II.
IV., 1.—C.: A street in Callipolis.
Not in MS.
MS.: Sempronius a Capturion—_i.e._, “captain” altered to “centurion.”
IV., 1, 2.—MS.: I heard such.
“Such” deleted. It begins the next line.
IV., 1, 5.—MS.: He promised me a visit, if his designs as I desire they
may.
“He” deleted and “who by his letters” written above it.
For similar expansion of one line into two, _cf._ II., 2, 285.
IV., 1, 7.—MS.: Till he arrive you behold him.
“He arrive” deleted.
IV., 1, 23.—MS.: “My” deleted before “yourself.”
IV., 1, 29.—C.: Lips.
MS.: Lip.
IV., 1, 34.—C.: Tacks on “he” to this line.
MS.: “He” begins line 35.
IV., 1, 45.—Enter Flaminius.
(?) “Ferdinand” deleted below.
IV., 1, 90.—C.: And may prove fortunate.
MS.: And it may prove fortunate.
IV., 2, 5.—C.: (Why), the sufferings of this miserable man.
MS.: No trace of “why.”
IV., 2, 11.—C.: Tacks on “to” at the end.
MS.: It begins line 12.
IV., 2, 29.—C.: And know that not the reverence that waits.
MS.: And though I know the reverence that waits.
IV., 2, 33.—C.: Or iron.
MS.: Or fire.
IV., 2, 58.—C.: They aim at.
MS.: They aimed at.
IV., 2, 60.—C.: A few more hours.
MS.: A few hours more.
IV., 2, 66.—MS.: For the pretty tempting friend I brought; my life on’t.
Under “tempting,” “beauty” (?) deleted.
IV., 2, 87.—MS.: Crack not with the weight of deer, and far-fetched
dainties.
“Not” spoils the metre and the sense; it occurs in line 88. “Dispute not
with heaven’s bounties.”
IV., 2, 90.—C.: Homely cakes.
MS.: Homely cates.
IV., 2, 96.—MS.: I have already
Acquainted her with her cue. The music ushers
Her personal appearance.
Scratched out at top of 20_b_, and inserted at foot of 20_a_.
IV., 2, 127.—C.: Pray, what are you?
MS.: Pray you, what are you?
IV., 2, 147.—C.: That, (sir), is.
MS.: “Sir” not visible owing to mutilation. (?) Sir, that is.
IV., 2, 158.—MS.: And met your wishes.
“And met” deleted before “and met.”
IV., 2, 226.—MS.: To pluck your eyes out.
Last half of line deleted. Last word (?) “thoughtes.”
IV., 2, 228.—MS.: Add a deleted line:
Dieted with gourd water.(568) Oh! the furies!
C.: leaves out.
IV., 3, 1.—MS.: Officers leading in Berecinthius.
“Sampayo” deleted under “Berecinthius.”
C.: Place of execution at Callipolis.
MS.: Does not mention Callipolis.
IV., 3, 28.—MS.: My bark you see wants stowage.
“Balance” deleted before “stowage.”
IV., 3, 29.—C.: But give me half a dozen hens.
MS.: But give me half a dozen of hens.
IV., 3, 39.—MS.: “Helped me” _bis._ The first one deleted.
IV., 3, 44.—MS.: To make three sops for his three heads; may serve for a
breakfast.
“that” inserted after “heads,” and “something more than an ordinary” after
“serve for.” One line converted into two, as above, IV., 1, 5.
IV., 3, 46.—MS.: The cur is vengeance devilish hungry.
“Vengeance” deleted.
IV., 3, 48.—C.: Provided for my frame.
MS.: Provided for my fame.
IV., 3, 53.—MS.: That no covetous Roman, after I am dead.
“Needie” deleted under “covetous.”
IV., 4, 13.—C: His faults are inscribed.
MS.: His fault’s inscribed.
IV., 4, 22.—C.: But in one thing most remarkable.
MS.: But one thing most remarkable.
IV., 4, 45.—MS.: Of kings deposed, and some in triumph led.
“Read” deleted before “led.” It is the last word of line 44.
IV., 4, 48.—C: Is of worse condition, and Rome.
MS.: Is of a worse condition, and Rome.
V., 1, 28.—MS.: “rows” deleted before “is chained.”
V., 1, 98.—C: In the world.
MS.: Of the world.
V., 1, 102.—C: Since I am term’d a soldier.
MS.: Since I am turn’d soldier.
V., 1, 116.—C: Grant you like (opportunity, but why),
MS.: Grant you like;
C.’s addition required by the sense.
V., 1, 137.—C.: In which, my lord being a suitor with (me).
MS.: In which, my lord being a suitor with. Addition required.
V., 1, 143.—C.: And though it needs not, for further proof.
MS.: And though it needs it not, for further proof.
V., 1, 157.—C.: They find.
MS.: May find.
“May” required by the sense.
V., 1, 172.—MS.: Swim down the torrent stream but to oppose the torrent.
“Torrent” before “stream” deleted.
V., 2, 14.—C.: I will make this good.
MS.: I will mock this good.
V., 2, 30.—C.: That noble Roman. By h(im you are sent for).
MS.: That noble Roman. By h.... Addition required.
V., 2, 33.—C.: Though I grand him.
MS.: Though I grac’d him.
V., 2, 46.—C.: ANTONIUS. Forbear.
MS.: MARCELLUS. Forbear.
V.,2, 59.—MS.: “Marcell” deleted before “King Antiochus.”
V., 2, 124.—C.: (The armlet).
Koeppel points out that in Cayet it is a ring.(569)
V., 2, 125.—C.: Which you wear on your sl(eeve).
MS.: Which you wear on your——slight traces of “sl.”
V., 2, 125.—C.: I ack(nowledge).
MS.: I ack ...
V., 2, 155.—C.:
My power to justify the ill, and pressed
You with mountainous promises of love and service.
MS.: My power to justify the ill, and pressed you
With mountainous promises of love and service.
V., 2, 166-7.—MS.: As far as “faithfully” in one line, but all written at
the same time.
V., 2, 173.—C.: The violence of your passion.
MS.: .... l .. ce of your passion.
V., 2, 174.—C.: Cornelia. (Do) but (expre)ss.
MS.: Cornelia has a line which has disappeared; towards the end are traces
of “but” and “ss.”
V., 2, 175.—C.: Your thankfulness for his so m(any favours).
MS.: Your thankfulness for his so m ...
V., 2, 176.—C.: And labour that the senate may restore h(im).
MS.: And labour that the senate may restore h ... Addition required.
V., 2, 212.—C.: Yield an account without appeal for wha(t).
MS.: Yield an account without appeal for wha ...
V., 2, 213.—C.: You have already done. You may p(eru)se. (Does it.)
MS.: You have already done. You may p ... se.
No need for “Does it.”
V., 2, 214.—C.: Do you f(i)nd I ha(ve).
MS.: Do you f ... nd e I ha ... Addition required.
V., 2, 215.—C.: (The warran)t. (C)all in the Asian merchants.
MS.: ... all in the Asian marchants.
(?) “The document” would scan better.
V., 2, 216.—C.: 2 MERCHANT. Now to be hanged.
MS. has space above 216 for half a line to be said by someone else.
V., 2, 217.—C.: 3 MERCHANT. Him that pities thee.
MS. gives no clue to the speaker.
_Ibid._—C.: Flaminius. Accusers.
MS.: ... sers. It is the last word of line 217?
V., 2, 218.—C.: ... die, and will prove that you took bribes.
I suggest as restoration of lines 215-218:
Call in the Asian merchants;
Let’s hear them speak.
1 MERCHANT:
’Tis thy turn now to be hanged.
And shame to him that pities thee.
MARC:
Th’ accusers
Are ready, and will prove, etc.
V., 2, 232.—C.: (’Tis) a Roman.
MS.: A Roman.
(C.’s addition required by the sense.)
PROLOGUE—1.—C.: (So far our) author.
MS.: ... author.
APPENDIX IX. “THE PARLIAMENT OF LOVE”
The MS. (No. 39 in the Dyce Collection, Victoria and Albert Museum)
comprises nineteen leaves of the same size as those of _Believe as You
List_. It has suffered much from damp, and is in a brittle, dilapidated
state. In several passages the MS. has suffered since Gifford’s collation
(_e.g._, II., 2, 15). The lacunae in the text—_e.g._, at I., 4, 55; I., 5,
7; and I., 5, 74—are all caused by the mutilation of the lower edge of the
MS. The hand seems to be the same throughout, but bears no resemblance to
that in which _Believe as You List_ is written, nor is it so easy to
decipher. There are very few corrections in the text, and no marginal
notes of any kind except the customary entrances and departures of the
characters, which are duplicated as in _Believe as You List_, but in the
same hand. The licence on folio 19_a_ has been cut off. On folio 19_b_ is
written in a largish hand, _The Parliament of Love_, without any author’s
name. Gifford believed that this MS. was in Massinger’s hand, and says
“this has since been confirmed.” He does not say how. One thing is
certain; the same hand did not write _The Parliament of Love_ and _Believe
as You List_. One instance out of many can be give in proof of this: the
letter C, small and capital, in _The Parliament of Love_ is constantly
written thus, ⊕. A marked feature of the MS. is the doubling of
consonants—_e.g._, tollerable, vallor, quallities, cullors. It looks as
if, while it was in Gifford’s hands, ink had been used to restore letters
here and there, and towards the end of the play there are several
substitutions of words in a later ink. Gifford’s collation where I have
tested it is correct in the main but I noted one or two mistakes—_e.g._:
I., 5, 87.—MS.: Sudainely.
G.: Speedily.
II., 3, 58.—MS.: The graces from the Idalian greene [_sic_].
G.: The Loves and Graces. This would make the line scan.
III., 2, 15.—MS.: If I compared it to an Indian slave’s.
G.: with.
V., 1, 158.—MS.: Have.
G.: Had.
V., 1, 292.—“To” in MS. begins line 293.
The sort of mistake which we find in this MS. lends support to two
hypotheses, between which, as far as I can see, there is nothing to
decide; either, as we saw there was ground for supposing in _Believe as
You List_, the author altered his diction as he composed, or he was
dictating to an amanuensis. The earlier corrections are all made in the
same ink. In favour of the former hypothesis are such passages as the
following:
I., 4, 84: “May you suc prosper.” “Succeed” was the original word, but
cancelled for one which scans better.
I., 5, 23: “Clarindore” cancelled at end of line, “Cleremond” substituted.
Clarindore is mentioned in the next line.
I., 5, 66: “Summer’s sunne”: “heate” substituted for “sunne.”
II., 1. 81: “That” deleted after “assurance”; the line thereby runs more
smoothly.
II., 3, 5: “Thy selfe”: “selfe” deleted before “strengthe.”
III., 2, 16: “That with incessant labour to searche out.” After “labour”
“searche” is deleted. In other words, the construction is changed: the
main verb being “dives” in the next line, instead of the original
intention, “searches.”
III., 3, 124: “Perform’d” deleted before “expir’d.”
V., 1, 111: “In hell’s most uglie cullors.” “Horrid coullors” is deleted
before the last two words.
V., 1, 189: “Nor did I scorn”: “him” after “scorn” is deleted, as if the
syntax had been changed.
V., 1, 206: “Acknowledged” deleted before “appointed.”
The sort of mistake that an amanuensis might make, either in copying or by
dictation, occurs in:
II., 2, 12: “The scorne darts of scorne”; first “scorne” deleted.
II., 2, 111: After “Absolve me” “only can” deleted; it makes no sense, but
had occurred in the previous line.
II., 3, 16: “But never thought: come, I must have thee mine.”
First three words deleted: they had occurred in the previous line.
III., 1, 120: “Blanque” deleted before “blanket.”
III., 3, 37: “A seeming courts”: “courts” deleted before “anger.”
“Courtship” occurs at the end of the line.
V., 1, 46: “Weake weake men”; first “weake” underlined in later ink.(570)
V., 1, 190: “For truth is truth is truth.” All deleted. The sense
requires: “for truth is truth.”
V., 1, 505: “Neglegt” deleted before “neglect.”
I add one or two notes of interest in correction of Cunningham’s edition.
II., 2, 156 should read thus, as in MS.:
“then to practise
To find some means that he deserves thee best.”(571)
C. reads in I., 157: “he that,” which makes no sense.
At III., 3, 8 (folio 8_b_) there is a considerable blank in the MS.
scrabbled over, but line 8 is completed at the top of folio 9_a_.
V., 1, 116 should read thus, as in MS.: “And not to be replied to.” C.
misprints: “replied be.”
V., 1, 129: The MS. reads thus:
For that deitie
(Such our affection makes him) whose dread power
Tooke forthe choicest arrows, headed with
Not loose but loyall flames, who aymed at mee
Ame with greedie haste to meete the shaft.
C. reads line 131: ... the choicest arrow, headed with.
line 133: Who came with greedy haste to meet the shaft.
In 131 “the” is obviously left out by homoeoteleuton. The grammar of the
passage is defective. It is all cancelled in the old ink.
Similarly, 138 is cancelled: “Of gold, nor of pale lead that breeds
disdain.”
178-185 down to the word “matter” are cancelled.
294-296 are cancelled in the old ink.
V., 1, 371: MS. “to whore me.” A modern hand has written above “abuse.”
V., 1, 531: There is an addition in the original hand which will not scan.
“And gratious spectators.”
Gifford in his note (II., 312) on _Parliament of Love_, V., 1, 129, refers
to a corrected copy of _The Duke of Milan_, which proves the writing of
the _Parliament of Love_ to be Massinger’s. _Cf._ also Advertisement to
his second edition, Vol. I., and the facsimile of the dedication of _The
Duke of Milan_ to Sir Francis Foljambe (IV., 593). Where is this copy now?
It was at one time in Gifford’s possession.
APPENDIX X. THE AUTHORSHIP OF “THE VIRGIN MARTYR”
Boyle assigns to Massinger, Act I., Act III., 1, 2, Act IV., 3, Act V., 2,
a total of slightly less than half the play. As far as it goes, I agree
with this assignation, but it does not seem to me quite satisfactory. It
is true that there are serious passages in _The Virgin Martyr_ which do
not resemble the rest of Massinger’s work; it does not therefore follow
that they are due, like the comic parts, to Dekker. In the first place,
the exaltation which breathes from these passages may be due to the
rapture of youth. Why should Massinger not have shown in what must have
been a youthful work an emotional brilliancy which he lost later? And
secondly, it is a mistake to say that Massinger’s style is absolutely
uniform; we could only lay this proposition down positively if we had all
his works in our hands, and among those we possess I am much mistaken if
differences, slight though real, cannot be detected. _A Very Woman_ and
_The Bashful Lover_ stand apart from the rest of his plays by virtue of
their greater degree of romantic nobility. In the third place, the serious
scenes assigned by Boyle and others to Dekker do not seem to me to
resemble the serious style of that author, except that there are certain
passages where rhymed couplets are employed. Here again we might argue
that Massinger was making an experiment which he dropped in his later
work. The fact is that, as is usually the case in these matters, we have
not enough evidence to prove one thing or the other.
The ascription of the play to Massinger and Dekker on the title-page of
the 1622 edition might be held to prove that the lion’s share in it is due
to the former, especially when we remember that he was the younger and
presumably the less-known author of the two. I should not, however, wish
to deny the possibility that Dekker contributed some of the serious parts.
I feel rather disposed to suggest that in one or two of the scenes in
question both authors were at work. There is nothing impossible or
improbable in this hypothesis.
Charles Lamb says about the scene between Dorothea and Angelo, beginning