partly because a correction in the

date of Court performance is more likely to have been made after one

inaccurate issue than after two, partly because its abandoned t.p.

title serves as running title in all three issues. I do not think

the reversion to ‘twelfe day’ in 1591, when the facts may have been

forgotten, carries much weight. If so, the Court production was on a

1 Jan., and although the wording of the t.p. suggests, rather than

proves, that it was 1 Jan. in the year of publication, this date fits

in with the known facts of Lyly’s connexion with the Blackfriars

(cf. ch. xvii). The _Chamber Accounts_ (App. B) give the performers

on this day as Lord Oxford’s servants, but I take this company to

have been a combination of Chapel and Paul’s children (cf. chh. xii,

xiii). Fleay, ii. 39, and Bond, ii. 310, with imperfect lists of Court

performances before them, suggest 31 Dec. 1581, taking ‘newyeares day

at night’, rather lamely, for New Year’s Eve. So does Feuillerat, 574,

but I am not sure that his view will have survived his Blackfriars

investigations. In any case, the play must have been written later than

Jan. 1580, as Lyly uses Sir T. North’s English translation of Plutarch,

of which the preface is dated in that month. In a prefatory note by N.

W. to S. Daniel, _The Worthy Tract of Paulus Jovius_ (1585), that work

is commended above ‘Tarlton’s toys or the silly enterlude of Diogenes’

(Grosart, _Daniel_, iv. 8).

_Sapho and Phao. 3 Mar. 1584_

_S. R._ 1584, Apr. 6. ‘Yt is graunted vnto him yat yf he gett ye

comedie of Sappho laufully alowed vnto him, then none of this cumpanie

shall interrupt him to enjoye yt’ (_in margin_ ‘Lyllye’). _Thomas

Cadman_ (Arber, ii. 430).

1584. Sapho and Phao, Played beefore the Queenes Maiestie on

Shrouetewsday, by her Maiesties Children, and the Boyes of Paules.

_Thomas Dawson for Thomas Cadman._ [Prologues ‘at the Black fryers’ and

‘at the Court’, and Epilogue.]

1591. _Thomas Orwin for William Broome._

_S. R._ 1597, Apr. 12 }

1601, Aug. 23 } _vide supra_ s.v. _Campaspe_.

I date the Court production on the Shrove-Tuesday before the S. R.

entry, on which day Oxford’s boys, whom I regard as made up of Chapel

and Paul’s boys, played under Lyly (cf. App. B). Fleay, ii. 40, Bond,

ii. 367, and Feuillerat, 573, prefer Shrove-Tuesday (27 Feb.) 1582.

_Galathea. 1584 < > 88_

_S. R._ 1585, Apr. 1. ‘A Commoedie of Titirus and Galathea’ (no fee

recorded). _Gabriel Cawood_ (Arber, ii. 440).

1591, Oct. 4 (Bp. of London). ‘Three Comedies plaied before her

maiestie by the Children of Paules thone called Endimion, thother

Galathea and thother Midas.’ _Widow Broome_ (Arber, ii. 596).

1592. Gallathea. As it was playde before the Queenes Maiestie at

Greenewiche, on Newyeeres day at Night. By the Chyldren of Paules.

_John Charlwood for Joan Broome._ [Prologue and Epilogue.]

The only performance by Paul’s, on a 1 Jan. at Greenwich, which can be

referred to in the t.p. is that of 1588 (cf. App. B), and in III. iii.

41 is an allusion to the approaching year _octogesimus octavus_, which

would of course begin on 25 March 1588. Fleay, ii. 40, and Feuillerat,

575, accept this date. Bond, ii. 425, prefers 1586 or 1587, regardless

of the fact that the New Year plays in these years were by the Queen’s

men. A phrase in V. iii. 86 proves it later than _Sapho and Phao_. But

if, as seems probable, the 1585 entry in the Stationers’ Register was

of this play, the original production must have been at least as early

as 1584–5, and that of 1588 a revival.

_Endymion. 1588_

_S. R._ 1591, Oct. 4. _Vide supra_ s.v. _Galathea_.

1591. Endimion, The Man in the Moone. Playd before the Queenes Maiestie

at Greenewich on Candlemas Day at night, by the Chyldren of Paules.

_John Charlwood for Joan Broome._ [Epistle by the Printer to the

Reader; Prologue and Epilogue.]

_Editions_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ ii), G. P. Baker (1894)

and W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertations_: N. J. Halpin,

_Oberon’s Vision in M. N. D. Illustrated by a Comparison with L.’s

E._ (1843, _Sh. Soc._); J. E. Spingarn, _The Date of L.’s E._ (1894,

_Athenaeum_, ii. 172, 204); P. W. Long, _The Purport of L.’s E._ (1909,

_M. L. A._ xxiv. 1), _L.’s E., an Addendum_ (1911, _M. P._ viii. 599).

The prologue and epilogue were evidently for the Court. The epistle

describes this as the first of certain comedies which had come into

the printer’s hands ‘since the plays in Pauls were dissolved’. Baker,

lxxxiii, suggested a date of composition in the autumn of 1579, while

Spingarn, Bond, iii. 11, and Feuillerat, 577, take the Candlemas of the

t.p. to be that of 1586, but the only available Candlemas performance

by the Paul’s boys is that of 1588 (cf. App. B). With Long I find no

conviction in the attempts of Halpin, Baker, Bond, and Feuillerat to

trace Elizabeth’s politics and amours in the play. If Lyly had meant

half of what they suggest, he would have ruined his career in her

service at the outset.

_Midas. 1589–90_

_S. R._ 1591, Oct. 4. _Vide supra_, s.v. _Galathea_.

1592. Midas. Plaied before the Queenes Maiestie upon Twelfe day at

night. By the Children of Paules. _Thomas Scarlet for J. B._ [Prologue

‘in Paules’.]

_Edition_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ i).

Internal allusions suggest a date as late as 1589, and the Twelfth

Night of the t.p. must therefore be 6 Jan. 1590. Fleay, ii. 42, and

Bond, iii. 111, accept this date. Feuillerat, 578, prefers 6 Jan. 1589,

because Gabriel Harvey alludes to the play in his _Advertisement to

Pap-Hatchet_, dated 5 Nov. 1589. But there was no Court performance

on that day, and Harvey may have seen the play ‘in Paules’.

_Mother Bombie. 1587 < > 90_

_S. R._ 1594, June 18. ‘A booke intituled mother Bumbye beinge an

enterlude.’ _Cuthbert Burby_ (Arber, ii. 654).

1594. Mother Bombie. As it was sundrie times plaied by the Children of

Powles. _Thomas Scarlet for Cuthbert Burby._

1598. _Thomas Creede for Cuthbert Burby._

_Edition_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ i).

The play doubtless belongs to the Paul’s series of 1587–90. It seems

hardly possible to date it more closely. Feuillerat, 578, thinks it

later in style than _Midas_.

_Love’s Metamorphosis. 1589–90_ (?)

_S. R._ 1600, Nov. 25 (Pasfield). ‘A booke Called Loves metamorphesis

wrytten by master John Lylly and playd by the Children of Paules.’

_William Wood_ (Arber, iii. 176).

1601. Loves Metamorphosis. A Wittie and Courtly Pastorall. Written by

M^r Iohn Lyllie. First playd by the Children of Paules, and now by the

Children of the Chapell. _For William Wood._

F. Brie (_E. S._ xlii. 222) suggests that the play borrowed from

Greene’s _Greenes Metamorphosis_ (S. R. 9 Dec. 1588). Probably the

Paul’s boys produced it _c._ 1589–90, and the Chapel revived it in

1600–1.

_The Woman in the Moon. 1590 < > 5_ (?)

_S. R._ 1595, Sept. 22. ‘A booke intituled a woman in the moone.’

_Robert Fynche_ (Arber, iii. 48).

1597. The Woman in the Moone. As it was presented before her Highnesse.

By Iohn Lyllie Maister of Arts. _William Jones._ [Prologue.]

The prologue says:

Remember all is but a poet’s dream,

The first he had in Phoebus holy bower,

But not the last, unless the first displease.

This has been taken as indicating that the play was Lyly’s first; but

it need only mean that it was his first in verse. All the others are

in prose. The blank verse is that of the nineties, rather than that

of the early eighties. There is nothing to show who were the actors,

but it is not unlikely that, after the plays in Paul’s were dissolved,

Lyly tried his hand in a new manner for a new company. Feuillerat, 232,

580, suggests that Elizabeth may have taken the satire of women amiss

and that the ‘overthwartes’ of Lyly’s fortunes of which he complained

in Jan. 1595 may have been the result. He puts the date, therefore, in

1593–4.

_Doubtful Work_

Lyly has been suggested as the author of _Maid’s Metamorphosis_ and

_A Warning for Fair Women_ (cf. ch. xxiv) and of several anonymous

entertainments and fragments of entertainments (ibid., and _supra_,

s.vv. Cecil, Clifford, Lee).

LEWIS MACHIN (_fl. c._ 1608).

Nothing is known of Machin’s personality. He is probably the L. M. who

contributed ‘eglogs’ to the _Mirrha_ (1607) of the King’s Revels actor

William Barksted (q.v.). A Richard Machin was an actor in Germany,

1600–6. There is no traceable connexion between either Richard or Lewis

and Henry Machyn the diarist.

Machin collaborated with Gervase Markham in _The Dumb Knight_

(q.v.).

The anonymous _Every Woman in Her Humour_ and _Fair Maid of the

Exchange_ have also been ascribed to him (cf. ch. xxiv).

GERVASE MARKHAM (_c._ 1568–1637).

There were two Gervase Markhams, as to both of whom full details are

given in C. R. Markham, _Markham Memorials_ (1913). The dramatist was

probably the third son of Robert Markham of Cotham, Notts., a soldier

and noted horseman, whose later life was devoted to an industrious

output of books, verses, romance, translations, and treatises on

horsemanship, farming, and sport. He was, said Jonson to Drummond in

1619, ‘not of the number of the faithfull, i.e. Poets, and but a base

fellow’ (Laing, 11). Fleay, ii. 58, suggested, on the basis of certain

phrases in his _Tragedy of Sir Richard Grenville_ (1595), which has a

dedication, amongst others, to the Earl of Southampton, that he might

be the ‘rival poet’ of Shakespeare’s _Sonnets_. The other Gervase

Markham was of Sedgebrook and later of Dunham, Notts., and is not known

to have been a writer. C. W. Wallace thinks he has found a third in

an ‘adventurer’ whose wagers with actors and others on the success

of an intended walk to Berwick in 1618 led to a suit in the Court of

Requests (_Jahrbuch_, xlvi. 345). But as he, like Markham of Cotham,

had served in Ireland, the two may conceivably be identical, although

the adventurer had a large family, and it is not known that Markham of

Cotham had any. Markham of Dunham, who had also served in Ireland, had

but two bastards. Conceivably Markham wrote for the Admiral’s in 1596–7

(cf. vol. ii, p. 145). Beyond the period dealt with, he collaborated

with William Sampson in _Herod and Antipater_ (1622) acted by the

Revels company at the Red Bull.

_The Dumb Knight. 1607–8_

_S. R._ 1608, Oct. 6 (Buck). ‘A playe of the Dumbe Knight.’ _John

Bache_ (Arber, iii. 392).

1610. Nov. 19. Transfer from Bache to Robert Wilson (Arber, iii. 449).

1608. The dumbe Knight. A pleasant Comedy, acted sundry times by the

children of his Maiesties Reuels. Written by Iaruis Markham. _N. Okes

for J. Bache._ [Epistle to Reader, signed ‘Lewes Machin’. There were

two reissues of 1608 with altered t.ps. Both omit the ascription

to Markham. One has ‘A historicall comedy’; the other omits the

description.]

1633. _A. M. for William Sheares._

_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–4} (1744–1875) and by W. Scott (1810, _A. B.

D._ ii).--_Dissertation_: J. Q. Adams, _Every Woman in Her Humour and

The Dumb Knight_ (1913, _M. P._ x. 413).

The Epistle says that ‘Rumour ... hath made strange constructions

on this Dumb Knight’, and that ‘having a partner in the wrong whose

worth hath been often approved ... I now in his absence make this

apology, both for him and me’. Presumably these ‘constructions’ led to

the withdrawal of Markham’s name from the title-page. Fleay, ii. 58,

assigned him the satirical comedy of the underplot, but Adams points

out that Markham’s books reveal no humour, and that the badly linked

underplot was probably inserted by Machin. It borrows passages from the

anonymous unprinted _Every Woman in Her Humour_ (q.v.). The production

of a King’s Revels play is not likely to be before 1607, but Herz, 102,

thinks that an earlier version underlies the _Vom König in Cypern_ of

Jacob Ayrer, who died 1605. A later German version also exists, and was

perhaps the _Philole und Mariana_ played at Nuremberg in 1613.

CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE (1564–93).

Marlowe, whose name was also spelt Marley and Marlin, was the son of

John and Catherine Marlowe of Canterbury. He was born 6 Feb. 1564. John

Marlowe was a shoemaker and subsequently became parish clerk of St.

Mary’s. He entered the King’s School, Canterbury, in 1579 and in March

1581 matriculated with a pension on Abp. Parker’s foundation at Corpus

Christi or Benet’s College, Cambridge. He took his B.A. in 1584 and

his M.A. in 1587. In this year he probably began his literary career

in London, with _Tamburlaine_. A ballad, printed by Collier, which

represents him as a player and breaking his leg in a lewd scene on the

stage of the Curtain, is now discredited. There are satirical allusions

to him in the preface to the _Perimedes_ (S. R. 29 March 1588) and in

the _Menaphon_ (23 Aug. 1589) of Robert Greene, but it is very doubtful

whether, as usually assumed, Nashe had him especially in mind when

he criticized certain tragic poets of the day in his epistle to the

latter pamphlet (cf. App. C, No. xlii). On 1 Oct. 1588 ‘Christofer

Marley, of London, gentleman,’ had to give bail to appear at the

next Middlesex Sessions. The exact nature of the charge is unknown;

but it cannot be doubted that his personal reputation, even in the

free-living Elizabethan London, did not stand high. He is clearly

the ‘famous gracer of tragedians’ reproved for atheism in Greene’s

_Groats-worth of Wit_ (1592) and it is probably to him that Chettle

alludes in his apology when he says, ‘With neither of them that take

offence was I acquainted and with one of them I care not if I never

be’ (cf. App. C, Nos. xlviii, xlix). The charge of atheism doubtless

arose from Marlowe’s association with the group of freethinkers which

centred round Sir Walter Raleigh. In 1593 these speculative tendencies

brought him into trouble. About 1591, while writing for the players of

a certain lord, as yet unidentified, he had shared a room with Thomas

Kyd (q.v.), who was then in the service of the same lord. Certain

theological notes of his got amongst Kyd’s papers and were found there

when Kyd was arrested on a charge of libel on 12 May 1593. On 18 May

the Privy Council sent a messenger to the house of Thomas Walsingham,

at Scadbury in Kent, to arrest Marlowe, and on 20 May he was ordered to

remain in attendance on the Council. There exists a ‘Note’ drawn up at

this time by one Richard Baines or Bame, containing a report of some

loose conversation of Marlowe’s which their Lordships could hardly be

expected to regard as anything but blasphemous. But, so far as Marlowe

was concerned, the proceedings were put a stop to by his sudden death.

The register of St. Nicholas, Deptford, records that he was ‘slain

by Francis Archer’ and buried there on 1 June 1593. Francis Meres’s

_Palladis Tamia_ (1598) tells us that he was ‘stabbed to death by a

bawdy servingman, a rival of his in his lewde love’. Somewhat different

versions of the story are given by Thomas Beard, _The Theater of God’s

Judgments_ (1597), and William Vaughan, _The Golden Grove_ (1600), both

of whom use Marlowe’s fate to point the moral against atheism. There

are some rather incoherent allusions to the event in verses affixed

by Gabriel Harvey to his _A New Letter of Notable Contents_, which is

dated 16 Sept. 1593:

Sonet

Gorgon, or the Wonderfull yeare

... The fatall yeare of yeares is Ninety Three:

... Weepe Powles, thy Tamberlaine voutsafes to dye.

L’envoy

The hugest miracle remaines behinde,

The second Shakerley Rash-swash to binde.

* * * * *

The Writer’s Postscript; or a friendly Caveat to the Second

Shakerley of Powles.

Slumbring I lay in melancholy bed

Before the dawning of the sanguin light:

When Eccho shrill, or some Familiar Spright,

Buzzed an Epitaph into my hed.

Magnifique Mindes, bred of Gargantuas race.

In grisly weedes His Obsequies waiment

Whose Corps on Powles, whose mind triumph’d on Kent,

Scorning to bate Sir Rodomont an ace.

I mus’d awhile: and having mus’d awhile,

Iesu, (quoth I) is that Gargantua minde

Conquerd, and left no Scanderbeg behinde?

Vowed he not to Powles A Second bile?

What bile or kibe (quoth that same early Spright)

Have you forgot the Scanderbegging wight?

Glosse

Is it a Dreame? or is it the Highest Minde

That ever haunted Powles, or hunted winde,

Bereaft of that same sky-surmounting breath,

That breath, that taught the Tempany to swell?

He, and the Plague contested for the game:

* * * * *

The grand Dissease disdain’d his toade Conceit,

And smiling at his tamberlaine contempt,

Sternely struck-home the peremptory stroke....

Harvey seems to have thought in error that Marlowe died of the plague.

I do not infer from the allusions to ‘Powles’ that Marlowe wrote for

the Paul’s boys; but rather that _Tamburlaine_, like Nashe’s pamphlets,

was sold by the booksellers in St. Paul’s Churchyard. The ‘second

Shakerley’ is certainly Nashe. Surely ‘Scanderbeg’, who is ‘left

behinde’, must also be Nashe, and I do not see how Fleay, ii. 65, draws

the inference that Marlowe was the author of the lost play entered on

the Stationers’ Register by Edward Allde on 3 July 1601 as ‘the true

historye of George Scanderbarge, as yt was lately playd by the right

honorable the Earle of Oxenford his servantes’ (Arber, iii. 187). There

is much satire both of Marlowe and of Nashe in the body of _A New

Letter_ (Grosart, _Harvey_, i. 255).

_Collections_

1826. [G. Robinson] _The Works of C. M._ 3 vols.

1850. A. Dyce, _The Works of C. M._ 3 vols. [Revised 1858, and in 1

vol. 1865, &c.]

1870. F. Cunningham, _The Works of C. M._

1885. A. H. Bullen, _The Works of C. M._ 3 vols.

1885–9. H. Breymann and A. Wagner, _C. M. Historisch-kritische

Ausgabe._ 3 parts. [_Tamburlaine_, _Dr. Faustus_, _Jew of Malta_ only

issued.]

1887. H. Ellis, _The Best Plays of C. M._ (_Mermaid Series_).

[_Tamburlaine_, _Dr. Faustus_, _Jew of Malta_, _Edward II_.]

1910. C. F. Tucker Brooke, _The Works of C. M._ [Larger edition in

progress.]

1912. W. L. Phelps. _Marlowe_ [_M. E. D._]. [_Tamburlaine_, _Dr.

Faustus_, _Jew of Malta_, _Edward II_.]

_Dissertations_: H. Ulrici, _C. M. und Shakespeare’s Verhältniss zu

ihm_ (1865, _Jahrbuch_, i. 57); J. Schipper, _De versu Marlowii_

(1867); T. Mommsen, _M. und Shakespeare_ (1886); A. W. Verity, _M.’s

Influence on Shakespeare_ (1886); E. Faligan, _De Marlovianis Fabulis_

(1887); O. Fischer, _Zur Charakteristik der Dramen M.’s_ (1889); J. G.

Lewis, _C. M.: Outlines of his Life and Works_ (1891); F. S. Boas,

_New Light on M._ (1899, _Fortnightly Review_, lxxi, 212); J. H.

Ingram, _C. M. and his Associates_ (1904); H. Jung, _Das Verhältniss

M.’s zu Shakespeare_ (1904); W. L. Courtney, _C. M._ (_Fortnightly

Review_, 1905, ii. 467, 678); A. Marquardsen, _C. M.’s Kosmologie_

(1905, _Jahrbuch_, xli. 54); J. Le G. Brereton, _The Case of Francis

Ingram_ (_Sydney Univ. Publ._ v); G. C. Moore Smith, _Marlowe at

Cambridge_ (1909, _M. L. R._ iv. 167); F. C. Danchin, _Études critiques

sur C. M._ (1912–13, _Revue Germanique_, viii. 23; ix. 566); C.

Crawford, _The Marlowe Concordance_ (1911, _Materialien_, xxxiv, pt. i

only); F. K. Brown, _M. and Kyd_ (_T. L. S._, 2 June, 1921).

_Tamburlaine. c. 1587_

_S. R._ 1590, Aug. 14 (Hartwell). ‘The twooe commicall discourses of

Tomberlein the Cithian shepparde.’ _Richard Jones_ (Arber, ii. 558).

1590. Tamburlaine the Great. Who, from a Scythian Shephearde by his

rare and wonderfull Conquests became a most puissant and mightye

Monarque. And (for his tyranny, and terrour in Warre) was tearmed, The

Scourge of God. Deuided into two Tragicall Discourses, as they were

sundrie times shewed vpon Stages in the Citie of London, By the right

honorable the Lord Admyrall, his seruantes. Now first, and newlie

published. _Richard Jones_ [8vo]. [Epistle to the Readers, signed ‘R.

I. Printer’; Prologues to both Parts. See Greg, _Plays_, 66; _Masques_,

cxxv. Ingram, 281, speaks of two 4tos and one 8vo of 1590, probably

through some confusion.]

1592. _R. Jones._ [Greg, _Masques_, cxxv, thinks that the date may have

been altered in the B.M. copy from 1593. Langbaine mentions an edition

of 1593.]

1597. [An edition apparently known to Collier; cf. Greg, _Masques_,

cxxv.]

1605. _For Edward White._ [Part i.]

1606. _E. A. for E. White._ [Part ii.]

_Editions_ by A. Wagner (1885) and K. Vollmöller (1885) and of Part i

by W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertations_: C. H. Herford,

_The Sources of M.’s T._ (_Academy_, 20 Oct. 1883); L. Frankel, _Zum

Stoffe von M.’s T._ (1892, _E. S._ xvi. 459); E. Köppel in _Englische

Studien_, xvi. 357; E. Hübner, _Der Einfluss von M.’s Tamburlaine auf

die zeitgenössischen und folgenden Dramatiker_ (_Halle diss._ 1901); F.

G. Hubbard, _Possible Evidence for the Date of T._ (1918, _M. L. A._

xxxiii. 436).

There is no real doubt as to Marlowe’s authorship of _Tamburlaine_,

but the direct evidence is very slight, consisting chiefly of Greene’s

(q.v.) _Perimedes_ coupling of ‘that atheist Tamburlan’ with ‘spirits

as bred of Merlin’s race’, and Harvey’s allusion to its author as dying

in 1593. Thomas Heywood, in his prologue to _The Jew of Malta_, speaks

of Alleyn’s performance in the play. The entry printed by Collier in

Henslowe’s _Diary_ of a payment to Dekker in 1597 ‘for a prolog to

Marloes tambelan’ is a forgery (Warner, 159; Greg, _Henslowe_, i.

xxxix). The Admiral’s produced ‘Tamberlan’ on 30 Aug. 1594. Henslowe

marks the entry ‘j’, which has been taken as equivalent to ‘n. e.’,

Henslowe’s symbol for a new play, and as pointing to a revision of

the play. I feel sure, however (cf. _M. L. R._ iv. 408), that ‘j’ only

means ‘First Part’. ‘Tamberlen’ was given fifteen times from 30 Aug.

1594 to 12 Nov. 1595, and the ‘2 pt. of tamberlen’ seven times from

19 Dec. 1594 to 13 Nov. 1595 (Henslowe, ii. 167). Tamburlaine’s cage,

bridle, coat, and breeches are included in the inventories of the

Admiral’s men in 1598 (_Henslowe Papers_, 116).

Greene’s _Perimedes_ reference suggests 1587 or early 1588 as the

probable date of _Tamburlaine_. In his preface to the 1590 edition

Richard Jones says that he has omitted ‘some fond and frivolous

gestures’, but does not say whether these were by the author of the

tragic stuff. The numerous references to the play in contemporary

literature often indicate its boisterous character; e.g. T. M. _The

Black Book_ (Bullen, _Middleton_, viii. 25), ‘The spindle-shank

spiders ... went stalking over his head as if they had been conning of

Tamburlaine’; T. M. _Father Hubburd’s Tales_ (ibid. viii. 93), ‘The

ordnance playing like so many Tamburlaines’.

_Dr. Faustus, c. 1588_

_S. R._ 1592, Dec. 18. Herbert-Ames, _Typographical Antiquities_, ii.

1160, records the following decision of the Stationers’ Company not

printed by Arber, ‘If the book of D^r. Faustus shall not be found in

the Hall Book entered to R^d. Oliff before Abell Jeffes claymed the

same, which was about May last, That then the said copie shall remayne

to the said Abell his proper copie from the tyme of his first clayme’.

[This can hardly refer to the prose _History of Faustus_, of which the

earliest extant, but probably not the first, edition was printed by T.

Orwin for Edward White in 1592.]

1601, Jan. 7 (Barlowe). ‘A booke called the plaie of Doctor Faustus.’

_Thomas Bushell_ (Arber, iii. 178).

1610, Sept. 13. Transfer from Bushell to John Wright of ‘The tragicall

history of the horrible life and Death of Doctor Faustus, written by C.

M.’ (Arber, iii. 442).

1604. The tragicall History of D. Faustus. As it hath bene Acted by the

Right Honorable the Earle of Nottingham his seruants. Written by Ch.

Marl. _V. S. for Thomas Bushell._

1609. _G. E. for John Wright._

1616. _For John Wright._ [An enlarged and altered text.]

1619.... With new Additions. _For John Wright._

1620; 1624; 1631.

1663.... Printed with New Additions as it is now Acted. With several

New Scenes, together with the Actors names. _For W. Gilbertson._ [A

corrupt text.]

Breymann mentions an edition of 1611 not now known, and Heinemann

quotes from foreign writers mentions of editions of 1622, 1626, 1636,

1651, 1690 (1884, _Bibliographer_).

_Editions_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ i), A. Reidl (N.D.

[1874]), W. Wagner (1877), A. W. Ward (1878, 1887, 1891, 1901), Anon.

(1881, Zurich), H. Morley (1883), H. Breymann (1889), I. Gollancz

(1897, _T. D._), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._), J. S. Farmer

(1914, _S. F. T._).--_Dissertations_: G. Herzfeld, _Zu M.’s Dr. F._

(1905, _Jahrbuch_, xli. 206); H. R. O. De Vries, _Die Überlieferung

und Entstehungsgeschichte von M.’s Dr. F._ (1909); K. R. Schröder,

_Textverhältnisse und Entstehungsgeschichte von M.’s F._ (1909); R.

Rohde, _Zu M.’s D. F._ (1913, _Morsbach-Festschrift_); P. Simpson, _The

1604 Text of M.’s D. F._ (1921, _Essays and Studies_, vii); with much

earlier literature summarized in Ward’s edition, to which also (1887,

ed. 2) Fleay’s excursus on _The Date and Authorship of Dr. F._ was

contributed.

The Admiral’s men played ‘Docter ffostose’ for Henslowe twenty-four

times from 2 Oct. 1594 to Oct. 1597 (Henslowe, ii. 168). Their 1598

inventories include ‘j dragon in fostes’ (_Henslowe Papers_, 118).

Alleyn (q.v.) played the title-rôle. The entry printed by Collier

from Henslowe’s _Diary_ of a payment to Dekker on 20 Dec. 1597 ‘for

adycyons to ffostus’ is a forgery (Warner, 159; Greg, _Henslowe_, i.

xxxix), but Henslowe did pay £4 to William Bird and Samuel Rowley ‘for

ther adicyones in doctor fostes’ on 22 Nov. 1602 (Henslowe, i. 172).

Probably, therefore, the Admiral’s revived the play about 1602–3. These

additions are doubtless the comic passages which appear for the first

time in the 1616 text, although that may also contain fragments of the

original text omitted from the 1,485 lines of 1604. The source of the

play seems to be the German _Faustbuch_ (1587) through the English

_History of Dr. Johann Faustus_, of which an edition earlier than the

extant 1592 one is conjectured. A probable date is 1588–9. On 28 Feb.

1589 ‘a ballad of the life and deathe of Doctor Faustus the great

Cungerer’ was entered on S. R. (Arber, ii. 516). There are apparent

imitations of the play in _Taming of A Shrew_ (q.v.).

The reference in _The Black Book_ (_vide infra_) can hardly be taken as

evidence that the original production was at the Theatre.

Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 168) gives some support to the view of Fleay

(Ward, clxvii) that Marlowe is only responsible for part even of the

1604 text, and that the rest, including the comic matter, may have been

contributed by Dekker. But he doubts whether Dekker worked upon the

play before the date of a revision in 1594, for which there is some

evidence, such as an allusion in xi. 46 to Dr. Lopez. Fleay thought

Dekker to have been also an original collaborator, which his age hardly

permits.

The play seems to have formed part of the English repertories in

Germany in 1608 and 1626 (Herz, 66, 74).

It became the centre of a curious _mythos_, which was used to point

a moral against the stage (cf. ch. viii). Of this there are several

versions:

(_a_) 1604. T. M. _The Black Book_ (Bullen, _Middleton_, viii. 13),

‘Hee had a head of hayre like one of my Diuells in Dr. Faustus when the

old Theater crackt and frighted the audience.’

(_b_) 1633. Prynne, _Histriomastix_, f. 556, ‘The visible apparition

of the Devill on the stage at the Belsavage Play-house, in Queen

Elizabeths dayes (to the great amazement both of the actors and

spectators) while they were there prophanely playing the History of

Faustus (the truth of which I have heard from many now alive, who well

remember it) there being some distracted with that feareful sight.’

(_c_) N.D. ‘J. G. R.’ from manuscript note on ‘the last page of a book

in my possession, printed by Vautrollier’ (1850, _2 Gent. Mag._ xxxiv.

234), ‘Certaine Players at Exeter, acting upon the stage the tragical

storie of Dr. Faustus the Conjurer; as a certain nomber of Devels kept

everie one his circle there, and as Faustus was busie in his magicall

invocations, on a sudden they were all dasht, every one harkning other

in the eare, for they were all perswaded, there was one devell too

many amongst them; and so after a little pause desired the people to

pardon them, they could go no further with this matter; the people

also understanding the thing as it was, every man hastened to be first

out of dores. The players (as I heard it) contrarye to their custome

spending the night in reading and in prayer got them out of the town

the next morning.’

(_d_) _c._ 1673. John Aubrey, _Natural History and Antiquities of

Surrey_ (1718–19), i. 190, ‘The tradition concerning the occasion of

the foundation [of Dulwich College] runs thus: that Mr. Alleyne, being

a Tragedian and one of the original actors in many of the celebrated

Shakespear’s plays, in one of which he played a Demon, with six others,

and was in the midst of the play surpriz’d by an apparition of the

Devil, which so work’d on his Fancy, that he made a Vow, which he

perform’d at this Place’.

_The Jew of Malta, c. 1589_

_S. R._ 1594, May 17. ‘The famouse tragedie of the Riche Jewe of

Malta.’ _Nicholas Ling and Thomas Millington_ (Arber, ii. 650). [On 16

May ‘a ballad intituled the murtherous life and terrible death of the

riche Jew of Malta’ had been entered to John Danter.]

1632, Nov. 20 (Herbert). ‘A Tragedy called the Jew of Malta.’

_Nicholas Vavasour_ (Arber, iv. 288).

1633. The Famous Tragedy of the Rich Iew of Malta. As it was played

before the King and Queene, in his Majesties Theatre at White-Hall, by

her Majesties Servants at the Cockpit. Written by Christopher Marlo.

_I. B. for Nicholas Vavasour._ [Epistle to Thomas Hammon of Gray’s

Inn, signed ‘Tho. Heywood’; Prologues and Epilogues at Court and at

Cockpit by Heywood; Prologue by Machiavel as presenter.]

_Editions_ in Dodsley^{2, 3}, viii (1780–1827), and by W. Scott (1810,

_A. B. D._ i), Reynell and Son (publ. 1810), S. Penley (1813), A.

Wagner (1889), and W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertations_:

J. Kellner, _Die Quelle von M.’s J. of M._ (1887, _E. S._ x. 80); M.

Thimme, _M.’s J. of M._ (1921).

An allusion in Marlowe’s prologue to the death of the Duc de Guise

gives a date of performance later than 23 Dec. 1588. Strange’s men

gave the play for Henslowe seventeen times from 26 Feb. 1592 to 1 Feb.

1593. Probably it belonged to Henslowe, as it was also played for him

by Sussex’s men on 4 Feb. 1594, by Sussex and the Queen’s together on

3 and 8 April 1594, by the Admiral’s on 14 May 1594, by either the

Admiral’s or the Chamberlain’s on 6 and 15 June 1594, and thirteen

times by the Admiral’s from 25 June 1594 to 23 June 1596 (Henslowe, ii.

151). The 1598 inventories of the latter company include ‘j cauderm for

the Jewe’ (_Henslowe Papers_, 118). On 19 May 1601 Henslowe advanced

them money to buy ‘things’ for a revival of the play (Henslowe, i.

137). Heywood’s epistle and Cockpit prologue name Marlowe and Alleyn

as writer and actor of the play. Fleay, i. 298, suggests that Heywood

wrote the Bellamira scenes (III. i; IV. iv, v; V. i), the motive of

which he used for the plot of his _Captives_, and Greg agrees that the

play shows traces of two hands, one of which may be Heywood’s. The

Dresden repertory of 1626 included a ‘Tragödie von Barabas, Juden von

Malta’, but this was not necessarily the play ‘von dem Juden’ given by

English actors at Passau in 1607 and Graz in 1608 (Herz, 66, 75).

_Edward the Second. c. 1592_

_S. R._ 1593, July 6 (Judson). ‘A booke, Intituled The troublesom

Reign and Lamentable Death of Edward the Second, king of England, with

the tragicall fall of proud Mortymer.’ _William Jones_ (Arber, ii.

634).

1593? [C. F. Tucker Brooke (1909, _M. L. N._ xxiv. 71) suggests that a

manuscript t.p. dated 1593 and sig. A inserted in Dyce’s copy of 1598

may be from a lost edition, as they contain textual variants.]

1594. The troublesome raigne and lamentable death of Edward the second,

King of England: with the tragicall fall of proud Mortimer. As it was

sundrie times publiquely acted in the honourable citie of London, by

the right honourable the Earl of Pembroke his servants. Written by

Chri. Marlow. Gent. _For William Jones._

1598. _Richard Bradocke for William Jones._ [With an additional scene.]

1612. _For Roger Barnes._

1622.... As it was publikely Acted by the late Queenes Maiesties

Servants at the Red Bull in S. Iohns streete.... _For Henry Bell._

_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–3}, ii (1744–1825), and by W. Scott (1810, _A.

B. D._ i), W. Wagner (1871), F. G. Fleay (1873, 1877), O. W. Tancock

(1877, etc.), E. T. McLaughlin (1894), A. W. Verity (1896, _T. D._),

and W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertations_: C. Tzschaschel,

_M.’s Edward II und seine Quellen_ (1902, _Halle diss._); M. Dahmetz,

_M.’s Ed. II und Shakespeares Rich. II_ (1904).

Pembroke’s men seem only to have had a footing at Court in the winter

of 1592–3, and this is probably the date of the play. Greg (_Henslowe_,

ii. 224) suggests that it may have had some ‘distant connexion’ with

Chettle and Porter’s _The Spencers_ and an anonymous _Mortimer_ of the

Admiral’s men in 1599 and 1602 respectively. But I think _Mortimer_ is

a slip of Henslowe’s for _Vortigern_.

_The Massacre at Paris. 1593_

[_MS._] Collier, ii. 511, prints a fragment of a fuller text than that

of the edition, but it is suspect (cf. Tucker Brooke, 483).

N.D. The Massacre at Paris: With the Death of the Duke of Guise. As it

was plaide by the right honourable the Lord high Admirall his Seruants.

Written by Christopher Marlow. _E. A. for Edward White._

Strange’s men produced ‘the tragedey of the gvyes’ as ‘n.e.’ on 26 Jan.

1593. The Admiral’s men also played it for Henslowe as ‘the Gwies’ or

‘the masacer’ ten times from 21 June to 27 Sept. 1594. Possibly in Nov.

1598 and certainly in Nov. 1601 Henslowe advanced sums for costumes

for a revival of the play by the Admiral’s. The insertion by Collier

of Webster’s name in one of these entries is a forgery and whether

the lost _Guise_ of this writer (q.v.) bore any relation to Marlowe’s

play is wholly unknown. On 18 Jan. 1602 Henslowe paid Alleyn £2 for

the ‘boocke’ of ‘the massaker of france’ on behalf of the company

(Henslowe, i. xlii; ii. 157). For the offence given in France by this

play, cf. ch. x.

_Dido Queen of Carthage > 1593_

_With_ Thomas Nashe.

1594. The Tragedie of Dido Queene of Carthage: Played by the Children

of her Maiesties Chappell. Written by Christopher Marlowe, and Thomas

Nash. Gent. _Widow Orwin for Thomas Woodcock._

_S. R._ 1600, June 26. Transfer from Paul Lynley to John Flasket,

‘Cupydes Journey to hell with the tragedie of Dido’ (Arber, iii. 165).

[Perhaps another book.]

_Editions_ in _Old English Drama_ (1825, ii), by J. S. Farmer (1914,

_S. F. T._), and with _Works_ of Nashe.--_Dissertations_: J. Friedrich,

_Didodramen des Dolce, Jodelle, und M._ (1888); B. Knutowski, _Das

Dido-Drama von M. und Nash_ (1905, _Breslau diss._).

Tanner, _Bibl. Britanniae_ (1748), says, ‘Petowius in praefatione ad

secundam partem Herois et Leandri multa in Marlovii commendationem

adfert; hoc etiam facit Tho. Nash in _Carmine Elegiaco tragediae

Didonis praefixo in obitum Christoph. Marlovii_, ubi quatuor eius

tragediarum mentionem facit, necnon et alterius _de duce Guisio_’. The

existence of this elegy is confirmed by Warton, who saw it either in

1734 or 1754 (_Hist. Eng. Poet._ iv. 311; cf. McKerrow, ii. 335). It

was ‘inserted immediately after the title-page’, presumably not of all

copies, as it is not in the three now known. Whether Nashe’s own share

in the work was as collaborator, continuator, or merely editor, remains

uncertain. Fleay, ii. 147, gives him only I. i. 122 to end, III. i, ii,

iv; IV. i, ii, v; Knutowski regards him as responsible for only a few

trifling passages. As, moreover, the play has affinities both to early

and to late work by Marlowe, it cannot be dated. Beyond its title-page

and that of the anonymous _Wars of Cyrus_ there is nothing to point

to any performances by the Chapel between 1584 and 1600. It is true

that Tucker Brooke, 389, says, ‘The one ascertained fact concerning

the history of this company during the ten years previous to 1594

seems to be that they acted before the Queen at Croydon in 1591, under

the direction of N. Giles, and Mr. Fleay assumes, apparently with no

further evidence, that _Dido_ was presented on this ‘occasion’. But

this only shows what some literary historians mean by an ‘ascertained

fact’. A company played _Summers Last Will and Testament_ (q.v.) at

Croydon in 1592 and said that they had not played for a twelvemonth.

But the Queen was not present, and they are not known to have been

the Chapel, whose master was not then Nathaniel Giles. Nor did they

necessarily play twelve months before at Croydon; and if they did,

there is nothing to show that they played _Dido_. There is nothing to

connect the play with the Admiral’s _Dido and Aeneas_ of 1598 (Greg,

_Henslowe_, ii. 189).

_Lust’s Dominion. c. 1600_ (?)

1657. Lusts Dominion; Or, The Lascivious Queen. A Tragedie. Written by

Christopher Marlowe, Gent. _For F. K., sold by Robert Pollard._

_Editions_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ i) and in Dodsley^4, xiv

(1875).

The attribution of the play, as it stands, to Marlowe is generally

rejected. Fleay, i. 272, supported by Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 211),

suggests an identification with _The Spanish Moor’s Tragedy_, which

Day, Dekker, and Haughton were writing for the Admiral’s in Feb. 1600,

although the recorded payment does not show that this was finished.

They think that a play in which Marlowe had a hand may perhaps underlie

it, and attempt, not wholly in agreement with each other, to distribute

the existing scenes amongst the collaborators.

_Lost Play_

_The Maiden’s Holiday_

Entered on the Stationers’ Register on 8 April 1654 (Eyre, i. 445)

by Moseley as ‘A comedie called The Maidens Holiday by Christopher

Marlow & John Day’, and included in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (_3

Library_, ii. 231) as ‘The Mayden Holaday by Chri[~s]. Marlowe’.

_Doubtful Plays_

Marlowe’s hand has been sought in _An Alarum for London_, _Contention

of York and Lancaster_, _Edward III_, _Locrine_, _Selimus_, _Taming of

A Shrew_, and _Troublesome Reign of King John_ (cf. ch. xxiv), and in

Shakespeare’s _Titus Andronicus_, _Henry VI_, and _Richard III_.

JOHN MARSTON (_c._ 1575–1634).

Marston was son of John Marston, a lawyer of Shropshire origin, who had

settled at Coventry, and his Italian wife Maria Guarsi. He matriculated

at Brasenose College, Oxford, aged 16, on 4 Feb. 1592, and took his

degree on 6 Feb. 1594. He joined the Middle Temple, and in 1599 his

father left law-books to him, ‘whom I hoped would have profited by

them in the study of the law but man proposeth and God disposeth’.

He had already begun his literary career, as a satirist with _The

Metamorphosis of Pygmalion’s Image and Certain Satires_ (1598) and

_The Scourge of Villainy_ (1598). For these he took the pseudonym

of W. Kinsayder. Small, 64, has refuted the attempts to find in them

attacks on Jonson, and H. C. Hart (_9 N. Q._ xi. 282, 342) has made

it plausible that by ‘Torquatus’ was meant, not Jonson, but Gabriel

Harvey. This view is now accepted by Penniman (_Poetaster_, xxiii). On

28 Sept. 1599 Henslowe paid £2, on behalf of the Admiral’s, for ‘M^r

Maxton the new poete’. The interlineated correction ‘M^r Mastone’ is

a forgery (Greg, _Henslowe_, i. xlii; ii. 206), but probably Marston

was the poet. The title of the play was left blank, and there was no

further payment. It seems clearer to me than it does to Dr. Greg that

the £2 was meant to make up a complete sum of £6 10_s._ for _The King

of Scots_, and that Marston was the ‘other Jentellman’ who collaborated

with Chettle, Dekker, and Jonson on that lost play. The setting up

of the Paul’s boys in 1599 saved Marston from Henslowe. For them he

successively revised the anonymous _Histriomastix_ (q.v.), wrote the

two parts of _Antonio and Mellida_ and _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_,

helped Dekker with _Satiromastix_, and finally wrote _What You Will_.

This probably accounts for all his dramatic work during Elizabeth’s

reign. In the course of it he came into conflict with Jonson, who told

Drummond in 1619 (according to the revision of the text of Laing,

20, suggested by Penniman, _War_, 40, and Small, 3) that ‘He had

many quarrells with Marston, beat him, and took his pistol from him,

wrote his Poetaster on him; the beginning of them were, that Marston

represented him in the stage’. Marston’s representation of Jonson as

Chrysoganus in _Histriomastix_ was complimentary, that as Brabant

senior in _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_ offensive; and it was doubtless

the latter that stirred Jonson to retaliate on Marston, perhaps as

Hedon in _Cynthia’s Revels_, certainly as Crispinus in _The Poetaster_.

Marston’s final blow was with Lampatho Doria in _What You Will_. When

the theatres reopened in 1604 Marston seems to have left the Paul’s

boys and taken a share in the syndicate formed to exploit the Queen’s

Revels, for whom the rest of his plays were written. He was now on

friendly terms with Jonson, to whom he dedicated his _Malcontent_ and

for whose _Sejanus_ he wrote congratulatory verses. Possibly further

friction arose over the unfortunate collaboration of Jonson, Marston,

and Chapman in _Eastward Ho!_, for the chief indiscretion in which

Marston seems to have been responsible, and may have stimulated a

sarcasm on Jonson in the Epistle to _Sophonisba_. In 1608 Marston’s

career as a dramatist abruptly terminated. An abstract of the Privy

Council Register has the brief note on 8 June, ‘John Marston committed

to Newgate’ (F. P. Wilson from _Addl. MS._ 11402, f. 141, in _M. L.

R._ ix. 99). I conjecture that he was the author of the Blackfriars

play (cf. ch. xii, s.v. Chapel) which hit at James’s explorations

after Scottish silver. He disappeared, selling his interest in the

Blackfriars company, then or in 1605, to Robert Keysar, and leaving

_The Insatiate Countess_ unfinished. He had taken orders by 10 Oct.

1616 when he obtained the living of Christchurch, Hampshire. This he

resigned on 13 Sept. 1631. In 1633 he was distant from London, but died

on 25 June 1634 in Aldermanbury parish. He had married Mary, probably

the daughter of William Wilkes, one of James’s chaplains, of whom

Jonson said in 1619 (Laing, 16) that ‘Marston wrott his Father-in-lawes

preachings, and his Father-in-law his Commedies’. If we trust the

portrait of Crispinus in _The Poetaster_, he had red hair and little

legs. A letter from Marston to Sir Gervase Clifton, endorsed ‘Poet

Marston’, is calendared in _Hist. MSS. Various Coll._ vii. 389; it is

undated, but must, from the names used, be of 1603–8.

_Collections_

1633. Tragedies and Comedies collected into one volume. Viz. 1. Antonio

and Mellida. 2. Antonio’s Revenge. 3. The Tragedie of Sophonisba. 4.

What You Will. 5. The Fawne. 6. The Dutch Courtezan. _A. M. for William

Sheares._ [Epistle to Viscountess Falkland, signed ‘William Sheares’.]

1633. The Workes of Mr. Iohn Marston, Being Tragedies and Comedies,

Collected into one Volume. _For William Sheares._ [Another issue.]

1856. J. O. Halliwell, _The Works of John Marston_. 3 vols. [Contains

all the works, except _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_.]

1879. A. B. Grosart, _The Poems of John Marston_. [Contains

_Pygmalion’s Image_ and the satires.]

1887. A. H. Bullen, _The Works of John Marston_. 3 vols. [Contains all

the works, except _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_.]

_Dissertations_: W. von Scholten, _Metrische Untersuchungen zu

Marston’s Trauerspielen_ (1886, _Halle diss._); P. Aronstein, _John

Marston als Dramatiker_ (_E. S._ xx. 377; xxi. 28); W. v. Wurzbach,

_John Marston_ (1897, _Jahrbuch_, xxxiii. 85); C. Winckler, _John

Marston’s litterarische Anfänge_ (1903, _Breslau diss._) and _Marston’s

Erstlingswerke und ihre Beziehungen zu Shakespeare_ (1904, _E. S._

xxxiii. 216).

PLAYS

_Antonio and Mellida. 1599_

_S. R._ 1601, Oct. 24. ‘A booke called The ffyrst and second partes

of the play called Anthonio and Melida provided that he gett laufull

licence for yt.’ _Matthew Lownes and Thomas Fisher_ (Arber, iii. 193).

1602. The History of Antonio and Mellida. The first part. As it hath

beene sundry times acted, by the Children of Paules. Written by I. M.

_For Mathew Lownes and Thomas Fisher._ [Epistle to Nobody, signed ‘J.

M.’, Induction, Prologue, and Epilogue.]

1602. Antonio’s Reuenge. The second part. As it hath beene sundry times

acted, by the children of Paules. Written by I. M. _For Thomas Fisher._

[Prologue.]

_Editions_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ ii) and W. W. Greg (1921,

_M. S. R._).

In V. i of Part i a painter brings in two pictures, one dated ‘Anno

Domini, 1599’, the other ‘Aetatis suae 24’. I agree with Small, 92,

that these are probably real dates and that the second indicates

Marston’s own age. As he must have completed his twenty-fourth year

by 3 Feb. 1600 at latest, Part i was probably produced in 1599. The

prologue of Part ii speaks of winter as replacing summer, and probably

therefore Part i is to be dated in the summer, and Part ii in the early

winter of 1599. Clearly the painter scene cannot, as Fleay, ii. 75,

suggests, be motived by a casual allusion to a painter in _Cynthia’s

Revels_ (F_{1}) 2673 or the painter scene added on revision to Kyd’s

_Spanish Tragedy_, since both are later. The ‘armed Epilogue’ of Part

i seems to me clearly a criticism of the armed prologue of Jonson’s

_Poetaster_ (1601); it may have been an addition of 1601. Part ii,

prol. 13, 23, calls the theatre ‘round’ and ‘ring’.

_What You Will. 1601_

_S. R._ 1607, Aug. 6 (Buck). ‘A commedie called What you will.’ _Thomas

Thorp_ (Arber, iii. 358).

1607. What You Will. By Iohn Marston. _G. Eld for Thomas Thorpe._

[Induction and Prologue.]

_Edition_ by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ ii).--_Dissertation_: F.

Holthausen, _Die Quelle von Marston’s W. Y. W._ (1905, _Jahrbuch_, xli.

186).

Bullen, Fleay, ii. 76, Small, 101, and Aronstein agree in regarding

the play as written in 1601 by way of answer to _Cynthia’s Revels_,

and they are probably right. Small shows that, in spite of the fact

that Quadratus calls Lampatho Doria a ‘Don Kynsader’ (II. i. 134),

Lampatho must stand for Jonson, and Quadratus to some extent for

Marston himself. Perhaps Simplicius Faber is the unidentified Asinius

Bubo of _Satiromastix_. Both Fleay and Small think that the play has

been revised before publication, partly because of confusion in the

names of the characters, and partly because of the absence of the kind

of Marstonian language which Jonson satirized. Small goes so far as to

suggest that the seventeen untraceable words vomited by Crispinus in

_The Poetaster_ came from _What You Will_, and that Marston rewrote

the play and eliminated them. The rest of Fleay’s conjectures about

the play seem to me irresponsible. If the play dates from 1601, it

may reasonably be assigned to the Paul’s boys. The induction, with

its allusions to the small size of the stage and the use of candles,

excludes the possibility of an adult theatre.

_The Dutch Courtesan. 1603–4_

_S. R._ 1605, June 26. ‘A booke called the Dutche Curtizan, as yt was

latelie presented at the Blackeffryers Provyded that he gett sufficient

Aucthoritie before yt be prynted.’ _John Hodgettes_ (Arber, iii. 293).

[A further note, ‘This is alowed to be printed by Aucthoritie from

Master Hartwell’.]

1605. The Dutch Courtezan. As it was played in the Blacke-Friars. by

the Children of her Maiesties Reuels. Written by Iohn Marston, _T. P.

for John Hodgets_. [Prologue.]

_S. R._ 1613, April 19. Transfer to Hodgettes of Eleazer Edgar’s

interest in the play (Arber, iii. 520).

As a Queen’s Revels play, this must have been on the stage at least

as late as 1603, and the clear proof of Crawford, ii. 1, that several

passages are verbal imitations of Florio’s translation of Montaigne,

published in that year, make it difficult to put it earlier, although

Wallace, ii. 75, says that he has evidence, which he does not give,

for production in 1602. On the other hand, C. R. Baskervill (_M. L.

A._ xxiv. 718) argues that the plot influenced that of _The Fair Maid

of Bristow_, which was performed at Court during the winter of 1603–4.

The play is referred to with _Eastward Ho!_ (q.v.) as bringing trouble

on Marston by A. Nixon, _The Black Year_ (1606). It was revived for

the Court by the Lady Elizabeth’s on 25 Feb. 1613, under the name of

_Cockle de Moye_ from one of the characters, and repeated on 12 Dec.

1613 (cf. App. B).

_The Malcontent. 1604_

_S. R._ 1604, July 5 (Pasfield). ‘An Enterlude called the Malecontent,

Tragicomoedia.’ _William Aspley and Thomas Thorpe_ (Arber, iii. 266,

268). [Entry made on the wrong page and re-entered.]

1604. The Malcontent. By Iohn Marston. _V. S. for William Aspley._

[Two editions. Inscription ‘Beniamino Jonsonio, poetae elegantissimo,

gravissimo, amico suo, candido et cordato, Iohannes Marston, Musarum

alumnus, asperam hanc suam Thaliam D.D.’ and Epistle to Reader.]

1604. The Malcontent. Augmented by Marston. With the Additions played

by the Kings Maiesties servants. Written by Ihon Webster. _V. S. for

William Aspley._ [A third edition, with the Induction, which is headed

‘The Induction to the Malcontent, and the additions acted by the Kings

Maiesties servants. Written by Iohn Webster’, and the insertions I. i.

146–88, 195–212, 256–303; I. iii; II. ii. 34, 57–71; III. i. 33–156;

IV. ii. 123–37; V. i; V. ii. 10–39, 164–94, 212–26; V. iii. 180–202.]

_Editions_ by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ ii) and W. A. Neilson (1911,

_C. E. D._); and with _Works_ of Webster (q.v.).--_Dissertation_: E.

E. Stoll, _John Webster_ (1905), 55, and _Shakspere, Marston, and the

Malcontent Type_ (1906, _M. P._ iii. 281).

The induction, in which parts are taken by Sly, Sinklo, Burbadge,

Condell, and Lowin, explains the genesis of the enlarged edition.

_Sly._ ... I would know how you came by this play?

_Condell._ Faith, sir, the book was lost; and because ’twas

pity so good a play should be lost, we found it and play it.

_Sly._ I wonder you would play it, another company having

interest in it.

_Condell._ Why not Malevole in folio with us, as Jeronimo

in decimosexto with them? They taught us a name for our play; we

call it _One for Another_.

_Sly._ What are your additions?

_Burbadge._ Sooth, not greatly needful; only as your salad

to your great feast, to entertain a little more time, and to

abridge the not-received custom of music in our theatre.

Stoll, 57, rightly argues that Small, 115, is not justified in ignoring

the evidence of the title-page and assigning the insertions, as well

as the induction, to Webster rather than Marston. On the other hand,

I think he himself ignores the evidence of Burbadge’s speech in the

induction, when he takes the undramatic quality of the insertions as

proof that Marston did not write them first in 1604, but revived them

from his original text, which the boy actors had shortened. He puts

this original text in 1600, because of the allusion in one of the

insertions (I. iii. 20) to a ‘horn growing in the woman’s forehead

twelve years since’. This horn was described in a pamphlet of 1588. I

do not share his view that ‘twelve’ must be a precise and not a round

number. Sly says in the induction:

‘This play hath beaten all your gallants out of the feathers:

Blackfriars hath almost spoiled Blackfriars for feathers.’

It is clear therefore that the original actors were the Blackfriars

boys, and there is nothing else to suggest a connexion between Marston

and these boys during Elizabeth’s reign. Small, 115, points out a

reference to the Scots in V. iii. 24 which should be Jacobean. I

think that this is Marston’s first play for the Queen’s Revels after

the formation of the syndicate early in 1604, and that the revision

followed later in the same year. It is not necessary to assume that the

play was literally ‘lost’ or that Marston was not privy to the adoption

of it by the King’s. Importance is attached to the date by parallels to

certain plays of Shakespeare, where Stoll thinks that Shakespeare was

the borrower. I do not see how it can be so. The epilogue speaks of the

author’s ‘reformed Muse’ and pays a compliment to ‘another’s happier

Muse’ and forthcoming ‘Thalia’, perhaps Jonson’s _Volpone_.

_The Fawn. 1604 < > 6_

_S. R._ 1606, March 12. ‘A playe called the ffaune provided that

he shall not put the same in prynte before he gett alowed lawfull

aucthoritie.’ _William Cotton_ (Arber, iii. 316).

1606. Parasitaster, Or The Fawne, As it hath bene diuers times

presented at the blacke Friars, by the Children of the Queenes

Maiesties Reuels. Written by Iohn Marston. _T. P. for W. C._ [Epistle

to the Equal Reader, signed ‘Jo. Marston’, Prologue, and Epilogue.]

1606.... and since at Paules.... And now corrected of many faults,

which by reason of the Author’s absence were let slip in the first

edition. _T. P. for W. C._ [A further Epistle to the Reader states that

the writer has ‘perused this copy’ and is about to ‘present ... to you’

the tragedy of _Sophonisba_.]

Modern edition by C. W. Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ ii).

As a Queen’s Revels play, this must date from 1604 or 1605; presumably

it was transferred to Paul’s by Edward Kirkham, when he took charge

of them for the Christmas of 1605–6. Small, 116, refutes Aronstein’s

suggested allusion to Jonson’s _Volpone_ of 1605 or 1606. Bolte,

_Danziger Theater_, 177, prints from a seventeenth-century Dantzig MS.

a German play, _Tiberius von Ferrara und Annabella von Mömpelgart_,

which is in part derived from _The Fawn_ (Herz, 99). If, as the titles

suggest, the performances of _Annabella, eines Hertzogen Tochter von

Ferrara_ at Nördlingen in 1604, of _Annabella, eines Markgraffen

Tochter von Montferrat_ at Rothenburg in 1604, and of _Herzog von

Ferrara_ at Dresden in 1626 (Herz, 65, 66), indicate intermediate

links, _The Fawn_ cannot be later than 1604. Yet I find it impossible

not to attach some value to the argument of Stoll, _Webster_, 17, for

a date later than the execution of Sir Everard Digby on 30 Jan. 1606

(Stowe, _Annales_, 881), which appears to be alluded to in IV. i. 310,

‘Nay, heed me, a woman that will thrust in crowds,--a lady, that, being

with child, ventures the hope of her womb,--nay, gives two crowns

for a room to behold a goodly man three parts alive, quartered, his

privities hackled off, his belly lanched up’. It is true that there

were also quarterings for treason on 29 Nov. 1603 (Stowe, _Annales_,

ed. Howes, 831), but these were in Winchester; also that contemporary

notices, such as that in Stowe and the narratives in J. Morris,

_Catholics under James I_, 216, and in _Somers Tracts_ (1809), ii.

111, which describes the victims as ‘proper men, in shape’, afford no

confirmation of indecent crowds in 1606, but the cumulative effect

of the quadruple allusions here, in Day’s _Isle of Gulls_ (q.v.),

in Sharpham’s _Fleir_ (q.v.), and in Middleton’s _Michaelmas Term_

(q.v.) is pretty strong. The passage quoted by Crawford, ii. 40, from

Montaigne is hardly particular enough to explain that in the _Fawn_. I

do not like explaining discrepancies by the hypothesis of a revision,

but if Kirkham revived the _Fawn_ at Paul’s in 1606, he is not unlikely

to have had it written up a bit. The epistle refers to ‘the factious

malice and studied detractions’ of fellow-dramatists, perhaps an echo

of Marston’s relations with Jonson and Chapman over _Eastward Ho!_

_The Wonder of Women_, or _Sophonisba_. _1606_

_S. R._ 1606, March 17 (Wilson). ‘A booke called the wonder of woemen,

or the Tragedie of Sophonisba, &c.’ _Eleazar Edgar_ (Arber, iii. 316).

1606. The Wonder of Women Or the Tragedie of Sophonisba, as it hath

beene sundry times Acted at the Blacke-Friers. Written by Iohn Marston.

_John Windet._ [Epistle to the General Reader by the author, but

unsigned, Argumentum, Prologue, and Epilogue.]

_S. R._ 1613, April 19. Transfer from Edgar to John Hodgettes (Arber,

iii. 521).

The mention of Blackfriars without the name of a company points to a

performance after Anne’s patronage had been withdrawn from the Revels

boys, late in 1605 or early in 1606, not, as Fleay, ii. 79, suggests,

to one by the Chapel in 1602–3. Some features of staging (cf. ch. xxi)

raise a suspicion that the play may have been taken over from Paul’s.

The resemblance of the title to that of _Wonder of a Woman_ produced by

the Admiral’s in 1595 is probably accidental. The epistle glances at

Jonson’s translations in _Sejanus_ (1603).

_The Insatiate Countess. c. 1610_

1613. The Insatiate Countesse. A Tragedie: Acted at White-Fryers.

Written by Iohn Marston. _T. S. for Thomas Archer._

1616. _N. O. for Thomas Archer._

1631.... Written by William Barksteed. _For Hugh Perrie._

1631.... Written by Iohn Marston. _I. N. for Hugh Perrie._ [A reissue.]

_Dissertation_: R. A. Small, _The Authorship and Date of the Insatiate

Countess_ in _Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature_, v

(_Child Memorial Volume_), 277.

It is generally supposed that Marston began the play and that Barksted

(q.v.) finished it. Two lines (V. ii. 244–5) appear verbatim in

Barksted’s _Mirrha_ (1607). Small traces several other clear parallels

with both _Mirrha_ and _Hiren_, as well as stylistic qualities pointing

to Barksted rather than to Marston, and concludes that the play is

Barksted’s on a plot drafted by Marston. It may be conjectured that

Marston left the fragment when he got into trouble for the second time

in 1608, and that the revision was more probably for the Queen’s Revels

at Whitefriars in 1609–11 than for the conjoint Queen’s Revels and

Lady Elizabeth’s in 1613. Hardly any of the suggestions on the play in

Fleay, ii. 80, bear analysis.

_Lost Plays_

On _The King of Scots_, _vide supra_. Rogers and Ley’s list of 1656

(Greg, _Masques_, lxxii) ascribes to Marston a _Guise_, which other

publishers’ lists transfer to Webster (q.v.). Collier, _Memoirs of

Alleyn_, 154, assigns to Marston a _Columbus_, on the basis of a

forgery.

_Doubtful Plays_

Marston doubtless had a hand in revising the anonymous _Histriomastix_

and in _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_, and attempts have been made

to find him in _An Alarum for London_, _Charlemagne_, _London

Prodigal_, _Puritan_ (cf. ch. xxiv), and as a collaborator in Dekker’s

_Satiromastix_.

MASKS

_Ashby Entertainment. Aug. 1607_

[_MSS._] (_a_) _Bridgewater House_, with title, ‘The honorable Lorde &

Lady of Huntingdons Entertainment of their right Noble Mother Alice:

Countesse Dowager of Darby the first night of her honors arrivall att

the house of Ashby’. [Verses to Lady Derby signed ‘John Marston’;

includes a mask of Cynthia and Ariadne.]

(_b_) _B.M. Sloane_ 848, f. 9. [Speech of Enchantress only, with date

Aug. 1607.]