Elizabethan drama, 1558-1642 : a history of the drama in England from the accession of Queen Elizabeth to the closing of the theaters, to which is prefixed a résum

Bt'i

\ b

ELIZABETHAN
DRAMA 1558-1642

A History of the Drama in England from the
Accession of Queen Elizabeth to the Closing
of the Theaters, to which is prefixed a Resu-
me of the Earlier Drama from its Beginnings

BY FELIX E: SCHELLING

Professor in the University of Pennsylvania

TWO VOLUMES

VOLUME TWO

BOSTON AND N E W YORK

HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & COMPANY

1908

COPYRIGHT 1908 BY FELIX E. SCHELLIXG
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Published February rgoS

.X

CONTENTS OF VOLUME II

XIII. HISTORY AND TRAGEDY ON CLASSICAL MYTH

AND STORY

Influence of ancient drama in England, I. — Seneca in the
academic drama, and at court, 2. — French Seneca in England,
5. — Gamier imitated and translated, 6. — Samuel Daniel and
his Senecan plays, Cleopatra and Philotas, 8. — Fulke Greville,
his Alaham and Mustapha, IO. — Sir William Alexander, his
Monarchic Tragedies, 14. — Early popular plays on classical
subjects, 1 6. — Lodge's Marius and Sulla, The Wars of Cyrus,
and Marlowe and Nash's Dido, 16. — Thomas Heywood's
dramatized mythology, 19. — Plays on Julius Caesar, 21. —
Shakespeare's Julius Ceesar, 23. — Jonson's Sejanus, 24. —
Marston's Sophonisba, and Heywood's Lucrece, 27. — Classical
tragedies at the universities, 27. — Shakespeare's later plays on
classical subjects: Coriolanus, Timon of Athens, Pericles, 28.
— Shakespeare's interest in character, 31. — Jonson's Catiline,
32. — Jonson in classical tragedy, 33. — The Tragedy of Nero,
34. — Minor plays of the type, 3'J. — Fletcherian dramas in
classic setting, The Humorous Lieutenant, 37. — The Virgin
Martyr, Valentinian, The Roman Actor, and other plays of
Fletcher and Massinger of the type, 39. — Thomas May and
his classical tragedies, 43. — Minor writers of later plays on
classical subjects, 45. — Nathaniel Richards, his Messalina, 49.

XIV. THE COLLEGE DRAMA

( Academic and popular drama contrasted, 51. — Popular plays
at the universities, 52. — Early theatrical performances at Ox-
ford and Cambridge, 53. — Queen Elizabeth at Cambridge, >
1564, 56. — The queen at Oxford, 1566, 57. — William Gager, '
his Latin plays and controversy with Rainolds, 59. — Satirical
quality of college plays, 60. — Pedantius, 62. — Bellum Gram-
maticale, 63. — The Parnassus plays, 65. — Their authorship
and interpretation, 67. — Their allusions to Shakespeare and
others, 68. — Narcissus and Lingua, 70. — Theatromania at

vi CONTENTS

Oxford, 73. — Academic Latin tragedies: Gwinn's Nero, Ala-
baster's Roxana, 75. — Italian models for academic comedy,
77. — Albumazar and Ignoramus, 78. — Milton's strictures
on the latter play, 79. — Pastoral influences on academic plays, 7
79. — Persistence of allegory and satire, 81. — School plays:
Apollo Shroving, 82. — Academic plays in the reign of Charles
I, 83. — Thomas Randolph, his dialogues and plays, The Jeal-
ous Lovers and The Muses' Looking Glass, 85. — Hausted's plays
and Cowley's, 87. — Charles' visit to Oxford, 1636, 88. —
Strode's Floating Island and its relation to Prynne's Histrio-
mastix, 89. — Jonson and Shakespeare at the universities, 91.

XV. THE ENGLISH MASQUE

The masque defined, 93. — Its foreign and English sources,
95. — The queen's entertainment at Kenilworth, 1575, 97. —
Sidney's Lady of May, 98. — Masques of the Gesta Grayorum,
1597, 98. — The accession of James gives impetus to the masque,
101. — Daniel's Vision of the Twelve Goddesses, 102. — Jon-
son's activity as a deviser of masques; his Masque of Blackness
and HymencEi, 103. — Campion's Ph&bus' Knights, 107. —
Jonson's Masque of Queens; the antimasque, 108. — Jonson
and Daniel in rivalry, no. — Tethys' Festival, ill. — Jonson's
masques of 1610-12, 113. — Grand masques of the marriage
of the Princess Elizabeth; Campion, Chapman, and Beaumont
the contrivers, 115. — Bacon as a patron of the masque, 117. —
Campion's later masques, 118. — Jonson's masques of 1615-18,
119. — William Browne's Ulysses and Circe, and masques by
other hands, 120. — Jonson's quarrel with Inigo Jones, 122. —
The last group of Jonson's masques, ^23. — Characteristics of
the Jacobean masque; its use of allegory, classical allusion, and
satire, 124. — Degeneracy of the antimasque, 126. — Place of
the masque and its influence on the drama, 127. — Jonson's
entertainments for King Charles, 131. — Shirley's Triumph of
Peace, 131. — Carew's Ccelum Britannicum, 132. — Milton's
Comus and Arcades, 133. — The masques of Davenant, 135.

— Masque-like plays, 136.

•

XVI. THE PASTORAL DRAMA

/^ The pastoral mode; its origin and introduction into England,

M39- — The pastoral idea, its artificiality, 140. — English love

of country, 142. — The pastoral drama in Italy; Tasso's Aminta;

' CONTENTS vii

Guarini's // Pastor Fido, 143. — English translations of Italian
pastorals, 144. — Pastoral elements in earlier Elizabethan en-
tertainments; Gascoigne at Kenilworth, 144. — Sidney's Lady
of May, 145. — Jonson's Complaint of the Satyrs, 146. — Pas-
toral elements in Elizabethan plays, Peele's Arraignment of
Paris, 147. — The mythological jjflgtnral srh.nplr 148. — Pas-
toral elements in Yy\y, Love's Metamorphosis and his other court
dramas, 149. — The Maid's Metamorphosis, 151. — The pastoral
element in minor comedies, 151. — Robin Hood, the embodi-
ment of the English ideal of free rural life, 153. — Plays on Robin
Hood, 153. — The relation of As You Like It to the pastoral, 154.

— True pastoral drama in England, 156. — Daniel's Queen's
Arcadia, 156. — John Fletcher's Faithful Shepherdess, 158. —
The alleged allegory of this play, 160. — The Winter's Tale, 161.

— Daborne's Poor Man's Comfort, 162. — Daniel's Hymen's
Triumph, 163. — Phineas Fletcher's piscatory, Sicelides, 164.

— Jonson's Sad Shepherd, 1 66. — Jonson and Daniel in rivalry
in the pastoral, 167. — Composite art of The Sad Shepherd,
1 68. — Minor pastoral dramas of Shirley, Goffe, and others, 169.

— Knevet and Tatham, their pastoral plays in the provinces,
171. — Montague's prose play, The Shepherds' Paradise, its
relation to Prynne's Htstriomasttx, 173. — Randolph's Amyntas,
174. — The pastorals of Rutter, Cowley, Glapthorne, and other
Carolan writers, 175. — Mixed foreign and native elements in
English pastoral plays, 177. — Jonson and Shakespeare and
the pastoral, 180.

XVII. TRAGICOMEDY AND "ROMANCE"

Tragicomedy defined, 182. — Serious comedy and the drama
of reconciliation, 183. — Realistic and romantic tragicomedy;^
the "romance," 184. — Beaumont and Fletcher, their relations
to each other, and to other dramatists, 184. — Internal tests
distinguishing the work of Beaumont and Fletcher, 186. — Dif-
ficulties in the application of these tests, 189. — Stage history
of Beaumont and Fletcher, 189. — Varieties of the romantic
drama, 190. — Philaster and the group to which it belongs, 193.

— Types in Philaster, 195. — A King and No King, 196.—
Shakespeare's "romances," 197. — Pericles, The Two Noble
Kinsmen, 198. — Cymbeline, 199. — The personages of Shake-
speare's "romances" not wanting in individuality, 200. — The
Winter's Tale, 2OO. — The Tempest, 202. — Shakespearean "ro-

viii CONTENTS

mance" not profoundly influenced by Fletcherian tragicomedy,
203. — Other tragicomedies of Fletcher, 204. — Fletcher's ro-
mantic plays on Spanish sources: The Chances, 206. — The
Pilgrim, Women Pleased, and The Spanish Curate, 208. — The
Island Princess and other plays on Spanish sources, 211. — Love's
Cure, probably not Fletcher's, 214. — Middleton and Rowley's
Spanish Gipsy, 2l6. — Fletcher's Mad Lover, Beggars' Bush,
and other plays, 218. — Shakespearean reminiscences in Fletcher, \
220. — The Knight of Malta, a typical tragicomedy of Fletcher, '
22O. — The Loyal Subject, 223. — Fletcher and Heywood's.x
treatment of the subject, the test of loyalty, 224. — The combat
for honors in The Laws of Candy, 226. — The Lovers' Pro-
gress, 227. — Massinger's tragicomedies: The Maid of Honor
and The Renegado, 230. — Massinger's Roman Catholicism,

231. — His Grand Duke of Florence and other tragicomedies,

232. — Massinger's moral earnestness, characterization, and
stagecraft, 234. — Influence of Fletcherian tragicomedy on
contemporary and later plays, 235. — Lesser tragicomedies: ,
Swetnam and other "women's plays," 238.

XVIII. LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS

Contrasted influences of Jonson and Middleton on later
comedy, 240. — Stage history, 1614-25, 241. — Late comedies
of the elder dramatists, 244. — English and foreign setting in
comedy, 246. — Later comedies of Fletcher, 247. — The Little
French Lawyer, Rule a Wife and Have a Wife, and other come-
dies, 248. — Types in the comedies of Fletcher, 250. — Mas-
singer's comedies of London life: The City Madam and A New
Way to Pay Old Debts, 252. — Massinger's combination of Mid-
dletonian and Jonsonian comedy, 254. — His Guardian, 255. —
May's Old Couple, 258. — The comedies of Davenport, 259. —
Later comedies of Heywood and William Rowley, 262. — The
last dramas of Jonson: The Staple of News, The New Inn,
The Magnetic Lady, 264. — Last days of Jonson, 267. — Rich-
ard Brome, his Northern Lass, A "Jovial Crew, and other come-
dies, 269. — Other dramatical sons of Jonson: Marmion, Cart-
wright, and Glapthorne, 275. — Comedies of Cockayne and
Newcastle, 281. — James Shirley, 284. — The Witty Fair One,
The Ball, and other comedies of Shirley, 288. — His Game-
ster, The Example and other comedies of manners, 293. — Shir-
ley as a writer of comedy, 295. — John Ford in comedy: his

CONTENTS ix

Fancies and The Lady's Trial, 297. — Early comedies of Dave-
nant, 299. — The Parson's Wedding, by Thomas Killigrew,
302. — Minor realistic comedies of the last years of the old drama,
302.

XIX. DECADENT ROMANCE

Decadent romanticism the "note" of the drama of Charles I,
307. — Theatrical repertory of the reign; continued popularity
of the older dramatists, 308. — Stage history, 1625-42, 310. —
Trend of the drama away from fact, 311. — The romantic plays
of Shirley, 312. — His lighter comedies: The Opportunity, and
other plays, 314. — His "historical" tragicomedies: The Young
Admiral, The Coronation, The Politician, 316. — Shirley's
tragicomedies of court intrigue: The Royal Master, and other
plays, 320. — The Traitor, The Cardinal, and other tragedies
of Shirley, 322. — Shirley in tragedy, 326. — John Ford : his
Lover's Melancholy, 327. — His romantic tragedies, Love's Sac-
rifice, 'Tis Pity She's a Whore, The Broken Heart, 329. —
Ford's originality, ethical taint, and dramatic method, 333. —
The tragicomedies of Richard Brome: his Queen and Concubine,
and other plays, 336. — Arthur Wilson and his plays, 338. —
Sir William Davenant, his Albovine, and other earlier dramas,
340. — Davenant and the forebears of the heroic drama: Love
and Honor and The Fair Favorite, 343. — The cult of Platonic
love, and its effect on the drama, 345. — Davenant 's Platonic
Lovers, 347. — Sources of the heroic play, 349. — Lodowick
Carlell and his stage romances, 352. — The tragicomedies of
Thomas Killigrew, 356. — Recrudescence of heroical romance,
359. — Sir John Suckling: his Aglaura, The Goblins, and Bren-
noralt, 361. — Minor romantic dramas of the later years of
Charles I, 364. — Puritan attack on the stage and final suppres-
sion of the acting of plays, 369.

XX. THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT

Census of plays written between 1558 and 1642, 371. — The
gentleman author and the popular playwright, 374. — Personal
relations of the dramatists, 377. — Shakespeare and Jonson,' /
their relations to each other and to others, their contemporaries,
379- — The associations of Dekker, Heywood, and others, 381
— Beaumont and Fletcher in their relations to Shakespeare,
Massinger, and other playwrights, 383. — Jonson in the reign

x CONTENTS

of Charles; and Shirley, last of the great dramatists, 385. —
The lead of Shakespeare's company, 386. — The academic and
the vernacular drama, 387. — London actors in the provinces
and abroad, 389. — Resume of the course of the drama: the
roots of Elizabethan drama in its medieval forebears, 393. —
The vital element of medieval drama, its touch with life, 396. —
Services of John Heywood to the early drama, 397. — Legend,
balladry, and medieval story and the drama, 397. — Medieval
and Renaissance elements in Lyly, 399. — Classical influence
in English comedy and tragedy, 400. — The variety of Eliza-
bethan drama presaged in the first decades of the reign, 402. —
The period of Lyly, 1579-88, 404. — The first great tragedies,
and the period of Marlowe, 1588-93, 405. — Shakespeare at
his height in history and romantic comedy, 1593-1603, 407. —
Jonson's dramatic satire and comedy of humors, and Marston's
revival of the tragedy of revenge, 409. — The masque and the
pastoral, the court's contributions to the drama of King James,
411. — The popular drama in the reign of James: Shakespeare
in romantic tragedy and comedy; Middletonian comedy of man-
ners, 412. — Shakespeare's "romances" and Fletcherian tragi-
comedy, 416. — The years 1603-12 par excellence the period
of Jonson, 418. — Dramas of contemporary political allusion,
418. — The period of Fletcher, 1612-25, 419. — Degeneracy
of late Jacobean and Carolan dramas, 421. — Fletcherian ex-
ample in the earlier years of King Charles, 423. — The new
comedy of manners and the persistence of Jonsonian comedy,
425. — Degenerate tragicomedy and the Restoration heroic
play, 426. — The period of Shirley, 1625-42, 427. — Epilogue,
429.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 433

A LIST OF PLAYS AND LIKE PRODUCTIONS WRITTEN,

ACTED, OR PUBLISHED IN ENGLAND BETWEEN THE YEARS

1558 AND 1642 538

INDEX 625

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

A HISTORY OF
ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

XIII

HISTORY AND TRAGEDY ON CLASSICAL MYTH
AND STORY

THE influence of the ancients on English drama influence of
is coeval with the drama itself. But whether
in theme, treatment, or style, classical influences were
filtered through many foreign channels, imbibing
on the way qualities of each, and, even when least so
affected, limited and confined in tragedy to one Latin
and one Greek dramatist. It has been said that
" Euripidean tragedy leavened the dramatic poetry of
every cultured nation in Europe through all the cen-
turies while ^Eschylus and Sophocles fed the worms
in the libraries." And if we recall how close a fol-
lower of Euripides was Seneca with all his differences
and departures from classical precedent, and how
far, moreover, later Greek comedy (and through it
Plautus and Terence, with "Christian Terence,"
the School Drama, and the earlier artistic imitations
of the Roman dramatists to follow) partook of the
nature of that ultimate inspiration, it is not too much
to affirm that the Euripidean idea of tragedy is
practically all that the Europe of the Renaissance
took over from the drama of the ancients. As to
variety of channels and influences in England, we

2 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

have the Alcmeeon of Euripides, acted (doubtless in
Latin) in 1573, and Hippolytus six years later; we
have Euripides translated into Latin by Buchanan,
as well as Seneca into English in the Tenne Tragedies,
1559-1581; Euripides byway of Seneca and Dolce,
in Gascoigne's Jocasta, 1566; Seneca by way of
Gamier, in Kyd's Cornelia; and Seneca popularized
and Anglicized — perhaps better re-Italianated —
in Marston's Antonio and Mellida, 1599. We may
therefore agree with Brandl's distinction of a Euri-
pidean and a Senecan type of classical influence on
early English tragedy, and add a distinctively Italian
and, for later time, a French Seneca as well.1 But of
these more below.

Earlier Senecan A word has been said of Buchanan.2 It was that
excellent Scottish humanist who translated the
Medea and Alcestis into Latin about 1540, and in so
doing contributed one of the influences which effected
a transfer from allegory to actual drama in the school
plays of his time. Buchanan's biblical plays are al-
most as Euripidean as these translations. The ground
thus once broken, the other Greek tragedians were
recalled by the scholars, and we have a Philoctetes
translated by Ascham, the princes' tutor, Iphigenia
by Lady Jane Lumley, and Antigone by the poet
Thomas Watson, all between 1564 and 1581, and
all "done into Latin." 3 Nor can these translations
be regarded as purely literary exercises; for the lists
of plays acted at court, at the universities, and at the

1 Brandl, p. Ixxxvii.

2 Above, i, pp. 33-35, 83.

3 Kings MSS. xv, A, British Museum. Hazlitt, Manual, Il6.
Lady Lumley died in March, 1576. Ibid. 14, Sophoclis Antigone,
Interprete Thoma ffatsono, 1581.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 3

inns of court during this period contain an Effiginia,
an Alcmaon, " Hypolitu s" and (Edipus, besides
other classical titles — Meleager, Philotas, and Aga-
memnon and Ulysses — which disclose imitation as
well as translations of ancient drama.1 That scholars
even should soon prefer the turgid eloquence of Seneca \
to the purer and chaster Greek poets was a thing J
to be expected. Seneca's very differences and de-
partures from classical usage made for his popularity
as suggested above, and, moreover, he wrote in
Latin, the familiar learned tongue. Of early Senecan
influence on the drama something has already been
said in this book.2 Through translation, imitation,
and adaptation this influence was gradually assimi-
lated in the popular drama, until, from the stiff and
stately commonplaces of Hughes and Sackville, it
came to inspire the inventive eloquence of Kyd and
fire the poetic flights of Marlowe. So far as the pop-
ular drama is concerned, the material influence of
Seneca reaches its height in the Marstonian tragedy
of revenge. Subtler is the Senecan example in its
effects on the gnomic moralizing of Chapman.3

But if Seneca thus emerged from the task of the Seneca as a
school and the amusement of the inns of court to m
appear on the boards of the London stage, the Roman
poet continued in fashion and in a stricter cult in the
inner circles of the court and the universities which
had given to the study of his works in England its

1 Revels' Accounts, passim. The classical tragedies at Oxford
and Cambridge between 1564 and 1582 include a Dido, Prognt,
(Edipus, Ulysses Redux, and Meleager. See below, pp. 57-60.

2 Above, i, pp. 83, 96-98.

3 See, especially, the role of Clermont in The Revenge of Bussy
D'Ambois. And see above, i, p. 415.

4 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

earliest impetus. It was in the literary coterie which
fostered the lyric of art, the prose romance, and our
earliest literary criticism that Seneca found his surest
lodgment: that interesting coterie of which Sidney
and his talented sister, the Countess of Pembroke,
were the heart and soul, which entertained hospit-
ably the philosophy of Bruno, and received with
acclaim the poetry of Spenser. In 1581 the transla-
tion into English of the Tenne Tragedies of Seneca
was complete. Oxford witnessed a histrionic revival
in the Latin plays of Dr. William Gager in the early
eighties, Sidney being present with his uncle Leices-
ter, Pembroke, and other of his kinsfolk at the per-
formance of that author's Meleager at Christ Church
College in I58I.1 Three years later Hughes, assisted
by Master Francis Bacon and other young Templars,
was busy, as we have seen, about his presentation
before the queen of The Misfortunes o/( Arthur, a
Senecan tragedy in English which scarcely marks an
advance on Gorboduc.2 And in 1591 came Tancred
and Gismunda. In short, from the Princess Eliza-
beth's own Englishings of Seneca before her accession
to the throne to the rise of the popularity at court of
the comedies of Lyly and long after, Seneca in Latin
and English, in translation and in imitation, fur-
nished continuous material for literary exercise and
representation to scholar and courtier and to those
who followed them from afar. It was in 1591, the
year of the earlier draft of Romeo and Juliet, that
Robert Wilmot, a confirmed Senecan, adjured his
Gismunda not to "straggle in her plumes abroad,
but to contain herself within the walls of your houses

1 Printed in 1592.

1 See above, i, pp. 105-107.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 5

[that is, those of the Inner Temple]; so am I sure
she shall be safe from the tragedian tyrants of our
time." * Clearly the scholars and courtiers looked
with distrust on these "tragedian tyrants" who laid
unlearned and unhallowed hands on even their ap-
proved and sacred model of courtly and academic
dramatic art.

It was at such a moment as this that Seneca in a new French s«*ca
dilution was added to the forces at work on the drama In En*Und
of England. The influence of the contemporary
literature of France on that of England in the age of
Shakespeare has received less attention than it de-
serves; and this may be affirmed despite much ex-
cellent work involving the greater and more obvious
points of contact between the two literatures.2 It is
often less the effect of commanding genius on the
greatest men of an age that affords the essence of
"comparative literature," than the "complex and
compound" of many minor effects which feed drop
by drop the current of the time. Such a minor in-
fluence was that of the French Senecan Gamier on
a small group of the minor dramatists of England
during the very height of Shakespeare's contem-
porary success. And while it cannot but add to our
admiration for the versatility of the age that so exotic
a plant as Gallicized Seneca should have thriven
with the other abundant flora of Elizabethan litera-
ture, we are surprised that the conservatism of caste
should, even for a time, deliberately have preferred

1 "To the Gentlemen Students of the Inner Temple," Tancred
and Gismunda, Dodsley, vii, 15.

2 See, however, J. A. Lester, Connections between the Drama of
France and Great Britain, particularly in the Elizabethan Period,
MS. Thesis, 1902, Harvard Library.

Garnier's Ro-
man tragedies.

Garnier's Eng-
lish translators
and imitators.

6 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

these outworn modes to the dramatic variety and
luxuriance that flourished everywhere about it.

Robert Gamier was a follower of Etienne Jodelle,
the author, in 1552, of the first regular French tragedy,
Cleopatre Captive. In eight tragedies of exceeding
popularity, composed between the years 1563 and
the time of his tragic death in 1590, Gamier upheld
the Senecan ideal of tragedy and deeply affected the
course and character of French tragedy to come.
Three of Garnier's plays are Roman in theme, Porcie,
Cornelie, and M. Antoine.1 They form a species of
trilogy on the Roman civil wars, and are interesting
to the student of English drama in that their source,
Amyot's Plutarch, is the same whence Shakespeare
was later to derive (with the further intervention of
the English translator, Sir Thomas North), the Ro-
man history of Casar and Antony and Cleopatra.
Gamier was the great contemporary tragic writer
of France when his influence reached England. And
the earlier of the translations of the two of his plays
which were done into English was made in the very
year of his death.

The plays of this later Senecan group begin with
two translations of Gamier, the Countess of Pem-
broke's Antonie, written in 1590, and Cornelia,
Englished by Thomas Kyd a year or two later;2
to continue in several original plays, the work of
Samuel Daniel, Samuel Brandon, and Sir Fulke
Greville, and conclude in the Four Monarchic Tra-

1 On this general theme, see J. W. Cunliffe, " Early French Tra-
gedy in the Light of Recent Scholarship," Journal of Comparative
Literature, i, no. 4, 301; especially 314.

2 See the ed.of the former by Alice Luce,Litterarhistorische For-
schungen, iii, 1897. An account of the countess is on p. 33.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 7

gedies of Sir William Alexander, between 1603 and
1607. A preference for rime, stricter regularity in
verse form, the use of elaborate stanzaic forms in the
choruses, and the employment of human personages
instead of abstractions therein, all have been posited
of this group as contrasted with earlier English
Seneca.1 To this may be added the more general
characteristics, a greater restraint, and a chaster dic-
tion. And yet the two translations employ much
blank verse; Brandon, "a practiced poet," as Col-
lier calls him, affects compound words, though not
wanting in taste; and Daniel's later play, with both
of Greville's, reverts in versification (Greville's like-
wise in horror and blood) to the earlier English
practice of Seneca. None the less these plays assuredly
proceed from one and the same literary impulse and
are more conspicuously the work of a coterie than
any other series in our drama. For both Kyd and
Daniel, whose first play of the type, Cleopatra, was
published in 1594, were under the immediate pat-
ronage and encouragement of the Countess of Pem-
broke. And while Kyd's translation is inscribed to
the Countess of Sussex, an aunt of Lady Pembroke,
Daniel's tragedy is not only dedicated to the Countess
of Pembroke, his earliest patron, but is referred speci-
fically to the inspiration of her Antome. Brandon's
Virtuous Octavia was equally inspired as to subject
by the noble lady's translation;2 and taking up an

1 M. W. Croll, The Works of Fulke Greville, University of
Pennsylvania Thesis, 1903, pp. 33-35.

2 This excessively rare play is accessible only in the Dyce Col-
lection at the South Kensington Museum. The one quarto, 1598,
is dedicated to Lady Lucia Audley, and the volume contains two
poetical letters of Octavia to Antony in the manner of Drayton's
Heroical Epistles.

8 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

earlier period in the career of Marcus Antonius (that
between his departure to the Parthian war and
Actium), centers the scene in Rome and the interest
• in Antony's forsaken wife. Indeed, neither Antony
nor Cleopatra appears as a character. This play, al-
though essentially undramatic, is by no means ill
conceived or ill written. It holds its own in its class
for the polish of its diction and its frequently poetic
spirit. There is no record of the performance of
Octavia, nor of that of Antonie; and the ill success of
Cornelia on the stage prevented Kyd from fulfilling
the promise of his dedication and translating Gar-
nier's Porcie also.1 A belated specimen of this same
limited group is The Tragedy of Mariam the Fair
Queen of Jewry, printed in 1613 and the work of
Lady Elizabeth Carew. Lady Carew was a kins-
woman of Edmund Spenser, and it was to her that he
dedicated his Muiopotmos in 1590. Mariam exhibits
no distinctive features above its class, and was doubt-
less as free as the rest from vulgar contact with any
stage.2 It seems not unreasonable to place the date
of the composition of this tragedy in the early nineties.
Samuel Daniel, Samuel Daniel was the son of a music master, and
was educated at Oxford. A year or two older than
Shakespeare, Daniel survived the great dramatist
three years. Daniel's career as an author began as
early as 1584. His graceful, Italianate sonnets,

1 Strange to say, no influence of this kind seems traceable in
the Latin plays at the universities. French Seneca was aulic, not
academic.

2 Lady Carew's daughter was also named Elizabeth. She later
married Sir Thomas Berkeley. It is not altogether certain that she,
rather than her mother, may not have been the author of this play.
A later play on the same general subject, Herod and Antipater,
1622, will receive mention below, p. 35.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 9

Delia, were the first to follow in the flowery path
already marked out by Sidney's Astrophel and Stella
and later to be so well trodden; while his History
of the Civil Wars, one of the several narrative rivals
of the chronicle play, retained for years an envied
popularity. As a poet Daniel enjoyed a deserved suc-
cess, and his later pastorals and masques added to
his well-earned laurels. But neither in these nor in hi. t
Cleopatra, nor yet in Philotas, his other Senecan
play, begun in 1600, can Daniel be pronounced a
dramatist. A certain queenly and tragic dignity
surrounds the figure of his Cleopatra, withdrawn to
her tomb and hovering on the brink of an heroic
resolution. And unity, tragic decorum, adequacy,
at times eloquence of diction, occasional poetic flight
and metrical inventiveness in the choruses, all are
characteristic of both tragedies. Philotas is the bet-
ter play; and a freer verse, in which Garnier's in-
fluence is repudiated, with an approach to more
natural dialogue, marks this tragedy as, next to those
of Greville, the best of its kind. Two characteristics
of Philotas disclose Daniel's literary intimacy with
Greville. One is the increased importance — and
space too, alas! — devoted to abstract moral and
political comment and reflection; the other is the
curious attitude of the chorus "who," in Daniel's
own phrase, "vulgarly (according to their affections,
carried rather with compassion on great men's mis-
fortunes, than with the consideration of the cause)
frame their imaginations by that square, and censure
what is done." 1 With such a treatment as this of the
story of Philotas, a popular young noble, full of pride,
outspoken in his criticism of his sovereign, Alexander

1 Philotas, Grosart's Daniel, iii, 106.

pUyi"

io ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

the Great, and problematically a conspirator, there
was little wonder that Daniel was summoned before
the Privy Council, and that the tragedy, when printed
in 1605, contained an " apology " wherein the allega-
tion that the play darkly shadowed forth the fall of the
late Earl of Essex was strenuously if not convincingly
denied.1

sirFuike To Fulke Greville, afterwards Lord Brooke, tra-

Grev e, 1554- ge(}y was no mere art, much less a frivolous amuse-
ment. That deeply interesting man describes him-
self on his tomb as "servant to Queen Elizabeth,
counsellor to King James, Friend to Sir Philip Sid-
ney," and his full and useful life was prolonged from
the later years of Mary's reign until King Charles I
was well settled on his throne. A close and interested
spectator of the classical experiments of the Areo-
pagus, if not a partaker therein, a contemporary
witness of Spenser's sheer lift of English poetry to a
place of distinction among the literatures of Europe,
Greville lived to befriend young Davenant, destined
laureate of the Restoration, and into days which
heard the first thin pipings of Waller.2 But it is not
the stretch of Greville's years alone which calls for
comment, but his curious aloofness from the great
and living literature which flourished, almost men-
acingly, about him. This aloofness Greville shared
with Lord Bacon and some others, but in Greville

1 This " apology" contains mention of a play on the same argu-
ment by Dr. Richard Lateware, acted at St. John's College, Oxford,
" above eight years since," ;. e. about 1588. A " comedy of Philo-
tus" was printed in Edinburgh in 1603 and again in 1612. Hazlitt,
Handbook, 458. This curious production, which is written in
riming stanzas and is clearly of Italian extraction, was reprinted
for the Bannatyne Club, 1835.

2 Poems of Waller, ed. Drury, 1893, p. Ixxiv.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY u

it is the less explicable in that he flashes forth at
times in genuine poetry of a rare and strange origi-
nality. Greville's earliest associations bound him to
the Sidneys and Pembrokes; his plays were written,
as external evidence as well as their form and nature
attest, in literary intimacy with Daniel. And one of
them, his Antony and Cleopatra, that it might not
be "construed or strained," like Daniel's Philotas,
into a commentary on the passing events of Essex's
conspiracy, suffered execution by fire, in 1601, at
the hands of its cautious author.1

Alaham and Mustapha remain the two extant
plays of Greville. The latter was surreptitiously
printed in 1609; Alaham first appeared in the pos-
thumous folio of Lord Brooke's Works in 1633. It
seems likely that Alaham is the earlier, and dates
prior to 1600. Mustapha could scarcely have been
written later than the earlier years of the reign of
King James. The source of Mustapha has been
traced to DeThou, Historia sui Tempons or (perhaps
preferably) to Georgievitz's De Turcarum Monbus,
a translation of which, entitled The Offspring of the
House of the Ottomans, had been made into English
by H. Goughe as early as I57O.2 But it seems not
unlikely that here, as in the case of Chapman with
Grimestone, Greville sought a source more easily
accessible in Knolles' General History of the Turks,
first published in i6o3-8 Alaham is original, if sug-

1 Greville's Life of Sidney, ed. 1652, p. 178.

2 See the discussion of this subject in the excellent monograph
of Dr. Croll on Greville, mentioned above, 36-38. This source
had been employed in the drama before, in the Latin Solyman-
nidce Tragcedta, 1581.

3 See ed. 1638, pp. 757^3-

iz ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

gestive in situations of the Antigone, of (Edipus
Coloneusy and other classical reading. The scene is
Ormus; and the play relates the plot of Alaham to
wrest the throne from his aged father and his upright
elder brother, his cruel execution of them by fire,
and his own death by a poisoned coronation robe,
the gift of his wife, whose paramour he had slain. An
exquisite conception of devoted womanhood is that
of the king's daughter, Caelica, who, like another
Antigone, resists "wicked intrenched authority," and
leads forth her wronged and blinded father to sanc-
tuary in an ancient tomb. In Mustapha, the loyal and
magnanimous Turkish prince of that name falls a
victim to the machinations of Rossa, the Sultana, his
stepmother, and the credulous suspiciousness of the
Sultan ; while Rossa's malevolent ambition for her
own pitiful son is foiled in the moment of achieve-
ment by his untimely suicide.

The theory <* But neither questions of source nor of plot mark
tne actual interest of these curious and exceedingly
original plays. This consists rather in the unusual
theory in which they were conceived and in the sur-
prising circumstance that literature of so high an
order should have proved the outcome of conditions
so untoward. Writing of these plays, Greville says:
"My purpose in them was, not (with the ancient) to
exemplifie the disasterous miseries of mans life,
where order, lawes, doctrine and authority are unable
to protect inocency from exorbitant wickednesse of
power, and so out of that melancholick vision stir
horrour, or murmur against Divine Providence: nor
yet (with the modern) to point out Gods revenging
aspect upon every particular sin, to the despaire, or
confusion of mortality; but rather to trace out the

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 13

high waies of ambitious governours, and to shew in
the practice, that the more audacity, advantage, and
good success such sovereignties have, the more they
hasten to their owne desolation and ruine." ' To
quote the admirable summary of the most recent
student of Greville: ' 'The high waies of ambitious
governours ' form the main subject of the tragedies,
but the folly of human desires would more nearly
indicate the scope of their thought. The plans of the
two plays are very similar. In each a weak tyrant
occupies the throne, and . . . the most dangerous
plotter is a woman who tries to alter the succession
in the interest of her own son. In each there is
a representative of the organized church, and two
representatives of the faults of the nobility, and a
daughter of the wronged king, whose virtues are a
foil to the mad vices of the other women of the play.
Finally there is one good man in each, a counselor of
state. ... He takes no part in the strife, and belongs
to no party; he argues that the evils of the time offer
no latitude for noble action, and finds his duty in
'bearing nobly.' It is he who reports the rising of
the people at the end of the play (Mustaphd) and
debates the significant question whether duty is on
the side of obedience to authority or on the side of
rebellion — with the conclusion that both are forms
of folly and that the only wisdom is patience. He is
a kind of Seneca, a representative of the Stoic wis-
dom, and clearly the projection of the author's own
moral philosophy." And further: "It is apparent
that Greville's plays are intellectual in a different
sense from all the other plays of the time. Daniel
and Sir William Alexander induce abstract morality

1 Life of Sidney, 242.

14

and philosophy from the particular cases they con-
sider; Greville deduces character and all but the
main outlines of the story from abstract thought.
Greville's are therefore philosophical dramas in the
exact sense, in the same sense in which Goethe's
Faust and Browning's Sordello are philosophical,
and it follows that they must be criticised in a differ-
ent way from the other plays in the same form. We
may wonder at other poets of the Elizabethan age
who from no other motive than literary snobbish-
ness preferred the outgrown Senecan form to the
living drama of their day, but we cannot object to
the use of such a form for the drama of philosophy.
The fact that it is fixed in the mould of honorable
disuse is its qualification for this service." 1
sir waiiam Sir William Alexander of Menstrie, afterwards

fcgo^o- his Earl of Sterling, was one of the many Scottish gentry
Monarchic who followed the fortunes of their sovereign into
160^07"' England. Alexander's political career and later
unpopularity in the country of his birth, when he
"held the seals as Secretary for Scotland," do not
concern us here. His Four Monarchic Tragedies
comprise Darius, Croesus, "Julius Casar, and The
Alexandrcean Tragedy. This last, which is the most
elaborate, details "the contentions of the Diadochi
down to the murder of the royal family of Macedon."
Darius was written before the accession of King
James to the English throne, and the other tragedies

1 Croll, 41. A preposterous product of would-be intellectualized
poetry is Cynthia's Revenge or Meenander's Extasy by one John
Stephens, published first anonymously in 1613. Here unite the
obscurity of Greville, Jonson's allegory at its hardest, and Mar-
ston's bombast and impertinence, with a dullness and incoherence,
Stephens' own. Cynthia's Revenge may be pronounced English
Seneca run mad and the most intolerable of Elizabethan plays.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY ,s

soon followed. An independent influence of the
French Senecans on Alexander has been surmised; »
but it seems more likely that his immediate model
was Daniel, whose position as the acknowledged
court poet succeeding Spenser could not but have im-
pressed the northern aspirant for English honors,
literary and other. Alexander's Aurora in the sonnet
fashion of the past decade seems to attest a similar
influence. The Monarchic Tragedies preserve, in their
employment of rime and in the elaborate stanzas of
the choruses, the narrower traditions of French Sen-
eca; and they exaggerate, if anything, these traditions
in their wholly epic quality and in their prolixity and
wordiness. These productions are purely literary,
and thus are at the farthest remove from genuine
and actable drama. They mark, in a word, the ab-
sorption of the influence of Seneca in its strictness
in the drama of their time.

In the group of plays just examined the method French Sen«i
was more or less strictly classical, involving not only
"exact and careful form," a predominance of "moral
over romantic interest," and simplicity in plot and
situation, but likewise the apparatus of ancient drama :
the employment of the chorus for lyrical — more
commonly gnomic — comment on the course of the
play, the use of the messenger to supply by epic
recital large parts of the action, the use of sticho-
mythia or word contest in dialogue of parallel con-
struction, and other such particulars.2 In a word,
Daniel and his confreres, like Sackville and Hughes,
retained more especially the form with that which

1 See Ward, ii, 626, note, where a Darius of the brothers La Taille
and a Mart de Cesar by Grevin are mentioned.

2 Saintsbury in Grosart's Daniel, iii, p. ix.

1 6 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

was conservative in Seneca. It was Seneca's differ-
ences and departures, on the other hand, from the
usages of ancient drama, his sensationalism, melo-
drama, and grandiloquence, that most permanently
affected the popular stage from Kyd to Marston.
Early popular Let us now turn to the far larger class of Eliza-
piays on ciassi- betnan tragedies in which the stories of ancient

cal subjects. »

times are staged with varying degrees of that greater
freedom in the manipulation of dramatic material
which had come to prevail on the popular stage.1
Neither classification by subject-matter nor the
minuter details of style and treatment can wholly
serve us here. None the less, a general historical
interest and a handling of material in a manner not
unlike that which we have seen in the chronicle his-
tory distinguishes a certain number of these plays.
In others, such as Troilus and Cressida or The Ro-
man Actor, a. substituted satirical or romantic interest
effaces all semblance to any foundation in classical
story; 2 while in many more the choice of subject
is without question wholly accidental. We may pass
by the moralities based on stories derived from ancient
history, such as Preston's popular Cambises and
Richard Bower's Appius and Virginia, both of which
were acted before Shakespeare's birth and have al-
The Wounds of ready been mentioned.3 The epic spirit of the chron-
*"' ick plav was early turned in the direction of ancient
history in plays such as Thomas Lodge's Wounds

1 Seneca popularized has already been considered above, i, pp. 98,

'36, 556> 557-

2 For example, Bond (Lyly, ii, 251) claims Campaspe as "the
first historical play," but Campaspe is romantic, not historical.

3 See above, i, p. 120; The Queen of Ethiopia was acted at
Bristol in 1578. Fleay, ii, 291.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 17

of the Civil Wars and in the anonymous Wars of
Cyrus, both dating close to the outburst of English
chronicle history about 1588. Lodge's play, which
treats of the struggle of Marius and Sulla for the
dictatorship of Rome, is the earliest extant play in
English on a Roman subject, although the titles of
several plays now lost, among them a "Julyus Sesar"
of 1562, a Pompey of 1580, and a Sylla Dictator of
1588 precede.1 North's Plutarch, Shakespeare's
familiar source for Roman history, is here broached
for the first time. But little praise can be accorded
to Lodge's tragedy, which, though written with the
easy and forcible diction which that ready pam-
phleteer could almost always command, is a bare
succession of scenes, marred by comic parts which
are alike crude in themselves and ill-placed. Sulla's
triumphant entry into Rome, drawn by four Moors,
discloses the close proximity of this play to Marlowe's
bombastic scene in which victorious Tamburlaine
is similarly drawn in triumph on the stage by the
four captive kings of Asia.2 The broken French of
the Gaul, Pedro, is an amusing though by no means
glaring anachronism for the period of this unformed
play. The Wars of Cyrus, against Antiochus, with Th< Wan ./
the Tragical End of Panthea, is an abler production. C
The events which it sets forth are interesting in them-
selves and well handled in blank verse unusually
free for its time. Cyrus the conqueror's relations to
Panthea, his fair captive, are much those of Alexander

1 A Marcus Geminus, 1566, and Geddes' Cxsar, 1582, seem the
only Latin plays on Roman history which preceded Lodge's
Wounds. A Mamillia is mentioned in the Revels' Accounts, in

1573.
3 Wounds of the Civil Wars, ill, i; 2 Tamburlaine, iv, iv.

1 8 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

and Campaspe in Lyly's well-known contemporary
play; but Cyrus, in its popular representation of an
episode in the career of the great king, links on to the
conqueror series and follows, in the main, the method
of the chronicle play.1 An examination of Henslowe's
book and other sources for the few succeeding years
discloses several titles which must have applied to
historical dramas of much the type of these, ranging
from Ninus and Semiramis, the First Monarch* of
the World, to Diocletian, Zenobia, Hehogabalus,
Phocas, and Julian Apostata.2 A special interest
Nash' attaches to the tragedy of Dido, the work of Mar-
lowe and Thomas Nash, which, although published
likewise in 1594, has been thought by some to be an
early work of these poets before their departure from
Cambridge.3 The subject may have been suggested
by a Latin play, either that of Halliwell acted before
the queen at King's College, Cambridge, the univer-
sity of Marlowe and Nash, in 1564, or by the more re-
cent Dido of Dr. Gager, performed at Christ Church,
Oxford, in 1583. Both of these plays remain extant;
an earlier school drama, also founded on Vergil's
story and acted before Cardinal Wolsey in 1532, has
perished.4 The Tragedy of Dido Queen of Carthage,

1 See the reprint of this play by Keller, Jahrbuch, xxxvii, I.

2 Henslowe, 13, 20, 30 ; S. R. June, 1594, May, 1595.
8 Fleay, ii, 147.

4 This earliest Dido was acted at St. Paul's School under con-
duct of John Rightwise. Halliwell's is described in Nicholas Rob-
inson's account of the queen's visit to Cambridge in 1564, as
" Virgilianus versibus maxima ex parte compositum." See Nichols,
Elizabeth, i, 1 86. An extract from Gager's play is contained in
Dyce's Marlowe, appendix. Henslowe (p. 83) mentions a Dido
and sEneas in January, 1598, which Collier (iii, 94) thought a re-
vival of Marlowe and Nash's tragedy, but which Fleay, ii, 306,

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 19

by Marlowe and Nash, is a favorable and well-com-
pacted specimen of epic narrative converted into
drama; and while wanting the power as well as the
poetry of the greater works of Marlowe, is not un-
worthy association with his name. The excellence of
its construction and the smoothness of its blank
verse argue against a date for its composition prior to
Tamburlaine and The Jew of Malta. l Dido is as free
from the prevailing Senecan traits as from the bom-
bast and rant of the conqueror plays and the tragedy
of revenge.2

The habitual confusion of history and myth in the
age of Elizabeth has been frequently mentioned in
the course of this work, and we have met with the '59S-96-
myths of ancient Greece and Rome not only in plays
written under direct classical influence, but in the
graceful allegorical court dramas and entertainments
of Lyly, Peele, and others as well. The nineties wit-
nessed a novel if rough and uncouth popularization
of classical mythology on the London stage in a
series of medley dramas, the work of that versatile
and productive playwright, Thomas Heywood. The
Golden, Silver, and Brazen Age constitute together
three plays of considerable length in which the
author, so to speak, sat down with a copy of Ovid's
Metamorphoses at his left hand, and translated the
text into English dialogue with his right, omitting
little and extenuating nothing. The Golden Age

regards as Jonson's work, promised the preceding Christmas
(Henslowe, 82), and quoted in part in Hamlet, II, ii, 472-541.
There is a mention, too, of a Dido and &ntas, an interlude per-
formed at Chester. Hazlitt, Manual, 64.

1 Fleay, ii, 147.

2 For Titus Andronicus, the affiliations of which are wholly un-
classical, see above, v, 33.

20 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

contains "the lives of Jupiter and Saturn with the
deifying of the heathen gods." 1 The Silver Age
proceeds to "the fortunes of Perseus, the love of
Jupiter and Alcmena, the birth of Hercules, the rape
of Proserpina, and the arraignment of the Moon;"
and The Brazen Age unites the death of Nessus, the
tragedies of Meleager and Jason with Vulcan's net,
and the labors of Hercules.2 Homer is the presenter
of this panorama of mythology, which is enlivened as
it runs by the old-fashioned device of dumb shows.
In two of these extraordinary productions the persons
of the drama change completely five times. And yet a
surprising dramatic vitality pervades some of these
sketchy scenes and in part at least accounts for their
reported popularity. The two plays on The Iron
Age soon followed. In them Heywood tells of the
siege of Troy, using Lydgate's Destruction of Troy
much as he had previously employed Ovid. We have
thus five plays of this species. And although their
publication was strung out from 1611 to 1632, their
identification under various titles with entries of
Henslowe's for the Admiral's men running from
March, 1594, to the following June seems all but
certain.3 Although no other play of this particular
type remains extant, it seems not unreasonable to
suppose that the later activity of Chettle and Dekker
in work such as Troys Revenge with the Tragedy
of Polyphemus (plainly the wanderings of Ulysses),

1 Perhaps originally Seleo (Ccelo) and Olympo, acted at the Rose,
March, 1595. Henslowe, 22.

2 Two plays on Hercules were acted at the Rose in May, 1595 ;
ibid. 22, 24. But see ibid. 86, where Martin Slather was paid for
these, Phocas, Pythagoras, and Alexander and Lodowick. Ward, ii,
608, regards Slather or Slater as their author.

8 Fleay, i, 283-286.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 21

Troilus and Cressida, Agamemnon, "Orestes juries"
and Damon and Pythias, all in 1599 and 1600, may
have been much of this type.1 Heywood's Rape of
Lucrece belongs to another group.2

Thus when, in 1601, Shakespeare set forth his
Julius Casar on the stage, we meet once more with ClNar'
his usual practice: the seizure on a variety of drama
already tried in the popular taste, with a glorifica-
tion of it by the strength of his genius to a position
above its class. Julius Casar recurs for material to
North's Plutarch, a source, as we have seen, already
employed by Lodge. The tragedy on its surface is a
chronicle history on the death of Caesar and the
events subsequent. The subject had been frequently
used for drama before. "The furst day of Feybruary
at nyght," 1562, witnessed "Julyus Sesar played"
at court, "the earliest instance," Collier declares,
"of a subject from Roman history being brought
upon the stage." 3 A Ceesar and Pompey was men-
tioned in 1580 by Gosson, and is doubtless the same
with "a storie of pompie" acted before the queen on
Twelfth Night of that year, "whereon was ymploied
newe, one great citty, a senate howse and eight ells
of dobble sarcenet for curtens." * Two years later
a Latin Julius Ccesar was acted at Christ Church
College, Oxford, the work of Dr. Richard Geddes

1 Henslowe, 30, 57, 102, 104, 109. Malone records a SarJan-
apalus of 1603, Variorum Shakes fear f, iii, 509. Other titles of
Henslowe, 27, 60, 90, 118, are Pythagoras, 1596; Hannibal and
Hermes, 1598 ; and Jugurtha, and The Golden Ass, 1600, and
Hannibal and Scipio, 1601.

2 See below, p. 27.

3 Collier, i, 180.

4 Plays Confuted, 1581, p. 188; Malone, iii, 304 n.; and Revels
Accounts, 167.

22 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

or Eades, chaplain to Queen Elizabeth.1 In No-
vember, 1594, Henslowe records a "seser and pom-
pie" as acted by the Admiral's men at the Rose,
followed by a "2 pte (part) of sesore" in June, I595-2
None of these predecessors of Shakespeare's tragedy
is extant, but their distribution in point of time,
at court, at Oxford, and on the London boards, is
significant of the wide popularity of the life of the
greatest man of antiquity as a tragic topic for dra-
matic art. That Shakespeare's Ccesar gave a new
vogue to the subject is proved by Henslowe's record
in 1602, of a " sesers ffalle," consummated by the joint
efforts of Munday, Drayton, Webster, Middleton,
"and the rest; "3 by Sir William Alexander's "mon-
archicke" tragedy, 1607; by Chapman's Ccesar and
Pompey, somewhat later; and by the anonymous
drama of the same title bearing date 1607. Chap-
man's tragedy is far less effective and scholarly than
might have been expected of the translator of Homer;
and he records with apparent satisfaction that his
play "yet never toucht it at the stage," that is, was
never acted.4 The anonymous Tragedy of Ccesar and
Pompey or Gcesars Revenge is a college drama show-
ing reminiscence of popular Seneca in its chorus,
the abstraction Discord, and in the treatment of the
ghost of Caesar. This and the primitive quality of its
blank verse induced Craik long ago to identify it with
Henslowe's "seser and pompie" of I594-5 Finally,
the manuscript of a Latin Julius Ccesar by Thomas
May is still extant, and may be identical with a late

1 Fleay, i, 162, 244. 2 Henslowe, 20, 24.

3 Henslowe, 166.

4 Dedication, Chapman's Works, ed. 1873, iii, 125.

6 G. L. Craik, English of Shakespeare, 47 ; and Henslowe, 20.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 23

Julius Casar, acted privately by students of Trinity
College, Oxford, it is not recorded when.

To return to Shakespeare's play, it has often been
remarked that the title is a misnomer. Cesar is pre- Jjjj" Cftar>
sented only in his decline. It is his arrogance, vacil-
lation, and superstition, his physical weakness and
defects of temper, that are dwelt on and emphasized,
and not his greatness. While Brutus, visionary ideal-
ist that he is and fatally attended by error in all his
political acts, is generous, large of soul, and truly
heroic. This contrast is further heightened by that
existing between Brutus and Cassius, that keen but
not ignoble politician. Caesar falls in the climax, not
in the catastrophe; and the play prosecutes the
events which followed his death to the Nemesis
which overtook the conspirators against him. This
has given rise to the ingenious theory that Julius
Ccesar originally constituted a double play such as
Antonio and Melhda with the following Antonio's
Revenge, or the tragedies concerning the brothers
D'Ambois. It has further been surmised that the
two plays were perhaps known as The Tragedy and
The Revenge of Julius Casar, and that they were
later thrown into one under stress of some unknown
theatrical exigency.1 Without passing judgment on
this theory, it may be noticed that an acceptance
of it links Casar with the series of tragedies of re-
venge, already discussed, with which Shakespeare's
tragedy synchronizes, although absolutely repugnant
to their pervading qualities of blood, terror, and melo-
drama. Julius Casar is one of the most regularly
constructed of the tragedies of Shakespeare, excelling
greater plays in the uniform adequacy of its diction
1 Fleay, ii, 185; and his Lift of Shakespeare, 214.

24 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

and in the evenness and finish of its workmanship.
Essentially ornate although the art of Shakespeare
is, in this tragedy he seems to have caught by in-
spiration the atmosphere of dignity and restraint
which we habitually associate with the republic of
ancient Rome: and this even although his picture is
made up at times of details open to stricture at the
hands of the classical purist and specialist in archae-
ology.

Sejanus, his There seems some reason to surmise that Jonson's
Sejanus, his Fall, first acted in 1603, was deliberately
planned and written in emulation of the success of
Shakespeare's Casar, and in scholarly protest against
the want of perspective and carelessness as to his-
torical accuracy which characterized the handling of
classical subjects on the popular stage. Jonson was
one of the few dramatists of his day in whom any
sense of incongruity could have been stirred by the
striking of the clock in Brutus' orchard, or by the
pistol which Demetrius Poliorcetes presents at the
head of an intruder in one of Fletcher's plays.1 And
Jonson was absolutely the only literary man in
England to resent such anachronisms and impropri-
eties. At the same time it is easy to attach too much
importance to these Elizabethan dramatic rivalries;
and a passage in the address "To the Reader" of
the quarto of Sejanus, 1605, further complicates the
subject. This passage informs us that "this book,
in all numbers, is not the same with that which was
acted on the public stage; wherein a second pen
had good share: in place of which, I have rather
chosen to put weaker and, no doubt, less pleasing,

1 Cessar, II, i, 191 ; The Humorous Lieutenant, IV, iv ; cf. also the
similar anachronism in Pericles, i, i, 1 68.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 25

of mine own, than to defraud so happy a genius of
his right by my loathed usurpation." l Whalley
suggested Shakespeare's as "the second pen;" 2 and
Fleay upholds this notion in a modified form,8 though
Gifford asked "might not Chapman or Middleton
be intended here ?"< Whatever may be the truth of
these matters, it was the King's company that per-
formed Se janus; and we know that Shakespeare
himself acted a part.5 Two such men as Shake-
speare and Jonson could afford to be generous in their
personal relations; and such all the evidence at our
disposal proves them to have been. The only scrap
of Jonson's criticism of Shakespeare's Roman dramas
that remains concerns a trivial speech of Caesar's,
not in the play as we now have it.6 What Shakespeare
thought of the tragedy in which he acted is buried
with his inward thoughts of his own great works.

Se janus was not a popular success, although Sejanus,
appreciated and approved by "the judicious." When ^u'J
his tragedy was published, a year later, Jonson char- «««ture.
acteristically cited line and chapter in footnotes to
avouch the accuracy of his classical lore, a practice
impertinent in such a work to the learned and an
affront to the unlettered.7 This and his habitual

1 Gifford, Jonson, iii, 6.

2 Whalley, Jonson, i, p. xl.

3 Fleay, Shakespeare, 50; the notion being that Shakespeare
altered only the role in which he acted.

4 Gifford, Jonson, iii, 7 n. Neither of these poets was writing for
the King's company, which acted Sejanus in 1603.

5 See the list of actors affixed to Sejanus in the folios of 1616 and
1640.

8 Discoveries of Jonson, ed. Schelling, 1892, p. 23.
7 See the prudent words of Jonson on this topic in the address
prefixed to the quarto of 1605, in which he expresses his honest

26 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

attitude of aggression long obscured to the critics
the superlative excellence of this master-tragedy of
Jonson's, which contains one of the most consum-
mate dramatic studies of historical character to be
found in the annals of literature. It would be im-
possible to overpraise the success with which the
Elizabethan dramatist has transferred the subtle
and enigmatic features of the Tiberius of Tacitus to
scenes instinct with the very life of imperial Rome.
The heroic stoicism of Brutus, the sharp acquisitive-
ness of Cassius; Antony, careless and pleasure-
loving, yet master of a natural eloquence that
raised the stones of Rome to mutiny, — these are men
drawn to the life as Jonson could never have drawn
them. But if the scholarly reader would see ancient
Rome, her "very form and pressure," hear such
speech as Romans might have uttered, and see the
life of forum, atrium, and senate chamber, let him
turn to Sf janus or to Catiline, not to Ccesar or Con-
olanus. None the less, it must be confessed that
Marston echoed a prevalent opinion and one justi-
fied in the event, when he wrote in the preface to his
Tragedy of Sophonisba, which followed Sejanus
closely: "Know, that I have not laboured in this
poem to tie myself to relate any thing as an his-
torian, but to enlarge every thing as a poet. To tran-
scribe authors, quote authorities, and translate
Latine prose orations into English blank verse, hath,
in this subject, been the least aim of my studies."1
The last words are unjust to Jonson and betray
sheer malice; and yet the power "to enlarge every

abhorrence of pedantry and justifies such quotation to show his
" integrity in the story," Gifford, Jonson, iii, 6.
1 Bullen's Marston, ii, 235.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 27

thing as a poet," that divine spontaneity that comes
not of study nor with prayer, was the one thing de-
nied the author of Sejanus, a thing altogether price-
less and the making of many a playwright of half the
talent of Jonson.

Marston went to Painter's Palace of Pleasure for Sopho
the source of his Wonder of Women or the Tragedy of |6(>3'
Sophonisba, which is accordingly pseudo-historical
and romantic, and at the very opposite pole from
Sejanus in ideal, conduct, and method. There is a
fine heroic touch in the conception of Sophonisba
and her husband, Massinissa, which points forward
to the coming vogue of "romance." This tragedy,
which runs much more clearly and swiftly than is the
wont of the dramatic current of Marston, deserves
a better repute than the critics have given it.1 Hey-
wood's Rape of Lucrece, acted in 1603 as well, is a
ready but commonplace refashioning of an immortal
story, inexplicably destroyed in its tragic and pathetic
possibilities by the intrusion of the songs — some as
ribald as others are exquisite — of "the merry Lord
Valerius." Popularization could go no farther than
this.

Nor was the popular stage alone in its choice of Contemporary
subjects from Roman history.2 As early as 1566 a ^^3*, a, thc
play dealing with the revolt of the slaves in the reign «•»«•««.
of Alexander Severus and called Marcus Geminus
was acted before Queen Elizabeth at Oxford, and
various Casars, Neros, and Catiline s followed, besides

1 Nabbes' Hannibal and Scipio, acted in 1635, treats of mucn
the same subject and not unworthily.

2 Perfidius Hetruscus, described in Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 250, is
scarcely historical. On the college drama of this type, see below,
p. 59.

28 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

a Caracalla and an Andronicus Comnenus of uncer-
tain dates.1 The typical play of this group is Dr.
Matthew Gwinne's Nero Tragcedia Nova, printed in
1603 and dedicated to the queen. This elaborate
and ambitious work treats of the whole life of Nero,
and its dramatis personae extend to eighty-two char-
acters. Gwinne was a successful physician of the
day, and the author likewise of a Latin comedy en-
titled Vertumnus sive Annus Recurrens, acted before
King James in 1605, on the occasion of his visit to
Oxford. It is to this play that the Latin verses are
attached which from their mention of Banquo, the
thane of "Loquabria" and the royal line descended
from his loins, gave rise to the notion of Farmer that
here was the source of Macbeth.2 The relation of
Gwinne's Nero — which, as the title informs us, was
" coll e eta a Tacito, Suetonio, Dione, Seneca" -to
Jonson's Sejanus might be worth an investigation.
Nero certainly preceded Sejanus, and its student's
use of material, its conscious scholarship and pains-
taking elaboration are all of them qualities of Jon-
son's tragedy.

Shakespeare's The year 1607 witnessed a revival of interest in
ciassiraUub- c^assical subjects for tragedy. For besides an Eng-
i"*8- lish college play on Nero (alike distinguishable from

Gwinne's Latin Nero of 1603 and from the splendid
anonymous English tragedy of 1624), and besides
the two plays on Caesar and Pompey (the one anony-
mous, the other by Chapman and mentioned above),
we find Shakespeare once more turning to classical

1 An earlier Play concerning Lucrece is assigned to 1490 and to
the authorship of Henry Medwell. "The heroine," says Cham-
bers (ii, 458), "is not Shakespeare's Lucrece."

2 On the Learning of Shakespeare, ed. 1767, p. 56.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 29

story. Between 1606 and 1610 Antony and Cleo-
patra, Coriolanus, Timon of Athens, Pericles, and
Cymbehne followed in quick succession, whatever
their actual order; and some would have us believe
that Troilus and Cressida (in revision at least) be-
longed likewise to these years. Be this as it may, that
sinister drama of disenchantment has already suffi-
ciently claimed our attention; and Antony and
Cleopatra has found its place in our discussion of
romantic tragedy.1 Coriolanus, like Ccesar, is a
glorified chronicle history set in the scene of ancient !<
Rome. And there is a symmetry of construction and
a uniformity of excellence, too, about the later tra-
gedy that has caused at least one critic, a German,
to rank it second to none of its author's works.2 Nei-
ther the conservative critic nor the true appreciator
of Shakespeare can assign to Coriolanus any such
position, despite the vividness and consistency of the
conception of the rash and insolent hero, the stately
Roman matrons, Volumnia,Virgilia, and Valeria, and
the honorable and humorous Menenius. Here, even
more pronouncedly than in C<esar and elsewhere,
have we Shakespeare's contemptuous attitude to-
wards the mob, which he regards as a thing utterly
thoughtless, fickle, and imbecile, an attitude con-
cerning which much nonsense has been written, but
which is only that of the Elizabethan drama at large.3
And when all has been said, the crowd, the mob, can
never become a dramatic entity. In the drama, as
in life, it is either the tame beast led, or the ravening

1 See above, i, pp. 572-574-

2 H. Viehoff, "Shakespeare's Coriolan," Jahrbuch, iv.

3 Cf. Alchemist, v, i; Philaster, v, iv; Julius Cxsar, ill, ii;
Coriolanus, i, i ; H, iii.

30 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

brute that has broken bands. And one need neither
assume the haughty pose of Coriolanus nor posture
as a follower of Nordau to recognize the essential
truth of the Shakespearean turba, from Jack Cade's
raw levies to the play before us. Unflagging in the
kindliness and fidelity with which he drew the indi-
vidual man, however simple, lowly, dull, or uncouth,
Shakespeare stopped short of a brute-worship of the
multitude, a dangerous aberration from the teachings
of experience, reserved for the sentimentalist and the
pseudo-humanitarian of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries.

Timon of In T imon of Athens and Pericles, Prince of Tyre,

p^/c"*/"d Shakespeare leaves purely classical subjects, though
1607; still on the skirts of the ancient world. The story of

Timon the misanthrope is found in that ancient
quarry, The Palace of Pleasure, although it forms
as well an excursus in Plutarch's Life of Antonius,
where Shakespeare may well have found it while at
work on Antony and Cleopatra. Pericles is based on
the medieval tale of Apollonius of Tyre, told in the
Gesta Romanorum, by Gower and — nearest in point
of date to the play — by Laurence Twine in his
Pattern of Painful Adventures, I6O6.1 Both plays,
as we have them, may not impossibly have been
remodeled on earlier dramatic productions, although
the extant academic Timon of Athens of 1600 is not
Shakespeare's original, and the earlier Pericles sur-
vives, if at all, only in parts of the play that we
possess. The history of these two plays is a quick-
sand of conjecture in which little is certain save that
Timon appeared in the first folio, while Pericles,

1 On the story at large, see Shakespeare's Pericles and Apollo-
nius of Tyre, by A. H. Smyth, 1898.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 31

although exceedingly popular and several times pub-
lished in quarto, was finally included *mong Shake-
speare's works only in the third folio, 1664. l It is their dub™,
inconceivable that Shakespeare wrote all of these authorehiP-
two dramas with their inequalities of diction, lack
of accordance with a general design, and other striking
defects. George Wilkins, author of The Miseries
of Enforced Marriage and a collaborator with Day
and William Rowley, has been supposed Shake-
speare's co-author ?n Pericles or the completer of his
unfinished work; and Rowley, too, has been sur-
mised to have had his hand in this play as well.2 For
Timon the collaborator is unnamed except by Mr.
Fleay, whose hazardous conjecture of the name of
Cyril Tourneur must stand or fall by the critic's
metrical tests: for foundation it can have none other.8
We may leave these intricacies to turn to the plays.
In both of them — and especially in Pericles — there
is noble portraiture and many a passage worthy the
genius of the great name with which they have been
associated, together with much that we could wish
forever separated from Shakespeare. Have we not shak«peare*«
here once more an example of the total absorption pfot'fndCjm°r
of Shakespeare's attention in character, with his neg- in character,
ligence of story, plot, and all else ? Timon, who had
magnificently proved the world and found it false,
digging his roots, and dying in raging hatred of man-
kind; Pericles, subject to a lifelong sorrow, reclaimed

1 On the bibliographical relations of these plays to the first folio,
see Sidney Lee, Introduction to the facsimile reproduction of that
book, 1902, pp. xvi and xxviii.

3 Lee, Shakespeare, 252.

8 Shakespeare Manual, 195. It is fair to Mr. Fleay to state that
neither in his Life of Shakespeare, nor his Biographical Chromclt
of the Drama does he repeat this opinion.

32 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

as by miracle to happiness when hope had long been ]
given over; ftesh, charming Marina, preserving the
fragrance of innocent maidenhood in the very jungles
and morasses of the world, — these are the things that I
interested our greatest dramatist; not the small plot-
tings of petty and corrupt Italian courts and the
dainty episodes of pastoral art. The story might stand
as it was in all its shapelessness and improbability
— and what could be more shapeless and unlikely
than the tale of Pericles? But why clear away the
chips when the statue stands in its finished glory ?
The chippings are but dead material: the statue alone
lives. And once more, after Othello, Lear, Macbeth,
and dntony and Cleopatra may there not well have
been a flagging even in that great spirit, a giant
swoop earthward to mount again with strengthened
pinion in the ultimate flights of Cymbeline, Winter's
Tale, and Tempest?

Catiline hit In 161 1 Jonson's Catiline, his Conspiracy, was acted

by the King's players, and although only measur-
ably successful at first, was later to enjoy a greater
repute than Sejanus. Catiline's conspiracy, so suc-
cinctly told by Sallust, had already attracted the
attention of English dramatic writers. Before 1579
Stephen Gosson had written a play on the theme;1
and he was followed in 1598 by "a boocke called
cattelanes consperesey," the joint production of
Wilson and Chettle.2 Both are lost. A Latin Catilina \
Triumphans is yet extant in manuscript.3 Jonson

1 School of Abuse, 1579, Shakespeare Society, 1841, p. 30, where
he describes this play, as "a pig of mine owne sowe."

2 Henslowe, 94; see, also, Lodge's mention, Defense of Plays,
Shakespeare Society, 1853, p. 28.

3 In Trinity College Library, Cambridge. Hazlitt, Manual, 36.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 33

cared little for such previous attempts, but went
direct to Sallust and Cicero, as in Sejanus; although
in publication he was careful not to repeat the ped-
antry of his citation of authority, which had been so
severely criticised before. Catiline is an historical
tragedy of exceptionable merit; save for the fortui-
tous interest which the problem of the character of
Tiberius excites in Sejanus, the later must be pro-
nounced the superior play. Consummate is the por-
traiture of conspirators — braggart Cethegus; Len-
tulus, voluptuary and dreamer; savage and desperate
Catiline; and skillful is the contrast of these with
prudent Cato and with Cicero, eloquent to the verge
of garrulity and appreciative of his own abilities and
achievements to a point that halts just short of
comedy. But if Jonson's fidelity to the greater por-
traits of history is worthy of praise, not less admirable
is the effect which he has contrived to produce in
representing to us, with a vividness which only the
stage can attain, the social life of ancient Rome. The
scenes in which figure the fickle, wanton Fulvia, and
Sempronia, vain of her knowledge of Greek and
ambitious to be dabbling in politics, are second to
nothing in the satirical high comedy that the age
has left us.1

But there is yet another aspect in which Jonson's

« • • • /"• clauical tr*-

later Roman tragedy deserves serious attention. Lot- ^
iline is alike the final expression of Jonson's theories
as to English tragedy and one of the most successful
among English tragedies modeled on ancient dra-
matic theories and ideals. For although Jonson, be
it reaffirmed, was no supine classicist, but believed,
to use his own words, that "we should enjoy the same

1 Catiline, especially iv, i.

34 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

license or free power to illustrate and heighten our
invention as the ancients did; and not be tied to
those strict and regular forms, which the niceness of
a few — who are nothing but form — would thrust
upon us;"1 yet Catiline shows, as compared with
Sejanus, a retrogression to earlier ideals and a stricter
regard for the minor practices if not the larger spirit
of Seneca. Thus the drama opens with an Induction
in which figures the ghost of Sylla; and lyrical cho-
ruses in a variety of metres interlard the acts. But
these, as Gifford put it, are " spoken by no one, and
addressed to no one," 2 and, although at times of great
literary excellence, are absolutely inorganic. Catiline
with its historical portraiture, its consummate dra-
matic dialogue and constructive excellence, is no
Senecan drama. That Jonson should have fallen
short of absolute success in these Roman tragedies of
his mature years is wholly due neither to the defects
in his theory nor to his limitations as an author. The
trend of the age was against such art, as the trend of
our age is against it. And when Swinburne dubs
Sejanus "a magnificent mistake" and esteems Cati-
line as valuable alone for its proof "that Jonson
could do better, but not much better, on the same
rigid lines," with due respect for the superlative
critical powers of a great poet, we must keep in mind
that we have rhapsodic and impressionistic art for the
nonce arrayed in judicial robes and sitting in judg-
ment on all, in short, that it is not.3

The Tragedy But one other play of merit respected to the full
«•", 1624- the Jonsonian regard for antiquity in its endeavor to

1 Every Man out of His Humor, Induction.

2 Gifford, Jonson, iv, 189.

3 A Study of Ben Jonson, 56.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 35

reproduce the atmosphere of imperial Rome. This
was The Tragedy of Nero, "newly written," as the
title runs, and licensed for the press in 1624. The
unknown authqr of this brilliant play, who was
plainly no mean scholar, has followed his sources in
Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius with intelligent
fidelity, and yet in so doing has contrived to repre-
sent to us the last four years of Nero's reign with a
liveliness, with an instinct for dramatic effect, and
with a clear discrimination of the famous historical
figures — such as Piso, Lucan, Petronius, and Sen-
eca — that crowd his canvas, that places his work
beside the most consummate dramatic productions
of his time. The figure of Nero, inordinately vain,
suspicious, prone to flights of poetical imagination as
to fits of uncontrollable passion or acts of satirical,
vindictive malice, though simpler in conception, de-
serves a place beside Jonson's Tiberius and the
Shakespearean Brutus and Cassius.

Vastly in contrast with this well-ordered tragedy /
is Herod and Antipater, printed in 1622, the work Antt^^ l&
of Gervais Markham (author, with Lewis Machim,
of The Dumb Knight) and William Sampson. Here
in old-fashioned chronicle-wise is told how Anti-
pater, base son of Herod, lived as his father's evil
genius, compelling the murder of Mariam, Herod's
sons, and many others, until he had gained, as he
thought, his father's crown; how in the moment of
his supposed triumph he is led to merited execution,
and how his father's heart breaks as his son's head
falls: a climax by no means ineffective. Of the same Homing',
older type and similar in subject is The Jews' Tragedy, fj^,
"their Fatal and Final overthrow by Vespasian and
Titus his son, agreeable to the authentic and famous

36 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

history of Josephus ... by William Heming, Master
of Arts of Oxon, 1662." 1 Heming was the son of
Shakespeare's fellow-actor, John Heming, and his
Christian name may conjure pleasant images of the
relations of the two elder men. William Heming was
born in 1602, and we know little of him except that
he proceeded to rid himself of the shares which he
had inherited as a "housekeeper" in the Globe and
Blackfriars theaters soon after he had proved his
father's will in 1630.* Heming wrote another tra-
gedy, The Fatal Contract, for the stage of his time.3
He appears to have died before the closing of the
theaters. The Jews' Tragedy is well written and full
of variety. It concerns, in the main, the revolt of
Judea in Nero's time and the doings of "the sedi-
tious captains," Eleazer, Jehoehanan, and Simeon, in
defense of Jerusalem and against each other. The
play is reminiscent throughout of the older drama,
and not a few passages are imitative of the phrase
and word of Shakespeare.4 This Oxonian, unlike his
fellows, was far from disdaining the furies, choruses,
and dumb shows of the elder drama ; and to cap his
catholic art celebrates the final victory of Rome in a
triumphal masque. A curious item might be added
to the history of the stage could we but recover the
circumstances of the acting of Heming's tragedies.

1 The printing of The Jews' Tragedy in 1662 must have been
posthumous. Heming wrote a comedy in 1633 called The Coursing
of the Hare or the Madcap. It has perished.

2 Fleay, Stage, 326 ; and i, pp. 182, 183.

3 See above, i, pp. 426, 427.

4 See, especially, the weak imitation of Hamlet's soliloquy, "To
be or not to be," beginning with the very words, p. 29, of the quarto
of 1662 ; the watch with its dim echo of Dogberry, pp. 32 and 40;
and the Philaster-like mob, p. 35. Cf. Philaster, v, i.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 37

From this point onward, barring occasional college Later romantic
dramas and the work of Thomas May and Nathaniel t*catmp1nt «*

T> ' L J T? 1 • 1_ i • classical sub-

Kicnards, JLnghsh tragedies on classical subjects j«*»-
cease to show that touch with the spirit of antiquity,
even as understood and interpreted by Plutarch,
Seneca, and other later writers, which had distin-
guished and differentiated most of the varieties of
plays already examined in this chapter.1 Nor is the
reason far to seek. The facile romantic spirit of
Fletcher, followed by the somewhat rhetorical elo-
quence of Massinger, now came to pervade the entire
drama; and the Rome of Valentinianus or the Caesa-
rea of The Virgin Martyr become, as scenes for the
drama, absolutely indistinguishable from the capital
of The Queen of Corinth, the Iberia of King and No
King, or the Sparta of Ford's Broken Heart. The
changes which were made, as we have seen, to give
to a plot of all but contemporary history — the story
of the pretender Don Sebastian — a Roman atmos-
phere and setting, in Believe as You List, must have
been comparatively trifling; 2 for to the true roman-
ticist a flight to Carthage, Bithynia, or Callipolis
was at least as easy as a flight to Arcadia, Utopia,
or anywhere else.

The Fletcherian contribution to the drama founded
on classical story — if by that adjective we may avoid J
the pitfalls of the mixed authorship of the Beaumont-
Fletcher-Massinger group of plays — comprises some
half dozen plays, ranging in revised form from the
year 1612 or earlier to 1622; and some of them are
of the very highest order of artistic merit.8 To these

1 As to May and Richards, see below, pp. +3, 45, 48, 49-

J See above, i, p. 430.

3 Oliphant, Englische Studien, xvi, 198, believes The Prophetess

38 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

may be added Webster's Appius and Virginia of un-
certain date, an adequate and stately play,1 and four
plays wholly by Massinger written between 1620 and
1630, completing a group of about a dozen dramas
exhibiting a general carelessness as to source in his-
torical material, a disregard of historic portraiture
and a prevailingly romantic treatment of classical
material.3 Of the Fletcherian plays we may pass The
Faithful Friends, a tragicomedy, the scene of which
is laid in "Rome and the Country of the Sabines," a
confused and ill-conceived production, variously as-
signed as to authorship.3 The fine tragedy, Bonduca,
is solely Fletcher's, but from its scene on British soil
it has already received our attention among English
The Humorous chronicle histories.4 The tragicomedy, The Humor-
,^""a"''atEr ous Lieutenant, is likewise Fletcher's unaided work,
and appears to have been first acted after the death
of Burbage in 1619. The major plot details the pure

a revision of an old play dating in the last decade of Elizabeth's
reign, revised in 1622 by Fletcher and Massinger; places The
Faithful Friends by Beaumont and Fletcher at 1604, its revision
by Massinger and Field at 1613-14; Bonduca in early form, 1605,
possibly Beaumont's, revised by Fletcher in 1612; Valentinian,
1612, and The Humorous Lieutenant, 1619, both wholly Fletcher's,
and The False One, by Fletcher and Massinger, 1620. Fleay places
Bonduca and Valentinian at 1616, ii, 203

1 Above, i, p. 593.

2 The Virgin Martyr was licensed in 1620, and as we have it is
doubtless Massinger's revision of an earlier play of Dekker's, possi-
bly The Diocletian, acted in 1594. The Bondman was first acted in
1623. The Roman Actor was registered in 1626; The Emperor of
the East, licensed in 1631.

3 Fleay suggests Daborne as the author o'f this play and places
it at 1614. Chronicle, i, 200. Oliphant, xv, 331, considers this an
old play of Beaumont and Fletcher of "say 1604," revised by
Massinger and Field.

4 Above, i, p. 302.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY

39

and devoted passion of Demetrius Poliorcetes for his
fair captive Celia, her spirited repulse of the bland-
ishments of the court, and the denouement which
unites her as the Princess Enanthe to her lover. All
is told with the fluency and certainty of touch that is
Fletcher's at his best; and is appropriately accom-
panied by the original and laughable "humors" of
the lieutenant who gave to the play its name and its
long and deserved popularity. * The Humorous Lieu-
tenant is a romantic love tale referred gratuitously to
the historical Demetrius. In Massinger's effective The Bondman,
play, The Bondman, 1623, too, although it selects the l6*3'
time of Timoleon's deliverance of ancient Syracuse
from Carthaginian invasion, the interest centers in
Marullo, the leader of a revolt of slaves; nor is its
historical quality or dramatic interest enhanced by
the discovery, in the end, that the Bondman is a free-
born gentleman of Thebes, thus disguised to further
a revenge which love converts into a reconciliation.
Once more, in The Virgin Martyr, which is Dekker's, The Vwgm
revised by Massinger probably about 1620, not only
is the material unhistorical, but a glamour of senti-
mental and supernatural interest is spread over the
morally earnest theme which is altogether of the
essence of romance. The greater part of this play
narrates the story of Saint Dorothea, concluding with
the conversion of Theophilus the persecutor and his

1 This underplot Fletcher found in an anecdote of the soldier of
Antigonus, related in Forde's Theater of Wit, 1660, and doubtless
well known earlier. Koeppel, i, 83. A tragedy called Demetrius
and Marsina or the Imperial Impostor and the Unhappy Heroine
was among the manuscripts of Warburton, but not destroyed.
What has become of it I do not know, nor whether it concerns
any historical Demetrius. A play called Greeks and Trojans of
the reign of Charles is mentioned by Collier, iii, 417, +25.

40 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

later martyrdom.1 The angel, entertained unawares
as her page by Dorothea, and the devil Harpax, as
another of her servants, with their alternate prompt-
ings of good and evil, suggest the spirits attendant on
Faustus. The story is set forth with much simplicity
and directness, and is wanting neither in earnestness
nor in pathos. But with all the poetry of Dekker, and
Massinger's competent and serious rhetoric, it cannot
be said that the best is made of a theme at once so

The Prophetess, happy and so ambitious. The Prophetess, attributed
to Fletcher and Massinger,and licensed in 1622, more
probably than The Virgin Martyr^ is the Diocletian
of Henslowe's mention of 1594; 2 though not impos-
sibly that was an independent play. 'The Prophetess
departs from history in attributing the rise of the
Emperor Diocletian wholly to the spells and incanta-
tions of a sybil or witch named Delphia. The play
seems hastily put together, the action is eked out by
choruses and dumb shows, and the supernatural is
inartificially handled. Altogether, The Prophetess is
unworthy its alleged authors, and any faint flavor of
antiquity derived from its source in Eusebius has
evaporated once and for all.

raiemtiniaM, There remain for consideration here, Fletcher's
Valentiman and his False One, Massinger's Roman
dctor and his Emperor of the East; and even in these
quasi-historical dramas romantic passion or romantic
crime has replaced all but wholly the representation of
man as a belligerent and political animal to which we
are apt commonly to limit our modern conceptions

1 Koeppel, ii, 82, finds all the elements of the story of Theophilus
in the Cologne Martyrology of 1576. As to date and revival, see
Oliphant, xvi, 191.

2 Henslowe, 20.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 4,

of history. Valentinian, acted by the King's men
in 1617, and perhaps originally staged as early as
as 1611 or 1612, * is a typical example of the art with
which Fletcher could expand the material of an
obscure anecdote (here of Procopius) into a highly
organized drama of abiding dramatic worth.2 True,
the Fletcherian types recur : Valentinian the lustful
tyrant, Lucinia the steadfast wife, Aecius the bluff,
heroic soldier; but all is managed with that sureness
of hand, that swiftness of action and natural unfold-
ing of plot which we recognize as peculiarly Fletcher's,
and the degeneracy of Maximus from a wronged hus-
band to a conspirator against his sovereign, a usurper
of his throne, and, to that end, the murderer of his
noble friend and counselor, Aecius, is a new theme
and one thoroughly well handled. In Valentinian the
admirable diction of Fletcher is at its best, ever ade-
quate and graceful, rising to bursts of eloquence, and
decked, but never overloaded, with the jewels of
poetry. In The False One, 1620, wherein Massinger
aided or revised Fletcher, we have a return to a more "**
truly classical subject, the story of Cleopatra and
Caesar. But the conception of this play is wholly in
the spirit of romance, although classical materials
were evidently employed at first hand with a readi-
ness that would have done credit to Jonson.* In this

1 Oliphant, xv, 358.

2 Koeppel, 1,71, compares the plot to that of The Faithful Friends,
which it somewhat resembles. He also suggests a comparison be-
tween the death scene of Valentinian and that of Shakespeare's
King John. As a matter of fact, Fletcher follows Procopius, De
Bella Vandalico, i, 4, very closely. See Corpus Scriptorum Hislori*
Byzanti*, "Procopius," 1833, p. 328.

3 Koeppel adds nothing to Langbaine's suggestions of general
sources in " Suetonius, Plutarch, Dion, Appian, Florus, Eutropius,

42 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

drama the authors seem scarcely to have met the de-
mands of their subject. Neither the personality of
Caesar nor that of Cleopatra rises to convincing reality
in their hands; and the intrigue seems unimportant
and indistinguishable from any other.

In complete contrast to this, it would be difficult
Act°T> to find a more favorable example of the easy mastery
of the playwright's craft, the competent and inform-
ing eloquence and the moral earnestness that mark
out Massinger from his fellows and predecessors,
than is afforded by the finely conceived tragedy, The
Roman Actor, registered 1626. Well may the author
have declared that he "ever held it as the most perfect
birth of his Minerva." It has been remarked by Ward
that "there was a certain boldness in constituting an
actor the hero of a tragedy, and in seeking to show in
his person how true a dignity of mind is sometimes
to be found where the world is least disposed to seek
it." 1 For in the story of Paris, the Roman actor, who
innocently incurs the jealousy of the Emperor Domi-
tian because of the passion which his art has inspired
in the Emperor's favorite mistress, Domitia, we have
an appreciation of the dignity of the actor's art and a
discrimination of the man beneath circumstances and
mere avocation such as the literature of the age knew
not elsewhere. Nothing could be finer than the min-
gled freedom and fidelity with which Massinger has
used in his play the materials discoverable in Sueto-
nius and Dio Cassius, and the ingenuity with which
the playwright has contrived no less than three dra-

Orosius, etc." Langbaine, 209. Dyce states that several passages
are imitated from Lucan's Pharsalia. Beaumont and Fletcher,
American ed. 1854, ii, 39.
1 Ward, iii, 25.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 43

matic scenes of a play within his play, each intro-
duced naturally, varying with the others, and yet
contributing to the unfolding of the action. Far less TA« Emftrtr.f
praise can be bestowed on Massinger's later tragi- £^JJ'|6
comedy, The Emperor of the East, licensed in 1631
and acted by the King's servants. This play deals
with the history of Theodosius the Younger, and ap-
pears to be of very mixed derivation. As Koeppel
justly remarks, " Massinger has turned the historical
tragedy of the first four acts into a tasteless comedy
in the last." *

With The Emperor of the East we reach the last play Thom*« M«y,
of this kind, the work of a dramatist of the first rank. l^^\fit
For despite Shirley's tactful use of classical story in
such by-forms of the drama as The Contention of Ajax
and Ulysses, and Ford's revision of Dekker's beau-
tiful masque-like drama, The Suns Darling, neither
of them reverted in drama of stricter form to classical
myth or story.2 It is then to authors such as May,
Nabbes, and Goffe that we must turn to trace the
continuance of the drama based on classical theme.
Thomas May is best remembered as the historian of
the long Parliament and the translator of Lucan's
Pharsalia and Vergil's Georgics. His memory has
been contorted and embalmed by the caustic wit of
Clarendon, though May was buried with honors in
Westminster Abbey at the expense of the Council of
State, in 1650.' May's dramas belong to his earlier
manhood, his first comedy, The Heir, having been

1 Koeppel, ii, 126.

2 The scene of The Coronation, licensed in 1635, as by Shirley
and printed as Fletcher's in 1640, is laid in Epire. It contains
" nothing historical beyond the sound of some of the names."

3 Life of Clarendon, ed. 1827, i, 39.

44 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

acted as early as 1620. May's name attaches to four
tragedies on classical subjects, of which two, Cleo-
patra and Julia Agrippina, appear to have been acted
unsuccessfully in 1626 and 1628. * May's Tragedy of
Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, is a stronger play than
Daniel's Cleopatra, and freer from the trammels of
classical example, both in conduct and in its fluent
blank verse, though plainly written with the ideals of
ancient tragedy in full view. The subject-matter pre-
sents a close parallel to Shakespeare's play save that
the battle of Actium is related by a messenger and the
ideal of the Queen is somewhat impaired by a momen-
tary resolve on her part to try on Augustus those wiles
and allurements which had temporarily captivated
the great Caesar and proved the undoing of Antony.
Like Jonson in Sejanus, May names his classical
sources in the margin, but is not overweighted by his
authorities. Agrippina is an equally effective tragedy,
swift, clear, and eloquent in parts. The subject enters
to the full into the intrigue whereby that scheming
princess raised her son, Nero, to the imperial throne,
and details as well her fall and the rise of Poppaea.
his Antigone, In 1631 May printed the Tragedy of Antigone, the
Theban Princess, with a preface on tragedy and com-
edy containing nothing new or startling. May's Anti-
gone is a strong play and far more than a translation.
An example of inventiveness is the scene in which
Antigone visits the field of slaughter to bury her bro-
ther, and meets with three hags prowling among the
dead to rob them.2 In the following scene these crea-
tures are consulted as to the future by Creon, as Mac-
beth consulted the witches, and they cause a corpse

1 None of the tragedies of May has been reprinted.

2 in, iii.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 45

to prophesy in a passage of gruesome horror. Another
Shakespearean echo, perhaps, is the death of Antigone
by "a gentle poison" in the moment of her rescue by
her lover JEmon from the tomb in which she has been
immured. May's Antigone is an interesting tragedy
alike for such Shakespearean reminiscences and for
the example which it offers of a mind classically
trained and yet affected by the contemporary spirit of
romance. This is especially illustrated in the un-
classical prominence of the romantic attachment of
JEmon and Antigone as in the novel employment of
the supernatural already mentioned. A Latin Julius
Ceesar by May of uncertain date remains in manu-
script.1

Thomas Goffe's contributions to the historical cubical hit-
drama of the contemporary Ottoman Empire have S^^h^
already been mentioned.2 His Orestes, acted by Christ ">d N«bb«.
Church students in 1623, 's of like juvenile and melo-
dramatic character. The Martyred Soldier, printed in
1638, by Henry Shirley, lays its scene in the time of
Belisarius and Genseric, but tells a very unhistoric
story of the christianizing and martyrdom of that
famous general and the succession of an Emperor
Hubert.3 The one classical tragedy of Thomas
Nabbes is the lengthy but by no means inadequate
Hannibal and Scipio, acted in 1635, which narrates
not only the story suggested in the title, but that of
Sophonisba, and also much besides.4 It is difficult to
agree with Bullen that this play owes anything to

1 Biographia Dramatica, ed. 1812, Part II, vol. i, 503.

2 Above, i, p. 449.

1 For other work of Henry Shirley, see above, i, p. 430.
* "Acted by the Queen's company at their private house in
Drury Lane."

46 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Marston.1 It is an estimable work, even though
contemporary stage fashion, in clash with classical
ideals, did demand a representation of the victor of
Lake Trasimenus as the victim of a sudden love pas-
sion for an unknown Roman captive at Cannae. It is
not impossible, from its rambling character, that this
is the making over of an old play of the same title,
by Rankins and Hathway, which held the stage of the
Fortune as far back as i6oi.2

William Cart- Nothing could better illustrate with what com-
43"ghis tragi- pletcness romantic ideals had taken possession even
comedies, of those who, by training and association, might be
expected to preserve a more scholarly attitude than
the example of William Cartwright. Born in the
year 1611, Cartwright was identified all his life with
Oxford and noted for his scholarship. He was the
friend and intimate companion of Ben Jonson, who
commended his endeavors in drama with the words
"my son Cartwright writes like a man." And yet
Cartwright's three serious dramas, which fall between
1635 and a year or two later, albeit their scenes are
Cyprus, ancient Persia, and historical Byzantium,
are tragicomedies of the most approved contempo-
rary romantic type. With the Thesmophoriazusa
of Aristophanes for his suggestion, Cartwright was
capable, in his Lady Errant, of conceiving a women's
conspiracy in ancient Cyprus which fails because
the Lady Knight, Machessa, sends the conspirators'
collected treasure to their enemy, the King, in fulfill-
ment of a knightly vow of hers to succor mankind.
The Royal Slave is a dramatizing of the Persian story
of the Ephesian who was king for three days. It is

1 Bullen, Old Plays, new series, N abbes, i, xvi.
3 Hensiowe, 60, 125.

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 47

likewise conducted in the approved manner of late
romance.1 Lastly, The Siege, rewritten at the com-
mand of the king, and renamed in consequence of the
appearance meanwhile of Davenant's Siege, Love's
Convert, is a dramatic amplification of a story told
of Pausanias, transferred to a siege of Byzantium.1
Misander, besieging that city, demands that a virgin
be sent him for his pleasure. Leucasia is thrust into
his tent in the night with the command of her father
that she kill the tyrant. Upsetting and extinguishing
a lamp in her tremor, she is stabbed in the breast by
Misander, who takes her for an assassin. Moved by
her sad plight and her beauty, Misander becomes
"love's convert" and makes her his queen. Love's
Convert is a creditable production and well written,
though of none of Cartwright's tragicomedies can it
be said that they possess dramatic sinews. Their con-
temporary success, which was great, seems to have
been based on extraneous circumstances. The Lady
Errant was performed, to judge by its prologue and
epilogue, before royal personages, if not at court, and
with the female characters taken by women, outside
of the masque an extraordinary innovation in the
year 1635. The Royal Slave was presented by stu-
dents of Christ Church before the king and queen,
on the occasion of their visit to Oxford in August of
the next year, and revived at royal request a few
months later by professional actors at Hampton
Court, where the royal verdict was rendered that the
students acted best.8 Another novelty connected with

1 For the circumstances of the performance of this play, see
below, p. 90.

3 Plutarch, Cymon, cap. 6, also Boccaccio, ix, I.
8 Collier, ii, 76-78.

48 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

the performance of The Royal Slave was the change of
scene eight times.1

Cough's The Strange Discovery, in which John Gough told

froerTi^'o"- m dramatic form the story of Theagenes and Chan-
Richards' clea of Heliodorus, and Nathaniel Richards' Tragedy
pr/16401' of Messalina, the Roman Empress, both printed in
1640, complete this tale of the later tragedies and his-
tories modeled on ancient story, though many titles
suggest that this enumeration might be much ex-
tended. Of Gough practically nothing is known.
His play is rambling, full of event, and not skillfully
plotted.2 Richards was a Devon man, born about
1612 and educated at Caius College, Cambridge. He
retired to his native place, Kenvistown, in 1654,
where he succeeded to his father's ministry. Rich-
ards' one drama, Messalina, deserves more than a
mere mention, and may well have "passed" upon
the stage, as the preface informs us, "the general
applause as well of honorable personages as others."
This play belongs to the type of Sejanus and the
tragedies of May, and its classical authorities are as
carefully noted. Messalina is a monster of lust, cov-
eting every handsome man she meets; while, on the
other hand, Sylana, the constant wife of Silius, is an
admirable foil, and, in her purity and heroic devotion,

1 Cf. the marginal stage directions of the quarto of 1639.

2 It seems likely that Gough used Underdown's translation of
Heliodorus, 1569. The subject had been employed before by
Gosson in his Theagenes and Chariclea, 1572, and perhaps in a play
called The Queen of Ethiopia, acted at Bristol in 1578 by Lord
Howard's men. A late tragedy, Andromana, 1640, also draws
upon Heliodorus, but with the intervention of Sidney's Arcadia.
On this topic, see " Heliodor und seine Bedeutung fur die Littera-
tur," by M. Oeftering, Litter arhistorisc he Forschungen, xviii, 149-
'55-

CLASSICAL MYTH AND STORY 49

measurably above the unconvincing chastity of the
prudishly pure women of Fletcher. Richards is espe-
cially happy in depicting the disarming infirmity of
purpose that comes to the wickedly great in crucial
moments demanding moral courage. Though his
Empress-paramour command it, and his heroic vic-
tim offer her breast to his stroke, Silius dare not kill
his wife; and Messa Una's own trivial wounding of
herself on the scaffold is a mixture of heroic impulse
and Sybaritic shrinking from pain which is as true to
life as dramatically effective. With little imagery and
next to no poetry, Messalina is none the less an able
and interesting play.

In this chapter we found the Elizabethan dramas Summary.
which sought their material either directly or medi-
ately in ancient story beginning in imitations of Sen-
eca, under masters holding Italian and French ferules,
and reaching, in the graceful court dramas of Daniel
and in the politico-philosophical tragedies of Gre-
ville, a development beyond which the drama thus
restricted could not be expected to pass. Popular
Seneca had long since passed through Kyd and Mar-
lowe into the tragedy of revenge, and left forever
behind it not only classical subjects, but classical
rules. Thus, when Heywood popularized classical
mythology for the audiences of Newington Butts or
the Rose, he was trammeled by no precedents and
treated his material precisely as he chose. Shake-
speare, too, was untrammeled; but the artist sufficed
in him to give to the world in Julius Ccesar a form of
greater freedom than that which had hampered the
imitators of Seneca, and yet to crystallize into artistic
beauty such material as had remained amorphous in
the hands of Heywood. Jonson then arose with all his

5o ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

scholarship in him to protest in Sejantis against the
amateurishness of these unlearned men. But in his
protest Jonson declared his pedantry ; and Marston,
ever ready with the dagger of insinuation, virtuously
disclaimed, on his own part at least, any attempt
" to translate Latin prose orations." It was then that
Shakespeare triumphantly confuted all cavil as to the
success of classical history and myth freely treated in
the fine succession of his plays on ancient theme which
cluster about the year 1607; and it was immediately
thereafter that Jonson returned to the contest in
Catiline, and proved that there was something to be
said even yet on the side of the classicists. Catiline
was really the last word, for despite such followers
as the unknown author of the Nero of 1624, Thomas
May, and Nathaniel Richards, thereafter dramas of
this class, as of nearly all others, came under the
powerful romantic sway of Fletcher.

XIV

THE COLLEGE DRAMA

TWO lines of development in the drama of the
Elizabethan age have already been suggested
and defined. Upon these lines were evolved two
kinds of drama. One was vernacular, vulgar, bus-
tling, and realistic, but vitalized with the breath of the
people; temporary as to those outward qualities that
spring from momentary taste or passing fashion;
immortal at times by reason of the preservative
power of its artistry and enduring poetry, and be-
cause of the breadth of its appeal to the universal
elements of human nature. The other was the aca-
demic drama, the creation of the school, the court,
and the universities. Its foundations were learning
and precedent, its superstructure culture arid good
form. It delighted in nicety of expression and in
polish of detail. Although it never rose to the con-
ception of art as its own end and fulfillment, but kept
its nine muses ever in the antechamber of royalty,
the waiting-ladies of fashion, it had yet its ideals or
at least its theories. Nor was the college drama with-
out its successes, of which more anon. Yet before we
proceed to the well-defined group before us, let the
reader be once more advised of the purely provisional
nature of all classifications; and let him remember,
as to the distinction just drawn, that not only were
popular plays of the London stage again and again
performed at court and at the universities, but that

52 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

the reflex influence of the court drama and the masque
— even of the narrowly academic plays of Oxford
and Cambridge — upon the popular stage, while less
easily traceable in concrete example, cannot but have
been appreciably strong. In a word, it was the inces-
jsant interpenetration of these two classes of plays
that made the Elizabethan drama much of what it
was.

Popular plays " Of the earlier drama of school and court enough
Tensities!"" nas ^een written. We have found this species of play,
too, continued in the works of Daniel and his kind,
and we shall discuss the by-form known as the masque
in a later chapter.1 If mere performance at Oxford
or Cambridge were our sole criterion in this place,
our classification might be as complex as that of the
drama at large. Hamlet was acted at both univer-
sities ; and other plays of Shakespeare must have
been acted at Oxford on the visits of his company to
the seat of the university during the early years of
the reign of King James.2 Volpone was reproduced
at both universities before its printing in 1607, and
with such success that it called forth an enthusiastic
dedication to the "two most noble and most equal
sisters" from the delighted author. As Jonson's
play could not have been written more than a year
earlier, this may be taken as an example of the avid-
ity with which an academic audience often welcomed
a success of the London boards. Nor would the
mere character of the play be at all times a sufficient
guide to its academic nature; for although the uni-
versities practiced and held to certain types of drama

1 See chapters ii and iii, and below, chapter xv.

2 Lee, Shakespeare, 224 ; Halliwell-Phillips, Visits of Shake-
speare's Company to Provincial Towns, 1887, under Oxford.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 53

in the main, their variety was considerable and their
wanderings into the domain of popular comedy not
infrequent. In the preceding pages no attempt has
been made to separate the academic drama from that
which flourished at court or among the people. But
nowhere else has it seemed possible to treat distinc-
tively the many plays which reflected specifically the
atmosphere of Elizabethan university life, and which
followed the theory of precedent and scholarship
rather than those rules of thumb which were discov-
ered to be practiced or denied by the popular play-
wrights in their very making. An endeavor will
be made in this chapter to consider the university
play both as to its history and as to the peculiar
species of drama which it came in time to evolve.

Theatrical performances in the halls and refectories Early theat
of the universities date from early times. For Oxford,

the records begin in 1486 with a performance at £*d *nd
Magdalen College and continue with various refer-
ences to miracles, interludes, and plays (ludi) down
to the period of the regular drama.1 In 1512 at Ox-
ford one Edward Watson was granted a degree on
the condition that he write a Latin comedy; in
1546 at Cambridge students were fined for not tak-
ing their parts.2 A nameless play was acted at Car-
dinal College in 1530; s one Thomas Artour wrote
Mundus Plumbeus and Microcosmus at Cambridge
between 1520 and 1532; 4 and Anthony a Wood
records a Latin comedy, Piscator or the Fishfr

1 See Chambers, ii, 194, and his Appendix E, ibid. 248.

2 Boase, Register of Oxford, quoted by the same, 194; Mullingcr,
History of Cambridge, ii, 73.

3 Calendar of State Papers, \\, 6788.

4 Wallace, The Birthe of Hercules, 39.

54 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Caught, by John Hoker, Fellow of Magdalen College,
Oxford, as acted therein in 1535. 1 Grimald's Christus
Redivivus was presented at Brasenose about 1542,
his Archipropheta at Christ Church in I547-2 And
these apparently complete the tale of Oxford plays
prior to the accession of Elizabeth. At Cambridge,
save for the mention of the gift of half a mark by one
William de Leune and his wife to be expended in a
play called Ludus Filiorum Israelis upon their ad-
mission to the guild of Corpus Christi in I35O;3 and
the enumeration of "a pall, six masks and beards
for the comedy," in the accounts of the College of
Michael-House in 1386, the list of university per-
formances begins with the Plutus of Aristophanes,
given in Greek at St. John's College in I536.4 In
1545 great offense was offered to Bishop Gardiner
by the public performance at Christ's College of
the antipapal Pammachius. Receiving an equivocal
answer to his first letter of complaint and inquiry,
Gardiner pressed an investigation, but appears to
have gained little satisfaction from the stubborn
but far from candid defense of Vice-Chancellor
Parker and the other university authorities.5 That
no serious interference with the drama at Cambridge
ensued is shown by the performance, in the next
year, of the Pax of Aristophanes and of a tragedy of
Jephthes by John Christopherson, both at Trinity
College.8

1 Athena Oxonienses, i, 138.

2 Register of Oxford, i, 298 ; and Narcissus, ed. M. L. Lee, 1893,
p. xiii.

3 Master's History of Corpus Christi College, p. 5.

4 Retrospective Review, xii, 7 ; Mullinger, ii, 73.

5 Herford, 129-132; see above, i, 39.

8 John Dee, Compendious Rehearsal, Appendix to Hearn, Joan-

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 55

Roger Ascham, tutor to the daughters of Henry VIII
and to Lady Jane Grey, has left behind him in his

O / I i i t-ambndgc.

bcholemaster some pleasant chat as to the practice of
the Latin drama at Cambridge in his youth. In the
following passage we may see at once the models,
the ambition, and the pedantry of the time: "Whan
M. Watson in S. Johns College at Cambrige wrote
his excellent Tragedie of Absolon, M. Cheke, he and
I, for that part of trew imitation, had many pleasant
talkes togither, in comparing the preceptes of Aris-
totle and Horace de Arte Poetica, with the examples
of Euripides, Sophocles, and Seneca. Few men, in
writyng of tragedies in our dayes, haue shot at this
marke. Some in England, moe in France, Germanic,
and Italic, also haue written tragedies in our tyme:
of the which, not one I am sure is able to abyde the
trew touch of Aristotles preceptes and Euripides
examples, saue onely two, that ever I saw, M. W7at-
sons Absalon, and Georgius Buckananus Jephtht.
One man in Cambrige, well liked by many, but best
liked, of him selfe, was many tymes bold and busie, to
bryng matters upon stages which he called tragedies.
In one, whereby he looked to wynne his spurres, and
whereat many ignorant felowes fast' clapped their
handes,he began the protasis with trochoeiis octonarns:
which kinde of verse, as it is but seldome and rare in
tragedies, so is it never used, save onelie in epttasi:
whan the tragedie is hiest and hotest and full of
greatest troubles. I remember ful well what M.
Watson merelie sayd unto me of his blindnesse and

nis Glastoniensis Chronica^Oi; and Warton.iii, 303. Chalmers, ii,
195, finds no trace of the former play, the chief interest of which
was the contrivance for the flight of a mechanical scarabzus acrott
the stage.

56 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

boldnes in that behalfe, athough otherwise there
passed much frendship betwene them. M. Watson
had another maner care of perfection, with a feare
and reverence of the judgement of the best learned:
Who to this day would neuer suffer yet his Absalon to
go abroad, and that onelie, bicause, in locis paribus,
anapestus is twise or thrise used in stede of iambus" l
Ascham, in his Epistles, states that he had himself
translated the Philoctetes into Latin.2 It has unhap-
pily perished with the learned author's treatise on
cock-fighting. A comedy entitled Strylius, by Nich-
olas Robinson, later Bishop of Bangor, was acted
at Queen's College, Cambridge, in 1553.

Dramatic The history of Elizabethan drama at the sister uni-

or^queen1 versities begins with the year of Shakespeare's birth.
at Cambridge, ln tnat year, 1564, Elizabeth visited Cambridge, and
"the days of her abode were passed in scholasticall
exercises in philosophic, physic and divinity; the
nights in comedies and tragedies, set forth partly by
the whole university and partly by the students of
King's College." 3 It is of interest to know that of the
plays projected for performance, one was the Aulu-
laria of Plautus, a second a translation into Latin of
the Ajax of Sophocles, a third, an original Latin play
by Edward Halliwell on the familiar subject, Dido ;
and the fourth, " Ezechias in English." This last was
a play of Nicholas Udall's; and as Udall died in that
year, it has been happily suggested that the play was
staged by former students of his at Eton.4 Ajax Fla-
gellifer was not acted; whether the queen was weary

1 The Scholemaster, ed. Arber, 139.

2 Hazlitt, Manual, 179.

8 Nichols, Progresses of Queen Elizabeth, ed. 1823, i, 150.
4 Fleay, ii, 265.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 57

with " ryding in the forenoone and disputations after
dinner; or whether anie private occasion letted the
doinge thereof, was not commonly knowen," says
one of our contemporary informants.1 Towards all
of the other plays Elizabeth was exceedingly gra-
cious, and as to Dido it is related that Thomas Pres-
ton, later the author of Cambises, " acted so well . . .
and did so genteelly and gracefully dispute before,"
that the Queen gave him twenty pounds per annum
for so doing.2

At Oxford Edmund Campion heads the list of Pby* before
Latin dramatists of the reign. Campion later became Q^
a famous Jesuit emissary and suffered martyrdom
in 1581 for his zeal and opinion. His tragedy, called
Nectar et Ambrosia, was acted in 1564, probably at
St. John's College, at which he was, at that time, a
scholar.3 Campion bore a distinguished part in the
disputations before the queen on the occasion of her
visit to Oxford two years later. On this occasion, as
at Cambridge, her majesty was regaled with ad-
dresses in Latin, Greek, and English, with sermons,
disputations, and plays. Three of these last are re-
corded, the anonymous Marcus Gemtnus, Progne, a
tragedy by James Calfhill, and Palamon and Arcyte Pal*
by Richard Edwards of her majesty's chapel ; the *"
last in English, performed on two consecutive even-
ings, and a very great success. A feature of this per-
formance was "the acting of a cry of hounds in the

1 Nichols, Elizabeth, i, 179. See Mullinger, ii, 190 n., for a denial
of the Spanish story that a play ridiculing the rites of the Roman
Church was acted on this royal visit.

2 Ibid. 245.

3 This play was revived at Oxford in the year of Campion's
death ; one would fain know the circumstances.

58 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

quadrant upon the train of a fox in the hunting of
Theseus." * Elizabeth gave the author '^great thanks
for his pains;" and, delighted with the young actor
who took the part of Amelia, sent him eight angels
"for gathering her flowers prettily in a garden there
represented and singing sweetly." 2 Edwards was in
a sense the queen's dramatist, a man of maturity,
and much admired for his Damon and Pythias, the
success of Christmas, 1563, at court. It is not remark-
able to hear, then, that Progne "did not take half so
well" as "the much admired Palcemon" 3 or that it
was debated among the auditors, if this latter play
was not even better than Damon and Pythias. The
same year witnessed other performances at Oxford:
Anosto, probably one with the Supposes of Gas-
coigne, another popular success at court, acted ' at
Trinity, an English comedy, and the Eunuchus of
Terence at Merton, and perhaps a revival of Gammer
Gurton at Christ's.

Popularity of With the royal sanction and approval thus given in
the un^rsXes. her visits, it is not to be wondered that the drama
continued to flourish at both universities; and that
scarcely a winter passed without performances, far
more of them (it may be surmised from the many
manuscripts yet extant) than have been handed down
in the records. Thus the two universities divide
almost equally some sixty plays, extant and recorded,
between the year 1564 and the close of the queen's

1 Nichols, Elizabeth, i, 210, 212 ; and Plummer, Elizabethan
Oxford, 124, 128, and 138 ; and see W. Y. Durand, " Notes on
Edwardes," "Journal of Germanic Philology, iv, 35, in which the
fuller Latin account of Bereblock is given in translation. The
original appears in Elizabethan Oxford, ill.

2 Nichols, Elizabeth, i, 212. 3 Ibid. 215.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 59

reign, thirteen being in English, of which six are
still extant. While some of the college plays conform
to classical methods and ideals, they exhibit a con-
siderable range and variety in subject and source, as
will be further set forth below. Passing Byrsa Ba- woii
silica by John Rickets, 1570, and Legge's Richardus Gigw
Tertius, nine years later, which are peculiar for their
English subjects, and both of which have been treated
above,1 we find William Gager prominent during the
eighties in the writing and staging of Latin plays at
Christ Church College, Cambridge. Gager's tragedy,
Meleager, was acted before the Earl of Leicester, Sir
Philip Sidney, and other persons of distinction in
1 58 1 ; 2 his Dido, wherein the setting was " all strange,
marvelous, and abundant," together with "a plea-
sant comedie intituled Rivales" before the Prince
Palatine of Poland, in 1583. Ulysses Redux, which
with Meleager was printed, and an (Edipus, complete
the tale of Gager's work.3 A fragment of the last in
manuscript discloses a near acquaintance with the
Phaenisscs of Seneca; and indeed all of these trage-
dies are cast in the stricter mould of Roman exam-
ple. On the other hand, Meres rates "Dr. Gager of
Oxford" among the best poets of comedy.4 It is of
interest to record that George Peele was among the
younger men who helped in the preparation of Dido;
and that under Gager's influence he translated one of
the Iphigenias of Euripides, but whether into Latin

1 See i, pp. 255, 285. 3 Athena Oxonienses, i, 88.

8 For the content of these plays, see ibid. 87, 88. Meleager was
printed in 1592; Ulysses in the same year. Another Meleager,
apparently in English, is described in the Athenaum, September 14,
1901.

4 Palladis Tamia, Haslewood, ii, 154.

60 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

hiscontro- or English does not appear.1 On the publication of
Meleager, Gager sent a copy with a letter defending

college plays to Dr. John Rainolds, afterwards Presi-
dent of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Rainolds
answered by an attack upon the practice of college
plays, using Gager's own Rivales by way of example,
and arraigning "with especial vigor the appearance
on the stage of youths in women's cloths;" and the
contest continued in replication and rejoinder until
the publication by Rainolds, in 1599, of a pamphlet
entitled The Overthrow of Stage Playes ..." wherein
all the reasons that can be made for them are notably
refuted/'2

satirical nature Turning to Cambridge, it was in 1582 that Thomas
demTpiays; Nash matriculated at St. John's, remaining "seven
year togetner» lacking a quarter," having taken his
B. A. in 1585-86. According to Harvey, his malignant
enemy, Nash, narrowly escaped expulsion for his
"hand in a show called Terminus et non terminus, the
precise nature of which we do not know." 3 It was
quite in the character of Nash to have left the univer-
sity for his caustic and ungoverned wit; and, with due
allowance for satirical exaggeration, it seems certain
that his quarrel with Harvey extended to the repre-
sentation of that pragmatical doctor, albeit he was

1 See above, i, p. 134.

2 Sidney Lee in Die. Nat. Biog. xx, 358 ; and see Thompson,
The Controversy between the Puritans and the Stage, 95-101, for this
academic continuance of an old popular controversy. See, also,
above, i, pp. 147-151.

3 Trimming of Thomas Nash, Grosart, Harvey, iii, 67. Fleay, ii,
124, on Harvey's words, " this foresaid Nash played in it (as I sup-
pose) the varlet of clubs," conjectures this one with The Play of
Cards mentioned in Harington's Apology for Poetry, Haslewood,

», 135-

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 61

Spenser's Hobbinol, on the academic stage. Nash
challenges Harvey to deny that he was represented
with his two brothers in a "show made at Clare-hall"
called Tarrarantantara turba tumultuosa Trigonum
Tri-Harveyorum, Tri-harmonia ; or that "the little
minnow, his brother, Dodrans Dick," was not staged at
Peterhouse under the sobriquet Duns Furens.1 Later
on Nash breaks forth : " What will you give me when
I bring him uppon the stage in one of the principallest
colledges in Cambridge ? Lay anie wager with me,
and I will; or if you lay no wager at all, He fetch him
aloft in Pedantius, that exquisite comedie in Trinitie
Colledge; where under the chiefe part, from which it
tooke his name, as namely the concise and firking
finicaldo fine school-master, hee was full drawen and
delineated from the soale of the foote to the crowne
of his head." 2 This passage has been thought rather
to refer to Pedantius as representing in beau-ideal
the very Harvey himself, than to imply that this witty
and satirical play was written in actual ridicule of
Nash's foe.3 Be this as it may, enough has been said
to indicate the extent to which even personal satire
entered into these university plays. This was to con-
tinue a striking characteristic of academic comedy to
the end; and, indeed, this is the one quality which,
from its temporary nature, is least capable of carriage
across the centuries into a time which knows not the
personalities, the trivialities, and the allusions to pass-

1 Have With You to Saffron WaUen, Grosart, Nash, iii, Il8.

2 Ibid. 117.

3 The latest editor of Pedantius, Professor G. C. Moore Smith,
regards the character as a certain portrait of Harvey, and he cer-
tainly makes out a strong case. See his excellent edition in Mate-
rialien zur KunJe, 1905, viii, pp. xxxii-1.

62 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

ing events on which personal satire must ever be more
or less founded.

Latin college Pedantius is the work of Anthony Wingfield or of
mriiu, 1581. Edward Forsett; perhaps of both.1 It was first acted
in the Hall of Trinity College in February, 1581, and
has been thought to be the continuation of an earlier
perished comedy in which some of the personages -
notably the pedant — had already been represented.2
This witty and satirical production may be taken as
a typical academic comedy of its day. In it Crobulus,
freedman of Charondas, is the favored suitor of
Lydia, who still remains Charondas' slave. Pedantius
also loves Lydia; but as her master refuses to manu-
mit her without the payment of thirty pounds, and
Crobulus has nothing, he hoaxes Pedantius into pay-
ing the money while he obtains the girl. The scene
and characters suggest Plautus; but the point of the
piece is in the title role, Pedantius, the absurd Cicero-
nian, and in the foil of Pedantius, Dromodotus, a fool-
ish humanist philosopher, in whose combined absurd-
ities are ridiculed the foibles and affectations of the
learned.3 The characters are by no means ill drawn,
and Lydia "is as pretty, and as pert, and as willing
to be married as any chambermaid" of modern farce.
Many Latin plays followed Pedantius at both uni-
versities in the last decade of the century. A minor
one at Cambridge is Victoria by Abraham Fraunce,
the writer of hexameters, a comedy intricate in its

1 Ibid. pp. xi-xx, where it is shown that both these persons fulfill
the conditions of authorship, and the claims of Dr. Thomas Beard
and of Walter Hawkesworth are disposed of.

2 See the reasons assigned for this opinion, ibid. pp. xxvi, xxvii.

3 Cf. Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 277, where some suggested "influences"
may also be found, and mention of other dramatic pedants of the
time, not omitting Holophernes.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 63

intrigue and unoriginal in its borrowings of phrase
and repetition of stock figures.1 The most notable, *,//„„
perhaps, was the Bellum Grammatical, acted, possi- f""f j
bly, not long after at Christ Church, Oxford, before ''
the queen, though "meanly given," we are informed.2
In this curious production an allegorical war be-
tween the forces of Poeta, Rex Nominum, and A mo,
Rex Verborum is conceived, in which the combatants
(among them Ego with the pronouns as marines, and
Cts with an Amazonian host of prepositions) are
ranged against each other in long-winded contention.
But despite the gloating joy of Solicismus, Cacotomus,
and other grammaticae pestes, the kingdom of gram-
mar is at length set in order by Priscian, Lilius, and
other grammaticae Judices, and such punishments as
the cutting off of the passive voice of doleo and volo
forever and the loss of all cases by fas and nefas, are
among the terrible penalties inflicted. We are not
surprised to find that this curious play was not an in-
vention of the year 1581, but dates back to 1512, and
to the ingenious authorship of Andrea Guarna of
Salerno; and further, that Bale, in his list of the plays
of Radclif, in 1538, mentions a Nominis ac Verbi
Pugna, doubtless the original of this Oxford play.8
Bellum Grammatical is a favorable example of the
persistence of the methods of medieval drama in late

1 See the recent edition of this comedy by G. C. Moore Smith,
Materialien zur Kunde, xiv (1906), pp. ix and xiv. This play dates
before 1583. Fraunce had been notable for his acting at Shrews-
bury School and later took a part in Dr. Legge's Riehardus Yerttus.
Hewas a protege of Sir Philip Sidney.to whom Victoria is dedicated.

2 Halliwell, Dictionary, 31.

3 Bale, Index, 333. The notion of Bond, Lyly, i, 380, that his
author was in any way concerned in Bellum Grammatical t or
Gager's Rivales must be pronounced wholly fanciful.

64 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

times, further exemplified in such a production as
Lingua, and even in Ben Jonson's reversion to moral-
ity types in his latest comedies.

College plays From these Latin plays of the reign of Elizabeth
c/^n£^,: let us now turn to performances in English, which,
'597- though few in point of number, are, some of them,

very striking. An example of the license of some of
these plays is contained in the comedy Club Law,
acted, like the plays to which Nash alluded, at Clare
Hall, in 1597, and the work of George Ruggle, a not-
able Latin dramatic satirist of the time. On the per-
formance of this "merry but abusive comedy," as
Fuller called it, "the mayor, with his brethren, and
their wives were invited" to attend, and the towns-
folk, "riveted in with scholars on all sides," were com-
pelled to hear out a piece in which, to use Fuller's
words, "they did behold themselves in their own best
clothes (which the scholars had borrowed), so lively
personated their habits, gestures, language, lieger-
jests, and expressions, that it was hard to decide
which was the true townsman, whether he that sat
by, or he who acted on the stage." 1 A complaint to
the lords of the privy council brought a civil reply to
the effect that some of their number would presently
journey to Cambridge and have the play again per-
formed, this time before them, that they might judge
of its libelous character and mete out suitable pun-
ishment, if need be. But the townsmen gladly dropped
the matter rather than suffer public lampooning a
second time.

At Christmas, 1598, was acted at St. John's the first
of an interesting trilogy of academic plays entitled
The Pilgrimage to Parnassus and The Return thence

1 Fuller, History of Cambridge, ed. 1840, p. 2l8.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 65

in two parts. The last of these alone saw print; the The trilogy
others were only discovered in the Bodleian Library, °5ap»ra"*u»
Oxford, some twenty years since.1 The Pilgrimage "
details the career of two youths, Philomusus and
Studioso, who journey, by way of the well-known
trivium, through the island of "Logique," described
as " muche like Wales, full of craggie mountaines
and thornie vallies," through the pleasant groves of
" Rhetorique," where "Tullie's nightingale" sweetly
sings, and into the harsher climate of Philosophic,
until they reach "the laurell shadie grove" upon Par-
nassus' top. Nor are they without temptation by the
way, from Madido, the taverner, who would drink
anything rather than "that pudled water of Helicon
in the companie of leane Lenten shadowes," to the
Puritan Stupido, who esteems " Mr. Martin [Marpre-
late] above all authors and hates all rimers for their
"diabolical ruffs and wicked great-breeches full of
sin." 2 The Pilgrimage is little more than an inter-
lude; but its simplicity of plan and the universal-
ity of its types, from Consiliodorus, the admonitory
father, and his talkative servant, to Ingenioso, the
disenchanted sojourner in Parnassus, who has burned
his books, "splitted his pen," and declared "Apollo
a banckroute," were sure to take the fancy of the
academic audience before which it was acted.

In the first part of The Return from Parnassus, em- i Rtturn fr
boldened by his success, the author sets forth, in more
elaborate mould, "the progress (or rather retrogres-
sion) of learning towards a settlement in life." Philo-
musus and Studioso leave the university to seek pre-

1 By W. D. Macray, who published all three parts in 1886. The
Second Part of The Return from Parnassus was first printed in 1606.
z Macray, 7, 12, 2O.

66 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

ferment, and, rebuffed on every hand, find place, the
one as a sexton in a village church, the other as tutor
to a low-born dolt, on terms little better than menial.
But the indignities of their service become intoler-
able; they break away, and on their further journey
towards London fall in with some of their university
friends, whose efforts to secure patronage and prefer-
ment help to swell the scene and prove, in the end, as
abortive as their own. A new and capital figure of
this Part is Gullio, "fool of fashion and patron of
poetry," who quotes whole passages of Shakespeare
as his own, and complimented on his "reading in the
English poets," replies : " I vouchsafe to take some of
their wordes, and applie them to mine owne matters
by scholasticall invention." 1 The play ends with a
determination on the part of Philomusus and his
friends to hie "to Rome or Rhe[i]ms" to end or mend
their state, as did many an English poor scholar of
the day, in the bosom of the enemies of England.
^ Return from The Second Part of The Return from Parnassus,
fteT"""' acted in the next year, continues the theme of the first
with the greater confidence and elaboration born of
success. It digresses somewhat to justify its sub-title,
The Scourge of Simony, in several scenes of excellent
comedy disclosing how Immerito, who had never seen
a university, carries off a living from Academico, " a
scurvy mere Cambridge scholar," by bribing Amo-
retto, the feather-brained son of Sir Frederick, the I
patron. It is this part of the play, too, that contains
the personal satire on Francis Brackyn, deputy re-
corder of Cambridge, who had opened himself to aca-
demic attack by the unpopular part which he had
taken in a recent controversy as to precedence between
1 Ibid. P. 57.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 67

the mayor of Cambridge and the vice-chancellor of
the university. As to the main plot, Ingenioso be-
comes a satirical pamphleteer, and with his friend,
Furor Poeticus, ends in the Isle of Dogs. Philomusus
practices for a time as a French doctor; at last with
Studioso he determines to go on the boards of the
common stage, and Burbage and Kemp are intro-
duced in their own persons testing the abilities of the
would-be actors.1 But even this last shift proves futile,
and the play ends with the resolution of the two un-
happy scholars to end their days as shepherds on the
Kentish Downs.

The authorship of these three interesting comedies
remains unknown; for ingenious as is the super- ™
structure erected by Gollancz upon the bare sur- P
mise that John Day might have been the author of p
these plays, neither external nor internal evidence,
sufficient to carry conviction, has as yet been forth-
coming.2 Nor can the conservative scholar feel more
content with the attempts of Fleay and Sarrazin to
interpret the typical personages of the Parnassus
plays into a more or less complete allegory of "the
ill-fortunes of the university poets." 8 Ingenioso in
the last play is Nash; the term, "young Juvenal," his
experiences as a pamphleteer, his Isle of Dogs, make
the identification unmistakable. Nor need we deny
the probability of the identification of Furor Poeticus
with Marston, nor that of Philomusus, the French
doctor, with Lodge, whose degree in medicine was of

1 Macray, 138.

2 Day's authorship was first broached in Notts and Queritt,
Third Series, ix, 387. The whole subject is fully discussed by Ward
in a long note, ii, 640; and byO.Smeaton in his ed.of the play, 1905.

8 Fleay, ii, 347-355 J Sarrazin, Kyd und sein Kreis, 78-93.

68

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Allusions to
contemporary
poets in the
Parnassus
plays.

Avignon. Beyond this all is doubt after the manner of
allegory; and least of all can we follow Sarrazin's no-
tion that Studioso is the poet of the original Hamlet.1
It seems likely that the author began diffidently with
a wholly impersonal play, The Pilgrimage, a produc-
tion which, save for its little piece of farce, a clown
lugged in with a halter because "a play cannot be
without a clowne," contains no allusion to things per-
sonal or contemporary.2 Succeeding beyond his hope,
the author turned his eye to the popular stage. Jon-
son's Every Man in His Humor, Every Man out of
His Humor, and Cynthia's Revels were performed be-
tween the Pilgrimage and the first Return, and while
the melancholy tone of discontent and repining that
underlies the Parnassus plays with all their wit is far
from the bitter and authoritative censorship of Jonson,
it cannot be denied that the great satirist's influence
is potent in them. Gullio is thoroughly Jonsonian;
and so is the whole underplot of Simony in the third
play. Herein the author speaks with the abandon
that success had brought him, and not only satirizes
in allegory, but brings real personages, Burbage,
Kemp, and the printer Danter, on the stage and in
their own names.

There remains one other topic of interest arising
out of the Parnassus plays. They contain several pas-
sages in outspoken criticism of poets and dramatists
of the day, thus affording us an excellent example of
the academic attitude towards the new popular litera-
ture that luxuriated beyond the college walls. Spenser
is "a sweeter swan than ever song in Poe;" Daniel
"doth wage warre with the proudest big Italian that
melts his heart in sugared sonneting." Drayton's
1 Ibid. 88. 2 Macray, 22.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA

69

" Muse is like a sanguine dye, able to ravish the rash
gazer's eye;" and Marlowe, "happy in his buskined
Muse, alas unhappy in his life and end." ' These
were all college-bred men, and, save for Daniel, who
is elsewhere charged with plagiarism, Cantabrians.
Jonson, on the other hand, " is the wildest fellow of
a bricklayer in England;" 2 and Shakespeare's name TV
elicits : —

" Who loves not Adon's love, and Lucrece' rape ?
His sweeter verse contains heart throbbing life,
Could but a graver subject him content
Without love's foolish lazy languishment. " s

This in the year of the acting of Hamlet, and after the
completion of the splendid series of Shakespearean
historical plays, save Henry VIII. The Parnassus
plays attest the popularity of Shakespeare, whose
repute had penetrated even "Granta's cloistered
halls;" but it is Gullio, the foolish would-be poet,
who quotes him galore, and will have "his picture in
my study at the courte;" 4 and Kemp, the morris
dancer and clown on the common stage, who gives
him his highest praise in the often-quoted and cer-
tainly satirical deliverance: "Few of the university
pen plaies well, they smell too much of that writer

1 Ibid. 84, 85, 86.

2 Ibid. 87. The second husband of Jonson's mother appears to
have pursued that trade; Jonson was taunted with having been
apprentice to it.

3 Ibid. 87.

* Ibid. 58. I cannot agree with Arber (ed. Return from Parnassus,
1879, p. xiii), who takes this passage as proof of Shakespeare's
"confessed supremacy at that date, not only over all university
dramatists, but also over all the London professional playwrights."
Mullinger gives the true interpretation, History of Cambridge, ii,
524 n.

dcmic esti-
mate of
Shakespeare.

70 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Ovid, and that writer Metamorphosis, and talke too
much of Proserpina and Juppiter. Why here's our
fellow Shakespeare puts them all downe, aye, and Ben
Jonson, too." 1

Nardnus, There remain two college plays in English which

fall in point of performance, perhaps problematically,
within the reign of the queen. One is the slight but
clever little anonymous burlesque, Narcissus, acted
at St. John's College, Oxford, Christmas, 1602; the
other the lengthy and elaborate allegory Lingua, now
considered the work of John Tomkins of Trinity Col-
lege, Cambridge, and later the author of Albumazar.2
Narcissus is as frank a parody as "the tedious brief
scene of young Pyramis and his love Thisbe" in the
hands of Bottom and his mechanicals, and depends
for its fun on the jingle and absurdity of its rimes, on
its distortion of epithet, and its mock heroics. A hunt-
ing song in which the refrain imitates a cry of hounds
suggests the success of the same device in Palcemon
and Arcyte years before; 3 and the setting of the scene
for the suicide of the hero by the strewing of grass
and boughs, to indicate the depths of the woods, and a
bucket in the midst for the fatal spring, is completely
in the spirit of the Shakespearean Wall and Moon-

Lingua,be~ shine.4 Lingua is an academic allegory of surprising
elaboration and completeness. It is fluently and well
written, and was printed again and again, first in 1607.
Its minute directions as to costume show that it must

1 Ibid. 138.

2 Fleay, ii, 260. P. A. Daniel first suggested this ascription of
authorship. See Fleay and Furnivall, in Shakes peariana, March,
1885, and April, 1890.

3 Narcissus, ed. Lee, 1893, p. 17, and cf. above, pp. 57, 58.

4 Ibid. 1 8, and Midsummer Night's Dream, v, i.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 7,

have been handsomely staged; but where and when
remain in question, as neither Fleay's doubt that a
plot so deprecatory to woman could have been acted
in Elizabeth's reign, nor Ward's interpretation of the
allusions to "our gracious sovereign Psyche" as refer-
ences to Elizabeth seem sufficient to decide.1 Lingua
tells of the plot of the tongue — which is appropri-
ately feminine — to receive recognition as one of the
senses, of the dissension which she sows among the
five senses to that end, and of her final discomfiture
and the allowance of her claims only so far as woman-
kind are concerned. In an astonishing number of
scenes and among a throng of abstractions, extending
from Memoria, "the oldest living inhabitant," who
forgets his spectacles in the three hundred and forty-
ninth leaf of Holinshed's Chronicles, to Tobacco,
who talks West Indian gibberish, the author holds his
even way, always equal to his theme, often clever,
sometimes witty. An absurd myth of later Cavalier
making has attached itself to this play to the effect
that "the late usurper Cromwell (when a young man)
had therein the part of Tactus; and this mock ambi-
tion for the crown is said to have swollen his ambi-
tion so high, that afterward he contended for it in
earnest." 2 The circumstance that Cromwell was at
most eight years of age at the time of the first publi-
cation of Lingua, to say nothing of the probable first
acting of the play some years earlier, would daunt
any one but Fleay, who recognizes in Lingua the play
acted at Hinchinbrook in Cromwell's uncle's house
before King James on royal progress to London in

1 Fleay, ii, 261; Ward, iii, 174.

3 Winstanley, quoted in Dodsley, ix, 334. The story has been
traced to S. Miller, who published an edition of the play in 1657.

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Employment
of shifting
scenery at
Oxford, 1605.

1603, and the part which the destined Protector then
took (being three years of age) as not that of Tactus,
but that of Small Beer ! *

The magnificence of the costumes of Lingua has
just been mentioned, and in an early chapter of this
book will be found a passage giving a contemporary
description of the manner in which the Common Hall
of Christ Church, Oxford, was transformed into "the
grandeur of an old Roman palace" and furnished
with stage, cushioned seats, and myriads of candles
fittingly to receive her majesty, Queen Elizabeth.2
Early in the reign of James a new feature was added
to the performance of university plays, whence it
must soon have spread, to a greater or less degree,
to the popular stage. This was variation of scene, the
earliest step from the rudeness of the simultaneous
scenery of the old London playhouse to modern
pictorial setting.3 It was during the visit of King
James to Oxford in 1605 that Inigo Jones success-
fully solved this interesting problem in stage carpen-
try. "The stage," we are informed, "was built close
to the upper end of the hall, as it seemed at first sight:
but indeed it was but a false wall, fair painted and
adorned with stately pillars, which pillars would turn
about; by reason whereof with the help of other
painted cloths, their stage did vary three times in
the acting of one tragedy." 4 The play was a Latin
one, Ajax Flagellifer, which with Alba and Gwinne's

1 Fleay, li, 262.

2 Above, i, p. 1 08, where the passage from Bereblock's account
of the queen's visit in 1566 is quoted.

3 For a discussion of the settings of the London theaters, see
above, i, pp. 171-179.

4 Quoted by Malone, Variorum Shakespeare, iii, 8 1, from
Leland's Collections, ed. 1770, ii, 631, 646.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA

73

served this auspicious occasion. It is of
interest to know, too, that Jones received fifty pounds
for his novel designs, despite the untoward circum-
stance that " the king was very weary before he came
thither," and " much more wearied " by the tragedy, of
which it is regretfully reported that " he spoke many
words of dislike." l

But the royal presence was not imperative to the-
atrical undertakings at Oxford. Only two years after
this visit of King James, Oxford went for the nonce
theatrical mad, and happily for our information we
have the naive narrative of one Griffin Higges, an un-
dergraduate in 1607, who was evidently in the midst of
it all.2 Owing to some reminiscence of the days of the
boy bishop or the example which the students of the
inns of court were setting in their Christmas festivi-
ties, some of the "poulderings," or second year's men,
of St. John's determined upon the election of a Christ-
mas Prince and the device of fitting entertainments
for his welcome and honor.3 Their plans met with
such success that a sort of theatrical contagion spread
from gownsmen to townsmen, and from the Fresh-
men, who had a capital farce of their own in English,
to the Dons who gravely enacted matter tragical in the
learned tongue. Beginning with the Prince's instal-
ment in a device called Ara Fortunes, the celebration

1 Ibid. 639; also quoted by Malone, ibid. 82 note.

2 Printed from the original MS. in Miscellanea Antiqua Angli-
cana, 1816, vol. i.

3 On the Lord of Misrule at the universities and a fuller account
of this particular occasion than there is space for here, see Cham-
bers, i, 407-413; and also, as to the latter, the present author's
Thalia in Oxford, The Queen's Progress, 2OI. See Gesta Grayorum
for an account of the Christmas Prince of Gray's Inn in 1594,
printed in 1688, and reprinted in Nichols, Elizabeth, iii, 262-352.

74 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

continued with the performance of Latin '-^.
(Philomela and Philomanthes), masques aiid mor-
rises, allegories, and morals (Somnium Fundatons and
Time's Complaint) , and comedies Latin and English
to the number of some score of performances given
and projected, ending close to Lent with the masque
of the Prince's resignation, Ira sen Tumulus Fortunes.
Some of the plays were private ; most were public, and
acted in the college halls on tables set together for a
stage. The press of the audience, even on the stage,
was such at one performance, at least, that it was once
Trials and thought that the play " could not be performed that
TnTmaTeul night for want of room." ' On the giving of a later
performance, play, some unruly spirits raised what Higges called
"a tumult without the windows," whereupon "the
whifflers made a raid upon them with their swords
and drove the crowd out of the precincts, imprisoning
some until after the play was over." 2 There were
accidents. The Prince, who was to play Tereus, "had
got such an exceeding cold that it was impossible for
him to speak, or speaking to be heard." 3 The Pro-
logue of Time's Complaint forgot his lines, and "Good-
wife Spiggott, coming forth before her time, was most
miserably at a nonplus and made others so also, whilst
herself stalked in the midst like a great Harry-like
lion (as the audience pleased to term it) either saying
nothing at all or nothing to the purpose." 4 But there
were successes as well. Philomanthes elicited from
the delighted audience cries of " Abunde satis factum
tst!"5 Detraction, placed in the audience, played his
part so well "that he was like to have been beaten for
his sauciness;" 8 and "Ityswas much wondered at for

1 Miscellanea, as above, 69. 2 Ibid. 73. 3 Ibid. 26.

4 I^id. 33. 5 Ibid. 57. 6 Ibid. 74.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 75

speaking Latin because he was so little in his long
coat that he was taken to be but a child of seven or
eight years old." * It is significant that, notwithstand-
ing that "the style" was seriously argued against the
performance of one play, "for that it was English, a
language unfit for the university," the greatest suc-
cess of the entire festivity was a mock play, called The
Seven Days of the Week,2 in the despised vernacular,
written for the younger boys who could not do "seri-
ous things." 3

Let us return to the Latin academic drama which Late
continued with unabated zeal in composition and per-
formance at Cambridge, if not equally at Oxford, tragedies
throughout the reign of King James and far into that
of his son.4 Religious subjects were now of the for-
gotten past, and so, for the most part, were tragedies
founded on classical myth.5 The comparatively small
number of Latin plays which chose subjects from
Roman history are more scattering, and range from

1 Ibid. 29.

2 Ibid. 70 ; this trifle is printed, ibid. 39-55.

3 Latin college plays of the reign o/ James, not already men-
tioned in the text, are: (i) at Oxford Alba, with Gwinne's Ver-
tumnus, staged by Inigo Jones, Atalanta by Philip Parsons,
Spurius and Theomachia by Peter Heylin, and Philosophaster by
Robert Burton, the famous author of The Anatomy of Melancholy;
(2) at Cambridge, Euribates by Aquila Cruso; Homo by Thomas
Atkinson, Adelphe, which "lasted six hours and the court slept,"
Mmeha by one Cecil, and Pseudomagia by William Mewe ; (3) of
uncertain college are Fraus Pia, a comedy, scene London, Romeus
et Jultetta, Adrasta by Peter Mease, Sophomorus, Loiola by John
Racket, and Clitophon by William Ainsworth.

4 There are twenty or more plays acted at Cambridge, extant or
recorded between 1605 and 1640; Oxford shows two thirds as many.

5 A Saptentia Salvmoms, possibly a translation, was acted in
1566 (Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 224); William Goldingham's Herodes
belongs a little later (ibid. p. 242); and see above, pp. 53-60.

76 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Marcus Geminus of the queen's early visit to Oxford
to Thomas May's Antigone of 1631. The typical
Nero, pr. 1603. pjay Qf f^jg group is Dr. Gwinne's Nero, already de-
scribed.1 Apparently no definite relation, chronologi-
cal or other, can be established between the academic
tragedies dealing with Roman history and the French
Seneca of Daniel and Alexander, much as these af-
fected such themes. The same aloofness cannot be
affirmed of the two Senecan tragedies, Solymanmdce
and Roxana; for the first may not impossibly have
suggested to Greville, as already noted, the subject of
1592. his Mustaptia. Roxana was acted at Cambridge be-
fore 1592, and is the work of William Alabaster,
praised by Spenser in his Colin Clout, and recently
restored to an honorable place among the devotional
sonneteers of the reign.2 The story of Roxana is one
of palace intrigue, laid in as imaginary a Bactria as
Greville's "ancient kingdom of Ormus," but this
strange place of scene is, after all, only a device of
Alabaster's to conceal the source of \\isp\a.y,LaDalida
of Luigi Groto, wherein Alabaster's King Oromasdes
bears the name of Gyges' victim, Candaule, and his
Atossa, the more generic Berenice.3 Although per-
haps somewhat improved in brevity and condensation,
and displaying, we may well believe, an unimpeach-
able Latinity, it may be doubted if Roxana deserves
the praise of Dr. Johnson, who, in one of his oracular
moods, declared of Latin poetry in England: "If we
produced anything worthy of notice before the Ele-
gies of Milton, it was perhaps Alabaster's Roxana." 4

1 See above, pp. 34, 35.

2 Grosart's Spenser, iv, 49; Athenceum, December 26, 1903.

3 Hallam, Literature of Europe, ed. 1854, iii, 54.

4 Life of Milton, Tauchnitz ed. i, 57.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 77

The derivation of this tragedy of Alabaster was Italian sources
no unusual one among English academic writers of a
the day, who studied the drama of Italy no less assidu- edies-
ously than did the popular playwrights. But the in-
fluence of Italian models was strongest in comedy.
No less than a score of Latin plays remain to attest
the popularity at the universities of the comedy of
ingenious intrigue; and a few of them certainly vie
with the earlier works of Chapman and Jonson in this
kind, which it is interesting to observe are ultimately
referable to much the same models. Among the few
Latin comedies which have been referred to their
sources, the anonymous Hymenaus, 1580, draws on
the Decameron; and Lcelia, 1590, is a translation of
Gl' Ingannati and the undoubted immediate source
of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night.1 Giovanni Battista
della Porta, a contemporary Neapolitan physician,
and dramatist, seems to have enjoyed among the col-
legians an exceptionable vogue as a quarry for the
material of academic plays. This was doubtless due
to the success with which this Italian drew upon
Terentian and Plautine characters and situations, and
complicated the latter in ingenious and novel plots.
Walter Hawkesworth translated Porta's La Fantesca
and La Cintia into plays entitled Leander and Laby-
rinthus, acted at Cambridge in 1598 and 1599. The
latter is described as "occasionally so decidedly con-
tra bonos mores" that, to use the words of the excel-
lent old critic, "we may almost wish it was more so." 2
Far more important than either of these plays was the
famous Ignoramus, the plot of which is taken from
Porta's Trappolaria, and the well-written and divert-

1 Variorum Twelfth Night, 1901, p. xxi.
8 Retrospective Review, xii, 35.

78 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Animator, ing English comedy of John Tomkins entitled Albu-
l6's' mazar, 1615, which owes much to the same Italian

author's L'Astrologo.1 These comedies commonly
unite with intrigue and disguise the element of satire,
which often so overlays the original plot as to give to
the result a quality wholly new.

ignoramus, Doubtless no better illustration of this union could

IJ' be found than in Ignoramus, first acted at St. John's

College, Cambridge, before King James in March,
1615, and often repeated and printed.2 George
Ruggle, its author, was a successful tutor at Clare
Hall and a scholar almost equally well acquainted
with classical and Italian literature, hence his re-
course to La Trappolaria, which in itself owed much
to the Pseudolus of Plautus. But Ruggle's play is
far from wanting originality either in character or
event. For its chief personage, the satirical figure of
Ignoramus, the pettifogging lawyer, with his villain-
ous jargon of dog Latin, bad English, and law French,
the "living example of barbarous Philistinism," as
Ward well calls him, is the English author's own.
Ignoramus was staged with careful attention not only
to the histrionic abilities of the actors in it, but to the
social standing and influence of those immediately
concerned. In consequence the comedy was a great
success. So delighted was the learned king with its
wit, telling satire, and (we may well believe) with its

1 This is the comedy which Dryden referred to in a prologue, on
the occasion of its revival in 1668, as affording Jonson the sugges-
tion for his Alchemist. Scott-Saintsbury, Dryden, x, 417. It was
first acted at Trinity College, Cambridge, before King James, in
March, 1615.

* Translated into English by Robert Coddington and printed
in 1662. Cf. also, the dissertation of J. L. Van Gundy, Jena,
1905.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 79

broad obscenities ("over which its Latin dress flung,
in those days, a very imperfect veil"), that, not suc-
ceeding in inducing the performers to repeat the play
in London, he journeyed to Cambridge two months
later to see it acted again.1 James ever after pre-
ferred Cambridge to Oxford; but the Oxford wits,
with as much justice as malice, observed that Igno-
ramus was staged with "a perfect diocese upon the
stage;" 2 and it was this play, more than any other,
that heightened the Puritan aversion to such per-
formances and drew from Milton the scathing passage
of the Apology for Smectymnuus wherein he describes
" young divines, and those in next aptitude to divin- anceofthis
ity," as he had seen them "upon the stage, writhing p
and unboning their clergy limbs to all the antic and
dishonest gestures of Trinculoes, buffoons, and
bawds, prostituting the shame of that ministry which
either they had, or were nigh having, to the eyes of
courtiers and court ladies, with their grooms and
mademoiselles." 3

But it must not be supposed that the college drama Pastoral
was given wholly over to the Plautine comedy of in- ^ academic
trigue seasoned with the gross and telling satire of p^ys.
contemporary allusion. Popular influences were at
work in the universities as in the drama elsewhere;
although, as might be expected, it was the drama of
the court that most immediately affected the aca-
demic plays. Among such influences we must count
the pastoral^ which came into the drama, as we shall

1 On the performance of Ignoramus, see Mullinger, ii, 528, 548.

2 Corbet, Poems, ed. Gilchrist, p. 13.

3 Prose Works of Milton, ed. 1851, iii, 267. Objection had been
made ten years earlier to the performance of a play entitled Alba
at Christ Church because men who acted in it had appeared on the
stage almost naked. Hazlitt, Manual, 5.

8o ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

see, after its vogue in fiction and lyrical poetry. For
although this influence is suggested in Sihanus, a
Latin comedy by Rollinson acted at Cambridge as
early as 1596, and although, early in the reign of
James, both Guarini's Pastor Fido and Groto's Penti-
mento Amoroso were translated into Latin, the latter
under the title Parthenia, at the same university, it
was the well-known court poet, Samuel Daniel, who
took the pastoral to Oxford.1 It was there, in 1605,
that his Queen's Arcadia was performed in English,
before Queen Anne and the ladies of her court. And
save for Scyros and Melanthe, Latin pastorals, both
by Dr. Samuel Brooke, acted at Cambridge in 1612
and 1615, and a Silvia of uncertain date, English
seems to have remained the favorite language of this
form of drama even at the universities thereafter.2
Besides The Queen s Arcadia, pastorals in English at
the universities include the interesting "piscatory" of
Phineas Fletcher entitled Sicelides, projected for per-
formance at Cambridge on the king's visit in March,
1615, and a lost Stonehenge of John Speed of uncer-
tain date. The pastoral drama in England will claim
our later attention, for it differed little at court, at the
universities, and on the boards of the London stage.3
other ei- Other and later indications of extraneous influences
influences. on tne academic drama are to be found in Dr. Jasper
Fisher's Fuimus Troes, "a story of Britaines valour
at the Romanes first invasion," a rhetorical and un-
dramatic attempt at Oxford to revive the chronicle
play a generation after its hey-day; 4 and in Thomas

1 Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 294, 318-322. 2 Fleay, i, 42; ii, 35.

3 See below, chapter xvi.

4 An earlier play of similar subject-matter is Fatum Vortigerni,
c. 1600. See above, i, p. 306.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 81

Goffe's belated Courageous and Raging 'Turk acted
at the same university and of much the same date.1
These three plays are in English. But even the Latin
plays show this reversion at times to earlier popular
subjects and models, for, aside from May's often-
mentioned Ctzsar, we have at the end of our period
TJiibaldus sive Findicta Ingenium Tragcedia, the work
of Thomas Snelling, in which the familiar theme of
the revenge of a son for a father is carried out by
the equally familiar method of a masque.2

When all has been said, it was satire and allegory Satire and
which continued most to animate the drama of the chfefdemen
colleges. On the visit of James to Cambridge in 1615 «» academic
and on the night preceding the performance of Ignora-
mus, ^Emilia by Cecil was acted, ridiculing a foolish
tutor of physic. Loiola, 1622, by John Hacket, ridi-
culed the Jesuits in "coarse and commonplace vein;"
while the Puritan formed the stock figure for satirical
attack from the Re Vera of Ruggle in 1598 to Rey-
nolds' plays in the early thirties and Strode's Float-
ing Island on the verge of the civil war. As to alle-
gory in the academic drama, it remained persistent
to the end. There was Heyelin's Theomachia, acted
at Magdalen, and Holiday's Technogamia or Mar-
riage of the Arts, both in 1618. The last, which was
in English, James is reported three years later to have
made three sundry attempts to escape.3 There was
Stoicus Vapulans, an allegory of the passions, in 1627,

1 See above, i, p. 449.

3 This play is doubtfully identified by Margaret L. Lee, Narcis-
sus, 1893, p. xv, with the same author's Pharamus sive Libido
Vindex, 1640. See J. Bolte's "Note on Thibaldus," Jahrbuch
xxvii, 228.

8 Nichols, James, iv, 715.

82 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

in which Appetitus, Irascibilis, " Voluptas, and others
of the same family successively are introduced whip-
ping and scourging the Stoic in every variation of
circumstance and meter."1 To omit other later ex-
amples, Fallacy or tht Troubles of the Great Hermtnia
by R. Zouche of New College, Oxford, 1631, remains
in English manuscript in the British Museum as the
tedious Floating Island, 1636, remains in cold print
to attest how hard was allegory to kill in the shelter
of the cloister, even after the glories of Shakespeare
had shone full on the English world for a generation.1
Before pursuing our enumeration of the plays acted
at the universities, it may be well to note that trie
grammar schools (in which, as we have seen, the mod-
ern drama practically began) still continued to emu-
late the histrionic activity of their elders at Oxford
and Cambridge. Although for the most part but little
remains save an occasional mention to show that the
ancient custom of acting plays in such schools was
common in the time of King James and in that of his
successor, as it had been before, one comedy at least
deserves mention for its curiosity as well as for its
representative character as a production of the type.8

1 Retrospective Review, xii, 35.

2 For this play of Strode's, see bdow, p. 89, Richard Zouche,
born in 1590, was notable for his academic activities and his
legal attainments. At one time Regius Professor of Civil Law at
Oxford, he died in 1661, a judge of the Admiralty.

3 An interesting glimpse into the earlier practice of p
Shrewsbury School is offered by Professor G. G. Moore Smith in
his edition of Fraunce's Fictori a, M «f erialien star KunJe, \iv, p. xvi.
An ordinance of the Bailiffs, 1577-78, provided that " everie thurs-
daie the Schollers of the first forme . . . shall for exercise declame
and plaie one acte of a comedie." Among the plays acted on occa-
sions was The Passion of Christ, 1561 and 1568, and Julian the
Apostate in 1566, besides many others not described by name.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 83

Apollo Shroving was composed for the scholars of the
Free School of Hadleigh in Suffolk, and acted there
by them on Shrove Tuesday, 1626. While the old mo-
rality spirit is preserved in the main theme, a contest
between Learning and Queen Hedone, the whole is
conducted by means of sprightly dialogue and pointed
allusion which must have proved highly acceptable
to a scholarly audience. In the prologue Dame Lala
from the audience raises, objection to Latin, and to
learned allusions, and pertinently asking "why should
not women act men as well as men and boys act
women," strides up to the "tiring house" to "scamble
and wrangle for a man's part." Not without point,
too, is the notion of Dame Indulgence, riding up the
steeps of Parnassus in her coach and four, her son
and darling, John Gingle, and his puppy, Thisbie,
sitting in her lap, while she condescendingly waves
her fan at the "common people" that pass. Apollo
Shroving has been assigned to the authorship of Wil-
liam Hawkins. It is of interest to know that the chief
actor in it was Joseph Beaumont, later to take his
place among the minor poets with his Psyche, and ten
years of age when he took a chief part in his school's
play.

To return, this tale of academic plays in the reign Academk
of King Charles might be easily augmented by refer- j^rfth
ence to the plays of Wilde, Meade, Neale, and Zouche, Charles.
at Oxford, and Vincent, Hausted, and Pestell, at
Cambridge.1 Nor would a complete census neglect the

Thomas Ashton, the headmaster was prime mover in these per-
formances, which were given in a huge amphitheater, enthusiasti-
cally praised by Thomas Churchyard in his Worthies of Wales,
1587, Spenser Society's ed. p. 85.

1 George Wilde wrote Hermophus and Euphormus, besides two

84 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

literary activity of Englishmen such as William Drury
and Joseph Simeon or Simons, in the English Jesuit
College at Douay.1 Besides, many manuscripts of
college plays remain unidentified as to author, date,
or place of performance, though it is doubtful if the
resurrection of these jetsams of time would add much
to our knowledge of the age. It is, then, to the later
college plays in English that we turn in conclusion;
for although they reflected more fully than their pre-
decessors prevailing popular influences, they retain —
some of them at least — much of the academic flavor.
We may pass with mention two anonymous satirical
dialogues, acted at Cambridge in the reign of James,
the first entitled Exchange Ware at Second Hand, viz.,
Bandy Ruffe, and Cuffe (a second edition in 1615), the
other, Work for Cutlers or a Merry Dialogue between
Sword, Rapier, and Dagger, printed in the same year.2
The latter is but a slight affair, and interesting chiefly
as showing, with many other productions of its type,

English plays, Love's Hospital and The Converted Robber, between
1634 and 1638 ; Robert Meade wrote The Combat of Love and
Friendship, 1636 ; Thomas Neale, The Ward, in the next year;
and Zouche, his Sophister, in 1638. At Cambridge, Thomas Vin-
cent's Paria was acted in 1627 ; Peter Hausted's Senile Odium,
after 1630; Thomas Pestell wrote Versipellis, a comedy of uncer-
tain date. Other Cambridge Latin plays after 1625 were Senilis
Amor, and V alentudinarium by William Johnson. See, also, the
important plays named in the text.

1 Drury, who was Professor of Rhetoric at Douay, wrote Aljredus,
Mors, and Reparatus, all probably acted in the refectory of the
English College and printed between 1620 and 1628. Simeon's
Zeno was acted at Cambridge in 1631, and published at Rome;
another tragedy of his, Leo Armenus, was printed in 1657 and 1680.
Both are "tendenz" dramas.

2 A copy of Exchange Ware was recently sold among the Lefferts
books in New York. Work for Cutlers is reprinted in Harleian
Miscellany, x, 2OO.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 85

the persistence of the debat or dialogue of contro-
versy at the universities as elsewhere. It was some
dozen years later that the same university produced
the most notable of the strictly academic dramatists,
Thomas Randolph, although his work, taking it all in
all, is little more than an extension and glorification
of the estnfe or debat.

Thomas Randolph was a Westminster boy, and Thomas
through the usual promotions, fellow and M. A. of ^"-^ '
Trinity College, Cambridge, and ad eundem of Ox-
ford as well. He has been enthusiastically described
as "one of those bright spirits, which burn too fast,
cast a vivid flash over their time, and then suddenly
expire; . . . one so supplied with vigor, both mental
and corporeal, as to have started, pursued, and ended
his race by the time that the phlegmatic genius of
other men is just ready for the race." l Certain it is
that after a brilliant studentship and striking success
before royalty at Cambridge and in London as a play-
wright, Randolph died at the early age of twenty-nine.
His dramatic work falls between 1629 anc^ J^33> an(^ His dramatic
includes, besides a Latin play, Cornelianum Dolium, w
somewhat doubtfully his, Amyntas, a pastoral of dis-
tinction, a comedy, The Jealous Lovers, The Muses'
Looking Glass, two dramatic jeux d'espnt, and a
translation, ungovernably free — rather a complete
readaptation — of the Plutus of Aristophanes.3 The
earliest of these was probably Aristippus, an amusing
and farcical dialogue in which the famous old philoso-
pher of the title role dialectically maintains the honor
of sack against its rival, ale, to the final conviction

1 Retrospective Review, vi, 6l.

2 See Fleay, ii, 1 68. Cornelianum Dolium is ascribed to T. Riley
in European Magazine, xxxvii, 344.

86

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

The Jealous
Lovers, 1632.

The Muses'
Looking Glass,
1634.

and conversion of a "malt-heretic." Published with
Aristippus, in 1630, is The Conceited Pedlar, a brief
but witty monologue in which that personage exhibits
his wares with satirical comment. But Randolph was
soon to attempt less trivial matters. For perform-
ance before the king, on the royal visit to Cambridge
in 1632, Randolph wrote The 'Jealous Lovers, an am-
bitious comedy in the favorite Plautine academic
manner, and achieved a marked success, notwith-
standing that the critical reader of to-day discovers
in this brilliantly written play an artificiality of plot
and a violence in the denouement that robs the pro-
duction of any claim to serious consideration as a
product of dramatic art. In The Muses' Looking
Glass Randolph conceived not only an original theme,
but one in which fully to display the talents which
were his. The scene is a playhouse (from the date,
probably Salisbury Court) whither two Puritans,
Bird, a feather-man, and Mistress Flowerdew, a pin-
woman, — delightful caricatures, — are come to vend
their wares to the players.1 Roscius, the actor, detains
them to witness a series of scenes in which are
humorously represented the figures of human vices
or humors in pairs, each the extreme of the other,
according to the Aristotelian theory, while in the
end all concludes with the glorification of "golden
Mediocrity, the mother of virtues." Randolph's
purpose, as Ward well explains it, was the vindica-
tion of the moral power of comedy in the form of
dramatic satire; 2 and while the influence of Jonson
was upon him — especially the influence of Jonson's
later revulsion to the methods and ideals of the old
moralities — nothing can detract from the wit, the

1 Fleay, ii, 166. 2 Ward, iii, 135.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 87

originality, and clever characterization within the
limits of abstractions which mark the personages of
this interesting1 production. Lastly, there is the Aris- HeyforHon
tophanic Plutophthalmia Plutogamia, englished Hey esty> l6*5'
for Honesty, Down with Knavery, which has been
somewhat dubiously attributed to Randolph, but
which, whether his originally or not, has certainly
been interpolated with passages full of allusion to
events which occurred after Randolph's death.
Read with Randolph's undoubted work, it seems,
in its broad humor, satirical fun, as in its powerless-
ness to substitute character for abstraction, almost
certainly Randolph's.1

Contemporary with the college plays of Randolph, Hausted's
and owing its small worth to his example, is Peter ^^ Frtends
Hausted's The Rival Friends, which contains in its
composite make-up a comedy of intrigue, elements of
the pastoral, the heroic disinterestedness of pseudo-
romance, and a satire on the Puritans and on the un-
Puritan practice of simony.2 Hausted's play was acted
before King Charles in 1631, and was so ill received
that when after some difficulty it appeared in print,
it was with the taunt: "Cried down by boys, faction,
envy, and confident ignorance; approved by the judi-
cious and exposed to public censure by the author."
Cambridge contributes but one other name to the
history of the drama, that of the amiable man and
genuine poet, Abraham Cowley. Cowley is the stock
example of poetical precocity, having appeared in a
published volume of verse, Poetical Blossoms, in 1633,

1 See note preceding this play in Works of Randolph, 1875, ii, 2.
For Amyntas, after all Randolph's best play, see below, pp. 174,175.

1 Note, especially, the violence of the denouement, which resembles
that of The Jealous Lovers.

Cowley's
Naufragium

Plays at Ox-
ford on the
royal visit of
1636.

William
Prynne and
his Histrio-
maaix, 1632.

88 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

at the early age of fifteen years. His amusing Nau-
16 8 fragium Joculare was acted at Trinity in 1638, and
enjoyed a great success from the boisterous vivacity of
a scene — albeit borrowed from the Captivt and par-
alleled in Heywood's English Traveller — in which a
bevy of drunken revelers delude themselves into the
notion that they are at sea, though housed on land,
and carry out many farcical capers in making good
their delusion. Cowley's satirical comedy in English,
The Cutter of Coleman Street, was first acted at Cam-
bridge in the year 1641 under its earlier title, The
Guardian. How the impartiality of the royalist poet's
satire, which reached the unworthy Cavalier as well
as the hypocritical Puritan, later brought down criti-
cism upon him is matter beyond the limits of our
theme.1

The last important group of college plays was that
which greeted King Charles on his visit to Oxford in
1636. Charles had now ruled for seven years without
a Parliament, and StrafFord — his impeachment and
desertion by his master yet to come — had carried his
policy of " thorough " over to unhappy Ireland. Laud
was pressing heavily upon men whose opinions con-
formed not with his own, and in our little world of the
drama William Prynne had written his dull, fanatical,
and bulky attack on the stage entitled Histnomastix;
The Player s Scourge. It was his malignant unortho-
doxy and the implication of libel against the queen
and her ladies that brought Prynne to trial, not his
attack upon the theater. Stripped of its pedantry, vio-
lence, and exaggeration, there was undeniable truth
in Prynne's allegations, though novelty there was
none; and the outrageous penalty which was in-

1 For Cowley's pastoral, Love's Riddle, see below, p. 176.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 89

flicted upon the hapless author marked more the tem-
per of the time than the magnitude of his offense.1
This is not the place in which to discuss the effect of
Prynne's book and trial on the drama. Prynne had
been punished for the first time in 1634, and he was
to stand once more in the pillory in 1637, so that the
performance of plays at Oxford in 1636 before royalty
may be taken as one of the several protests against
the approval of Prynne's book. Be all this as it may,
Charles and Laud were entertained at Oxford in
August with several plays, among them The Floating The Floating
Island by William Strode, and The Royal Slave by Island' l6^
William Cartwright. In the preface of the former, the
author, who was orator of the university and later
canon of Christ Church, informs us that he wrote
"at the instance of those who might command him;
else he had scarce condescended to a play, his serious
thoughts being filled with notions of deeper consid-
eration." With such admonition as this we plunge
into a weighty allegory of the passions. These, under
guidance of certain malcontents, among them Male-
vole, who by a dozen allusions is certainly Prynne,
rebel against their sovereign, Prudentius, and choose
Dame Fancy for queen. She proves so inconstant that
she cannot even determine whether to accept a coro-
net, "a Turkish turbant," a "Persian cydaris" or a
circlet of bright-colored feathers for her crown; and
in the end each passion having refused the crown, all

1 Prynne "was sentenced in the Star Chamber to lose both his
ears in the pillory, to be branded on the cheeks 'S. L.,' Seditious
Libeller, to suffer a fine of five thousand pounds, and finally to be
expelled from Lincoln's Inn, deprived of his degrees, and sentenced
to life imprisonment." For a good account of Prynne and his book,
see E. N. S. Thompson, The Controversy between the Puritans and
the Stage, 1903, pp. 159-178.

90 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

are reconciled, and Prudentius resumes his burden.1
Only the contemporary significance of this produc-
tion could have rendered its portentous gravity and
persistent mediocrity endurable. In it is mirrored the
satisfied complacency of the Cavalier and his con-
tempt for the "malignant," as he called him, whose
right even to be heard he denied and whose steadfast
Cartwright's courage in arms he had not yet tested. The Royal
ffae S mtt Slave, greatly in contrast to this amateurish produc-
tion, was the work of a writer already tried in two
plays before royalty. Cartwright's tragicomedy is
stilted, heroic, well-written, and full of high and
unnatural sentiment; it is in no respect, save the
accident of performance, an academic play; and is
memorable perhaps chiefly as one of the earliest plays
to denote changes of scene in print. The scene was
"varied" no less than seven times in The Royal Slave
and five different settings called "appearances" are
specified.2 For these novelties and its handsome cos-
tuming Cartwright's play was a great success.
Amateurish Out of this cursory survey of the academic drama

university °f °^ our Peri°d several facts and generalizations arise.
plays. First, the large number of these plays and the large

proportion of that number still extant, together with
their variety within certain well-defined limits cannot
but surprise the casual reader. In Elizabeth's own
time the strictly academic plays were almost entirely
written in Latin; but English gained more and more
in the reigns of her successors until, late in the time of
Charles, more English plays were acted at Oxford in

1 The Floating Island, 1655, II, iv ; v, viii and ix.

2 These scenes included the Temple of the Sun, a stately palace,
a wood, a castle, and a city with a prison "on the side." See quarto
of 1639 ; and cf. above, i, p. 449.

THE COLLEGE DRAMA 91

three years than are recorded for the whole of Queen
Elizabeth's reign. Again, the pervasiveness of the
influence of Plautus, filtered through Italian imita-
tions in comedy, is as notable in these plays as is
the persistence of satire, the method of allegory, and
the absence in them of anything like "growth or ad-
vance." Though frequently well written, cleverly if
artificially devised, and brilliant at times in its satire
and wit, the academic drama contains even less
poetry than dramatic power. In short, the entire
species is amateurish, and isolated to a surprising
degree from the great popular drama, its contempo-
rary. And although occasional university men, who
had made their reputations at court and in London,
-Udall, Preston, Gascoigne, Daniel, Randolph,
and Cartwright, — returned to the universities on
the royal visits and wrote for academic audiences,
no dramatist of the first rank was evolved by either
university.1

Jonson's contact with the universities is a lost jonson and
chapter, and one that we would fain recover. Was Shakespeare at

r > _ the umversi-

Volpone the only one of his plays performed within ties.
the sacred precincts ? Jonson was " master of arts in
both universities, by their favor, not his studies," 2 and
Randolph and Cartwright were among the numerous
progeny of his poetical "sons." As to Shakespeare,
we have not even this much. Hamlet was acted at
both Cambridge and Oxford,3 for Shakespeare's
company was often in the latter place. What else

See an admirable passage on the contrast between the English
popular drama and the Latin drama in England, the "undistin-
guished sister to a woman of genius," in Herford, 71.
2 Conversations, ig.
The title-page of the quarto of 1603 is our authority.

92

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

did they act on these visits ? How did the great poet
regard the seat of learning, his frequent stopping-
place between London and Stratford ? And would
he have agreed with his fellow Kemp that the uni-
versity pens "smelled too much" of "that writer
Shakespearean Metamorphosis ?" Among the academic plays some
acaiTmic"1 ^ew toucn subjects treated by Shakespeare. Gas-
piays. coigne's Supposes, taken from the inns of court to

Oxford, contains matter used in The Taming of the
Shrew. There were earlier academic tragedies, as
we have seen in Richard III ; and earlier and later
Ccesars.1 There is, too, the academic Timon of about
1600, which probably had little if any relation to the
Shakespearean play; 2 Dr. Gwinne's use of the Mac-
beth story in an interlude is five years later; 3 and
the fragment of a Romeus et Julietta is more wisely
regarded as a late imitation of Brooke's old version
than in any possible wise a source of Shakespeare.4
So that, when all has been said, Lcslia,the Latin trans-
lation of Gl'Ingannatiy remains the only academic play
of which we can affirm with certainty that it furnished
an immediate source for Shakespeare.

1 See above, pp. 21-24.

2 See Dyce's prefatory remarks to the reprint of this play by
the Shakespeare Society, 1842; but see, also, W. H. demons in
Princeton University Bulletin, xv, 1904.

3 Tres Sibylla printed with Vertumnus, 1607. See Variorum
Macbeth, 397.

4 Reprinted from the Sloan MS. in Shakespeare Society's Pub-
lications, 1844. See Fraenkel in Englische Studien, xix, 201 ; Keller,
Englische Studien, xxxiv, 255, 256, and Fuller, Modern Philology,
iv, 115.

H

XV

THE ENGLISH MASQUE

AD Ben Jonson never lived, the English masque The masque
would scarcely need to be chronicled among

dramatic forms. For despite the fact that mumming,
disguising, and dancing in character and costume
were pastimes in England quite as old, if not older,
than the drama itself, it is to Jonson that we owe the
infusion of dramatic spirit into these productions,
together with the crystallization of their discordant
elements into artistic unity and form. Generically,
the masque is one of a numerous progeny, of more
or less certain dramatic affiliation. Specifically, a
masque is a setting, a lyric, scenic, and dramatic
framework, so to speak, for a ball.1 It is made up of
"a combination, in variable proportions, of speech,
dance, and song;" and its "essential and invariable
feature is the presence of a group of dancers . . .
called masquers." 2 These dancers — who range in The masquers,
number from eight to sixteen — are commonly noble
and titled people of the court. They neither speak
nor sing, nor is it usual to exact of them any difficult
or unusual figures, poses, or dances. Their function
is the creation of "an imposing show" by their gor-
geous costumes and fine presence, enhanced by ar-
tistic grouping, and by the aids which decoration and

1 Soergel, Die englischen Maskenspiele, 1882, p. 14: "dieMaske
war anfanglich nicht mehr als ein improvisirter Maskenball."

2 Evans, The English Masque, 1897, p. xxxiv.

94

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Professional
actors in the
masque.

The dances.

The nucleus of
a masque a
dance.

scenic contrivance can lend to the united effect. On
the other hand, the speech of the masque, whether of
presentation or in dialogue, and the music, both vocal
and instrumental, were from the first in the hands of
the professional entertainer, and developed as other
entertainments at court developed. The masque
combined premeditated with unpremeditated parts.
The first appearance of the masquers with their march
from their "sieges" or seats of state in the scene, and
their first dance — all designated the "entry" - was
carefully arranged and rehearsed; so also was the
return to the "sieges" or "going out," and this pre-
paration included sometimes the preceding dance.
The "main," too, or principal dance, was commonly
premeditated, as in Jonson's Masque of Queens,
where the masquers and their torchbearers formed
in their gyrations the letters of the name of Prince
Charles. Between the "main" and the "going out,"
two extemporal parts were interpolated, the " dance
with the ladies " and the " revels," which last consisted
of galliards, corantos, and lavoltas. It was in the
development of the "entry" and the "main" that the
growth of the masque chiefly consisted.

The masque will thus be seen to be distinguished
by very certain limitations. Its nucleus is always a
dance, as the nucleus of the "entertainment" is a
speech of welcome, and that of the "barriers" a sham
tournament. Jonson employs these terms with exacti-
tude; l but it is not to be supposed that either before

1 Cf. with Jonson's Masque of Queens, his Entertainment of the
Two Kings at Theobalds, and his Speeches at Prince Henry's
Barriers. Gifford, Jonson, vi, 469 ; and vii, 103 and 147. See, also,
Bacon's accurate use of these terms, Essays, ed. Wright, 1887,
156-158.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 95

or after Jonson's time was the term masque used with
precision. To most of his predecessors and contem- Loose contem-
poraries a masque meant any revel, masking, or dis- mem^ofTh^
guising, from a visit such as that of Henry VIII and term-
his courtiers in mask to the palace of Wolsey, im-
mortalized by Shakespeare,1 to imaginative, mytho-
logical interludes like Heywood's Love's Mistress or
Dekker and Ford's Suns Darling. Indeed, even be-
lated moralities such as the Microcosmus of Nabbes
were included among masques. In a full recognition
of the precise significance of the term masque, we
may deny that title, with Soergel and Brotanek, to
Milton's beautiful Comus; because the dancers and
actors are here one and the same persons and not
divers as in the true masque.2 But in view of the Congeners of
looseness of the employment of the word as a term
in its day, and the intimate relations of the masque in
origin and growth with the numerous ludi, disguis-
ings, mummings, and other like entertainments, its
predecessors, the subject may be considered here with
some latitude, and in no absolute neglect of the
various congeners that accompanied it.

It has been customary time out of mind to regard The masque
the masque as an exotic by-form of the court enter- i°^a°oryaan
tainment, come out of Italy and introduced to the French inn°-
court of Henry VIII as a choice novelty; 3 and much
dependence has been placed on a quotation from
Hall, wherein we learn: "On the daie of the Epi-
phanie at night, the kyng with a xi other wer dis-
guised, after the maner of Italic, called a maske, a

1 Henry VIII, I, iv.

2 Soergel, 78 ; Brotanek, " Die englischen Maskenspiele," Wiener
Beitrage, xv, IQO2, p. X.

s Soergel, 12.

96 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

thyng not seen afore in Englande." * But there is little
that seems novel in the description that follows, nor
anything that differs in any material respect from
other descriptions of like proceedings by Hall, both
before and after; unless it be, as has recently been
pointed out, a new element of dancing and conversa-
tion between the masquers and selected spectators.2
Brotanek explains that the novelty in this case was in
the costume, not in the form of the entertainment.
CunlifFe finds the novelty that impressed Hall in the
circumstance that the masquers "desired the ladies
to daunce," and that the masquers and spectators
" daunced and commoned together." As to the for-
eign influence suggested, these authorities likewise
fall apart ; Brotanek claiming that it is to France
rather than to Italy that we should look for analogues
to the later masque; CunlifFe offering many early
Italian analogues of Tudor mumming, disguising,
and dumb shows.3 But we need not here look so far
afield. The masque in the height of its development
falls into two readily distinguishable and contrasted
divisions, the first, performed by costumed but un-
masked personages, in nature dramatic; while the
second, presented almost wholly by the masked and
professional participants, is lyrical and musical. Bro-
tanek finds the model for the first in the costumed
speeches of welcome and farewell which were offered

1 Hall, Chronicle (1548), ed. 1809, p. 526. This was in the third
year of Henry's reign, 1512.

2 Brotanek, 64-68; CunlifFe, "Italian Prototypes of the Masque
and Dumb Show," Publications of the Modern Language Asso-
ciation, xxii, 1907, pp. 140-156. Chambers, i, 401 ; and ibid. 391,
on the early connection of the masque with the Feast of Fools,
and the exuviae worn by the rout of "worshipers at the Kalendae."

3 Brotanek, 283-302.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 97

Queen Elizabeth on her numerous progresses into the its compl
provinces of her realm. For the second he takes us
back to the masked visitations and dances which had
formed a popular variety of courtly amusement from
the days of King Edward III downward.1 Nor does
he deny the complex influences of riding, procession,
pageantry, and holiday revels in offering models, pre-
cedents, and suggestions to this most graceful and
effective of dramatic by-forms.

Interesting as is the subject, none of these origins John
of the true masque concerns us here, or we might
assign to John Lydgate, about 1430, the credit of giv-
ing a literary bias to the mumming of his time; trace
disguisings into early Tudor days, tell of the rich and
elaborate pageantry which sometimes accompanied
them there; and dilate on the rejoicings of Christmas,
New Year, Twelfth Night, Candlemas, Shrovetide,
and May Day, all regarded as naught without mask-
ing and disguising.2 Nor did the maskings of Eliza-
beth's earlier days differ so much in kind as in degree,
although the queen added to the occasions for these
shows by her frequent progresses into the provinces,
where her nobility vied with her civic entertainers,
each to outdo the other in novelty and cost.

If definite points in the development of these fore- The queen's
runners of the masque must be named, one was Keniiw
certainly the elaboration of the Earl of Leicester's '575-
devices on the famous occasion of his entertainment
of Queen Elizabeth at Kenilworth in 1575. 3 For this

1 Ibid. 138.

2 On the mummings of Lydgate, see Brotanek, 305 ; and Anglia,
xxii, 364 ; and above, p. 74 ; and see, especially, the pageants on
the betrothal of Prince Arthur and Katharine of Aragon, 1501,
Shakespeare Society's Papers, i, 47-51.

3 Nichols, Elizabeth, i, 418-526 ; and Schelling, Gascoigne,6^-Jl.

98 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

purpose some half dozen poets were assembled,
am6ng them Gascoigne, Hunnis, and Mulcaster, and
the literary and even the dramatic elements were no
less a matter of forethought than the feasts and the
fireworks. Three years later, when her majesty was
entertained at Norwich, we find Thomas Churchyard
using comedy as a foil, interspersing amongst his
songs and speeches a "dance with timbrels," and "a
heavenly noyse of all kinde of musicke," besides
employing the device of a canvas cave to effect the
sudden appearance and disappearance of nymphs in
unexpected places, all of which suggests the grand
ensemble of poetry, music, dancing, and stage car-
pentry in which the later triumphs of Jonson and

Sidney's Lady Inigo Jones were soon to consist. l Sir Philip Sidney,
of May, 1578. too^ kacj njg part jn tjle deveiOpment: of dramatic

elements in the entertainment and the "barriers" or
tournament. In 1578, as the queen was walking in
Wansted Garden, Leicester's seat in Waltham Forest,
she was regaled with a lively little pastoral idyl, The
Lady of May, in place of the customary formal speech
of welcome. Here was dialogue in prose and contest
in song, comic relief in Master Rombus, the pedant,
but no dancing.2 The Lady of May is a pastoral,
for such was the mode of the moment, and Sidney
rode always on the crest of the wave of his time. No
less a step in advance were the sumptuous devices
accompanying the mock tournament of 1581, likewise
referable to the taste and inventive talents of Sidney.
The barriers and entertainment thus advanced ; the
development of the true masque was to come later.
GestaGray- In I5Q4, " betwixt All-Hollantide and Christmas,"

orum, 1594; was celebrated at Gray's Inn the most elaborate

1 Nichols, Elizabeth, ii, 180-214. 2 Ibid, ii, 94-103.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 99

"Christmasing" of English annals.1 A "Prince of
Purpoole," as he was called, was chosen to rule over
the revels, and solemnly surrounded with all the in-
signia of mock royalty: nobles, counselors, officers,
guards, family, and followers. Proclamations, the
reception of foreign embassies, the levying of taxes,
reception of petitions, creation of knights, even a
trial — all were sagely parodied; and this stately fool-
ing was interlarded with feasts, dancing, masking,
and at least one play.2 This last was "a Comedy of
Errors, like to Plautus his Menechmus," played by "a
company of base and common fellows," who were
brought in as a last recourse when things were in con-
fusion and going badly. Wherefore the night "was
ever afterwards called the night of errors."3 But it
is the masques of the Gesta Grayorum that claim our
present attention. They are three : The Masque of masques of
Reconciliation, wherein was represented the friend- '
ship of Graius and Templarius, come to offer sacri-
fice together upon the altar of the Goddess of Amity;
secondly, The Masque of the Helmet, a stately alle-
gorical device in which Prince Purpoole's Knights
apprehended Envy, Malcontent, and other "mon-
sters and miscreants;" and thirdly, The Masque of
Proteus and the Rock Adamantine, the composition of
Francis Davison, compiler of The Poetical Rhapsody,
and Thomas Campion, the musician and lyrist.* This
last was performed before the queen, who graced the

1 Ibid, iii, 262-352. The proceedings really continued until
Shrove Tuesday, March 3, 1595.

2 Ibid, 279 ; and Ward, ii, 27 n.

3 Nichols, Elizabeth, iii, 279-281.

4 See ibid, iii, 281, 297, 309. On the externals of these masques,
see Brotanek, 340.

ioo ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

court of Prince Purpoole with her royal presence on
Shrovetide evening, 1595. It opens with a hymn in
praise of Neptune sung by Nymphs and Tritons at-,
tendant on Proteus, who comes to fulfill a pact with
the Prince made long since. An Esquire narrates in
verse how the Prince, returning along the sea from
his victory over the Tartarians, surprised Proteus
asleep, and though the sea god assumed various fair
and loathsome shapes, succeeded in holding him fast
until he promised as ransom to remove the adaman-
tine rock that lies beneath the arctic pole and to trans-
port it whither the Prince might will, assured that
" the wild empire of the ocean would follow the rock
wherever set." But this is to be fulfilled only on con-
dition that the Prince on his part bring Proteus into
the presence of a power "which in attractive virtue"
shall "surpass the wonderful force of his iron-drawing
rock," the Prince offering that he himself and seven
of his knights shall be inclosed within the rock as
hostages. The upshot is obvious. Elizabeth's is the
"attractive virtue" which draws all hearts. Proteus
strikes the rock, and the knights, issuing forth, dance
with the ladies their "galliards and courants;" and
the performance ends with a second song, " the while
the masquers return into the rock."

The Masque Space has been given to the description of this
ty ^of'Tater* masclue because it constitutes the type out of which
masques. the later masque was to grow. In both productions
the structural order is song, dialogue, and the entry
of the masquers, followed by the dances and the clos-
ing song. The Masque of Proteus well presents, too,
the moment of surprise, so effectively to be employed
in later times, when the rock opens at the stroke of the
"bident" of Proteus and the masquers issue forth.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 101

The entertainments of the latter years of Queen The accession
Elizabeth exhibit little that is novel or to any extent °^^sestoa°he
contributory to the history of the masque. With the masque,
accession of James came a new order of things. The
worn and exacting old queen was succeeded by "the
British Solomon," with his known penchant for learn-
ing and poetry; and the poets and scholars accord-
ingly burst into a chorus of adulation. Nichols lists
no less than three and thirty tracts in verse and prose,
inspired by the accession and coronation of the new
monarch and more than a score of "miscellaneous
eulogistic tributes to King James and his family,"
most of them of the earliest years of his reign. 1 Daniel
was early in the field with a lengthy Panegyric Con-
gratulatory delivered at Burly-Harington, before James
had reached London; and Jonson soon after devised
the pageants of the royal welcome in the city and the
" Pane gyre " on the session of the king's first parlia-
ment.2 But neither with these nor with the devices and
pageants of his coronation and his progresses, which
he continued after the manner of his predecessor,
are we here concerned. For with the reign of James
begins the speedy development of the masque, which
soon outstripped in elegance, elaboration, and artistic
value all other entertainments at court. The masques
of the reign of King James are no less remarkable for
their learned ingenuity than for their originality and
splendor; for if the frivolous nature of Queen Anne
of Denmark lent them vogue, the pedantry of her
royal spouse often determined their character.

In A Particular Entertainment of the Queen and

1 Nichols, James, i, p. xxxvii.

2 Ibid. 121 ; Giffbrd, Jonson, vi, 433. Dekker seems likewise
to have been concerned in these pageants.

102 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

En- Prince Henry at Althrope on their way to join King
ifo James, Ben Jonson struck, for the first time, that rich
vein of poetic fancy which was to distinguish his more
regular masques. His material, a satyr surprised in
his haunts by the royal train and a dancing bevy of
fairies, contained nothing new.1 But the dramatic
humor of the satyr's altercation with the fairies and
their turning on him presaged the antimasque to
come. The second masque on this occasion was a
slighter affair, in which the old satirical figure of No-
body with the popular morris dance was utilized.2
Daniel's vision The first true masque of the reign was Samuel
Goddess™, '1604. Daniel's Vision of the Twelve Goddesses, presented at
court by the queen and her ladies, January 8, 1604.
One end of the presence chamber was fitted to repre-
sent a mountain on which was " the Temple of Peace,
erected upon four pillars, representing the four vir-
tues, that supported a globe of the earth." About this
temple and on the mountain were grouped twelve
goddesses and graces from " Juno, in a sky color man-
tle embroidered with gold and figured with peacock's
feathers," to Tethys, "in a mantle of sea-green, with
a silver embroidery of waves and a dressing of reeds,"
presenting a trident. After an introduction in which
Night awakens her son, Somnus, who is sleeping in
a cave at the foot of the mountain, Iris descends,
delivers a message and a "prospective" (surely a crys-
tal rather than a telescope) to Sibylla, "decked as a
nun in black upon white;" and Sibylla, viewing the
goddesses as they successively descend in her glass,
describes each in fitting verse. All having reached the
floor, move in procession to the upper end of the hall

1 Ibid. 439.

2 Cf. the old comedy of Nobody and Somebody, printed in 1606.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 103

before the throne, sing a song, and the dances, alter-
nating with other songs, follow. The masque ends
with a return of the masquers to their first position on
the mountain.1 In this masque of Daniel's we have
not, as has been maintained, the earliest regular
masque, for none of the elements that constitute it
are wanting to the two masques of the Gesta Grayorum
already described.2 And, besides, with all its alle-
gory, classical lore, costume, tableaux, music, and
dancing, the production is void of the least vestige of
drama. It was the author of the Alchemist, not the
author of Philotas, who raised the masque to a place
in dramatic literature, as it had been those tuneful
lyrists, Campion and Davison, who first wrote an
English masque in regular form.

Jonson's career as an entertainer at court began, Jonson's
as we have seen, in the year of the accession of King ^
James. It lasted until 1631, within a few years of the court
time of his death. During a period of some thirty
years Jonson composed no less than nine entertain-
ments, three "barriers," two antimasques, and three
and twenty masques proper, these latter constituting
more than twice as many as were written by all his
competitors and imitators combined. Jonson con-
tributed more than twenty masques to the thirty-
seven of James' reign; Campion, Daniel, and per-
haps Marston alone, writing more than one each
among his rivals.3 Nor was Jonson's primacy in the
masque grounded alone in the quantity of his work.

1 Grosart, Daniel, iii, 204.

2 Above, pp. 98-101.

3 The manuscript of the Masque of Coleorton, reprinted by
Brotanek (328-337), suggests the possibility that some of the pri-
vate masques of Jonson have perished. He paid no attention to his
later works.

104

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

classification of
masque'

jonson's

His masques are what Daniel's never were — dra-
matic, — what Chapman's failed to be — genuinely
inventive, — what Townsend and Davenant strove for
in vain, that is, supereminently poetic. In short, they
were rivaled but once by Campion, and by Francis
Beaumont, and once again by William Browne.

Several classifications of the masque are possible.
We might consider its form, with the growth and
degeneracy of the antimasque. We might treat of
the masque mainly with reference to its costly and
gorgeous performance and the august occasions to
which it lent its novel splendors; or we might turn
our attention to its material and divide it, with Bro-
tanek, into groups, mythological, astronomical, my-
thological-allegorical, allegorical-romantic, and alle-
gorical-historical, did not the saving grace of humor
forbid.1 It is safest to tell the story of the Jacobean
masque in simple chronological order.

On January 6, 1605, the first of Jonson's masques,
Th* Mas(lue °f Blackness, was acted at Whitehall.
It formed part of Queen Anne's entertainment of the
Duke of Holstein, her brother, and on the same day
Prince Charles was created Duke of York. More-
over, the queen was herself one of the masquers, and
had suggested to Jonson his subject, a masque of
blackmoors.2 On this hint the poet conceived the
idea of twelve "negrotes" (the masquers), who ap-
pear in mid-ocean, ranged "in an extravagant order"
on a floating concave shell, and attended by Oceania-
(the light bearers), by Niger, Oceanus, tritons, and
other sea monsters. They are seeking a land, foretold
by prophecy, wherein their darkened skins shall be
changed to fairness. Britannia is that land, and the

1 Brotanek, 182-222. 2 Gifford, Jonson, vii, 6.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 105

miracle is wrought. Here for the first time is dis- Novelty of the
closed the scenic art of Inigo Tones, long to be asso- settmg °! [thls

° J o masque by

ciated with Jonson in such devices. In The Masque inigo Jones.
of Blackness, unlike what had gone before, a regular
scene was set at one end of the hall representing " a
landscape consisting of small woods," and this "fall-
ing," an artificial sea flowed in, "raised with waves
which seemed to move. . . . The masquers were
placed in a great concave shell like mother of pearl,
curiously made to move . . . and rise with the bil-
lows," and the horizon, on a level with the stage,
was drawn by the lines of perspective.1 Here was a
step in scenic representation, the greatest of its time.
Yet be it remembered that Jonson had already al-
luded familiarly to " a piece of prospective " in
Cynthia's Revels, acted by the Children of Paul's at
least three years before.2

Jonson's next effort was Hymen&i, or the Solemni- Hymenai,
ties of Masque and Barriers at a Marriage, that of "
the young Earl of Essex to Lady Frances, daughter
of the Earl of Suffolk. This is one of the most gor-
geous and elaborate of entertainments and a depar-
ture from precedent in presenting a double set of
masquers, the men as Humors and Affections, the
ladies as attendants on Juno. In his prefatory words
Jonson notes how "royal princes and greatest persons
. . . [are in these shows] not only studious of riches
and magnificence in outward celebration, . . . but
curious after the most high and hearty inventions
to furnish the inward parts: and those grounded
on antiquity and solid learning." 3 And accordingly

1 Ibid. 6-9.

2 Cynthia's Revels, Induction ; and see above, p. 173.

3 Gifford, Jonson, vii, 45.

106 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

he embroiders his page with an elaborately learned
commentary on the suggestions which he has gleaned
from the classics, a practice which fell in alike with
his own taste and that of his learned sovereign, and

O 7

one which his rivals failed not to mark for the shafts
of their wit.1 Hymenai is an allegory in which the
Humors and Affections issuing from a microcosm
or globe figuring a man, offer to disturb the rites at
Hymen's altar, whereat Reason interferes. There-
upon Juno appears seated in state and splendor
above the "rack" of the clouds, Iris and her rain-
bow beneath with the eight lady masquers, Juno's
"powers," as they are termed. These descend from
either side of the stage on floating clouds and, join-
ing the Humors and Affections, are reconciled and
the rites proceed. Features of this masque were
the exceeding richness of the costumes, all described
in Jonson's account; 2 the gigantic golden figures of
Atlas and Hercules, supporters of the scene; and the
surprising mechanism which managed the drifting
and descending clouds, and caused the golden globe
or microcosm to appear to hang in mid-air and turn
on an invisible axle. Elaborate, too, were the music
and the dances; and the lyrical excellence of the
many songs rises to all but Jonson's highest level
in the exquisite Epithalamion with which the whole
masque concludes. The barriers of the next night
included a novel device by which "a mist of delicate
perfumes," that is of steam, obscured a part of the
stage.3

1 See Daniel's strictures quoted below. Tethys' Festival, Grosart,
Daniel, iii, 305, 306.

2 Gifford, Jonson, vii, 70-72.

3 Ibid. 75. This seems to have been a device of the Roman stage

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 107

In the following January, Campion's Masque at Campion's
Lord Hayes' Marriage, no unworthy successor to g^/h's
Hymencsi, was acted before the king. As might be l6°?; the

i f ••/"!•• i elaborate

expected from a musician, Lampion gives much musicofthis
attention in his description to the placing of instru- mas(iue-
ments and voices with a view to the musical effect.
"On the right hand of 'the skreene' were con-
sorted ten musicians with base and mean lutes, a
bandora, a double sack-bote, and an harpsichord,
with two treble violins; on the other side somewhat
nearer the screen were placed nine violins and three
lutes, and to answer both consorts (as it were in a
triangle) six cornets and six chapel-voices in a place
raised higher in respect to the piercing sound of
those instruments." l Forty-two instruments and
voices supplied the music for this masque. The
masque is of Phoebus' Knights turned to golden trees
through the wrath of Cynthia. They are freed at
last by Night, at the behest of Hesperus, and the
trees sink out of sight, a knight clad in green taffety
cut into leaves emerging out of each. But, proceed-
ing to the Temple of Night, this habit is plucked off
and all appear in resplendent caparison of carnation
satin and silver lace.2 Jones apparently was not the
"architect" in this masque. The poetry of Campion
is very tuneful and lyrical. The other masque of
this year, presented at the Earl of Huntingdon's
house of Ashby in honor of his mother, the Countess

(see Pliny, xxxi, 17), as it is of modern Wagnerian opera. Cf.
also, Bacon, Of Masques and Triumphs : "Some sweet odours sud-
denly coming forth, without any drops falling, are ... things of
great pleasure and refreshment." Wright, Bacon's Essays, 157.

1 Bullen, Campion, 150.

2 Ibid. 162, 1 66.

io8 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

of Darby, is a composite performance by John Mar-
ston, and none of it notable.1

To i6o8 belong two works of Jonson, The Second

andlfc*. Queen 's Masque of Beauty and that which celebrated
Lord Haddington's marriage at court, called by
Giffbrd The Hue and Cry After Cupid. The latter
is a charming adaptation of the well-known Idyl of
Moschus, so often amplified by the poets, and con-
tains, besides a happy suggestion of the antimasque
in "the Sports and pretty Lightnesses that accom-

Masque of pany Love," a superb Epithalamwn.2 In February,
e. *6°9» was acted The Masque of Queens, and in it
we note a new departure. "And because her majesty
(best knowing that a principal part of life, in these
spectacles, lay in their variety) had commanded me
to think on some dance, or shew, that might precede
hers, and have the place of a foil, or false masque;
I was careful," says Jonson, "to decline, not only
from others, but mine own steps, in that kind ; since
the last year, I had an antimasque of boys ; and
therefore, now devised that twelve women in habit of
hags or witches . . . should fill that part ... as a
spectacle of strangeness, producing multiplicity of
gesture and not unaptly sorting with the current and
whole fall of the device." 3 Accordingly the scene
was set, once more with the help of Jones, to repre-
sent " an ugly hell, which flaming beneath, smoked
unto the top of the roof," and out of this came forth
eleven hags "all differently attired," singing their

1 See Bullen, Marston, iii, 385.

2 Cf. Shirley's Love's Hue and Cry, and Drayton's Crier.
Schelling, Seventeenth Century Lyrics, 231, and Elizabethan Lyrics,
195.

3 Gifford, Jonson, vii, 107.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 109

incantations, followed by "a magical dance full of
preposterous change and gesticulation." * This
scene, the first true antimasque, is filled to over-
flowing with Jonson's recondite and curious learning,
and strong with grotesque and virile poetry. For
ingenious diablerie with all the horrid appurtenances
of their wicked craft, these witches of Jonson are
without comparison. Their relation to the witches
of Macbeth and Middleton might be more difficult to
trace than their diverse sources in the classics and in
contemporary books on the black art. In the heart
of the witches' dance the scene changes to a magnifi-
cent building, figuring the House of Fame, wherein
were discovered the twelve masquers seated on a tri-
umphal throne. And after a speech from "one in the
furniture of Perseus expressing heroic virtue," the
throne wherein they sat, "being machina versatilis,
suddenly changed," and in place of it appeared
"Fame, attired in white, with white wings, having
a collar of gold about her neck," and described each
masquer as she descended, arrayed as a famous
queen of history, Penthesilea, Thomyris, Boadicea,
and the rest, the last and most glorious being Bel-
Anna (royal spouse of James), "of whose dignity and
person the whole scope of the invention doth speak
throughout." 2

1 Ibid. 108 ; and cf. above, i, p. 361.

2 Ibid. 138. A minor ingenuity of this masque was the arrange-
ment of the masquers at one time, "graphically disposed into letters
and honoring the name of . . . Charles, Duke of York." Ibid. 144.
In a later masque, White's Cupid's Banishment, 1617, the words
"Anna Regina, Jacobus Rex," and "Charles P." were thus "gra-
phically disposed." Bacon dismisses this subject with the words:
"Turning dances into figures is a childish curiosity." "Of
Masques and Triumphs," Essays, 156.

i io ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Rivalry of Jon- We have seen already above how Jonson, followed
by other playwrights, had singled out Samuel Daniel,
the accepted poet of the court, as the type of literary
affectation, unoriginality, and coxcombry, and how
that fastidious scholar and courtier had been satirized
again and again on the London stage. We have also
noticed both Daniel and Jonson as early rivals for the
patronage of the new court.1 The ten or a dozen years
that had elapsed since Jonson first represented Daniel
as Master Matthew and Fastidious Brisk had wrought
a change in the relative positions of the two poets.
Daniel, now one of the grooms of her majesty's
privy chamber, had continued his epical and lyrical
activity, had been chosen to write, as we have also
seen, the first of the royal masques at court, and had
reached his greatest success in his pastoral, The
Queen's Arcadia, acted during the royal visit to Ox-
ford in the summer of 1605.* But Jonson within the
same period had become one of the foremost of the
popular dramatists, and had supplanted Daniel as
the accepted entertainer at court. Now in the very
year of Jonson's popular triumph, The Alchemist,
Daniel made a final attempt to regain his lost pres-
tige at court, and elected to try to excel his younger
rival in that rival's own chosen field. Jonson had
never been unconscious of his own merit, nor loath to
explain to the world how all his work "was grounded
upon antiquity and solid learning," so that when he
received a gracious command from Prince Henry
"to retrieve the particular authorities to those things
which I writ out of fulness and memory of my for-
mer readings," the delighted poet did not hesitate to
embroider the margin of his Masque of Queens with
1 Cf. above, i, p.'4?8; ii, p. 101. 2 On this, see below, p. 156.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE ' in

an erudite and most elaborate commentary. To this
weakness of his rival Daniel alludes somewhat sple-
netically in the Preface to his Tethys' Festival, calling
the makers of masques "ingeners for shadows" who
"frame only images of no result," and deprecating
the conduct of those who " fly to an army of authors
as idle as themselves." And he thanks God that he
labors not "with that disease of ostentation." *

Tethys' Festival or the Queen's Wake was cele- Tahys" F
brated June 5, 1610, on the occasion of Prince Henry's va ' '
creation Prince of Wales. It was the concluding
solemnity of several days of royal ceremonial in
which Jonson took his part as the author of the
allegorical entertainment at the Barriers, where the
Lady of the Lake, Prince Arthur, and Merlin all
welcomed the heir to the British crown to the honors
of the tilt and of knighthood.2 For Daniel's masque
Inigo Jones devised three changes of scene, a haven
and castle with ships moving at sea, the golden and
gem-studded caVerns of Tethys and her nymphs, and
lastly an artificial grove. Novel features were the
rich golden settings for the scenes, the first made up
of figures of Neptune and Nereus, on pedestals twelve
feet high, embossed with other figures of silver and
gold; the use of artificial fountains and the employ-
ment of a device of circles of moving lights which
"so occupied the eyes of the spectators that the man-
ner of altering the scenes was scarcely observed." 3
Daniel's own invention included what he called an
"ante-maske or first scene," the appearance of

1 Jonson's dedication to Prince Henry, Gifford, Jonson, vii, 104;
Grosart, Daniel, iii, 305.

2 Prince Henry's Barriers, Gifford, Jonson, vii, 149.

3 Grosart, Daniel, iii, 315.

112

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Zepherus and eight tiny naiads of the fountain,
acted by the young Duke of York (later Charles I),
then ten years of age, and eight little maids of the
court; and " the main appearance of Tethys and her
nymphs of the several rivers," who make offering
acted only by to a tree of Victory. A novel departure was the later
great person- appearance of the queen and her ladies, this time in
their own shapes. The incidental poetry is graceful
and adequate, as was to be expected of the author of
Delia, but the design is uncertain and the allegory
incoherent. With a last thrust at Jonson and the
professional aid which The Masque of Queens must
have required, Daniel prides himself on the circum-
stance that "there were none of inferior sort mixed
amongst these great personages of state and honor (as
usually there have been), but all was performed by
themselves with a due reservation of their dignity." *
As may be supposed, the cost of these entertain-
ments was often very great. Two contemporaries
declare that Jonson's Masque of Blackness drew
£3000 out of the Exchequer.2 His Masque at the
marriage of Viscount Haddington cost twelve gentle-
men contributors each the sum of £300. But it seems
that in both these estimates the cost of the entire
entertainment, supper, and wines must have been
included.3 The total cost of Jonson's Love Freed
from Ignorance amounted to ^719 i-f- 3^- Jonson
received ^40 of this sum "for his invention," Inigo
Jones as much "for his paynes and invention,"

1 Ibid. 323. 2 Nicholas, James, i, 468, 469.

8 Ibid, ii, 175. Cf. the expense of Lord Hay's masque in honor of
the French ambassador in 1616, which cost, the supper included,
£2200 ; and Bacon's expenditure of £2000 on the Masque of
Flowers, 1613.

Great expense
in the per-
formance of
masques.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 113

while Mr. Confesse, "for teaching all the dances,"
was paid £50. Boys who acted Cupid and the Graces
received each two pounds; mere "fooles that danced,
one pound." * If cost, then, be evidence of splendor,
Daniel's Tethys, reckoned at j£i6oo, exceeded the
cost of its immediate successor, just mentioned, by
more than as much again. From a contemporary
letter it appears that the court was not without its
difficulties in raising the requisite ready money for
these expensive revels; and the mention that the
queen would spend but some £600 on two masques
that year (1610-1611) seems to indicate an intention
to retrench in this direction.2 Whatever the facts, the
next three masques of Jonson contain no such elabo-
rate descriptions as to scene and costume, though
each develops the dramatic possibilities of the anti-
masque. In Love Freed from Ignorance (December
15, 1610), Cupid, bound by Sphynx, is beset by the
Follies and She-Fools and rescued by the Muses, who
supply his bewildered godship with the answer to
the Sphynx's riddle. Oberon, the Fairy Prince (Jan-
uary i, 1611), opens with a vivacious antimasque
between Sylvanus and several satyrs who gibe the
sleeping Sylvans, guards of Oberon's temple; 3 but
less is made of fairy-lore than might have been ex-
pected of the author of The Sad Shepherd. Lastly,
in Love Restored (January 6, 1612), Jonson boldly
opens with a lively little piece of realistic farce in

1 Collier, Life of Jones, II.

2 John More to Sir Ralph Winwood, 1610, Nicholas, James,
ii, 371. One of these masques was certainly Jonson's Love Freed
from Ignorance ; the identity of the other is not certain. See
Brotanek, 345.

3 For the date of this masque, see the discussion of Brotanek, 346.

ii4 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

which Robin Goodfellow satirically recounts the
difficulties of a plain man's access to a masque. We
have here a picture, doubtless only too true to the
life, of the confusion and petty intrigues that attended
a royal masque at Whitehall. Masquerade, who
would "make them a show himself," is not impos-
sibly Daniel once more; but the sketch is much too
Masque of the slight to make the identification at all certain. But
' *' one other masque belongs to this immediate period,
the anonymous Masque of the Twelve Months, acted
doubtless in January, 1612. * Here, after a humor-
ous dialogue between Pigwiggen, a fairy, and Madge
Howlet, the twelve spheres descend and call Beauty
from her fortress, represented as a huge heart. From
this, opening, there issues forth not only Beauty, but
Aglaia attended by "the two Pulses." An antimasque
of pages follows, a second "of moones like huntresses
with torches in their hands," and a species of gro-
tesque pas de seul by a personage called Prognosti-
cation. At length the masquers descend, arrayed to
signify the twelve months, and "Somnus, hovering
in the air," sings the final song. The variety of this
masque, though it is not badly written, is its chief
claim to consideration.

Death of Prince On November 6, 1612, Prince Henry died, and the
porary abaT-" m^kers of masques had cause to lament the loss of
ment of the a liberal patron. Tones lost his surveyorship of the

masque, 1611. r> • > i j T i

rnnce s works, and went once more to Italy to pur-
sue the wider study of art and architecture; and
Jonson, despairing of immediate employment at

1 Brotanek very properly rearranges the order of this masque
as printed by Collier (Life of Jones, 131-142), so that the dialogue
between Pigwiggen and Howlet comes first, the masque with which
the manuscript opens following.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 115

court, accepted the post of tutor to the son of Sir
Walter Raleigh and traveled with his charge into
France.1 But the sorrow of James' court was short-
lived. Before two months had expired the court was
agog with flutter and expectation of the marriage of
the Princess Elizabeth to the Palsgrave, and masques
were once more preparing and practicing.

This is not the place in which to recount the ex- Grand masques
traordinary celebrations — the sea fights and fire- °[ ^ "SkaS
works, the royal passages, triumphs, and ceremonials Elizabeth, 1613:
— that accompanied this august event. Among them
were three notable masques, not furnished by queen
or prince as customary heretofore, but by lords of the
court and gentlemen of the several inns of court,
and vying in elaboration, if not in expense, with the
royal masques themselves. On the evening of the Campion's
marriage, February 14, The Lords' Masque of Thomas Lord* Mai<ue:
Campion was given, and the talents of Jones were
once more enlisted. The scene was changed no less
than four times, the last representing "a prospective
with porticoes on each side which seemed to go in a
great way." 2 Two antimasques appeared, the first
of "franticks," the second of "fierie spirits," the
torchbearers, and the masquers were stars and golden
statues called to life. Campion's masque is full of
graceful poetry, and must have been especially rich
and novel in its music. On the following evening chapman's
the gentlemen of the Middle Temple and Lincoln's mas<iuei
Inn assembled at the house of Sir Edward Philips,
Master of the Rolls, and proceeded in mask in a grand
procession of horsemen and cars triumphal, attended

1 Collier, Life of Jones, 14, 1 6 ; Conversations with Drum-
mond, 21.

2 Bullen, Campion, 205.

u6 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

by two hundred halberdiers in a show, "novel, con-
ceitful and glorious," to the court at Whitehall.
There they presented a rich and ponderous alle-
gorical masque, "blind and deformed Plutus, made
sightly, ingenious and liberal by the love of Honor,"
the composition of George Chapman, " Homen ' Meta-
phrastes." Chapman's antimasques were of baboons
and torchbearers, their torches lighted at each end.
His masquers were clothed as "Virginian priests,"
called the "Phoebades," and the scene represented
the heart of "a refulgent mine of gold," and again a
vast and hollowed tree, "the bare receptacle of the
baboonerie." Chapman is very indignant, in his
Description, concerning " certain insolent objections
made against the length of my speeches and narra-
tions." Yet, with every esteem for Chapman's art,
we cannot but sympathize, on the perusal of his
masque, with the "vulgarly-esteemed upstarts" who
appear to have dared thus "to break the dreadful
dignity of antient and autenticall Poesie." *

Beaumont's The Masque of the Middle Temple and Lincoln's

Inn had come to Whitehall by land; it was planned
that the Masque of the Inner Temple and Gray's Inn
should move up the Thames from Winchester House
in a gallant flotilla, with lights, music, and peals of
ordnance on the following evening. And this was
partly carried out, though by reason of the crowd
(albeit farthingales were forbidden the feminine
spectators), and the fagged condition of the court,
this masque was postponed until Saturday, Feb-
ruary 2O.2 An unusual interest attaches to this pro-
duction, as it was the composition of Francis Beau-

1 See the poet's words, Nicholas, James, ii, 571, 572.

2 Ibid. 589, 590.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 117

mont, and was aided and abetted in chief by Sir Bacon as a
Francis Bacon, then King James' solicitor-general. the

Bacon's interest in such entertainments was of long
standing, and we have seen him as far back as 1587,
a student of Gray's Inn, devising "dumbe shewes"
for a Senecan tragedy, while his familiar essay, Of
Masques and Triumphs, from its allusions doubtless
written soon after the events on which we are now
engaged, is a complete epitome in little of the lore as
to "these toys," as wisdom must ever term them.1
As to Beaumont, it may be remarked that he wrote
this masque as a member of the Inner Temple and
about the time of his retirement from writing for
the popular stage, a retirement not improbably due
to his marriage with a lady of station. The Masque
begins with an altercation between Mercury and
Iris, messengers of Jupiter and Juno, in which each
presents a rival antimasque; the main masque intro-
duces the Olympian Knights to do honor to these
nuptials on their way to revive the ancient Olympian
games. A new departure is the habiting of both the
antimasques, not " in one kind of livery (because
that had been so much in use heretofore), but, as
it were, in consort [that is diversely], like to broken
music." 2 The setting presented nothing novel.
Beaumont's lines are full of life and beauty. Nor is

1 See above, p. 102 ; in 1592 Bacon wrote speeches for a Device
presented to the queen when entertained by Essex at Twicken-
ham Park ; he contributed six prose speeches to the Gesta Gray-
orum in 1595 and in the same year wrote further speeches for the
same earl's entertainment of the queen on the anniversary of her
accession. Bacon was "the chief contriver" of Beaumont's masque,
1613 ; and the chief "encourager" of The Masque of Flowers in
the next year.

2 Nichols, James, ii, 592.

ii8 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

the dramatist wholly lost in the occasional poet.

This was Beaumont's only masque.

campion's In Jonson's absence Campion gained a brief vogue,

later masques. He was ca^^ on ty Lord Knowles to entertain

the queen in the following April, on her progress,
at Cawsome House, and joined a simple masque to
many speeches and songs of welcome and praise.1
And he furnished, too, the nuptial masque for the
ill-starred union of Robert Carr, Earl of Somer-
set, with the divorced wife of the Earl of Essex, De-
cember 26, 1613. 2 Here, again, the antimasque is
made up of a variety of vices, winds, elements, coun-
tries, and other abstractions, and a grotesque dance
of twelve skippers is inserted just before the con-
clusion. A feature of the setting, which was the
work not of Jones, but of one Constantine de Servi,
was a scene of London with the Thames, and the
masquers departed on four "barges" that apparently
floated away. "I hear little or no commendation
of the masque made by the Lords that night, either
for device or dancing," says the Lord Chamberlain,
"only it was rich and costly." 3 But Jonson had
already returned, and furnished the sprightly little
Challenge at Tilt for a further celebration of this
marriage next day. Two days later, he furnished The
Irish Masque, which is no more than a humorous
dialogue between four Irish footmen in broken Eng-
lish followed by songs in praise of the king, sung
by Irish bards. But it pleased the king and was or-
Tht Masque of dered again for January 3. The final solemnity of
Flowers, 1614. Somerset's marriage was The Masque of Flowers,
the work of three gentlemen of Gray's Inn, acted by

1 Bullen, Campion, 173. 2 Ibid. 21 1.

3 Nicholas, James, ii, 725.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 119

their fellows and discharged as to cost by Sir Francis
Bacon, who was said to have expended thereon no
less a sum than £2000. l The antimasque is a duel
between Silenus and Kawasha (who appears to be
the god of smoke) as to the superior worthiness of
wine or tobacco, "to be tried at two weapons, at song
and at dance," followed by the now customary dance
of various characters, here realistically transplanted
from the streets of London. The masque unites
Winter and Spring in the celebration of this union,
and a charm transforms a gorgeous garden laden
with bloom into the group of masquers. "The
masque ended, it pleased his Majesty to call for the
anticke-mask of song and daunce, which was again
presented; and then the maskers, [all of them gentle-
men of the Inn,] uncovered their faces, and came up
to the state, and kissed the King's and Queen's and
Prince's hands with a great deal of grace and favor,
and so were invited to the banquet." 2

With the coming of the next New Year we find jonson's
Jonson once more firmly established as the accepted ™sq
writer of masques for the court; and for four suc-
ceeding years (1615 to lf)i8 inclusive) each January
witnessed a masque of his at Whitehall; whilst one
private masque and two independent antimasques
(all within the same period) attest alike his activ-
ity and his inventiveness. Mercury Vindicated from
the Alchemists (1615) opens with a humorous scene
in which that lithe deity escapes from the furnace
of Vulcan. The antimasques are of "thread-bare

1 Chapman's Masque had cost Lincoln's Inn alone £1086 8j. I id.
See Dugdale, Origines JuriJiciales, 1671, 286, for particulars of
the assessments.

2 Nicholas, James, ii, 745.

120

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

The character
Comus.

William
Browne's
Ulysset and
Circe, 1615.

alchemists" and "imperfect creatures with helms of
limbecks on their heads." 1 The Golden Age Restored
(1616) is a beautiful fancy in which Pallas turns the
Iron Age and his attendant evils to statues which sink
out of sight. It is one of the most poetical of Jonson's
masques. The [Anti\ Masque of Christmas (1616) is a
piece of drollery in which tha't jolly personage intro-
duces his sons and daughters, among them Carol,
Wassel, and Minced-pie. In it Cupid (who forgets
his part) and his mother Venus, a deaf tire-woman,
also figure. In The Piston of Delight and in Lovers
Made Men (both 1617), Jonson returned to more nor-
mal forms. Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue (16 1 8) is of
interest alike for the extraordinary scene in which
Altas is represented "in the figure of an old man, his
head and beard all hoary and frost as if his shoulders
were covered with snow;" 2 and from the opening
entry of Comus, "the god of cheer or the belly," a
personage who may well have conveyed a hint to
an impressionable child of ten named John Milton.
King James was so pleased with this masque that
he ordered it repeated, like each of its three prede-
cessors; 3 and for the second performance Jonson
wrote an additional antimasque which he called For
the Honor of Wales.

But it was not alone at court that the masque con-
tinued to flourish. In January, 1615, William Browne
of Tavistock, the tuneful pastoralist and lyric poet,
furnished the Inner Temple with one of the most
exquisite works of this kind, and the only masque
from his pen.4 Aside from the beauty of its poetry,

1 Gifford, Jonson, vii, 237, 240. 2 Ibid. 299.

3 Brotanek, 351-353.

1 Entitled The Inner Temple Masque, and first printed in 1772.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 121

Browne's masque is distinguished by a coherence of
plot almost unexampled among masques. The fable
is that of Ulysses and Circe. The first scene — so
Browne calls it — is the Sirens' rock, the second a
grove on Circe's Island. One antimasque is appropri-
ately the beast-men of Circe's transformation, another
the maids that gather Circe's "simples." But it is
not the beast-men that Ulysses transforms to their hu-
man shape with the wand of the enchantress, but his
companions, the masquers, whom he arouses, asleep
in a glorious enchanted arbor. Even metaphorically,
Browne could' not call his fellow Templars beasts, so
the fable was sacrificed. Another private masque of other masques
this period was that presented on Candlemas night, j^njasnc
February 8, 1618, at Coleoverton, by the Earl of Essex
and his friends. The verse of this masque is fluent
and not wanting in poetry. It was written under
Jonson's influence, if indeed he is not the author of it
himself, as Brotanek thinks.1 Cupid's Banishment by
Robert White was a ladies' masque presented to the
queen at Greenwich in May, 1617; a like production,
in which Lady Hay with eight others were to have
appeared as Amazons, was "disliked and disallowed
by the queen" in the following year.2 On February 2,
1618, The Mountebank's Masque was acted at Gray's
Inn and repeated before the king a few days later at
court. This masque contains the lengthy drollery of
a mountebank and one Dr. Paradox, but is not other-
wise conspicuous. Fleay seems conclusively to have

1 Brotanek, 218, and 353 ; also 328-337, where the masque is
reprinted.

2 Letter from John Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carlton, Jan-
uary, 1618, quoted by Collier, i, 409. No trace of this masque
remains. See Fleay, ii, 343.

122 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

answered Collier's ascription of it to Marston by
showing that the masque forms part of the Gesta
Grayorum of 1617, and that Marston belonged to the
Temple.1 So, too, Middleton's one Masque of the
Inner-Middle Temple (otherwise The Masque of He-
roes, January i, 1619) offers nothing unusual save a
coarse, if well-written, scene between Doctor Almanac
and various Days of the year, fantastically set forth.
A novel feature of the contemporary edition is a table
of five principal professional actors, among which
number are the playwright, William Rowley, and
Joseph Taylor, successor to Burbage as the most im-
portant actor of the King's company.2
jones and Late in 1615 Inigo Jones had returned from abroad
h to enj°y tne reversion of the office of surveyor of the
king's works, which he had long been promised
and which had lately fallen in; and for some years we
hear little of his employment in connection with the
masque.3 He was busy with more important pro-
jects, building and designing for the king. Moreover,
after the gorgeous heights which masking reached
at the marriage of the Princess Elizabeth, there was a
perceptible falling off in the expense and elaboration
of these entertainments. To this period, too, belongs
the breach between Jonson and Jones, which was cer-
tainly complete as early as 1619, in which year Jon-
son reported to Drummond that " when he wanted to
express the greatest villaine in the world, he would

1 Collier, Jones, xviii; Fleay, ii, 82, 344.

2 Htstorta Histrionica (1699), ed. Dodsley-Hazlitt, xv, 405.

8 Jones seems to have assisted Jonson in Love Freed from Igno-
rance, the Christmas antimasque in Oberon, Neptune's Triumph,
and Pan's Anniversary, though Jonson acknowledged his share
only in the last.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 123

call him ane Inigo." l The causes of this quarrrel are
not clear, and it was certainly patched up for a time,
as Jonson and Jones collaborated in the masques of
the last years of King James. Queen Anne died in jonson's last
March, 1619, and masques at court were intermitted
for a time. But after his return from Scotland,
whither he had gone afoot on his well-known pilgrim-
age in the summer of this year, Jonson took up once
more his avocation as maker of court masques.
Brotanek has assigned Pan's Anniversary or The
Shepherds' Holiday to the king's birthday, June 19,
i62O.2 It is distinguished by its many beautiful lyrics,
abiding proofs of the vital poetical spark in "old
Ben." The New Year of 1621 was celebrated with a
return to masking in the slight and fanciful perform-
ance, News from the New World Discovered in the
Moon; and in August came one of the greatest of Ben The Masque of
Jonson's triumphs, The [Anti] Masque of Gypsies, Gypsies> l6il
celebrated at Burley-on-the Hill, the seat of the favor-
ite Buckingham, at Belvoir and at Windsor, each time
to the exceeding delight of the king, and to the en-
richment of Jonson by j£ioo and an increased pen-
sion. This masque is vulgar and ribald to a degree
beyond any product of its class; but it is admirably
vivacious and humorous as well. Like Ignoramus,
and for a similar reason, it exactly fitted the royal
taste, and is said even to have inspired the long
dormant muse of his Majesty to the composition of
certain verses.3 In The Masque of Augures, acted
in January and May, 1622, Jonson again made much
of the vulgar, realistic present rn antimasques of

1 Conversations, 30. 2 Brotanek, 357.

3 Gifford, Jonson, vii, 453 n. ; and see as to Ignoramus, above,
pp. 78, 79.

124

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

characteristic

nature of its

allegory.

"neighbors from St. Katherens," and Urson and his
bears. Time Vindicated, of the next January, was
given with unusual splendor, but one of the anti-
masques had degenerated into a dance of tumblers
and jugglers. Neptune's Triumph for the Return of
Albion, projected for January 6, 1624, to celebrate the
return of Prince Charles and Buckingham from their
futile and vainglorious trip into Spain for a royal
spouse, was postponed again and again, and finally
abandoned; 1 although much of its material was
worked over into The Fortunate Isles, presented on
Twelfth Night, 1624, to celebrate the betrothal of
Prince Charles to Henrietta Maria.

From the foregoing sketch of the masque in the
reign of King James several things are derivable.
\Ve have, first, the stubborn persistence of allegory,

. , .. .... . i . »

seldom well sustained, it is true, but none the less
pervading. The allegorical nature of the masque
is its oldest inheritance, one that comes direct from
the time-honored practices of the morality. When
we consider the stern grip of allegory on the litera-
ture of generations that had gone before, how its
coloring of the drama was only one manifestation of
a tincture that dyed in its vivid colors the religion,
the architecture, and pictorial art of the time, the
masque assumes a new interest as the last flicker of
expiring medieval art.2 The allegory of the morality
was didactic; that of the masque eulogistic and ar-
tistic. The allegory of the morality was often intel-
lectually subtile. That of the masque was simpler

1 Ibid, viii, 451, Cunningham's note; and Brotanek, 359.

2 In pageantry such as that of the Lord Mayors' shows alone
did this obvious allegory of old time persist any later. See Fairholt,
Lord Mayors' Pageants.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 125

and appealed — sometimes grossly — to the senses.
The allegory of the Jacobean masque is rarely over-
ingenious, and the use of the allegory of double rela-
tion, — like that of the Faery Queen and the dramas
of Lyly, — in which a given story has alike a reference
to abstract qualities and their concrete embodiment
in certain well-known personages, had become prac-
tically a matter of the past. In a word, the ponderous
and complete allegory of the middle ages, in which
every item is figured forth with keen and tireless
ingenuity, has been replaced by the delicate art of
poetical suggestion, wherein allusion, hidden signifi-
cance, and the force of subtle similitude are plain
to the cultivated gentleman, an intimate in the
charmed circle of the court, but a blank to ignorance
and outside impertinence. It was the recognition of
this that prompted Jonson's words in the Masque of
Queens, where, excusing himself for not making cer-
tain of his personages "their own decipherers," he
says: "To have made . . . each one to have told
upon their entrance what they were and whither they
would, had been a most piteous hearing, and ut-
terly unworthy every quality of a poem: wherein a
writer should trust somewhat to the capacity of the
spectator, especially in these spectacles; where men,
beside inquiring eyes, are understood to bring quick
ears, and not those sluggish ones of porters and
mechanics, that must be bored through with narra-
tions." l

A second characteristic of the masque is a pro- classical per-
fuse employment of classical material in its person- f^"*^ and
ages, its imagery, and allusion. This it shared with allusions in the

i • r i i r if • L Jacobcan

many other species or the drama, thus falling in with masque.
1 Gifford, Jonson, vii, 113 n.

ia6 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

an all but universal mannerism of the age. Nor did
the masque, despite the classical learning of its authors,
hesitate to follow the popular drama in mingling
satire, abstraction, and the personages of every-day
life with the stately gods of ancient Greece and Rome.
Jonson and Chapman are deep in their show of clas-
sical learning. Yet it was Browne who achieved the
one thoroughly successful masque on classical story,
his masque of Ulysses and Circe. And this is explained
by a third characteristic of the Jacobean masque, its
» general lack of definite plot or design; and outside of
Browne and Jonson, once more, its common want
even of any certain central idea.

importance of The scenic effects and contrivances with which
imgo jones and tnese amusements of the court were staged have al-

of Jonson to < o

the growth of ready been indicated by reference and example in
the preceding paragraphs. It is notable that this
outburst of display and ingenuity is referable to one
man, Inigo Jones, and is only one of several activi-
ties in which he was famous in his time. On the other
hand, as already made plain, the lyric and dramatic
development of the masque was almost as solely
Degeneracy of Jonson's. The antimasque, as we have seen, was
the antimasque. ^'ls invention, and he, nearly alone, attempted to
preserve this feature from degeneracy into mere
buffoonery and nonsense. From a foil to the masque
which followed it, the antimasque became almost
any light or farcical preceding scene and was actually
described by Daniel as an "ante-masque." The
later confusion of the word with "anticke-masque"
further illustrates the degeneracy already alluded to.1

1 Cf. the use of the word in The Masque of Queens, ibid. 1OJ,
with Tethys' Festival, Grosart, Daniel, in, 311, and The Masque
of Flowers, Nichols, James, ii, 739. See, also, Brotanek, 139-169.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 127

When the idea of contrast was lost in the anti- The satirical
masque and that of mere diversion substituted, three el
changes soon took place: the introduction of a second
-in the next reign, even of a third and fourth —
antimasque; 1 secondly, a change from the group of
characters of one kind, such as Jonson's witches or
his satyrs or cyclops, to the medley of personages
which we meet in Beaumont; and lastly the develop-
ment of scenes of drollery in dialogue and the infu-
sion into the antimasque of the element of satire.
For this last Jonson and the taste of his master must
be held largely responsible. But in The Masque of
Mountebanks and in Middleton's Masque of Heroes
as well as in Jonson's Love Restored, Augures, and
News from the New World, the interest is chiefly
of this kind; though Jonson alone wrote produc-
tions such as Christmas and The Gypsies' Meta-
morphosis, in which the antimasque has usurped
all.

.Lastly, as to the Jacobean masque, it should be Place of the
remembered that it remained, as earlier, only one ^heMac^ean

form though the mOSt SUmptUOUS of the many entertainments;

entertainments in which the age abounded. The
/oyal progresses continued, though more serious
addresses had taken much of the function of the old
allegorical welcome; and complete dramas, in Latin
and English, pastoral or other, often supplied the
place* formerly occupied by the "entertainment."
Prince Charles, like his brother, had his celebrations,
though the tournament was becoming more and

1 In The Masque of the Twelve Months the antimasquers dance
several times. Both Chapman's and Beaumont's masques of 1613
have two antimasques. Jonson apparently borrowed the device far
the first time in Mercury Vindicated, 1615.

128 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

more a thing of the past.1 It was in civic ceremonial
that the entertainment, with its pageantry and alle-
gory, its songs and speeches, still preserved the cus-
toms of old time. Of the Lord Mayors' Pageants,
which were held yearly between 1580 and 1639, more
than thirty remain extant and in print, the work of
such well-known poets as Peele, Munday, Dekker,
Middleton, and Heywood, nearly all of whom with
Webster, Marston, and Shirley were the authors like-
wise of other monologues, dialogues, and speeches
of welcome.2 Indeed, Jonson's own little monologue,
The Masque of Owls, discloses that his poetical activ-
ity in this kind was by no means confined to the state-
its influence on Her productions of the court. 3 Besides this, the masque
the drama. came more and more to influence the general drama,
not only in setting and staging, but dramas enliv-
ened with masque-like features became the favorites
of the hour. A recent authority states that there are
"distinct masque elements in sixteen" of Beaumont
and Fletcher's plays.4 Middleton, Field, Tourneur,
and others used the masque more or less organically
The masque in in their dramas.5 In Shakespeare's comedies masking
Shakespeare. m^ ^e s^ ^ tQ ^ a|m()S(. a favorite device, from the

Muscovite disguises, the pageant of the nine worthies,

1 Cf. Civitatis Amor, an entertainment by water, by Middleton,
1616 ; Bullen, Middleton, vii, 267.

2 See Fairholt, Lord Mayors' Pageants, Percy Society, 1843.
Greg, List of Masques, Pageants, etc., 1902, adds several titles to
Fairholt's list.

3 This was acted before Prince Charles in 1624; Gifford, Jon-
son, viii, 454.

4 Thorndike, "Influence of Court Masques on the Drama,"
Modern Language Publications, n. s. viii, 116.

5 Women Beware Women, No Wit, No Help Like a Woman's,
Woman is a Wec.thercock, and The Revenger's Tragedy, all contain

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 129

and the dialogue of Winter and Summer, all con-
tained in Love's Labour s Lost, to the elves and fays
of The Merry Wives, Hymen s Masque in As You
Like It, and the more striking examples of the later
plays.1 Thus, besides the scene representing the
historical masking of Henry VIII, this entire play
was sumptuously staged to represent the ceremonials
and pomp of court. The Winters Tale contains an
antic-dance of twelve satyrs; The Tempest a betrothal
masque in which the familiar classical goddesses
figure, besides an antimasque of "strange shapes."
Cymbeline has thrust into its final act a dream (com-
posite of ghosts and Jupiter, who "descends on an
eagle") which nothing but a degenerate taste for such
stage devices could justify or excuse.2 An instance of
direct borrowing from a masque has been alleged in
the case of The Two Noble Kinsmen, in which a mot-
ley group of masquers, including a laborer, a bavian,
and five wenches, — somewhat like the antimasque
of Beaumont's Masque of 1613, — dance a morris.3
But neither this identification nor the theory which
credits Shakespeare with borrowing the idea of the

masking, as do Fletcher's Maid's Tragedy, Maid in the Mill, and
many more. See, also, SoergePs long list of plays in which masking
occurs, 88-89. Shirley asks, in Love in a Maze (iv, 2), apropos of the
masque, —

" What plays are taking without these

Pretty devices ? . . .

Your dance is the best language of some comedies

And footing runs away with all."

1 Love's Labour's Lost, v, ii; Merry Wives, v, v; As You Like It,
v, iv. On this topic, see, also, H. Schwab, Das Schauspiel im
Schauspiel, 1896.

2 Winter's Tale, iv, iv; Tempest, in, iii; iv, i; Cymbeline, v, iv.

3 Littledale, ed. of The Two Noble Kinsmen, 145, Shahs pere
Society's Publications, 1876.

1 30 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

antic-dance of satyrs in The Winter s Tale from Jon-
son's Oberon, the Fairy Prince, seems altogether war-
ranted to those whose sensitiveness as to the eternal
likeness of things is not developed into too serious
a disproportion with their faith in the resources of
genius.1
Last of Ben There seems no reason to suppose that Jonson

lonson's 111 • i

masques. was superseded as the entertainer at court in the
earliest years of King Charles' reign.2 Masking
was dropped for a season; but on its resumption, in
1631, Jonson is found once more in his familiar
place. He had been ill meanwhile, and his years
were pressing upon him. Charles had sent the old
poet a gift of £100 in 1629, and in the next year em-
ployed him on Love's Triumph through Callipolis,
which was performed with great splendor, January 9,
1631, the king himself heading the masquers in the
role of Heroick Love. So successful was this masque
that a queen's masque, Chloridia, was ordered to
follow, and was acted by her majesty and her ladies
late in the succeeding month. But this was the last
of Jonson's masques. In both Inigo Jones had as-
sisted. But the quarrel between Jones and Jonson,
both of them now old and irascible, broke out anew,
and, in the next year, Aurelian Townsend, a small
poet and one time "son of Ben," was invited to supply
the words to two inventions of Jones. These were
dlbion's Triumph, allegorically representing London
and the English court; presented January 8, 1632,
and Tempe Restored, relating the story of Circe and
her lovers, February 14, following. Townsend's
verses are graceful and far from devoid of merit, and

1 Thorndike, Masques, 118.

2 Gifford, Jonson, Memoir i, p. cxxix.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 131

Jonson's unhappy attacks on Inigo did not include
his coadjutor.1 Jonson's quarrel need not concern
us. He was ill, "confined to bed and board," de-
prived by his rival of his chiefest means of a liveli-
hood. But the old lion was not yet dead, nor had all
his patrons deserted him. On the royal progress into
Scotland in 1633, Charles was sumptuously enter-
tained by the literary Duke and Duchess of New-
castle at Welbeck in Nottinghamshire, and again in
the summer of 1634, by the same hosts at Bolsover;
and for both Jonson prepared the devices of Love's
Welcome. In the latter the persistent old satirist dared
to gibbet his foe once more as Coronel Vitruvius.
And although both king and court must have wea-
ried of this petty quarrel of two testy old men, there
seems no reason to doubt that Charles was both
forbearing and kind to the infirmities of his broken
old poet.2

As for Jones, he proceeded on to his greatest tri- Shirley's
umphs of scenic ingenuity, marked in the two court
masques of the year 1634. The first of these was Shir-
ley's Triumph of Peace, given February 3, "the most
magnificent pageant ever perhaps exhibited in Eng-
land," a procession and masque in which the four
inns of court united to honor their king and to show
their detestation of the tenets of Prynne and such as
thought with him, recently set forth in the notorious
diatribe, Histnomasttx.3 The Triumph of Peace is

1 See An Expostulation with Inigo "Jones and the two epigrams
that follow it. Gifford, Jonson, viii, 109-115.

2 See the two letters of James Howell to Jonson on this subject,
Jacobs, Howell, 325, 376.

3 Dyce, Shirley, i, p. xxiii. This masque was repeated by the
king's command, February n, in Merchant Taylors' Hall. A

I32 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

a monster masque, alike for its size and the incongru-
ous elements which its designers, in their search after
novelty, saw fit to unite in it. The main idea seems no
more than the descent of Peace and Law and Jus-
tice to do honor to King Charles and his queen. But
about this are clustered no less than seven changes of
scene from street, tavern, and forest to the sinking of
the moon in an open landscape and the rise of Amphi-
luche, the harbinger of morning. There were eight
antimasques, a rapid succession of character dances,
of abstractions, birds, thieves, huntsmen, projectors,
beggars, and what not. There were little scenes of
humor and folly, a knight tilting at a windmill, four
dotterels captured by mimicry, nymphs beset by
satyrs; and at one point the carpenter, tailor, painter,
and tire-women invade the scene in an unexpected bit
of pleasantry. Shirley names more than twenty prin-
cipal characters in a list prefixed as taking part, but
the text discloses at least sixty more, besides musi-
cians, torchbearers, and chorus. Shirley's verse and
prose is abundantly adequate to the slender demands
of such a performance. The scene, costume, and or-
nament was Inigo Jones', the music that of William
Lawes, the famous composer. A contemporary esti-
mate gives the total cost of the masque to the four
societies as "above twenty thousand pounds." -1
Carew's In less than a week the court gave a return masque

'ify. to *^IS °^ tne mns °^ court> and Thomas Carew, the
king's "sewer in ordinary" or cup-bearer, in asso-
ciation with Lawes and Jones, contrived Ccelum

ballad on the procession preceding it is reprinted in Maidment-
Logan, Davenant, i, 324. And see above, pp. 88, 89.

1 B. Whitelocke, Memorials of English Affairs, 1682, p. 22 ; quoted
by Dyce, Shirley, i, p. xxviii.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 133

Britannicum, with eight changes of scene and as many
antimasques. A feature of. Carew's masque is the
carping, cynical Momus, who speaks always in prose
with a wit both searching and risque. One of the anti-
masques represented a battle, marking a complete
degeneracy from Jonson's conception of contrast,
while "a prospect of Windsor Castle" was amongst
the novelties of scene.1 Carew's masque is often poetic
in the lyrical parts; as compared with Shirley's it is
lacking in dramatic instinct. As to form, Shirley's
masque is chaos in activity; Carew's, chaos inert.

To this year 1634 (September 29) belongs, too, the Milton's Comui.
performance of Milton's Comus, an entertainment, l634'
masque-like in form, presented at Ludlow Castle
before the Earl of Bridgewater, Lord President of
Wales. This was not Milton's first venture in this
kind. He had already furnished part of an entertain-
ment presented to the Countess Dowager of Derby
at Harefield a year or two before and now known as
Arcades.2 It appears to have been Lawes' friendship
that procured for Milton both of these opportunities
to display his lyrical talent, as Lawes wrote music for
both and personally superintended the performance
of Comus. Milton's part in Arcades includes three
lovely lyrics and a speech of the Genius of the Wood.
Comus is a far more elaborate production, and, even
if not in strict parlance a masque (from the circum-

1 Ebsworth, Care-lit, 134 and 164.

2 The countess dowager, a patron of poets from Spenser to
Milton, was the wife, by her second marriage, of Lord Chancellor
Ellesmere. Sir John Egerton, his son by a former marriage, married
Lady Frances Stanley, the countess dowager's daughter by her
first marriage, and became Earl of Bridgewater. Thus Arcades
and Comus were celebrations within the same family.

i34 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

stance that it is neither the setting for a ball nor con-
tains masquers), marks in more than one respect a
return to the simpler and purer conception of such
entertainments in earlier time. Comus presents a co-
herent situation expressed in an obvious and well sus-
tained allegory. Comus is not dramatic, as those who
have seen it in revival must confess; but the beauty
and pure elevation of its thought, its lyrical music
combined with "a certain Doric delicacy," give force
to the words of its earliest eulogist when he declares,
"I must plainly confess to have seen yet nothing par-
allel in our language: Ipsa moUities" l Although
staged with no such pomp as that which distinguished
the masques at court in this year, Comus exhibits
three changes of scene, a wild wood, a stately palace,
and the exterior of Ludlow Castle, in the great hall of
which the masque was given. The participants were
by no means all new to such devices, for not only was
Lawes the guiding spirit, but Viscount Brackley and
Thomas Egerton, sons of the Earl of Bridgewater
(who with their sister the Lady Alice acted the chief
parts of Comus), had already appeared as actors in
other like Ccelum Bntannicum. Similar productions to Milton's
"masques." m kind if not in degree of excellence are The Spring's
Glory, a dainty and poetical trifle intended for the
prince's birthday, May 29, 1638, by Thomas Nabbes,
and A Masque at Bretbie, on Twelfth Night, 1639, by
Sir Aston Cockayne, presented to his kinsman, the
Earl of Chesterfield. Spring's Glory is no more or less
a masque than Comus. Cockayne's is in no wise not-
able, and probably represents the average of many a
private masque which wise if envious Time has suf-
fered to perish or lie buried in those ungarnered fields,

1 Letter of Sir Henry ffotton to Milton, April 13, 1638.

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 135

the muniment rooms of many an English ancient
family.1

It was in 1635 that William Davenant offered the The masques
court his first masque, The Temple of Love. Davenant jL^!^*nt>
had already made a reputation as a dramatist of pro-
mise, and was destined to carry the traditions of the
earlier theatrical age into the post-Restoration period.
The Temple of Love is Davenant's best masque, and
seems an honest attempt to restore this much-abused
and deformed variety of composition to coherence
and reasonable limits. The theme touches on the af-
fectation of the hour, Platonic love; 2 and tells how
Divine Poesie has obscured from the unworthy the
temple of chaste Love to reestablish it in all pristine
glory through the influence of Indamora's (the queen's)
beauty. The scenery, though reduced in variety and
number of changes, was novel from its Eastern and
Indian setting and costuming. The other masques of
Davenant are not comparable to this. Prince D Amour his Prince
(February 24, 1636) was presented by the gentlemen
of the Middle Temple in honor of Charles and Rupert,
Princes Palatine, the nephews of the king. It is swift
and direct in movement; and whilst the scenery was
very sumptuous, the antimasques were reduced to
two. Britannia Triumphans (January 7, 1638), pre-
senting the glory of Britanocles, not without its slurs
against his enemies, the Puritans, contains the origi-
nal feature of " a mock romanza," with giant, dwarf,

1 Two minor masques are The King and Queen's Entertainment
at Richmond, and Corona Mineruce, both in 1635, the last not
mentioned in Brotanek's list. See the reprint of the former by
Bang and Brotanek, Matenahen zur Kunde, ii, 1903.

2 Cf. Davenant's play The Platonic Lovers, and the treatment
of the whole subject below, pp. 347, 348.

136 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

knight, and damsel, occupying the place of one of
the antimasques, while the others were furnished by
the ever popular humors of the street-folk of Lon-
don. Lastly, Salmacida Spolia (January 21, 1640) a
double masque, in which both Charles and Henrietta
Maria took part, discloses the malicious fury of Dis-
cord, none too prophetically calmed by the wisdom
of Philogenes, impersonated by the king. The anti-
masque contained twenty "entries," as they were
now styled, some of them danced by three or two, or
even by a single character. Brotanek has assigned to
Davenant another masque entitled Luminalia, pre-
sented by the queen and her ladies, February 6, 1638. *
This is a production of no little fancy; nor does it
fall below the graceful mediocrity of Davenant.2 Be
Luminalia whose it may, Davenant's work in the
masque is direct, not particularly original, and de-
cidedly unlyrical; though, with the ever-fertile and
ingenious devices of Jones, evidently sufficient to
please the none too exacting demands of a time in
which serious-minded men, whether Cavalier or Pur-
itan, were busied with affairs other than "toys."
Masque-like This enumeration of English masques might be

plays. materially lengthened by stretching our period to

include a few true masques that fall without it;3 by
the identification of some few manuscripts recorded
as masques in the lists and dictionaries of the drama; 4

1 " Ein unerkanntes Werk Sir William Davenant's," Anglia,
Beiblatt, xi, 177.

2 See Fuller's Worthies' Library, iv, 117, 615, and 630, for some
novel devices.

3 Shirley's Cupid and Death, 1653 ; Jordan's Fancy's Festival,
and HowelFs Nuptials of Peleus and Thetis, both 1 654, the last acted
in Paris.

4 See Fleay's List, Chronicle, ii, 343 ; and the many cases in

THE ENGLISH MASQUE 137

and by a looser employment of the term to include the
dialogues and belated moralities which show direct
influence of the masque in their inception or staging.
The sum total of all these productions is by no means
small; and they range from dramas such as A Mid-
summer Night's Dream,1 or Dekker's Old Fortunatus,
into which the masque-like quality has entered only
in part, to complete mythological or allegorical plays
such as Lyly's Woman in the Moon, Nash's Summer's
Last Will and Testament^ Dekker and Ford's exqui-
site Sun's Darling (1623), anc^ Heywood's beautiful
Love's Mistress ( 1 634) . More composite in its make-up
is Rowley and Middleton's The World Well Tost at
Tennis (1620), whilst pure allegory rules in Shirley's
Honor and Riches (about 1631), and in the curious
Microcosmus (1634) of Thomas Nabbes.2 Some of
these productions, such as Heywood's Pleasant Dia-
logues and Dramas, "selected out of Lucan, Eras-
mus, Textor, and Ovid," and published in 1637, could
not possibly have been intended for acting.3 Oth-
ers were performed privately, and even in public, on
occasions which demanded neither the restrictions
of "the entertainment" nor the elaboration of the
masque. Aside from Love's Mistress and The Sun's
Darling, just mentioned, none of these quasi-dramatic
productions are more beautiful or poetic than those
of James Shirley, his Triumph of Beauty (1639), "a

which Halliwell-Phillipps, Dictionary, appears to name masques
by their personages.

1 On the relation of this play to the masque, see Soergel, 80-82.

2 On the relations of plays of this type to the masque, see ibid.
78-80.

3 Cf. the scene in Deorum Judicium (Works of Heywood, vi, 250),
in which Minerva is bidden doff her helmet and Venus her cestus,
that Paris might judge unbiased by their magic powers

138 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

spirited and elegant presentation of the old theme, the
judgment of Paris," and his Contention of A]ax and
Ulysses (1640), immortal for the magnificent lyric,
"The glories of our blood and state," with which it
concludes. Finally, it seems altogether probable that
a larger proportion of masques has perished than of
some classes of the more regular drama. For masques
were for the most part devised for private entertain-
ment and by poets who lived less in the public eye,
ephemeral productions of occasional literature which
the world could well spare.

XVI

THE PASTORAL DRAMA

THE pastoral is a mode of literary expression, not The pastoral
a literary species; a way of regarding life and orj!°f.e' II
nature, not a variety of prose or of poetry. Originating
in the Italy of the later Renaissance, the pastoral held
its own in various forms in verse and prose, in Latin
and Italian, from Sannazaro, whose famous prose ro-
mance, the Arcadia, was completed in 1489, to Tasso
and Guarini, whose pastoral dramas were written in
the lifetime of Shakespeare.1 At home the pastoral
gave life to the most vital branch of Italian drama;
abroad, it influenced every literature of Europe. As
an element the pastoral enters widely into the lit-
erature of Elizabeth and James, and produces as di-
verse products as The Shepherds' Calendar, As You
Like It, and Lycidas. The pastoral came first into and i
England in eclogue form, in Googe's translation of
Mantuan's Latin imitations of Vergil.2 The eclogue
reached its height in The Shepherds1 Calendar, and
was revived in the reign of King James in the " pas-
torals" of Wither and Browne. The pastoral lyric

1 Boccaccio foreshadowed the pastoral romance in his Ameto, a
story in prose and verse first printed in 1478. See Greg, Pastoral
Poetry and Pastoral Drama, 1906, pp. 39-46. This chapter was in
the printer's hands before I received a copy of this excellent work.

2 Cf. the Eclogs of Barnaby Googe, 1561; and Turbervile's
translation of the Eclogues of Mantuan, 1567. See, also, H. O.
Sommer, Erster Versuch uber die englische Hirtendichtung, Mar-
burg, 1 388.

140 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

came into vogue somewhat later, and was the chief
lyrical fashion of the penultimate decade of the cen-
tury. To such an extent did this passing mode rule,
that older poetry republished was given a pastoral
turn, and every lover became a swain, each lass
a nymph or shepherdess.1 The pastoralized lyric
reached its height in the piratical collection known as
The Passionate Pilgrim, 1599, in which appear five
lyrics of Shakespeare. Of much the same period in its
prevalence was the pastoral prose tale; though here,
from Sidney's Arcadia, written in the early eighties,
through Lodge's Rosalynd and Greene's Pandosto
(to mention only these, the best known), there is
scarcely a story which is purely pastoral and unmin-
gled with other elements. The pastoral drama is of
later growth, though its elements are coeval with the
other pastoral species. Despite the nymphs and
satyrs, the piping shepherds and coy shepherdesses
of many an entertainment and scene of comedy at
court and on the popular stage, it was not until the
reign of James, until the conventionalized work of
Daniel and Fletcher, that English drama was to know
true pastoral comedy.

The pastoral The pastoral idea is linked with that chimera of
the imagination, the golden age, and wanders in im-
aginary realms untenanted by creatures of flesh and
blood. According to this idea, the country life is
glorified, as exemplified in Arcadian shepherds, who
live in eternal simplicity, leisure, and elegant dis-
course. In Arcadia all is blossom and fragrance;
existence flows without a let save for the cares of
love, without a pain save the twinges of jealousy.
Oracles utter orotund enigmas, shepherds "pipe as
1 See the present author's Book of Elizabethan Lyrics, pp. xiv, xv.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 141

though they could never grow old," maids are
sought or sweetly seeking, and, except for an occa-
sional wild man or peasant for contrast's sake, all
the pastoral's personages are equally cultivated, elo-
quent, poetical, and noble. With all its outdoor its artifi-
apparatus and its harping on primitive simplicity ciallty'
of conduct and manners, it is the artificiality of the
pastoral that first strikes the observer. And yet its
antithesis to nature is not the pastoral's most salient
note; for the world may be lost in the flights of the
idealist or diminished to nothing by subjective intro-
spection. The pastoral can claim none of the free-
dom of the idealist; it is never self-questioning.
Pastoral art has constantly its eye on the conduct
of its fellows ; it is, above all, conventional ; pas-
toral art is much concerned with the usages and
precedents of its foreign models; it is parasitic and
unoriginal. Bolted through the successive filters of
Latin, Italian, Spanish, and French literature, the
pastoral is like some fine white meal, fit, when sweet-
ened with sentiment, to use in the pastry of life, but
little nutritious unaided by coarser and wholesomer
food.

The pastoral idea had its origin in a misconcep- Origin of the
tion of the ancients. Theocritus and his predecessors, pas<
cultivated man of the world that each was, "had only
to pass the gates [of Syracuse], and wander through
the fens of Lysimeleia, by the brackish mere, or ride
into the hills, to find himself in the golden world
of pastoral." * Theocritus is as truly a poet of na-
ture in his way as Wordsworth and the rest who
"returned" whence true poetry and art have never

1 Lang, Theocritus and his Age, Translation of Theocritus, 1889,
p. xvii.

1 42 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

departed. On the other hand, the downs of Middlesex
and the leafy lanes of Kent harbored neither Strephon
nor Amaryllis, but sunburnt maids and men of the
soil, whom the English poet's fancy might transmute
into William, Phoebe, and Audrey, and yet remain
true to the real English world that surrounded them.1
English love The English pastoral was thus from the first exposed
to the disintegrating influences of that English love
of the country and fidelity to its facts which has dis-
tinguished English literature in almost all ages.
But it carried with it none the less the long line of
artificialities, improbabilities, and conventionalized
ideals which such writers as Tasso, Guarini, and
Montemayor had grafted upon the initial misconcep-
tion of Theocritus and Vergil. Moreover, the pastoral
had gathered with its later writers and from medieval
sources a tendency towards allegory and satire. The
portrayal of an ideal state, whether ethical or aesthetic,
is seldom without a lively sense of the disparity thus
created between things as they are and things as we
would have them. This antithesis, in pastoral litera-
ture, took the shape of a picture of moral life from
which the rude, the coarse, the common, and the sor-
did were carefully expunged. Once and for all ban-
ished the country, all the vices and follies of human
life, its cares and its complexities, congregated in
the town. If the pastoral idealized the country, it
came soon to satirize the city, and the foil is scarcely
less conventional than the picture, the perfections
of which it was created to offset. As to allegory, the
whole age was afflicted with it, and less than some
other modes could so formal a production as the
pastoral hope to escape.

1 Cf. As You Like It, v, i and ii.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 143

In Italy the pastoral drama had grown out of ro- The pastoral
mances such as the Arcadia of Sannazaro and the drama m Italy;
eclogues of Mantuan.1 As early as 1506, Castiglione
had written a pastoral masque for the entertainment
of the court of Urbino. And towards the middle of
the century a genuine pastoral drama, albeit of little
merit as literature, had arisen in the hands of Beccari.2
The creation of Italian literary pastoral drama is Tasso's
universally referred to Tasso, whose Aminta was
acted at Ferrara in 1573. Here in a story of almost
nai've simplicity, but rich in the embellishments of
poetry, appear in their fullness the familiar figures
afterwards to become so staled by incessant repeti-
tion: the lover infatuated almost to madness, the
maiden coy almost to prudery, the subtle and shame-
less matchmaker, the satyr coarse and violent, and the
confidants, shepherd and shepherdess, whose pre-
sence alone makes many a passage of poetical decla-
mation possible. Although Tasso's Aminta inspired
many imitations, its superiority over them all has
never been seriously impugned. For when Guarini // Paaor Fido.
attempted to rival his master with // Pastor Fido,
nearly twenty years later, he was compelled to resort
to a far more complicated structure and to call to

1 Sannazaro's Arcadia was completed by 1489, though not
authoritatively published until 1504. My friend, Professor Ren-
nert, calls my attention to the excellent work of Scherillo, "La
Arcadia di Jacobo Sannazaro seccondo i Manoscritti e le prime
Stampe, con note ed Introduzione," Torino, 1888, "in which the
Arcadia and its sources are discussed with a thoroughness that
leaves little to be said."

2 For a succinct resume of the Italian pastoral drama, see Gar-
nett, A History of Italian Literature, 1898, pp. 233-236; and the
admirable account by Greg, Pastoral, 155-214. Politiziano's Orfeo,
1471, is not a pastoral, though frequently alluded to as such.

144

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Translation
of Italian
pastorals in
England.

his aid 'the machinery of the wrath of the incensed
goddess, Cynthia, and the enigmatic oracles a fulfill-
ment of which alone could appease the divine wrath.
// Pastor Fido is a very skillfully constructed play,
and while it added no new character to its species,
developed its dramatic capabilities to a point not ex-
ceeded in any subsequent production. Though less
poetic than Aminta, II Pastor Fido fully merits its
great repute as Tasso's only rival in Italian pastoral
drama. English drama appears to have been little
affected by the scores of imitations which these two
celebrated Italian pastorals inspired in Italy and
elsewhere. But the Aminta was translated first into
Latin by Thomas Watson in 1585, and in part into
English by Abraham Fraunce two years later, a com-
plete English translation, that of Henry Reynolds,
appearing in 1628. // Pastor Fido was anonymously
translated in 1602, acted perhaps in Italian, at Cam-
bridge, in 1606, translated into Latin at the same
university at an uncertain date,1 and definitively
translated by Richard Fanshaw in 1647. Apparently
the only other pastoral drama translated in England
was Luigi Groto's Pentimento Amoroso, acted under
the title Parthenia at Cambridge, at an uncertain
date, and turned into Latin by an unknown author.2
Traces of pastoral influence appear in English

j . , . r •• j

drama in the seventies, in a masque or wild men at
court in I <C72, and in Gascoip-ne's use of such a per-

Entertatnments. o i i > • » • 1

sonage as Sylvanus or the " hombre salvagio in the

1 On the translations of Tasso into English, see Koeppel in
Anglia, xi, n. On the Latin version, Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 318, where
a suggestion of one or other of the Fletchers as the author of this
translation is made.

2 Ibid. 321, where this play is described.

Earlier

pastoral

influences;

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 145

queen's entertainments at Kenilworth two years later.1
The device by which a voice called "Deep Desire"
spoke to the queen out of a bush at one of these
meetings of her majesty with the ingenious poet has
already been referred for original to 77 Pastor Fido.2
The device of Echo is equally Italian, though not to be
found in Guarini's play. The same critic concludes
that Gascoigne was the first borrower of pastoral
material for such purposes as these from similar
Italian productions. In the autumn of 1578 we meet,
for the first time, with "shepherds in a pastoral set-
ting" in the lively little pastoral interlude of Sidney,
The Lady of May. To this production attention has Sidney's Lady
already been called.3 Suffice it to repeat that here "^ May'
is dialogue in prose and contest in song, and comic
relief in the role of Rombus, the pedant, a familiar
figure of Italian comedy. In the following January
the Earl of Leicester's company acted A Greek
Maid, described as "a pastorell or historic," at court:
a record interesting as an early use of this designa-
tion and from the circumstance that, unless the word
was a misnomer, we have here the earliest recorded
performance of a play of this type by a regular com-
pany of professional actors.4

The pastoral element continued to tinge the enter-

1 See the present author's Works of Gascotgne, 65.

2 // Pastor Fido, I, iv ; Thorndike, " Pastoral Element in the
English Drama before 1605," Modern Language Notes, xiv, 231.

3 Above, p. 98.

4 Revels' Accounts, 125. It is of interest to note that the early
traces of the pastoral in England thus, offer a parallel to "the theory
of Rossi (Battista Guarini ed II Pastor Fido, 1886, Part II, chapter
i), that the Italian pastoral drama was developed from the eclogue
through the medium of public pageants in honor of noble families."
Thorndike, Pastoral Element, 229 ; and Bond, Lyly, ii, 474.

i46

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Pastoral en-
tertainments
in the later
years of the
reign.

tainments of the royal progresses. At Cawdry, in
1591, a wild man addressed the queen from beside
a tree. At Bisham, in the next year, Pan, attended
by "two virgins keeping sheep and sewing in their
samplers," spoke to her majesty from a little hill. A
more elaborate entertainment, at Studeley just after,
represented Daphne, issuing from the riven tree and
pursued by Apollo, seeking refuge with Elizabeth,
protectress of chastity; and a comic diversion followed,
likewise pastoral, in which "the Cutter of Coots-
holde" and his like hold jocular discourse.1 And so
on through the dialogue between two shepherds in
praise of Astraea recited at the house of its author, the
Countess of Pembroke, in 1601, to the excellent Com-
plaint of the Satyrs against the Nymphs with which
Ben Jonson welcomed Queen Anne on progress from
Scotland to her husband's coronation in i6o3-2 Thorn-
dike excludes "the Cutter of Cootsholde" from the
pastoral category, feeling that he is an English coun-
tryman and shows none of the marks of having been
borrowed from Italy.3 Bond, who assigns all these
and other entertainments of the period to Lyly,
(whether wisely or unwisely does not concern us here),
very pertinently reminds us that "the classical im-
pulse, once imparted, would work on somewhat the
same lines in different countries," and suggests the
thought that we have in these entertainments rather a
parallel to the similar development of the pastoral in
Italy from the eclogue through the pageantry of noble
entertainment than the direct importation into Eng-
land of an exotic variety of art.4 From a literary

1 See Nichols, Elizabeth, iii, 135, 137, 142, 529.

2 Nichols, James, i, 176.

3 Pastoral Element, 235. * Bond, Lyly, ii, 474.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 147

point of view, the finest bit of poetry among these
entertainments is the dainty little pastoral of Condon
and Phyllida, part of Queen Elizabeth's entertain-
ment at Elvetham in Hampshire in 1591, and even
were it not definitely ascribed to him in his time,
Nicholas Breton all over.1

If Fleay's assignment of Peele's Arraignment of Pastoral
Paris to a performance at court in February, 1581, is r/^r-
to be accepted, this charming production must be ra'snment °f

.. Paris, 1581,

pronounced the earliest extant drama to utilize the
pastoral atmosphere.2 Here the scene is laid "in Ida
Vales," and gods and goddesses commune familiarly
with Colin and Hobbinol, Diggon and Thenot, who
are Arcadians all. CEnone's conjurations to Paris to
be true, the three shepherds' arguments on the nature
of love, Colin's death and the punishment of The-
stylis, his scornful mistress, all are of the essence of
the pastoral drama, as are the exquisite songs which
Peele has lavished on this his "first increase." 3 It
is to be noted, too, that on its publication in 1584 this
play was entitled "a Pastorall," and that the words,
"Amyntas' lusty boy," most likely contain an allu-
sion to Watson's Amyntas if not to Tasso himself.4
In an able, if somewhat conservative, monograph on
this subject, Pastoral Influence in the English Drama,

1 It shakes the confidence which one would gladly give to so elab-
orate a piece of work as Mr. Bond's Lyly to find that editor willing
to admit even the possibility of Lyly 's authorship of work so unques-
tionably another's as this or Peele's "sonet," "His golden locks
Time hath to silver turned." See i, 411, 447, 517, 524.

2 Fleay, ii, 152.

3 Arraignment, I, ii ; n, i and ii, etc.

4 Ibid, in, i. Peele's fragment, The Hunting of Cupid, has al-
ready been mentioned. There is little to indicate that it was a
pastoral.

"Themytho

148 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

this play, like several others "affected but not dom-
inated by the pastoral influence, is excluded from
the list of pastoral dramas." 1 Smith continues: "A
free combination of elements was the practice of
the more skillful playwrights and undoubtedly led to
the production of more interesting plays — for pas-
toral scenes and characters are restricted within too
narrow a range for the best comedy, and when em-
ployed in tragedy they fail to stir the deeper emotions.
On the other hand, this introduction of elements
foreign to the pastoral spirit oftentimes disturbs the
general effect and brings in irritating incongruities.
The dramatists, however, who used this method
followed the example of the writers of pastoral ro-
mance, who frequently mingle pastoral with non-
pastoral elements. In the English drama the chief
elements combined with the pastoral were (i) the
* mythological ' element, concerned with the gods and
goddesses of the Greek theology; (2) the 'forest'
element, bringing in outlaws and hunters; and (3)
the 'court' element, introducing kings and courtiers.
Each of these elements brings with it a characteristic
atmosphere, which in each case is distinct from the
pastoral atmosphere." 2 Similarly, Greg denominates
tnese earliest English pastoral plays as those of " the
mythological school;" but seems to go too far when
he says " Peele's work is purely the offspring of an
academic brain writing for the court; . . . the intro-
duction of a pastoral element is accidental, suggested
by the fact that the hero was at the time leading a

1 University of Pennsylvania thesis, 1897, by Dr. Homer Smith,
now professor in Ursinus College.

2 Smith, "Pastoral Influence," Publications of the Modern Lan-
guage Association, xii, 1897, p. 372.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 149

shepherd's life . . . Nothing could well be more
unlike the Italian pastoral." l

Lyly, in several of his plays, exhibits the same , Pastoral eie-
combination of elements observable in this comedy "
of Peele. The scene of Love's Metamorphosis is .laid of
in Arcadia and the play on its title described as "a
wittie and courtly pastorall." 2 Three nymphs of
Ceres, described as "cruell," "coy," and "waver-
ing," are wooed by three countrymen, not distin-
guished as shepherds. The nymphs remain unre-
sponsive, and Cupid, in anger at their coldness,
metamorphoses them into a stone, a rose, and a bird.
There is the pastoral praise of chastity, the pasto-
ral interminable chatter about love, the writing of
verses on trees, the chase of a nymph by a satyr, and
attempt at a rural atmosphere.3 In the probably
earlier Gallathea, too, a plot, derived from Ovid, is
transferred to Lincolnshire which the gods visit —
as why should they not ? — with an ease equal to that
exercised in Arcadia.4 Aside from the fact that "the
sacrifice of a virgin to Neptune forms the basis of
the plot, as in // Pastor Fido," the aged shepherds,
Tyterus and Melebeus, preserve some smack of the
pastoral in their talk as in their names, and neither
are the loves of "Diana's nymphs," each for a shep-
herd, nor the passion of the two maidens, Gallathea
and Phillida, for each other, each mistaking the

1 " The Pastoral Drama on the Elizabethan Stage," Cornhill
Magazine, 1899, n. s. vii, 204. See, however, his more liberal esti-
mate, Pastoral, 216-224.

2 Probably first acted before 1591; printed in 1600. Bond, Lyly,
iii, 295.

3 Cf. especially i, i and ii ; in, i ; and iv, i.

4 Bond dates Gallathea late in 1584. Lyly, ii, 425.

i5o ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

other for a boy, wholly foreign to Arcadian manners.1
In Midas the pastoral touch is very slight and cen-
ters in a group of shepherds who appear with Pan
and Apollo and in conjunction with a corresponding
bevy of nymphs.2 Lastly, several points of contact
have been suggested between The Woman in the
Moon and // Pastor Fido, — the shepherds' dispute as
to the killing of the boar, the use of the cave, and the
"satyr motive."3 There seems little reason to doubt
that in Gallathea and in Love's Metaphormosis Lyly
was affecting the pastoral mode in his own liberal
way, far removed though these comedies remain
from the stricter rules which governed the Italian
pastoral. Indeed, despite an elaborate attempt to
refer these two plays, besides others of Lyly, to im-
mediate Italian models and suggestions,4 we may
agree with Bond, who has examined the subject
with as much zeal as sanity, when he says: "Lyly
adopts the set pastoral air, the long speeches, and
soliloquies, the artificiality ... of representing folk
of evident culture and refinement as living a life of
woodland simplicity: and since the elaborate pas-
toral works of Sidney and of Lodge only made their
appearance in 1590, his example for these things
must be sought partly in the classics and partly in
Italy. But to search [especially the pastoralists] for
close or abundant detailed debt in Lyly's plays is
probably vain." 5 Bond concludes with a statement

1 Thorndike, Pastoral Element, 238. But Lyly's source was cer-
tainly Ovid, Metamorphoses, iv, 670.

2 Bond dates Midas 1589. Lyly, iii, in.

3 Thorndike, Pastoral Element, 240.

4 Die stofflichen Beztehungen der enghschen Komodie zur
italienischen bis Lilly, by L. L. Sch licking, Halle, 1901.

5 Bond, Lyly, ii, 483. The whole note, 473-485, should be read.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA

'5'

of the points of difference between Lyly and San-
nazaro or Tasso, in which he suggests the English
poet's substitution of forestry for the shepherd and
his flock, "a gayer and more sporting note of ideal
comedy," and less of the "pessimist harping back
to a golden age, " while he confesses some loss of
poetry. 1

The Maid's Metamorphosis, printed in 1600, is The
wholly of this mythological-pastoral school, and a ffJf^M°~
comedy of considerable merit. It is plainly not Lyly's,
and is more wisely assigned to the authorship of
John Day for its "abruptness and direct [dramatic]
force," for a certain romantic quaintness, and for
the easy carelessness of its verse, than to Daniel who
is everywhere restrained, intellectual, and, in prac-
ticing the pastoral, orthodox as to the practices of
his kind.2 The Maid's Metamorphosis tells the story
of Eurymene, who, passionately pursued by Apollo,
challenges him to prove his godhood by transforming
her into a man, which miracle the angry god per-
forms. Though exiled, and her life sought because
beloved of Prince Ascanio, the constancy of the
lovers leads Apollo to declare that Eurymene is really
a long-lost princess and to restore her to her original
sex. This comedy is full of poetry, and the songs vie
with Lyly's own little epigrammatical lyrics. In two Pastoral eie-
later comedies of Day, though neither can be called "^wiies.1
pastorals by the most indulgent, "a sort of Arcadian

1 Ibid. 484. Mr. Bond's date for Gallathea, 1584, makes the in-
fluence of // Pastor Fido on it impossible.

2 Lyly's authorship of this play is now generally rejected. Fleay
suggested Daniel, Chronicle, ii, 324. Bond agrees with the sugges-
tion of Gosse, acquiesced in by Bullen, that this comedy is early
work of Day. For a full discussion of the topic, see Bond, Lyly,
iii, 334-339 ; and Bullen, Old English Plays, i, 99.

1 52 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

fancy" still lingers. The Isle of Gulls takes an episode
from Sidney's Arcadia and works it into a light, gay,
and irresponsible little satirical comedy full of the
open air. Humor Out of Breath touches the pastoral
in its charming opening scenes in which two young
princes, sent on a quest to find ladies worthy of them,
fall in love with the daughters of their father's ban-
ished enemy, whom they first behold engaged in the
Arcadian occupation of fishing in a brook.1
Pastoral eie- The mention of these comedies of Day has carried
Elizabethan1"* us beyond the date at which the true pastoral drama
comedies. was introduced into England.2 And although we must
deny any real pastoral element to A Midsummer
Night's Dream, much more that this comedy owes
anything to the Diana of Montemayor, some few
traces remain to suggest that others besides Peele and
Lyly preceded Daniel in experiments of this kind.3
There was a Phyllida and Corin, mentioned in the
Revels' Accounts as acted at court by the Queen's
men in 1584* A pastoral character is claimed for the
extant comedy Silvanus by one Rollinson, acted at
Cambridge in 1596, though its imitation of The Shep-
herds' Calendar shows that part of its inspiration at
least was nearer home than Ferrara.5 Heywood's
Amphrisa or the Forsaken Shepherdess, if, as has been
supposed, its earlier draft goes back to the year
1597, is a translation pure and simple, and perhaps,

1 The Isle of Gulls was printed in 1606; Humor Out of Breath,
two years later.

2 See below, p. 156.

3 See Smith, Pastoral Influence, 378 ; and Furness, Variorum
Midsummer Night's Dream, 283.

4 Revels' Accounts, 1 88.

5 Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 294.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 153

after al\, may never have been staged;1 'The Thracian
Wonder is far more heroic than pastoral;2 while the
claim of Mucedorus, despite a bear, a wild man, and
many scenes in the wildwood, begins and ends with
the shepherd's disguise of the romantic prince of that
name.3 Lastly, Henslowe's diary disclosed two titles
unmistakably suggestive of their class. These are
The Arcadian Virgin by Chettle and Haughton, and
a Pastoral Tragedy^ the work — strange to say — of
Chapman, both entered under the year 1599.*

But the pastoral, which mingled mythological fig- The English
ures with those of Arcadia, was not the only attempt ^aiifcem-
at the comedy of outdoor life which was known to bodied «>
this period. England, no less than Italy, possessed
a traditional ideal of free and rural life which had
grown up, in the ballad in particular, from imme-
morial time. Here the ideal sought was freedom,
and immunity from the hardships of tyrannical law.
The careless, happy life of foresters and freebooters
was placed in contrast with the misuse of bourgeois
and feudal power, precisely as the simple shepherd's
life was contrasted in the pastoral with the complex-
ity and intrigue of city and court.5 This "forest"
element, as it has been happily designated, never
became wholly conventionalized in English drama,
though it naturally attracted to itself the pastoral
ideal and became in part confused with it. Leav- piayson
ing aside the dramatized ballads on Robin Hood,
which have received attention in another connection

1 Fleay identifies this with one of Five Plays in One ; see his
Chronicle^ i, 286.

2 Above, i, p. 204.

3 Mucedorus was already in print by 1598 ; see above, i, p. 240.

4 Henslowe, no, 116.

5 Smith, Pastoral Influence, 378.

i54 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

where they belong,1 the register in 1594 of A Pastoral
Pleasant Comedy of Robin Hood and Little "John
exemplifies in this title the confusion of ideas just
mentioned above; 2 and another lost play, Robin
hoodes penerthes \i. e. pennyworths] of Henslowe,
1600, offers little food for surmise. In The Downfall
of Robert Earl of Huntington, and his Death, its
sequel, Munday and Chettle totally failed to repro-
duce the atmosphere of Sherwood Forest that breathes
through the ballads, and frittered away their oppor-
tunity in "history" and intrigue.3 Both plays are
absolutely unpastoral and as free from any "taint"
of Italy as the fresh country scenes of Friar Bacon.
Relation of Two English plays alone successfully combine the

f/tfthe^as- Pastoral element with the English forest ideal. These
torai. are Shakespeare's As You Like It, which compro-

mises the claims of Arcadia and Sherwood Forest with
that most poetic of all ideal lands, the Forest of Arden,
and The Sad Shepherd, wherein Jonson, as frankly as
Lyly before him, conveyed Arcadia to Nottingham-
shire and Merry England.4 Smith has interestingly
shown how in derivation the story which Shakespeare
immortalized was first told as a plain tale of English
outlawry and vengeance, then transformed into a
pastoral on Italian model, and finally harmonized by
Shakespeare's magic art.5 The original story — sug-
gestion is the better word — is the medieval Tale of

1 Above, i, pp. 283, 284.

2 Arber, Stationers' Register, ii, 649.

3 These plays were acted in 1598, and printed three years later.
See above, i, p. 280, and the present author's The English Chronicle

' Play, 160-162.

4 Cf. Gallathea, the plot of which is laid in Lincolnshire.

5 See Smith, Pastoral Influence, 378-382, for a full discussion of
this topic.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 155

Gamelyn, ignorantly attributed to Chaucer. Herein
we have a brief narrative, in verse, of a dying father
and his three sons; of the injustice of the eldest bro-
ther, Johan, to Gamelyn, the youngest; of the latter's
prowess as a wrestler, his refuge with a " maister out-
lawe," and the final killing of Johan and the lawful
succession of the surviving brothers to their father's
estate. No woman enters into The Tale of Gamelyn,
and Smith is right in identifying the forest with
Sherwood, the "maister outlawe" with Robin Hood,
and Gamelyn with the "young Gammel," Robin's
nephew of one of the ballads.1 On this slender basis
Thomas Lodge erected his pastoral prose romance of
Rosalynd, naming Gamelyn, Rosader, and inventing
fair Rosalynd to match him, conveying a group of
shepherds and shepherdesses, real or disguised, into
an Arcadian Forest of Ardenne and transforming the
"maister outlawe" into Gerismond, the outlawed
King of France. Rosalynd is more truly pastoral than
any play of Lyly's, and completely orthodox in tone
and coloring. Shakespeare in As Ton Like It restored
the English tone, though Arcadia still bordered on
Arden. The banished Duke and his retinue lead the
life of Robin Hood, not that of the Aminta; save
that Celia buys a sheepfold to elude pursuit, she is no
shepherdess, nor wishes to become one. Silvius and
Phoebe are pastoral; but Corin, to say nothing of
Shakespeare's own figures, Audrey and William, are
genuine English rural folk. Nor is the exquisite woo-
ing of Orlando and Rosalind, but for its savor of
burlesque, in any wise pastoral. In a word, As You
Like It is no true pastoral drama, and its only actual

1 Ibid. 379 ; and cf. the ballad of Robin Hood and the Stranger,
Child, English and Scottish Popular Ballads, iii, 144 ff.

i56

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

True pastoral
Eng

Daniel's
Queen's
Arcadia, 1605;

relation to the genuine products of this conventional
type lies in its diverting parody of the sentimentality
of Arcadian love-throes and wooing.1

Deferring The Sad Shepherd by reason of its doubt-
ftd date, let us turn to a consideration of the true
pastoral drama in England. The earliest English pas-
toral play of unmixed type is The Queen s Arcadia,
acted before her majesty at Christ Church College,
Oxford, in August, 1605, and the work of Samuel
Daniel. We have met with Daniel in these pages
already several times. It was Daniel, it will be remem-
bered, who excited the enmity of Jonson and was lam-
pooned by him in satirical plays; it was Daniel who
practiced with rigidity and literary success the Sen-
ecan drama as conceived by Gamier in France, and
encountered the rivalry of Jonson at court, alike in the
entertainment and in the masque.2 Moreover, despite
some earlier attempts, Daniel was the poet who took
the pastoral to Oxford, though few plays apparently
resulted there from his example.3 Daniel had visited
Italy and had met Guarini. A sonnet prefixed to
the translation of // Pastor Fido of 1602 attests the
English poet's continued interest in the subject.

The Queen s Arcadia preserves the pastoral atmos-
phere throughout; but though original in plot, fol-
lows the norm of Aminta rather than that of// Pastor
Fido.* Amyntas loves Cloris, but she is fancy free.
Colax, a corrupt, returned traveler, procures Techne,

1 The only play of possibly early date that combines the pastoral
note with Professor Smith's third element, that of the court, is The
Thracian Wonder, treated above, i, p. 204.

2 Above, i, pp. 478, 480; ii, pp. 8-10, 102, no.

3 Above, p. 80.

4 See, especially, in, i, and v, iii, lines 1023-1035 and 2202-2211.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 157

"a subtle wench of Corinth," to advance his suit
for Cloris' love ; and, failing in this, Techne invites
Cloris to meet her in a certain cave. Thither Techne
sends first Colax and then Amyntas, that the latter
may oversee the meeting thus contrived for innocent
Cloris and wicked Colax; for Techne has meanwhile
conceived a passion for Amyntas and hopes by de-
stroying that lover's faith in Cloris to win him for
herself. This plot succeeds as to Amyntas, although
Cloris escapes Colax. Techne tries in vain to com-
fort Amyntas, and as he rushes away to kill himself
is smitten with remorse, and confesses all to Cloris,
who, now moved to love, recovers her lover from his
poisonous draught by the aid of an herb-woman, and
the evil-doers are banished. This main thread of the its satirical
plot is complicated by other matters : the separation UI
of Sylvia and Palaemon, two "jealous lovers," by the
further machination of Colax; the lamentations o£
Daphne, who has been betrayed by the same culprit ;
and the suit of Amarillis, the forward shepherdess, for
the reluctant huntsman and lover of Cloris, Carinus.
The wicked personages, too, are reinforced in Lincus,
a pettifogger, who attempts the introduction of quar-
rels and law-suits into Arcadia, and Alcon, a quack-
salver, who has but two cures for all ills, a sweet
and delicate cordial and "one poor pill I use for
greater cures." It is this latter personage who utters
the famous descant on tobacco, a passage nicely cal-
culated for the ears of the royal author of A Counter-
blast to Tobacco.1 Naturally conceived as are most of
these figures and carefully planned as is the plot, the
effect is not a little impaired by an inartificial device
by which "two ancient Arcadians" are made to over-

1 The Queen's Arcadia, in, i, lines 1112-1164.

158 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

hear all the plots and lovemaking, to act as a species
of chorus and deus ex machina combined, and thus
bring about the banishment of the wicked at the end
with a general reform of the state. As to execution,
Daniel is everywhere a man of taste, and his breeding
is that of the court. If never really great, Daniel is
consistently graceful and eloquent, and on occasion
rises to the dignity of genuine poetic utterance.
The Faithful Day's Isle of Gulls and Humor Out of Breath, al-
1608. " *"' ready mentioned above, seem to have been the only
popular plays containing pastoral elements which
intervened between Daniel's play and Fletcher's.1
The Faithful Shepherdess was acted in 1608 and first
printed in the following year. According to the au-
thor, "the people . . . when it was played, having
ever had a singular gift in defining, concluded [it] to
be a play of country hired shepherds in grey cloaks,
with curtailed dogs in strings, sometimes laughing to-
gether, and sometimes killing one another; and miss-
ing Whitsun-ales, cream, wassail, and morris-dances,
began to be angry." 2 Although thus rejected by the
popular stage of King James, The Faithful Shepherd-
ess was revived in 1634, with a setting of Inigo Jones'
devising, and was "much thronged after and often
shown, but it is only for the scene's sake, which is
very fine and worthy seeing," says Pepys.3 Five quar-
tos within the century attest the popularity of Fletch-
er's play with readers, among them Milton; for to The
Faithful Shepherdess the greater poet is assuredly in-
debted for not a few of the specific beauties of Comus. 4

1 See above, i, p. 397.

2 The Faithful Shepherdess, " To the Reader."

3 Diary, ed. Bright, 1876, ii, 239.

4 Masson, Life and Times of Milton, i, 622 ; ?nd see Verity's

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 159

In justification of his poem Fletcher wrote that "a Fletcher's
pastoral is a representation of shepherds and shep- ^"Slorai^
herdesses with their actions and passions, which must
be such as may agree with their natures, at least not
exceeding former fictions and vulgar traditions." The
pastoral must "not be adorned with any art, but such
. . . as nature is said to bestow, as singing and
poetry; or such as experience may teach them, as
the virtues of herbs and fountain, the ordinary course
of the sun, moon, and stars and such like." And,
above all, "you are ever to remember shepherds to
be such as all the ancient poets, and modern, of un-
derstanding have received them; that is, the owners
of flocks and not hirelings." 1 In a word, Fletcher
accepted pastoral precedent and convention, even to
the preservation of the unities of time and place.2

The Faithful Shepherdess is Clorin, who, her lover story of The
having died, has set up a bower near his grave wherein A^H*
she lives the life of an anchoress and practices simple
arts of healing. She is assisted in her work by a gen-
tle Satyr on whose original nature devotion to this
pure mistress has wrought a miracle. . . . Clorin is
sought in love by Thenot, but she gently but firmly
refuses him, and at last repulses him completely by
a momentary pretense of yielding ; for it was Clorin's
constancy, not Clcrin, that Thenot adored. Amoret,
unkindly wounded by her lover, Porigot, who, prac-
ticed on, has thought her false, is brought by the
Satyr to Clorin for cure; and so, too, is Alexis, justly

recognition of the identity of the motive of the two poems, his ed. of
Arcades and Comus, Pitt Press, pp. xxxvii-xl.

1 The Faithful Shepherdess, " To the Reader."

2 The scene is a village and neighboring grove in Thessaly; the
time from evening until the following morning.

i6o

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Supposed alle-
gory of love in
The Faithful
Shepherdess.

wounded by a sullen shepherd on account of Cloe, a
light-o'-love. All these and other shepherds and
shepherdesses are cured or reclaimed in the end by
the holy anchoress, who continues faithful to her dead
love. While it cannot be said that these customary
figures of pastoral drama attain to any unusual dis-
tinction in Fletcher's hands, and while it must be
confessed that there are serious blemishes in the
technique of the plot, the uniform beauty of Fletcher's
diction, the melody of his riming decasyllabic coup-
lets, varied, as they are, by passages of exquisite
octosyllables, conspire with the high poetic quality
of the whole drama to give to The Faithful Shep-
herdess a place of deserved prominence among the
works of its author.

It has been thought, perhaps not without reason,
that in this story, which is certainly his own, Fletcher
sought to conceal an allegory of the various phases of
love.1 Clorin's devotion to her dead lover symbol-
izes constancy; Amoret and Perigot's story, true love;
in Thenot is figured chivalrous devotion to woman;
in Alexis and Amaryllis, physical passion; while ani-
mal lust is unmistakably and grossly represented
in Cloe and the Sullen Shepherd. In such a view of
the play the outrageous figure of Cloe seems partly
justified, while as a real person she is as revolting
as the forgiveness of her wantonness is outrageous.
In view of such an explanation, too, the improbability
of Thenot's cure by Clorin's pretense of love loses
some of its incredibility, and the drama at large gains
somewhat in interest. On the other hand, it is not to
be forgotten that an essential element of Fletcher's
art was vivid contrast; indeed the contrast between

1 On this topic, see Smith, Pastoral Influence, 407, 408.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 161

Arethusa and Megra in Philaster is only relatively
less striking than that between Clorin and Cloe.
Whatever the meaning of the allegory of The Faith-
ful Shepherdess, we may agree that "few thoughtful
men can accept the conclusions which Fletcher sug-
gests, first, that constancy to a dead lover and a vow
of virginity are supremely holy; secondly, that spirit-
ual love between the sexes is necessarily destroyed
by any taint of physical love, . . . and thirdly, that
the deification of woman is in itself commendable.
Finally, though all may assent to the doom pro-
nounced on the lustful, yet few will accept Fletcher's
portrayal of it as legitimate art." 1 Greg finds in this
play an "antagonism between Fletcher's own sym-
pathies and the ideal he set before him," and dis-
cerns in this "the key to the enigma of his play."2

After the failure of Fletcher's play to catch the The winter
taste of the London playgoers, no attempt was made
to popularize the pastoral until Ben Jonson's Sad
Shepherd, of which more below, though about two
tragicomedies of adventurous romantic type a pas-
toral atmosphere hovers to a certain degree. The
first is Shakespeare's Winters Tale, usually dated
i6ioor 161 1, the second Robert Daborne's neglected
but meritorious Poor Mans Comfort, evidently writ-
ten before 1613. The Winter's Tale was dramatized
from the prose story of Robert Greene, Pandosto, or
Dorastus and Fawnia, first published in 1588. In
this story Fawnia, whom Shakespeare fittingly
named Perdita, is reared by a shepherd, as in the
play, and is wooed and won by Prince Dorastus at a

1 Ibid. 408.

2 Greg, Pastoral, 274. This author's complete and interesting
treatment of The Faithful Shepherdess should be read entire.

i6a ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

shepherds' festival. But Shakespeare has expanded
these suggestions of the shepherds' life into charm-
ing scenes of country mirth and the delightful love-
making of Florizel and Perdita. The "dance of
shepherds and shepherdesses" and of "rustics hab-
ited like satyrs" seem obvious devices and need not
be referred to masques at court or anywhere else
for original.1 Nothing could be more completely
antithetical than the conventionalities of the pastoral
drama and these fresh scenes of country life. The
remainder of the play presents the customary at-
mosphere of the court. The Poor Man's Comfort is

Man's Com- • j 11* i r

fort, 1613. a very pretty romantic comedy telling the story of
a shepherd whose fair daughter, Urania, has been
deserted by her husband, a nobleman of Thessaly,
whom the shepherd had befriended in his exile; how
the shepherd sought redress at court and was denied;
but how, in the end, through Urania's devotion to
her recreant husband, the shepherd's wrongs reached
the ear of a just king and all was righted.2 There is
much else in the play: shipwreck, a mad prince re-
stored to reason by the power of love, a princess
saved from violence by an honest young shepherd,
and a pastoral element as unconventional as is
Shakespeare's own. The character of Gisbert, the
poor man, is excellent and written evidently con
amore; Daborne must have known such affronts
as his hero suffered. And a novel departure from
precedent lies in the circumstance that at the end
neither Gisbert nor his daughter are discovered to be
prince or princess in disguise. The Poor Mans Com-

1 The Winter's Tale, iv, iii, 164 and 354.

2 This is a very rare play. It was printed in 1655. As to Daborne,
see above, i, p. 292, and especially, ii, p. 241.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 163 '

fort is written with the touch and grasp of old time,
and is quite enough to raise Daborne, hack-writer
though he was, to a respected place among the dra-
matists of his day.

Passing Scyros, a Pastoral, by Samuel Brooke, Hymen't Tri
acted at Cambridge before Prince Charles in 1613, mmph> l6'4'
we reach Daniel's second venture in the pastoral
drama, Hymen's Triumph.1 The title discloses that
the play was "presented at the Queen's court in the
Strand, at her Majesty's magnificent entertainment
of the King's most excellent Majesty, being at the
nuptials of the Lord Roxborough, February, 1614."
We have thus the use of a pastoral drama in a man-
ner similar to that of a masque: and its shortness
and more lyrical character, as compared with The
Queen s Arcadia, show that Daniel marked the dif-
ference of the occasion. Hymen s Triumph is strictly
a pastoral; its scene is Arcadia; its characters, shep-
herds and shepherdesses, with a forester or two for
contrast. It admits neither satire nor allegory save
for a short prologue between Hymen, Avarice, and
Jealousy, matter quite apart from the play. And
each act ends with a short lyrical chorus, several
songs of great merit being interspersed through the
action. Hymen s Triumph exhibits greater maturity
than Daniel's earlier pastoral; a firmer, simpler plot
and personages, if not quite so conventionally con-
trasted, at least as distinctly drawn. Its uniform
elegance of diction upholds the justice of the epithet

1 Scyros is still extant in Emmanuel College Library, Cambridge.
See Wood, Fasti, \, 401, as to Brooke, who was a brother to the
better known Christopher Brooke, the poet. Another Latin pas-
toral of Brooke's, entitled Melanthe, was acted before the king two
years later.

1 64 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

"well languaged" which a contemporary eulogist
applied to Daniel; and its poetry, while tame beside
the brighter colors of Fletcher, is everywhere esti-
mable and sincere.

In Sicelides, a Piscatory, by Phineas Fletcher, we
l6is- have an exceedingly interesting play, and a novel

though authentic variety of the pastoral. Sicelides
was intended for performance before King James at
King's College, Cambridge, in March, 1615, should
he " have tarried another night." l It was later
acted before King Charles.2 Phineas Fletcher was
the elder son of Giles Fletcher, author of Licia, a
series of sonnets, and of a valuable tract, On the
Russe Commonwealth. The brother of Phineas, a
younger Giles, was a poet of repute and memorable
for his stately narrative poem, Christ's Victory, as
Phineas is chiefly remembered, and sometimes igno-
rantly maligned, for his really beautiful poem, 'The
Purple Island.3 These poets were first cousins of
John Fletcher, the dramatist, and devotedly attached
to the name, the memory, and the poetry of Spenser.
Born in 1582, Phineas Fletcher went to Eton and
Cambridge and took holy orders, dying rector of
Hilgay, Norfolk, in 1649. His interesting work as a
poet cannot concern us here, save for the observation
that in him, as in his brother, in Browne, and in
Wither, was continued the allegorical pastoral mode

1 Grosart, Phineas Fletcher, iii, 7. Neither Smith nor Greg
include Sicelides in their lists of English pastorals.

2 This is gleaned from the title, though the date is not given.
Sicelides was first printed in 1631, and Grosart thinks surrepti-
tiously, " for a more incorrectly printed boolc," he tells us, " I have
rarely met with." Ibid. 8.

3 As to the several literary and clerical Fletchers, see Grosart,
ibid, i, p. xx.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 165

of Spenser. As to the authenticity of the piscatory
eclogue in which the simple life of fishermen takes
the place of shepherds and their flocks, it is sufficient
to remind the reader of the Egloga Pescatoria of San-
nazaro, 1526, the model of which was the twenty-
first Idyl of Theocritus.1 In Sicelides, Olinda, a fair
maiden, is doomed, like Andromeda, to be devoured
by a sea-monster, here called by the good old Eng-
lish word an "orke."2 She is rescued by Thalan-
der, a lover, now disguised, whom she had scorned.
She is practiced against by Cosma, a wicked and en-
vious witch; and oracles, wanderings, enchantments,
and "desamours" (the opposite of love-philters)
enter into the intricate plot. The pastoral types are
easily recognized: Olinda is the chaste shepherdess;
Thalander, the faithful lover; Cosma, the wanton;
Cyclops, the satyr; and the "identification might
be further pursued." Sicelides is never dramatic.
Striking events are for the most part related, and the
salient points of the plot rarely effectively used. The
story, moreover, is obscure and involved, and to be
extracted only by much rereading, while the comedy
is for the most part ineffective buffoonery. And yet
such is Fletcher's genuine poetic gift, his naivete, his
love of Nature and power to reach her charm, that
Sicelides cannot but hold the regard, of the lover of
poetry. Phineas Fletcher was as aloof from the dra-
matic influences that were shaping the literature of
his day as his cousin John Fletcher was active in
modifying them. Spenser, alone of the poets of the

1 Fletcher is himself the author of seven Piscatory Eclogues pub-
lished with other poems in 1633.

2 Ovid, Metamorphoses, xiv, is the basis of the story, but most
of the episodes are original.

1 66 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

age, might have written Sicelides, nor would Fletcher's
"piscatory" have been wholly unworthy of the author
of The Shepherd's Calendar.1

Sad In Ben Jonson's Sad Shepherd we reach the last
' P^aX snowmg pastoral influences in the reign of King
James; for it is impossible, despite much excellent
ordering of probabilities, to think this exquisite frag-
ment not rather a remnant of earlier times, left un-
finished, or, if completed, negligently lost in part,
than to accept it as a late experiment at a period
when Jonson's genius, though not altogether fallen
into dotage, as Dryden put it, was at least weakened
by ill health and poverty and hardened, so far as the
drama was concerned, into allegory and satire. Fleay,
accepted by Symonds and Ward, identified The Sad
Shepherd with "a pastorall intitled The May Lord,"
of which Jonson spoke to his friend Drummond in
1619, mentioning, besides, certain allegorical refer-
ences to Sir Thomas Overbury and "Somerset's
Lady," " that contrary to all other pastorals, he bring-
eth the clownes making mirth and foolish sport." 2
If this identification be accepted with the allusions
which it involves, the play must belong about 1615 or,
as Greg corrects, 1613. 3 This identification, however,
has of late been denied on the ground that there is no
reason to suppose The May Lord a dramatic pro-
duction and on the proof that Fleay's correspondences
are reducible, when all has been said, to the use of

1 For the Latin pastorals of Samuel Brooke, Fletcher's friend,
see p. 80. Omphale, or the Inconstant Shepherdess, by Richard
Braithwaite, printed in 1623, is a pastoral poem, not a play.

2 Fleay, i, 379-381; Conversations, 27.

3 W. W. Greg, " Ben Jonson's Sad Shepherd," Materialien zur
Kunde, 1905, xi, p. xviii.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 167

the same name, Alkin or Alken, for a personage in
both productions.1 This is not the place in which to
examine Greg's arguments in detail. He grants that
" the date of The Sad Shepherd cannot be fixed with
certainty," but inclines to place it "in the few years
preceding Jonson's death." 2 Aside from the extraor-
dinary contrast between the freshness and vivacity
of The Sad Shepherd and Jonson's later masques
and labored last plays, the general probabilities are
against so late a date. Jonson was interested in the
pastoral when he visited Drummond in 1619. This
is shown in such passages as: "The most common-
place of his repetition was a dialogue pastoral between
a shepherd and a shepherdess about singing;" and in
his critique: "that Guarini, in his Pastor Fido, keept
not decorum, in making shepherds speek as well as
himself could." 3' Moreover, Jonson was still full of
his animosity, personal and professional, towards
Daniel, and it could have been no mere coincidence
that Daniel's Hymen's Triumph^ which is notable for
its gravity and absence of humorous personages, as
it is full of poetical apostrophes and expletives, should
have extorted from Jonson's prologue such comments
as his branding with the word "heresy, . . . that
mirth by no means fits a pastoral;" and the thrust:

" Bill that no style for pastoral should go
Current, but what is stamped with Ah! and O! " 4

A theory to vindicate and a foe to confound, — Jon-
son could have wanted no better opportunity for the
writing of play or treatise. Let us leave Greg in his
agnostic doubts and believe that whether The May

1 Ibid, xv, xvi. 2 Ibid. xx.

8 Conversations, 4, 6.

4 Smith, Pastoral Influence, 385.

1 68 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Lord "was to some extent connected in subject"
with The Sad Shepherd or not, the latter work was
substantially planned, if not wholly written, in the
fragment which we possess, at least within the reign
of King James and not improbably soon after the
success at court of his rival's Hymen s Triumph in
1614.

Composite art The Sad Shepherd has already been described as
°shepherd bidding fair, had it proceeded to completeness, to
realize most truly in our drama the traditional life of
Robin Hood and his merry men. The witch, too,
with her changes of shape to a raven, a hare, and to
innocent Maid Marian, have already received our
attention.1 That these elements are foreign to the
pastoral as conventionally conceived is obvious; but
it is difficult for the non-impressionist critic to find
any such "preposterous" and "irritating" incon-
gruity, any such "inexcusable" and "inexplicable"
artistic offense as Swinburne contrives to discover
in all this.2 The juxtaposition of the pastoral ^Egla-
mour, Robin Hood, and Puck-hairy under the beeches
of Nottinghamshire seems hardly more startling
than that of Titania, Theseus, and Bottom in the
copses bordering a .certain very unclassical Athens.
Indeed, their fine names and the poetry of their lines
alone ally Jonson's shepherds and shepherdesses
with the old pastoral conventions. The freshness
and naturalness with which the familiar figures of
Robin and Marian and the witch of Paplewick
with her lout of a son, Lorell, are drawn scarcely
admit of too much praise. The Sad Shepherd is a
refreshing piece of open-air realism and is entitled
to a place in the drama of English folk-lore with

1 Above, i, pp. 284, 360. 2 Study of Ben Jonson, 87.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 169

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Friar Bacon, and Old
Fortunatus.

In February, 1625, Sir Henry Herbert licensed Shirley's
Love Tricks or the School of Complement, the earliest ^™ T cklf
comedy of James Shirley, and one which enjoyed
success in its day and was revived after the Restora-
tion.1 Love Tricks is a composite of the comedy of
manners, of disguise, and of romance, and involves
pretty lyrics and poetical talk of the shepherd's ideals
and a heroine "turned into breeches and become a
shepherdess.'* 2 The Careless Shepherdess appears Goffe's
to have been a later work of Thomas Goffe, already ^^te
mentioned above as the author of two sophomoric »6l9-
tragedies on Turkish history and a third on Orestes.3
Goffe was born in 1592 and educated at Westminster.
After leaving Oxford, in 1623, he resided until his
death, in 1629, in Surrey, where he held the living of
East Clandon; and it is to this period that the com-
position of his one pastoral drama must be referred.
The Careless Shepherdess follows Daniel's theory con-
cerning the rustic simplicity of the pastoral as well
as Daniel's practice, which inconsistently observed
the artificial ideals of Arcadia.4 The play is not lack-
ing in inventiveness, as, for example, the scene in
which a threatened duel between two shepherds is
frustrated by the threat of the shepherdesses involved
to fight the duel themselves; and in that of the car-
rying off of all the characters by a tribe of satyrs,
led by a banished shepherd turned outlaw.5 Nor is

1 As to Shirley, see below, pp. 131, 132, 284-297, 312-326.

2 Dyce, Shirley, i, 37, 64-66, and 90 ff.

3 Above, i, p. 449.

4 See Goffe's prologue.

5 iv, vii ; v, i. As to source, Smith finds the oracle borrowed from
D'Urfe's L'Astree. Pastoral Influence, 417.

170 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

The Careless Shepherdess wanting, either in comedy
or in poetry, of a certain prettiness. A greater infu-
sion of the supernatural and of the comic expressed
in prose are the chief innovations of Goffe's play,
which was acted before the king and queen in 1629
and again in 1632. *

Minor "pas- With the thirties, the pastoral tragicomedy, as it
ofThe^h?-35 was now preferably called, took a new lease of life,
ties. though usually varied by the admixture of elements

foreign to its kind as originally conceived and prac-
ticed. Some twenty titles of plays of this general
class find mention between 1630 and the closing of
the theaters. Of these, three, a "Play of Pastor all"
mentioned in a contemporary diary under date 1634,
Stonehenge, by John Speed, acted at Cambridge in
1636, and the Latin Silvia, by Philip Kynder, of
doubtful date, are no longer extant.2 Love's Victory,
anonymous and dating about 1630, has been de-
scribed as "full of musical lines." 3 The Converted
Robber, by George Wilde, 1637, lays its scene on
Salisbury Plain, and is an honest if not very success-
ful attempt to place the conventional pastoral in the
midst of an English scene derived, like its poetry, from
Spenser, not from nature.4 Actceon and Diana, "with
a pastoral story of the nymph CEnone," was acted at

1 Ibid. 411-416 n.

2 <Szr Humphrey Mildmays Diary, Harleian MS. 454, British
Museum ; Wood, Athena Oxonienses, ii, 660; Fleay, ii, 35, who
refers to MS. Ashmole, 788.

3 Quaritch's Catalogue, 194, p. 163.

4 This was acted at St. John's College, Oxford, and remains
extant. See Fleay, ii, 275. An account of this play will be found
in "A History of Pastoral Drama in England until 1700," by J.
Laidler, Engltsche Studien, xxxv, 234-236, an article curiously
unaware of previous work on the subject.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 171

i, the Red Bull about 1640 with Singing Simpson and
j. I Hobbinol the Shepherd in the cast.1 And of much the
d j same period must have been Love in its Ecstasy or
the Large Prerogative, "a pastoral," the scene Lily-
baeus, by William Peaps, a student at Eton, perhaps
never acted, and printed only in i6^.g.2 Lastly,
Florimene was presented in their own tongue by
the French ladies in waiting upon Queen Henrietta
Maria in December, 1635, only the descriptions
being in English.3 Of the remainder, The Arcadia of
James Shirley, 1632, although modeled on Sidney's
famous romance, and entitled a pastoral, scarcely
belongs to this group any more than Day's Isle of
Gulls, which drew upon the same source; The Faith-
ful Shepherd by J. Sidnam," 1630, is a mere transla-
tion of Guarini; Heywood's beautiful Love's Mistress,
1634, though its scene is Arcadia, is a masque-like
production of classical affiliations; and his dmphrisa,
the Forsaken Shepherd, published in 1637, is a mere
dialogue.4

Rhodon and Iris, presented at the Florists' Feast
in Norwich, May 3, 1631, throws an interesting side
light on the occasional drama of the day in the pro-
vinces. This pastoral was written by Ralph Knevet,
a tutor or chaplain in the family of Sir William Paston
of Oxmead, later rector of Lyng, Norfolk, and the
author of some verses on various occasions besides
this, his one play.5 Rhodon and Iris is an attempt to

1 Hazlitt, Manual, 2.

2 Smith says of this play that it "reflects throughout the court
atmosphere." Pastoral Influence, 391.

8 Malone, Variorum Shakespeare, iii, 122 n.

4 See above, p. 152.

6 The best account of Knevet and his exceedingly rare play is

172 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

represent, under the guise of pastoral characters and
situations, an allegory of " the relation and properties
of various plants and flowers.." The allegory, save at
some obvious points, is beyond explanation, as is
much of the satire, though some of it is reported to
have involved the author in some question. In a sim-
ple story unfolded not without art, Knevet tells of the
encroachments of Martagon, the red Lyly, a covetous
shepherd, on the lands of the shepherdess Violetta,
of her brother Rodon's (the rose's) defense, and the
reconciliation of the opposed flowers, when about to
join battle, by the goddess Flora. Except for this in-
troduction of the element of war, the play is strictly
a pastoral, presenting the usual contrasted lovers and
tender episodes. The plot of Poneria and Agnostus
(Envy and Ignorance) to disturb alike the "flowers"
and the feast seems suggested by the similar abstrac-
tions of the prologue of Daniel's Hymen s Triumph.
The substitution of a poisoned draught for a love-
philter recalls the "desamour" of Sicelides, though
questionless both go back to medieval story. We may
accept Knevet's nai've confession, "that he no small
foole is, though a small poet," but only as to the latter
half; for his play, if lacking in poetry and decidedly
unsteady in its verse, is originally planned, and by no
Tatham's means unsuccessfully carried out. Another provin-
friz C^ an^ occasional pastoral was John Tatham's Love
Crowns the End, acted by the scholars of Bingham in
Nottinghamshire in 1632. Tatham, later to follow
Munday, Middleton, and Heywood as "laureate of
the lord mayors' shows," was at this time but twenty
years of age. His pastoral represents, in the words of

Professor Smith's Pastoral Influence, 428-437. Knevet's play was
printed in the year of its production.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 173

Winstanley, an "early blossom of not altogether con-
temptible poetry," and, crowded with action carried
on by the usual pastoral types, with which mingle at
one point "a heavenly messenger" and the Destinies,
is over before we are well into it.1

Several circumstances conspire to give a fortuitous
interest to the exceedingly dull, obscure, and lengthy J^J,^T
prose pastoral drama, The Shepherds' Paradise, acted b? the
which has been not inaptly described as "a courtier's heTiadiw;
dream of Utopia written in the pastoral mode." 2 The
author was Walter Montague, second son of the Earl
of Manchester, who had been employed by Bucking-
ham to negotiate the marriage of Prince Charles to
the Princess Henrietta Maria. Montague had resided
much in France, and later than the date of this, his
one play, embraced the Roman Catholic faith and
became a French cardinal. In 1632, when The Shep-
herds' Paradise was rehearsing at court, Montague
was the trusted attendant and friend of the queen.
His play, which is clearly modeled on the later French
pastoral romances, of which the best known is
D'Urfe's L'Astree, was intended for little more than
a court exercise in which her majesty, with her court
ladies, might practice English, that difficult tongue
for Gallic lips. As luck would have it, Prynne at that its relation to
moment was writing his portentous Histriomastix,*
and, according to his defense, had long before penned
the notorious passage wherein he declares that "St.
Paul prohibits women to speak publicly in the church,

1 Winstanley, Lives of the Most Famous English Poets , 1687,
p. 190.

2 Smith, Pastoral Influence, 438. Langbaine, 377, calls this play
by mistake The Shepherds' Oracle.

3 On Prynne and his book, see above, pp. 88, 89.

174 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

and dares any Christian woman [to] be so more than
whorishly impudent, as to act [or] to speak publicly
on a stage." 1 The application was all too perfect;
and the severity of Prynne's punishment was imme-
diately consequent upon this insult.2

Randolph's Of Thomas Randolph, chief of university drama-

. ^sts> his Wlt and his promise, we have already heard.3
His one venture into pastoral drama, Amyntas or the
Impossible Dowry, is the most finished of his plays,
and for its poetry, its wit, excellent construction, and
characterization deserves a place beside the best of its
class. Once more, as with Daniel and Goffe, we have
the familiar apology for the rudeness of pastoral dia-
logue and manners, and once more we meet with both
conduct and dialogue of courtly polish and grace.4
Amyntas is of very complicated construction, but
exceedingly well-managed, if we admit the artificial-
ity of the two oracles on which the action is founded.
The play combines the story of the merry shepherd-
ess, Laurinda, unable to choose between two lovers
who are friends, with that of Amyntas, gone mad in
.his attempt to guess the "impossible dowry." An em-
broidery of light comedy in the hands of a sprightly
page, a foolish knight, and a doltish shepherd, knighted
by supposed fairies (really boys engaged in robbing
an orchard), add to the liveliness of the scenes. It is
not impossible that much of this comedy had a definite
meaning to the auditors of the day, now evaporated

1 Histriomastix, the Table, under "Women-actors;" and see
ibid. 214, 414. See, also, Life and Times of Charles I, i, 223-224.

2 Thompson, The Controversy Between the Puritans and the
Stage, 176.

3 Above, pp. 85-87.

4 See prologue of Amyntas, and compare with those of Hymen s
Triumph and The Careless Shepherdess.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 175

as most contemporary allusion evaporates. Amyntas
is written in fluent blank verse, thus differing from
the riming couplets and alternates common to its
kind. The songs of the schoolboy fairies are, appro-
priately enough for the age, in Latin. Randolph's
powers lie in his wit and in his grace, in ability to
bring out the possibilities of a dramatic situation,
and, on occasion, in his genuine pathos. Brighter
and mentally more agile than Daniel, Randolph is
no less a poet, and in suggestion of character and
construction of plot is the better dramatist. Though
yielding in poetry to the finest passages of The Faith-
ful Shepherdess, Randolph's plotting is more natural,
and he escapes Fletcher's darling sin, effect empha-
sized by exaggerated contrast. One must profess to a
nicer appreciation of the delicate beauties of Italian
pastoral poetry than is often vouchsafed even to the
diligent student not to the manor born to deny the
judgment of Halliwell-Phillipps that Randolph's
Amyntas partakes "of the best properties of Guarini's
and Tasso's poetry without being a servile imitation
of either." l

It seems not unlikely that The Shepherds' Holiday, Rutter's
assigned to Joseph Rutter, and acted about 1634, was ^i/iaS
written in emulation, if not in imitation of Amyntas. c- 1634-
Here, too, a complicated and original plot involving
the fortunes of three pairs of lovers is made to depend
on two oracles of the customary obscurity; but a mo-
tive involving lost children, as in The Winter's Tale,
—a prince here being reared a shepherd and theora-
acle fulfilled by his discovery, — is interwoven with the
prevailing pastoral motive. Rutter was a member of
Jonson's latest circle of wits and poets. Jonson pre-

1 Halliwell-Phillipps, Dictionary, 16.

176 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

fixed the seal of his approval in a few commendatory
lines to this play, and Rutter was among the many
poets to join in that ample tribute to Jonson's memory,
Jonsonus firbtus.1 As to The Shepherds' Holiday, it
is an estimable piece of work not wanting in dramatic
power or poetic embellishment; and it enjoyed some
popularity in its day, being acted not only at White-
hall before their majesties, but likewise " at the Cock-
pit." 2 Of much the same date, too, is Cowley's Love's
Love's R,ddie, Riddle "written at the time of his being king's scholar

c. 1635.

in Westminster School," and therefore before that
precocious youth had completed his eighteenth year.
Love's Riddle is built about the adventures which
arise out of a gentlewoman's flight to the country
and disguise as a young shepherd, to escape an im-
portunate suitor, with the search for her among the
shepherds by her brother and her lover. The usual
pastoral types occur with some additions, such as
Alupis, a species of merry pastoral Jaques. Although
the prologue informs us " 't was a word stolen from
cat and ball," this comedy, judged with its kind,
stands in no need of any allowance for the author's
youth.

Argduiand With Henry Glapthorne's Ar gains and Parthenia,
Parthenia d j^> Labyrinth, " by Thomas Forde, Philothal,"

printed 1639. <r -^ >*

as the title has it, we bring this tale of the English
pastoral drama to a close. In the former play Glap-
thorne has once more levied on Sidney's Arcadia,
that favorite quarry for dramatists, but has subordi-

1 Rutter was tutor to the Earl of Dorset, afterwards so over-
praised by Dryden.

2 Some suggestions as to allusions by Fleay and Hazlitt in this
play may be found with sufficient answers in Smith, Pastoral
Influence, 426.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 177

nated the pastoral scenes to those of the court and the
tilting ground.1 This play rises to effectiveness in
the scene of the duel between Argalus and Amphialus
and exhibits, perhaps better than most of his plays,
the fluency and florid eloquence which distinguish its
author. Argalus and Parthema is conspicuous among
plays of its type for its tragic ending. Love's Laby- Lavts Laby-
rinth preserves far more the pastoral atmosphere, and ^
is a close and poetical dramatic rendering of Robert
Greene's pretty prose romance, Menaphon, a story
not unlike in its general characteristics to Pandosto of
the same writer, whence was derived the plot of The
Winter s Tale.2 Love's Labyrinth was first published
in the year of the Restoration, and it is uncertain if it
was acted at all. "Thomas Forde, Philothal," seems
to be capable of identification neither with the musi-
cian nor with the Puritan divine of that name.

In the foregoing pages we have found the pastoral Foreign
drama in England a later offshoot of the pastoral mode
as exemplified in narrative eclogue, lyric, and prose toral
romance. While its direct model is unquestionably
the pastoral literature of Italy, we cannot but recog-
nize the complete analogy between the development
of this mode of the drama in England and in Italy,
how in both countries it was preceded by the pastoral
address of welcome or dialogue forming a part of some
entertainment of the nobility or of royalty, and how
by these means the dramatic element was gradually
evolved. English pastoral plays exhibit a very narrow

1 These are chiefly i, ii ; n, ii ; and iv, i.

2 I cannot see what causes Halliwell-Phillipps to find any resem-
blance between Love's Labyrinth and Gomersal's Sforza, a drama
of totally different type. See his Dictionary of English Plays,
'55-

178 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

range of sources. Sannazaro's romance and the two
pastoral plays of Tasso and Guarini exhaust the list
as to Italy, unless we consider such negligible matters
as the two Latin plays, Parthenia of doubtful date
and unknown authorship, said to be a translation of
Groto's Pentimento Amoroso, and Scyros by Samuel
Brooke, acted at Cambridge in 1612, and not impos-
sibly a similar translation or adaptation of Bonarelli's
Filli di Sciro.1 As to French influences, Homer Smith
has noted traces of L'Astree in both Hymen s 'Tri-
umph and Goffe's Careless Shepherdess; 2 and it can
hardly be questioned that to D'Urfe's famous romance
Montague owes not a little of the interminable list-
lessness of his prosaic Shepherd's Paradise, though a
definite resemblance may not be traceable between
it and either of the two main plots or the thirty-three
long episodes of L'Astree.3 It may be doubted if any
English play owes anything directly to the Portu-
guese Montemayor's romance of pastoral intrigue,
La Diana, 1559, which imitated in the language
its sources in of Castile the Arcadia of Sannazaro. Lastly, as to
]jng is itera- sources jn English, the materials which Shakespeare
found in Lodge's and Greene's romances are well
known; almost the latest play in our list of pastorals,
Ford's Love's Labyrinth, returned, as we have seen, to
Greene as a source; whilst Sidney's Arcadia with its

1 See Greg, Pastoral, 251; another translation was made in
1655 "by J. S." under the title Phillis of Scyros.

2 Smith, 404, 417. The French Florimene has already been men-
tioned.

3 Dunlop, History of Fiction, iii, 159. Honor's Academy or the
Famous Pastoral of the Fair Shepherdess Julietta, by Nicholas of
Montreux, was translated in 1610 by Robert Tofte, but is not a
drama. The several pastoral plays of Montreux seem to have
remained unknown in England.

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 179

intricate wealth of adventure is levied on again and
again for subject, though the dramas which it has thus
furnished are by no means of a prevailingly pastoral
kind.1

If the absolute criteria of pastoral drama as prac- English pas-
ticed by Tasso and Guarini be taken as our standard toral d"™a

/ _ not limited to

and guide, we must accept the rigid classification of Italian ideals.
Smith and find in the pastorals of Daniel, John
Fletcher, Goffe, Knevet, Montague,. Randolph, Rutter,
and Cowley the only true examples of the type.2 But
aside from the admission of Sicelides, the piscatory of
Phineas Fletcher, in accord with the usage in eclogue j
of Sannazaro himself, the pastoral romances and
dramas of Italy are full of the admixture of intrigue,
of life at court, of comedy relief, and other material
such as the supernatural and mythological, so that
these distinctions of the critics must be pronounced
artificial at best.3 The one distinctively English con- English con-
tribution to pastoral drama, considered largely, is tt
the freebooting life under the greenwood tree, with its
joyous humor, its honest give and take, its manly
sense of individual right and worth, all as distinct
from the gentleman in trouble turned robber or the
misanthrope become a hermit, as it is remote from
the artificial pathos and the trivial sentimentalities of

1 Among plays of this general type owing something to the
Arcadia are Argalus and Parthenia, The Isle of Gulls, Shirley's
Arcadia, and Mucedorus. Besides this, Cupid's Revenge, and the
late tragicomedy Andromana, with the underplot of Lear and many
suggestions of the horrors in The Duchess of Malfi, all levy on The
Arcadia. Cf. above, i, p. 241, for mention of an unpublished thesis
on this topic.

2 Smith, 392.

3 See, in general, the liberal attitude of Greg in his Pastoral
Poetry and Pastoral Drama.

180 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

the exotic pastoral. England needed not to go to Italy
for love of nature, country mirth, or representations
of the honest love of man and maid. When all has
been said, the pastoral remains " a cockney's idea of
the country," or rather a courtier's refinement on the
cockney's ignorant ideal. It is no accident that the
pastoral continued for years beyond our period in
great popularity and played its part in aiding the
decay of the virile drama of old time, with tragicom-
edy, heroic-play, and that dramatic inanity, the opera.
Nor is it an accident that the writers of the conven-
tional pastoral should have been, in the period of our
discussion, a fastidious court poet, a queen's usher,
several witty and poetical collegians, and a precocious
summary of boy. Fletcher was "gentle" enough to appreciate in
his Faithful Shepherdess the pastoral mode in all its
conventionality, though he could destroy the ultimate
effectiveness of a beautiful play by a method of con-
trast too coarse for the delicate artificiality of his sub-
ject. Lyly had mythologized the pastoral, as Knevet
later elaborately allegorized it. Day and Shirley used
it to brighten their lightsome comedies of intrigue;
and Daborne to heighten the humble worth of his
Poor Man. Although the poet in Jonson accepted the
ideals of Arcadia in his Sad Shepherd, the realist de-
manded a transference of the denizens of that imagi-
nary country to a home beneath the English beeches
of Sherwood Forest, as the moralist substituted for
dainty amorous dialogue and intrigue a struggle be-
tween the powers of virtue, represented in Robin
and his Maid Marian, and the machinations of the
Witch of Paplewick. But here, as everywhere, we
must turn back to Shakespeare if we would know the
possibilities of that veritable golden age that visits

THE PASTORAL DRAMA 181

in momentary gleams the hearts of young lovers and
sends a far beam into the reminiscent ponderings of
later years. We may live, if we will, in the golden age
with Perdita and Florizel, and in an Arcadia less open
to cavil than the seacoast which borders it. But the
true attitude towards Arcadia and all its sentimental
residents is that of adorable Rosalind, whose Arcadian
wooing is like a daintily affected robe clothing a fresh,
young beauty, worn less as a garment than as an
allurement, yet nothing except for the exquisite form
that it clothes.

XVII
TRAGICOMEDY AND "ROMANCE"

Tragicomedy. '""I f^HE term tragicomedy in the abstract is a mis-
A nomer, and involves a contradiction; for the
dramatic conflict between the will of the protagonist
and universal law cannot be conceived of as at once a
triumph and an overthrow for each of the contending
principles. Nor can the mere infusion of a comic
episode or two, or even the relief of a somber tragic
plot by an underplot of comedy be said logically to
justify the appellation tragicomedy. None the less,
both the word, tragicomedy, and the thing are to be
reckoned with; for thejacobeans themselves employed

Ithis dubious term to denote a romantic drama in-
volving serious passion, yet ending happily; and this
species of play speedily acquired a popularity above
all other kinds of dramaTl Tragicomedy is not neces-
sarily melodrama, but it may readily degenerate into
such. Its besetting sins are false sentiment and a
rt sacrifice of dramatic logic to surprise, perverted ethics,
and an overthrow of the laws of cause and effect. As
early as Greene's James IV of Scotland (1590), we
have a romantic story rising almost to tragedy, yet
ending in reconciliation; and Marston's fine comedy,
The Malcontent (1601), might readily have reached a
violent denouement, in place of its skillful unravel-
ment of intrigue. In later times, Suckling actually
wrote \\\sAglaura (printed in 1638) as a tragedy with
an alternative fifth act ending happily, as Kipling

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 183

rewrote his novel, The Light That Failed. The truest
tragicomedy is that which trembles between a tra-
gical and a happy solution, as do the later acts of
Measure for Measure, or The Merchant of Venice in
that supreme moment when Shylock elects submis-
sion, though freely offered his heart's revenge.

It is unnecessary to cite Greek analogues or Italian Deepened
examples for the use of comedy in serious drama for thHrLTof
relief; for no practice of English drama is more defi- reconcilement,
nitely established or earlier in origin than this. Tragi-
comedy may result in two ways: by deepening the
situation of comedy into serious mood by the infusion
of a sentimental or a pathetic interest; or by the reso-
lution of a situation essentially tragic into reconcilia-
tion. For example, our interest in the secret love of
Shakespeare's Viola for Duke Orsino is sentimental,
as our interest in Patient Grissel arises from the pathos
of her situation. On the other hand, had Angelo in-
deed committed the crimes which he had contrived
and, as he thought, committed, Measure for Measure
must have ended in tragedy. The resolution of tragi-
comedy is at times a compromise. In A New Way to
Pay Old Debts Massinger so adjusts the usual happy
ending, inflicting madness on Sir Giles Overreach,
whose name describes his nature, and sending the
spendthrift, Welborn, abroad to the wars to regain
his lost credit as a man. It is in the resolution of a
traeic situation into reconciliation instead of Nemesis

o

that the ethical lapses of the writers of tragicomedy
are most frequent. Sometimes, as in A King and
No King, the action turns on what proves to have
been a mistake, here the supposed consanguinity of
Arbases and Panthea; at other times the condoning
of sin or of unpardonable conduct — for example,

i84

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Tragicomedy,
realistic and

romantic;

the "romance.'

that of Lelia in The Captain,1 or the crime of Albert
against his friend Carracus in The Hog Hath Lost
His Pearl 2 — stains the comedy with a tragic color-
ing and shakes the ethical equilibrium of the play
to its damage as an artistic product.

Tragicomedy may be either realistic or rgmantic.
The former is commonly of the domestic type or
closely allied to the comedy of manners. The earlier
specimens of these kinds have already received our
attention.3 Neither was so differentiated from the
tragedies or comedies of its class as to demand a sep-
arate consideration. Moreover, the later comedy of
manners will claim the next chapter. Romantic tragi-
comedy, on the contrary, developed several distinct
species, foremost among them the "romance," as it
has not altogether happily been called, — a variety of
play which claimed Shakespeare in the last years of
his activity and laid the foundations on which Dave-
'nant and Dryden were later to rear that fantastic
rococo structure known as the Restoration heroic
>lay. Tragicomedy originated very definitely towards
the end of the first decade of the reign of King James
and in the hands of a well-known group of play-
wrights. A digression into their literary relations at
this point seems demanded by the subject/

The names of Beaumont and Fletcher have already
Fletcher; their recurred again and again in these pages, and no less
than thirty of the fifty-four plays popularly ascribed
to their joint authorship have already received a full

1 Lelia is not only an undutiful daughter to her father in his
poverty, but on his obtaining unexpected fortune is represented as
courting him lustfully. See i, iii, and iv, v.

2 Albert, under cover of darkness, usurps the place of a bride-
groom, his friend, yet is in the end forgiven.

3 Above, i, pp. 330-339.

Beaumont and

relations to each
other and
to other
dramatists.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 185

or a cursory attention.1 The chief facts in the lives of
these poets, too, have been stated; 2 and as to their
authorship, we have noted it as probable that they
began independently and each with comedies of man-
ners, Fletcher leaning to that direct picturing of Lon-
don life which vfe associate at its best with the name
of' Middleton; Beaumont showing the tendency to
satire which distinguishes Jonsonian comedy with a
quality of burlesque quite his own.3^ We have seen
Beaumont preparing a masque for the Inner Temple
and Gray's Inn, in the staging of which at Whitehall,
February 20, 1613, the long experience and inter-
est of Sir Francis Bacon in such things must have
proved invaluable.4 Beaumont wrote this masque in
his capacity as a member of the Inner Temple, just
as Bacon had helped stage it and provide for the
expenses in his capacity of a member of Gray's Inn.
This masque was printed in quarto not long after
performance, but without the name of the author on
the title-page. A like omission characterizes the five
plays (all attributed to Beaumont and Fletcher in the
folio of 1647), which were published before 1616, the
year of Beaumont's death.5 It seems plain, then, that
all the plays in which Beaumont had a hand were
written before his retirement in the year 1611 or 1612,
and that the Masque is the latest production of Beau-
mont's pen. It seems equally clear that Beaumont
collaborated with no one save Fletcher. On the other
hand, Fletcher's literary activity continued up to the
time of his death by the plague in 1625; an(^ he co'~
laborated certainly with Massinger and Field, and

1 Cf. especially, i, pp. 400-402, 525-529 ; ii, 37-42.

2 Above, i, pp. 523-525. 3 i, p. 526. * ii, pp. 116, 117.
5 Macaulay, Francis Beaumont, 32 ; Fleay, i, 175.

i86

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

perhaps with Shakespeare and Middleton. During
this period plays singly Beaumont's and jointly Beau-
mont's and Fletcher's were freely revised by Fletcher
alone or with the help of others; and finally, both
before and after Fletcher's death, the work which had
gone before was as freely revised by Massinger, again
at times doubtless with other help. Few problems
connected with our old drama are so intricate and
perhaps ultimately so hopeless, yet few are more al-
luring.1 It may be permitted the conservative scholar
to question some of the "certainties" of previous
workers without daring new surmises of his own.
internal tests As external evidence respecting the chronology and
of authorship; autnorship of the Beaumont and Fletcher plays is to
a large degree conflicting, great reliance has been
placed on such evidence as may be gleaned from
contrast in verse, style, conception of character, and
other qualities in which these authors are found to
be distinguishable. Thus Fletcher differs from all
his contemporaries in his practice of a variety of
blank verse notable for great license as to the use of
redundant syllables, especially at the end of the line,
yet strict beyond the later practice of Shakespeare in
bringing the pause in sense for the most part at the
end of each verse. The end-stopped hendecasyllabic
line, as it is technically called, is then the mark of
Fletcher, and it is prevailingly used by him with such
ease, rapidity, and naturalness that it has been justly
,- 1| called " the best substitute for prose that verse has
I II yet given us." * But Fletcher's verse is only the chief

\ * For the bibliography of this subject, see the Bibliographical

\ I Essay at the end of this volume.

-j^ 2 Oliphant, "The Works of Beaumont and Fletcher," Eng-
lische Studien, xiv, 59.

the "notes"
of Fletcher;

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 187

of several devices by which he sought to give to dra-
matic dialogue a rapid and colloquial quality and
yet preserve to it the plasticity and musical character
of verse. Fletcher's construction is loose, his sentences
cumulative and rambling, and he abuses at times the
device of repetition. Naturally such a verse and such
a style serve as a compromise between verse and
prose. The latter Fletcher uses seldom; rime almost
never. Though in no wise so conspicuously at vari- the "notes" <rf
ance with others, the verse of Beaumont is measur-
ably strict as to its decasyllabic character; it uses with
moderation that freedom of phrasing which carries
the thought over the limit of the line, employing the
light ending, as does Shakespeare, inserting an occa-
sional Alexandrine if need be, and not disdaining
the use of rime, often in the midst of blank verse,
or, for variety, even of prose. l Mannerisms in " the use
of the enclitic do" in a fondness for enumeration, and
the omission of particles such as prepositions and
conjunctions have also been observed, as among the
"notes" of Beaumont.2 Distinguishable from these Massing.***
qualities of either of the earlier dramatists is the verse ,n
of Massinger for its evenness and freedom from the
licenses of the extra syllable and inverted foot, so
common in later Shakespearean verse. Massinger
rates his syllables at their full value, rarely contract-
ing a word, and often expanding it in violence to
common hurried utterance.8 Like Fletcher, Massin-
ger uses prose and less rime except at the conclusion

1 Ibid. 60. Fleay denies that Fletcher uses prose. See New
Shakspere Society's Translations, 1874, p. 53.

2 Ibid. 66.

8 "Your reputation shall stand as fair
In all men's good opinion as now."

A New Way to Pay Old Debts, iv, i.

1 88 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

of scenes. He also adopted Fletcher's double endings
to a certain degree. Weak endings are common, and
combining as they often do with run-on lines and their
attendant pauses within the line, produce at times a
verse fiberless and approaching prose. Lastly, Mas-
singer's style is less easy and colloquial than either
Beaumont's or Fletcher's, more apt to become rhetori-
cal and stiff in manner, repetitious in certain phrases,
measured, premeditated, and unimpassioned.y
oiiphant on the But there are deeper distinctions than these of mere
SrfSwe0" f°rm- Oiiphant accuses Fletcher of a want of artistic
dramatists. earnestness, of the truth of the teacher and the wis-
dom of the philosopher, and contrasts him, to his
discredit, with "the true Elizabethans." The critic
grants Fletcher "a pretty, playful fancy," genuine
humor and wit, a certain superficial insight into hu-
man character, and designates his art by the adjec-
tives ready, clever, off-hand, hurried, and careless.
To Beaumont he grants a higher order of humor, " a
playful jollity and good-natured satire" tending to
burlesque, a genius for tragedy, power of pathos,
sentiment, and an understanding of womanly nature.
Massinger is rated even lower than Fletcher, and,
while allowed a good playwright, is found eloquent
without pathos, equal without superior excellence,
and moral without ethical enthusiasm. Massinger
is argumentative, lacking in variety of style and in
that power to fit sentiment to the dramatic speaker.
But while he never soars, he rarely falls, and ade-
quacy, equability, and moderation remain alike his
distinctive excellences and his greatest defects.2 Into

1 Oiiphant, 72, to whom I acknowledge my indebtedness in this
paragraph and the next.

2 Ibid, xiv, 60-76.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE , 189

discussion of the characters and types developed by
these dramatists we need not enter here. This sub-
ject has already claimed our attention, and some-
thing will remain for summary.1

While the general truth of all these distinctions is Difficulties in
not to be denied, the application of them to specific
cases has been attended with so many differences, dons- •
with such occasional acrimony, and with results so
diverse, that the actual service of much of this work
to the history of Elizabethan drama has been ob-
scured and discredited. Macaulay gave to Beaumont,
in whole or in part, fourteen plays which he distrib-
uted between 1607 and i6i3-2 Oliphant found Beau-
mont in twenty-one plays between 1604 and 1611,
making an average of three plays per annum.3 Shake-
speare's average is less than two, and Shakespeare was
a professional; Beaumont never claimed more than
an amateur standing. Aside from the question who
held the pen, and how far clever and adaptable men
such as these might be affected by each other's art, —
pertinent questions in all such cases, — it seems likely
that Beaumont has been credited with rather more
part in these plays than may have been actually his,
that Massinger's revisions have at times been some-
what too subtly traced, and that unquestionably
Fletcher's is the main hand in the large majority of
the dramas that appear as his and Beaumont's jointly.

In addition to the other difficulties with these stage history of

• i i . c i !• • r Beaumont and

authors, the stage history or the earlier versions or &#,&„.
their plays is far from clear. Oliphant surmises that
Beaumont alone, and occasionally with Fletcher, first
wrote for the Children of Paul's from about 1604 to

1 See i, p. 602 ; ii, pp. 195, 197, 250.

2 Macaulay, 195. 3 Oliphant, xvi, 198.

190 • ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

1606 or 1607; that Fletcher's earliest unaided work
was for the Children of his Majesty's Revels, to
which Beaumont may occasionally have contributed
during the three succeeding years; that in 1610 both
authors went over to the King's company; and that
Beaumont ceasing to write after that date, practically
all the rest of Fletcher, with or without Massinger's
revisions, was work done for this, the chief theatrical
company of its time.1 Oliphant also recognizes a
later period of Sheakespeare-Fletcher activity in
1612-13, to which belong the lost Cardenio, The Two
Noble Kinsmen, and All is True or Henry PHI.2
Fleay's account is not very different in the main. He
supposes Beaumont the author of only one play, The
Woman Hater, for the Paul's boys; considers Ben
Jonson the introducer of both the younger- dram-
atists to the London stage; he thinks that both were
writing for the Children of the Revels in 1608-09,
and for Rossiter's new company in 1610; and finally
that Beaumont with Jonson succeeded Shakespeare
on his retirement in 1610, as one of the chief dra-
matic writers of the King's players.8

Varieties of Returning from this digression to the romantic

IS dc drama drama at large, among romantic plays thus far de-
described, scribed several types have stood out with distinctness.
We had first the early heroical plays of the seventies
that traced their origin back to the medieval romances,
and we found a recrudescence of this kind of drama
in the early nineties.4 We had, secondly, the conqueror
plays of Tamburlaine type in the decade following the

1 Ibid.; see the table on pp. 198-200.

2 Ibid. 200 ; as to Cardenio, see below, pp. 212, 213.
8 Fleay, i, 169, 170.

4 See i, pp. 198-208. Greene's Orlando is type of the hero-
ical romance dramatized.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 191

Armada and the innumerable historical dramas, in
which the perennial element of strangeness played its
part in the total effect, following after.1 Again, there
was the play of travel and adventure wherein familiar
Elizabethan figures were transported to foreign lands
in which the fancy^ might play what pranks it could
devise.2 And there was the interesting group of come-
dies and tragedies that ideally treated themes of the
supernatural.3 Finally, there was the tragedy of re-
venge and intrigue in a succession of varieties; while
through all this turbid and eddying backwater ran
the pure and limpid stream of simple romantic art,
telling again and again the time-honored tales of Italy,
their beauty perennially renewed in the telling.

Now these groups of plays, considered in bulk as Elizabethan,
constituting the romantic drama of the age up to the ^
earlier years of the reign of King James, have certain contrasted
traits in common which are distinguishable from many
characteristics that developed later. Briefly to name
some of them, strictly Elizabethan romantic drama
was characterized by an unoriginality of subject-mat-
ter and, outside of the heroical romance and plays
involving adventure and the supernatural, by a gen- \
eral adherence to the course of human experience and
to contemporary manners. It was fond of Italian
names and places, but often preserved the local flavor
of a particular source, thus producing a fine verisimil-
itude of life. While as delighted as any age in great
names and maintaining, for the most part, the Shake-
spearean penchant for dukes and kings, this drama
did not wholly lose sight of common humanity nor

1 See i, pp. 226-229.

2 i, pp. 291-293 ; typically represented in Day's Travails of
Three English Brothers.

8 See i, pp. 353-364, 385, 386.

i92 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

arrange the dramatic importance of its characters
on the order of their precedence in the royal ante-
chamber. Again, many of the greatest tragedies of
the Elizabethan age are constructed about a central
idea, — the loves of Romeo and Juliet, the revenge of
Hieronimo, the ambition of Tamburlaine. Even the
comedies share in this trait, — the taming of Kath-
arine, the subjection of Benedick and Beatrice to love.
Finally, save for the heroic romance and the tragedy
of revenge, the dramatis personae of these older and
strictly Elizabethan plays tend marvelously little to
the development of mere types or to the recurrence
of similar situations. In the later romantic drama,
whether tragic, comic, or tragicomic, on the other
hand, nearly all of this is changed. The plots of the
new tragicomedies are often original and commonly
ingenious to the degree of improbability. Their
places of action are not tied to the scene of any age.
The new tragedy and tragicomedy adheres to kings
and princes, whom it endows with heroic qualities;
and crowds its background with imaginary conquests,
usurpations, rebellions, and intrigues, free from the
slightest reference to events by the most indulgent
called historical. In place of unity of design in plot,
this new romantic drama offers multiplicity, surprise,
and contrast. Its situations and personages become
in time conventionalized into types, even if they do
follow, in the better plays, in kaleidoscopic succession.
Tragicomedy, in short, affords an ollapodrida of dra-
matic entertainment in a no man's land as distinctive
in its geographical features, in the flora of its heroic
virtues and the fauna of its superhuman passions, as
was ever Utopia, Arcadia, or other land of philoso-
phers or poets.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 193

One of the latest of commentators on Beaumont The
and Fletcher places among the works of these authors group'
"surely acted by the end of 1611," four which "pre-
sent a definite type."1 These are Phiiaster, The Maid's
Tragedy, Cupid's Revenge, and A King and No King.
To these he adds two more, which he assigns like-
wise to this period, Four Plays in One, and Thierry
and Theodoret. The first of the two productions last
mentioned is a composite of two short comedies, a tra-
gedy, and a morality.2 There is a touch of the hero-
ical in the opening comedy, but three of these plays
are borrowed very closely from the time-honored
quarries of Boccaccio and Bandello, and "the moral"
"seems traceable to Lucian's dialogue of Timon." It
is difficult to associate the conventionally romantic
Four Plays with Phiiaster. As to Thierry and Theo-
doret, the reference of this tragedy, as we have seen, to
historical events of the year 1617 in France disposes
of such theorizing as to early date;3 whilst the tragic
character of this play, of The Maid's Tragedy, and of
Cupid's Revenge, take all three out of our immediate
category of tragicomedy. Phiiaster and King and
No King remain typically to fulfill the conditions *
at once of tragicomedy and of the new dramatic
"romance," although it is not to be denied that many
other romantic tragedies and tragicomedies that go
under the name of Beaumont and Fletcher exhibit
qualities first recognizable to the degree of a distinct
species in Phiiaster.

The outward history of Phiiaster or Love Lies a Phiiast
Bleeding is brief. It was first printed in 1620 as "acted f'

1 A. H. Thorndike, Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shak-
spere, 1 90 1, p. 94.

2 Cf. i, p. 401. * Cf. above, i, p. 423.

i94 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

at the Globe by his Majestie's Servants;" but John
Davies of Hereford refers to it in an epigram of I6IO.1
The play was doubtless already at that date extremely
popular, and was perhaps written — Beaumont cer-
tainly sharing in its authorship — a year or two be-
fore. The actual source of the story of Philaster has
not yet been pointed out, although its reminiscences
of the older drama are as unmistakable as they are
above the cavil of the keenest scented detector of
literary borrowings.2 The scene of Philaster is Mes-
sina, but its locus is indeterminate; its immediate
setting is the court. The background suggests a
prince, true heir to the crown and beloved by the
people. In opposition stands the usurping king, who
seeks by allying his daughter to the Prince of Spain,
the perpetuation of his usurpation. The Princess Are-
thusa is thus provided with two suitors, Pharamond,
the Spanish prince, a poltroon, voluptuous and ig-
noble, whom she detests, and Philaster, noble, gen-
erous, honorable, her true lover, but quick to suspect
and impetuous in tongue and action. On Philaster's
side is the page Bellario (in reality the love-lorn
maiden, Euphrasia), content to serve her beloved
prince unknown; by him, unknowing, preferred to

1 John Davies of Hereford, Scourge of Folly, Epigram 206; but
see Variorum Beaumont and Fletcher, 1904, i, 117.

2 The story of the girl-page, Bellario-Euphrasia, is paralleled in
The Two Gentlemen of Verona, in Daiphantus of Sidney's Arcadia,
and in the character Felismena of the Diana of Montemayor. More-
over, besides Yonge's translation of this last, this version was treated
in a play by Munday, a good Spanish scholar, in 1584. To this list
of possible suggestions for this story, Dr. Rosenbach, in a manu-
script on Spanish Influences on Fletcher, to be noticed below, adds
the Comedia de los Engahos by Lope de Rueda, printed at Seville in
1576. None of these stories conclude with the pathos of Euphrasia's
renunciation.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 195

the service of his lady Arethusa. Here is opportunity
for infinite variation on the theme of pure love, re-
quited and unrequited. On the other hand appear
Pharamond and the wanton Megra, who present, in |
their gross amour discovered, the contrasted sensual
passion, and in revenge develop the motives of sus-
picion and jealousy which separate and for a time
estrange Arethusa and her lover. In a word, we have
here a comedy of sentimental interest thrust into the
midst of elements heroically tragic. Rapid continuity
of action and variety of emotion, complexity of situ- i
ation, and effective dramatic surprise are the result.
As for the personages, they are drawn in black and
white, and each salient trait is emphasized for con-
trast. The plot is too rapid for growth of character,
and too varied for complexity of nature. Types are
the inevitable result.

Philaster gave English drama several typical per- Types m
sonages: Bellario-Euphrasia, the love-lorn maiden, Phllaaer-
sentimental victim of unrequited love; Philaster, the
"lily-livered hero," as Oliphant calls him, endowed
with every masculine virtue save common sense;
Dion, the faithful friend, blunt, humorous, cynical,
impatient of inaction; Pharamond, the poltroon, a
more or less humorous boaster and coward, lecher-
ous, and a scoundrel. The evil woman has sometimes
been added to the list, but Megra is a slight sketch in
comparison with the wicked queens of older romantic
tragedy? and the royal tempter and betrayer of wo-
man, though a favorite figure of Fletcher's, comes
not into the drama with The Maid's Tragedy. With
these strictures on the characters, later to become
the stock figures of the stage, and a recognition of
the purely artificial fabric of its plot, all criticism of

196 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Philaster ceases. For ease and rapidity of action,
perfect adaptation to the needs of the stage, original-
ity of situation, and admirably sustained dramatic
interest Philaster has never been surpassed. While
throughout it all its authors show that mastery of
poetry and power over the adequate phrase which is
one of the most precious of their manifold gifts.
A King and NO A King and No King was licensed in 1611 and
acted at court in December of that year; it was not
printed until 1619, but, like Philaster, appeared in
several later quartos. It is unquestionably the work
of both Beaumont and Fletcher. Between Philaster
and A King and No King, The Maid's Tragedy had
appeared, an adaptation to the sterner form of drama
of the swift and inventive plot and the typical char-
acters of the earlier tragicomedy.1 A King and No
King is a no less successful play, but here the heroic
unreason and headstrong passion of Arbaces is ex-
aggerated almost to the verge of the ridiculous, and
'the play is ethically impaired by the revolting motive
on which the whole action turns, the supposedly in-
cestuous passion of Arbaces and his sister Penthea.
Though both maintained a struggle against their
infatuation, dramatic ethics are not satisfied with the
denouement, wherein Arbaces turns out to be neither
a king nor of kin to Penthea.

An elaborate monograph of Thorndike dilates on
the likenesses and typical qualities of the characters
of these three plays.2 And that they have much in

1 Amintor equals Philaster; Melantius, Dion ; Evadne, Megra ;
Aspasia, Bellario ; for the poltroon, Pharamond, is substituted the
licentious tyrant of The Maid's Tragedy.

2 Thorndike, The Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shak-
spere, 1901, pp. 122-124.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 197

common and are conceived on the same typical lines The alleged
is not to be denied. And yet a fresh perusal of them ^'"^ t^SM
conveys to the unbiased reader as strong an impres- P^P °f Play.
sion of the specific diversity of their personages as of
their general likeness. To take Thorndike's parallel
characters, Pharamond is a cowardly and ignoble
voluptuary; Bessus (in King and No King), a mere
fool and boaster; the King (of The Maid's Tragedy)
is a voluptuary, but neither ignoble nor a fool. Megra
is a spiteful and venomous trull, innately bad; Evadne,
an heroic figure wrought to evil by ambition atoned
in death; Arane, a queen and mother, strong to plot
against one who has become unconsciously a usurper
by a perpetuated wrong. As to " the lily-livered hero,"
Philaster is an impetuous and unreasoning prince,
but he is ever the gentleman; Arbaces is a passionate
man and a vulgarly boastful soldier, intentionally,
on the part of the author, unprincely;1 while bewil-
dered and unstable Amintor is totally unlike either.
Even among the love-lorn maidens, where individu-
ality might well be wanting, Aspasia is a tragic variant
of Euphrasia, but Spaconia is a young woman of
resources and address, and contrives to keep her
prince for herself in the end.2

But Thorndike not only finds the differentia al- Shakespeare's
ready noted above distinctive of this group of the "
plays of Beaumont and Fletcher; he also finds like
qualities in the three late plays of Shakespeare which
go by the title "romances." Before we proceed to a
consideration of these likenesses, let us note that the
group of Shakespeare's "romances" is logically capa-
ble of considerable extension both before and after

1 See Hazlitt, Lectures on the Age of Elizabeth, ed. Bohn, 113.

2 King and No King, V, ii.

198 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

the years 1610 and 1611, in which these three typi-
cal plays have by some been placed. Not to press
the claims of Timon, which comes direct from The
Palace of Pleasure, and Troilus, which, however trans-
mitted, is ultimately a medieval romance in truest

Pericles, 1608. sense, Pericles (1608) has the true atmosphere of
"romance" in both the wide and the restrictive sense
of that term. Pericles even anticipates, as has often
been pointed out, situations of The Tempest and of
The Winter s Tale, in the shipwreck, and in the ad-
ventures of the mother and daughter, Thaisa and
Marina, Hermione and Perdita.1 Besides, Pericles
exhibits several spectacular features, a masque, dumb
shows, a dream, derived from the pageantry of the
contemporary masque and common to later plays of

The TWO Noble Shakespeare and Fletcher. On the other hand, the
ven, i 12. "romances" mav quite as logically be extended to in-
clude The Two Noble Kinsmen. This play was first
printed in 1634 as written "by the memorable wor-
thies of their time, Mr. John Fletcher and Mr. Wil-
liam Shakespeare, gentlemen;" and it was included
in the folio of Beaumont and Fletcher. Its authorship
has been variously assigned and divided; and the
weight of opinion seems to tend to allowing to Shake-
speare a part in it.2 This was the third dramatic
treatment of a subject already known to English
literature from Chaucer's Knight's Tale.3 Outside
of its Shakespearean passages or reminiscences,
whichever they be, The Two Noble Kinsmen is not
remarkable among Fletcherian plays. But whatever

1 See above, p. 30.

2 Lee, Shakespeare, 268.

8 Edwards' Palcemon and Arcite, 1 566 ; and a lost play of the
same title, 1594. Cf. above, i, p. 113.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 199

the master's share in it or influence upon it, it exhib-
its all the features of its kind.

If Pericles unites the "romance" with the tale of
adventure, and Timon "romance" with classical l609'
story, Cymbeline (1609) marks a similar transition
from the domain of legendary chronicle history.
True, besides the British history derived from Holin-
shed which it contains, there is the ultimately Italian
story of lachimo's wager and Shakespeare's own
invention of the stolen brothers; and if the extraor-
dinarily crowded fifth act does revert to the " alarms
and excursions "of the earlier chronicle plays, it shares
likewise, in its shows and visions, the influence of the
contemporary masque. Sidney Lee has pointed out
the "almost ludicrous inappropriateness of the Brit-
ish king's courtiers" making "merry with technical
terms peculiar to Calvinistic theology," an incon-
gruity scarcely matched by the threat of Thaliard,
the creature of wicked King Antiochus, who promises
the death of Pericles "if I can get him within my
pistol's length." l But these are trivial blemishes in
the happy land of romance. A link with Gower's
jogging octosyllables, in Pericles, too, is "the pitiful
mummery" of the dream of Posthumus, and the lug-
ging in of Jupiter, like Diana in the earlier play, a
literal deus ex machina, unjustified, unnecessary, and
absurd.2 One is tempted to the surmise that, asked to
furnish some such masque-like addition to his already
completed play, Shakespeare refused; but asked that
another might so "complete" his work, added in much
the spirit of Milton's answer to Drydenona similar oc-

1 Lee's Shakespeare, 259 ; and Cymbeline, I, i, 136, 1 37, and I, ii,
30,31; Pericles, I, i, 167.

2 See Cymbeline, v, iv, 30-122, and Pericles, v, ii, 241-250.

2OO

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

casion, "Aye, ye may tag my verses;" and tagged they
were by we know not what hopelessly prosaic hand.
And yet, withal, where is there so beautiful a play as
Cymbeline ? A play of so poetic a spirit and so varied
a charm ? And where, outside of the tragedies, are
there more consummately drawn personalities than
the three main figures of this story ? lachimo, godless
cynic, abashed for the moment in the presence of
Imogen's peerless virtue, but perjuring his soul rather
than yield to defeat in his malevolent wager; Leo-
natus Posthumus, true and passionate lover, honest
and unimaginative man, and therefore victim to
lachimo's unimaginable villainy;1 and sweet and wo-
manly Imogen, loveliest of Shakespeare's heroines,
The personages breathing like a perfume through the play. I cannot
s subscribe for a moment to the notion that these later

not wanting m characters of Shakespeare display a less marked m-

mdividuahty. r r J

dividuality than earlier ones and are reducible to the
types of Fletcher,2 granting the latter all their excel-
lence; for Fletcher's tragicomedies are consummate
pictures with the limitations of their art upon them.
The personages of Shakespeare's "romances" are
breathing realities instinct with light and change, and
inspired with the very mobility of life.

This quality of absolute and consummate lifelike-
ness is, when all has been said, the most certain of
the many "notes" that distinguish Shakespeare from
his fellow-dramatists. Nor is it, save in degree, less
potent in the two "romances" of Shakespeare that

1 See above, i, p. 575.

2 Thorndike, 139; and see the dictum of Professor Wendell,
William Shakspere, 377 ; who, speaking of these later "romances,"
says: "His faculty of creating character, as distinguished from con-
structing it, is gone."

The Winter's
Tale, 1611;

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 201

follow, though in them the influence of Fletcher and
the Fletcherian tragicomedy is more clearly traceable.
'The Winter s Tale was seen at the Globe by Dr. For-
man in May, 1611, and was acted at court in the fol-
lowing November. The plot Shakespeare found all
ready to his hand, as we have seen, in his old rival
Greene's Pandosto; but Shakespeare invented the
delightful Autolycus, prince of all seductive, thievish
rogues, as he created the loyal and self-abnegating
Paulina, a woman whose virtues of heart neither the
much-enduring Hermione nor blooming Perdita par-
allel. Shakespeare ended his play in reconciliation,
not in tragedy, as had Greene with severer logic; and
it must be frankly acknowledged that therein Shake-
speare bowed to the fashion of the moment, which,
satiated with blood and terror, preferred and ac-
claimed the happy ending. Ruskin in a striking and
well-known passage declares that "Shakespeare has
no heroes; — he has only heroines;" and again: that
"the catastrophe of every play is caused always by
the folly or fault of a man; the redemption, if there
be any, is by the wisdom and virtue of a woman, and,
failing that, there is none." The truth of this is patent
even without Ruskin's eloquent examples; but no-
where in Shakespeare are the ethical sensibilities of
the modern reader so disturbed as in the forgiveness
and reconciliation to his steadfast and incomparable
queen of unreasoning and headstrong Leontes, jeal-
ous-mad with the foul images of his own making. In the realism of its
the just code of the land of romance happiness and cc
tender mercy are not for such as Leontes; but in this
imperfect world of ours we know that such precious
forgiveness as that of Hermione and Imogen often

1 Sesame and Lilies, ed. 1876, pp. 78, 79.

202 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

waits on the unworthy, and that remorse and atone-
ment may be not less heroic than death.

The Tempest, Nowhere in all his works has Shakespeare so mar-
velously practiced the alchemy of his art as in The
Tempest, by long-standing tradition the latest of his
works. In September, 1610, news arrived in England
of the shipwreck and sojourn in the island of Ber-
muda of Sir George Somers and the crew of his ship
the Sea Venture. This news created great excitement
in London because, while thus cast away among the
beauties of a tropical landscape and in an island
overrun by hogs (doubtless introduced by some
passing ship), the superstitious seamen came to think
their island haunted by strange sounds which they
believed the work of invisible spirits, and named their
abode The Isle of Devils. Nor was there any failure
to chronicle all this in several pamphlets of the day.
In The Tempest Shakespeare took the momentarily
popular idea of a tropical island tenanted by a ship-
wrecked party and brought it into touch with influ-
ences supernatural. But he transformed the gross
superstitions of the sailors into a tale of romantic
beauty which we may verily believe his own invention,
and dependent neither on the story of Die schone
Sidea, which it only remotely resembles, nor on some
undiscovered Italian novel.1 Like all the other Shake-
spearean "romances," The Tempest was popular from
the very first. It was one of nineteen plays performed
at the marriage of the Princess Elizabeth to the
Elector Frederick in February, 1613, and continued to
hold the stage after the Restoration, albeit degraded
in the grotesque refashioning of Davenant and Dry-
den. With the girlish loveliness of exquisite Miranda

1 Lee, Shakespeare, 262 ; and Panorum Tempest, 326 ff.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 203

before us, and visible-invisible Ariel, now a zephyr
and again a strain of heavenly music, we may borrow
the eloquent plea of Horace Howard Furness for a
recognition of Caliban when he asks: "Why is it that
Caliban's speech is always rhythmical ? There is no
character in the play whose words fall at times into
sweeter cadences; if the JEolian melodies of the air
are sweet, the deep bass of the earth is no less rhyth-
mically resonant;" and share in his opinion when
he denies that Caliban is "utterly sensual;" and tells
us: "It was by Miranda's pure loveliness and rare
refinement that the soul of poetry was distilled out of
that evil thing." 1

The mention of the likenesses between Fletcher
and Shakespeare in the plays just discussed brings "™{™^ "
to mind their many divergences.2 The Fletcherian influenced by
tragicomedy of the type of Philaster is seated indoors, tragicomedy,
within the precincts of the court, a continuance of a
long-standing preference of the romantic drama; it
deals with the intrigues of love, ambition, and revenge,
and habitually contrasts sentimental passion with
tragic feeling and situation. The Shakespearean "ro-
mance" loves to wander over strange seas and into
stranger lands; it delights in shipwreck, in adventure,
in children and loved ones lost or estranged, found
and reconciled; at times it trenches imaginatively
upon the domain of the supernatural.3 Once more
the tragicomedies of Fletcher, and those who most

1 Ibid. vi.

2 Cf. Thorndike, 137-142, especially, and elsewhere. The main
points of this theory have been sufficiently indicated above.

8 Fletcher is of course not without examples of "romances"
more or less of these classes; but the distinctive Fletcherian con-
tribution to tragicomedy is of the Philaster type.

204

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

The tragi-
comedies of
Fletcher,
1613-25;

their variety
kind and in
source.

nearly approached him in his art, are commonly well
knit and closely wrought; the characters, in their sim-
plicity of motive, as we have seen, tending to types.
While in utter contrast, the "romances" of Shake-
speare are peculiarly loose in construction, recalling
at times the epic quality of the old chronicle plays;
and, with allowance for the nature of the material,
Shakespeare's personages in these latest plays cannot
be pronounced less individually distinctive, less real,
or any less remote from types than the earlier crea-
tions of his genius. In a word, while the general influ-
ence of Fletcher on Shakespeare, as on others of his
time, is not to be questioned, that Fletcher's new type
of tragicomedy profoundly affected Shakespeare's art
and produced a radical change in his methods must
be emphatically denied.

That Fletcher cultivated to the full the new type of
drama first evolved by him in joint authorship with
Beaumont is proved by many examples among the
interesting series of dramas which continued to flow
from his pen. In fully a score of plays, falling between
1612, the date of Beaumont's retirement, and that of
Fletcher's death, did Fletcher continue the romantic
traditions of their earlier joint authorship. While
most of these productions fulfill in their romantic tone
and in the seriousness of the main passions involved
the conditions of tragicomedy, and while Fletcher ad-
heres in the main to his method of contrast, his types,
and his consciously mannered art, the variety of these
plays is no less striking than their uniform success as
acting dramas. It is notable of Fletcher's art that he
refused to be bound by limitations even of his own
making. Thus, his tragicomedies shade off, on the one
hand, into tragedy as exemplified in 'The Double Mar-

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 205

riage, already mentioned, or into a near approach to it
in The Captain or in A Wife for a Month, in both of
which examples we feel that ethics demand atonement,
not compounding with sin.1 Other plays, later called
"tragicomedies," brighten into various degrees of
lightness, now relieved, as to their more somber ele-
ments, by scenes of low comedy or burlesque and
partaking of a livelier spirit, like The Pilgrim, which
is almost pure comedy; or going entirely over to the
comedy of manners, like Monsieur Thomas or The
Elder Brother.2 Once more, while Fletcher often pre-
serves the indeterminateness of scene which marks
the new tragicomedy as well as its contrasts and types,
some of these romantic plays retain a certain local
color imparted either by their realistic scenes, as in
the Flemish surroundings of Beggars' Bush, by their
retention of a faint historical flavor, or by the quality
of their Spanish or other sources. More than half of
these plays are based, either wholly or in part, on
Spanish originals, mostly prose tales of Cervantes,
Lope de Vega, de Flores, and others. Considering the
intercourse, both hostile and other, between Spain
and England throughout the reigns of the Tudors,
it is somewhat remarkable that, save for the early
Calisto and Melibcea and Munday's History of Felix
and Philomena, no English play, either directly or in-
directly, traceable to a Spanish source is to be found
until we reach the reign of King James.8 Nor is this

1 Above, i, p. 60 1 ; and ii, p. 184.

2 Cf. The Humorous Lieutenant or Beggars' Bush.

3 Similarities to various Spanish dramas have been discovered
in Twelfth Night; see Furness, Variorum ed. of that play, p. 377.
Klein, ix, 159; Jahrbuch, xxxi ; 414 and Bahlsen in Zeitschrift fur
vergleichende Litter aturgeschichte, vi, 154. The source of The
Two Gentlemen of Verona was doubtless the lost Felix and Philo-

206 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

the less noteworthy in view of the respectable list of
Spanish books translated into English and published
during the reigns of the children of Henry VIII.1
Fletcher's Turning first to the group of Fletcher's romantic

plays which are certainly from Spanish sources, no

sources: \ess than four levy on the treasures of the Novelas

Exemplares of Cervantes. These are the Chances,
The Queen of Corinth, The Fair Maid of the Inn, and
Love's Pilgrimage.2 In point of date they scatter
over Fletcher's career; in point of authorship The
Chances is the only one in which a coadjutor has not
been suspected. The Fair Maid is loosely constructed
and of no great merit. It was licensed in January,
1626, and was therefore acted after Fletcher's death.
Its source is La Ilustre Fregona, which is followed
only as to the main plot and not very closely. Love's
Pilgrimage is a very pleasant and sprightly comedy
containing only a tinge of more serious material. It
is founded on Las Dos Doncellas, one of the best of the

mena, just mentioned in the text. Its source is the Diana of Monte-
mayor, its date 1585.

1 J. G. Underbill, Spanish Literature in the England of the
Tudor s, 1899, pp. 375-407, where a list of some hundred and sixty
titles of books translated from the Spanish appears.

2 To this list of plays derived from the Novelas Exemplares may
be added A Very Woman from El Amante Liberal by Massinger,
perhaps assisted by Fletcher; the comedy of manners, Rule a
Wife and Have a Wife ; touches in Beggars' Bush from La Gita-
nilla; and perhaps The Coxcomb from El Curioso Impertinente, first
published in Don Quixote, and later as one of the Novelas. In
addition to the usual sources of information, especially Koeppel,
and J. Fitzmaurice-Kelly in his Translation of Cervantes, 1902,
i, p. xxxvi, and his Cervantes in England, 1905, I am indebted,
in these paragraphs concerning Spanish sources in Fletcher's plays,
to the unpublished researches on this topic of my friend and late
student, Dr. A. S. W. Rosenbach.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE

207

Novelas Exemplares, which it follows with fidelity
and success. The certainty of this source destroys
the idea that this play was first acted as early as 1613,
and with it the notion that it is capable of identifica-
tion with Cardenio, registered as Shakespeare's and
Fletcher's in 1653. l Both The Fair Maid of the Inn
and Love's Pilgrimage seem to have suffered a late
revision in which Massinger, with the help of William
Rowley and of Jonson respectively, has been traced.2
In The Chances, certainly acted by 1615, is told the The
accidents, or "chances," by which two young students l615
unexpectedly become the protectors of a lady and
her child. The solution is complicated by the con-
fusion of the Lady Constantia with a woman of the
same name who has run away from her lover with a
musician on the very same night. In this delightful
play, Fletcher follows his original, La Senora Cornelia,
with singular fidelity, catching not only the spirit,
but the very atmosphere of his source. In The
Chances we may perceive what adaptations a Spanish
story, told with that masterly brevity and fidelity
to essentials alone which distinguishes Cervantes at
his best, demanded before it could be made accept-
able to the London stage. Fletcher has substituted
for the dry humor of Spain the coarser and more bois-
terous humor of England; and he has added several
minor personages and details of plot. The free and
outspoken characters of the two young friends, with
the humors of Mistress Gillian, their landlady, kept
The Chances long popular on the stage.

1 Hazlitt, Manual, 143 ; Fleay, i, 193. See Fitzmaurice-Kelly's
refutation of Fleay 's ideas in Shelton's Don Quixote, Tudor Trans-
lations, 1896, i, pp. xlvii-1.

2 Oliphant, xv, 346.

208

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Cervantes em-
ployed by
Fletcher in
translation.

The Pilgrim,
1621, derived
from a French
translation of
Lope.

The Custom of the Country, in which Massinger
may have had a hand, was an "old play in 1628."
Here Cervantes is once more laid under contribu-
tion. But this time the source is found in the roman
d'aventure, Histona de los trabajos de Persiles y
Sigismunda, the last work to come from the great
Spaniard's hand and one completed in 1616, the very
year of his death.1 The Custom of the Country is one
of the coarsest and foulest plays of its time, though
this quality is not to be laid to the example of Cer-
vantes. It is worthy of note here that the Novelas of
Cervantes had been translated into French by de Ros-
set and d'Audiguier in 1615, as Don Quixote had been
translated into English by Shelton in 1612. In 1618
d'Audiguier also translated Persiles y Sigismunda;
and in 1619 this last was "made English" under
the title The Travailes of Persiles and Sigismunda
by Matthew Lownes.2 No other work of Cervantes
besides these was employed as a source by Fletcher,
although the comedias and entremeses of Cervantes
enjoyed a considerable popularity in the Peninsula.
The inference seems plain. Fletcher read Cervantes
only in translation.

For The Pilgrim, Fletcher turned to the popular
prose romance of Lope de Vega, El Peregrmo en
su Patria, which had already been translated from a
French version into English as The Pilgrim of Castile
in 162 1.3 The drama was acted within the same year

1 The play is described as a mosaic made out of episodes of
the Spanish romance. See Koeppel, i, 65. The underplot lays
the Hecatommtthi under contribution.

2 Arber, Stationers' Register, iii, 642.

3 Koeppel, i, 100-103. Dr. Rosenbach first noted the English
source of this play, referring to the Stationers' Register, Arber,
iv, 21.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 209

and thus offers an interesting example of the readiness
of the dramatists to utilize popular contemporary
material. This story of a lover who returns in the
disguise of a beggar to his native place to seek the
lady of his love is one of the cleanest, lightest, and
most charming of later comedies. Somewhat old-
fashioned, too, it is in its outlaws of the forest, its
wanderings and disguises, its merry soubrette, Juli-
etta, and its use of the humors of mad folk. Rosen-
bach remarks a likeness in temperament between
Fletcher and Lope, and finds this illustrated especially
in their "love of intrigue, of imbroglio, of disguisings,
of successful love-making;" to which he might well
have added their tireless inventiveness and facile
ability to turn any material into acceptable drama.
As no other recourse of Fletcher to Lope de Vega for
the subject of a play has as yet been recorded, the
inference is once more plain : Fletcher utilized the
only production of Lope which had been translated
into a language accessible to him.

Another Spanish prose tale dramatized, at least so Women Pleased,
far as the main plot is concerned, is Women Pleased, l(
a drama of diversified interest ultimately referable
to the Historia de Aurelio y Isabella by Juan de Flores.
Here, however, as elsewhere, Fletcher's immediate
source must have been a French or English version
of this exceedingly popular tale.1 Women Pleased is
an excellent example of Fletcher's composite art,
whereby tragicomedy and a variety of the comedy of
manners, trespassing on absolute farce, are not un-
happily welded together into an entertainment which

1 Koeppel, i, 87 ; and see Underbill, Spanish Literature in the
England of the Tudors, 305, note, where anonymous English ver-
sions of this story dating 1556, 1586, and 1588 are mentioned.

210 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

could not but have been very effective in the hands
of a skillful troupe. In his sources Fletcher is equally
composite, compiling his underplot from no less than
three Italian novelle, if he did not borrow some of his
material, as seems more likely, from earlier English
plays.

The Spanish Fletcher derived two plays from the Poema Tragico
MUZd;Tth™e del Espanol Gerardo by Gonzalo de Cespedes, as
Mm, 1622-23. Englished in 1622, under the title of Gerardo the Un-
fortunate Spaniard, by Leonard Digges, who is now
solely remembered for a few lines prefixed to the first
folio of Shakespeare.1 These plays are The Spanish
Curate, licensed in October, 1622, a brilliant and
forcible play, which held the stage long after the
Restoration; and The Maid in the Mill, licensed in
August of the following year, and comparatively a
slight if clever enough performance. Massinger has
been discovered in the more serious parts of the for-
mer play; and the comedy scenes, which are Fletch-
er's own, have received deserved praise.2 The latter
play is little bettered by the alleged help of William
Rowley, and is a skillful fabric of the Spanish story
interwoven with material derived from Bandello.3
A likeness which Koeppel discovered between The
Maid and the Entremes del Robo de Helena (printed
in 1644) seems referable to their common source in
the Poema Tragico.* Rosenbach comments on "the
marked resemblance of that part of the play dealing
with the miller and his fair daughter, which Fletcher

1 Dyce, Beaumont and Fletcher, ed. 1854, ii, 442, 548.

2 Ward, ii, 723.

3 Koeppel, i, 112, where other points of contact with earlier lit-
erature are suggested.

4 The opinion of Dr. Rosenbach.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 211

borrowed from Bandello, to a play by Lope de Vega,
La Qutnta de Florencia."

More questionable as to its precise source is the The island
quasi-historical Island Princess, acted in 1621, and
usually accepted as Fletcher's unaided work. This
interesting and effective tragicomedy is derived from
a story which has been found by various editors in
a Spanish play published years after Fletcher's in a
French narrative by Bellan, appended to a trans-
lation of the novels of Cervantes, and lastly in a rare
Spanish work by Bartolome Leonardo de Argen-
sola, called Conquista de las Islas Malucas, Madrid,
1609.* Stiefel, who discovered this last, makes his
point, that the author of The Island Princess com-
monly expresses himself in terms closer to the Span-
ish than to the French version; and thus in this we
have the only play of Fletcher's of Spanish origin for
which no translation into French or English has been
discovered. Rosenbach is none the less loath to accept
this as proof positive that Fletcher went direct to a
Spanish source. He argues the popularity of books
of this class, among them many that were translated
from the Spanish, and asks us to accept the possi-
bility of a lost English translation of de Argensola's
book. As an alternative, he doubts that the play is
wholly Fletcher's, and, suggesting Massinger, reminds
us that that poet was indubitably acquainted with
the Castilian tongue.2 As to the play itself, it tells the
story of the offer of Quisara, Princess of Tidore, to
marry the man who should redeem her brother from

1 Weber first suggested a source in 1812. Dyce found the French
version which Koeppel,i, 98-106, accepted ; but see Stiefel, "Ueber
die Quelle von J. Fletcher's Island Princess," Archiv, ciii, 277.

2 Rosenbach MS. under The Island Princess.

212 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

captivity in the neighboring island of Ternata. The
Princess' hopes lay in Ruy Dias, whom she loved;
but he proving dilatory, another young Portuguese
nobleman, Armusia, accomplished the deed with great
bravery and claimed the offered reward. The Prin-
cess, reluctant to marry against her inclinations, is
at last won by the steadfastness of Armusia, who has
fallen a victim to a plot against him on account of
his Christianity. In the end the Portuguese garrison
rescues the now united pair.1
other Fietch- Were our search for Spanish influences in the plays
associated with the name of Fletcher pressed further,
we might add the interesting lost History of Gardenia,
acted twice in 1613 before the king, and registered,
in 1653, as by Fletcher and Shakespeare.2 This play,
whether Shakespeare had hand in it or not, was al-
most certainly modeled on the amorous adventures
of Cardenio as told in Thomas Shelton's translation
of Don Quixote, i6i2.s In 1727 Lewis Theobald,
the Shakespeare critic, published a play which he
called The Double Falsehood or the Discreet Lovers,
and which he professed to have based on an unfin-
ished draft of Shakespeare's.4 This production deals

1 The Conquest of the West Indies, mentioned in 1601, must
have presented very different material. See Henslowe, 135, and
elsewhere.

2 New Shakspere Society's Transactions, 1895-96, Part II, 419.
Cardenio was registered by Humphrey Moseley, notorious for his
inaccuracies. The title appears variously as Cardenno and Car-
denna.

3 Chapters xxiii-xxxvii ; and see above, pp. 190, 207.

4 "There is a tradition," says Theobald, "which I have from a
noble person who supplied me with one of my copies, that it was
given by our author, as a present of value, to a natural daughter of
his, for whose sake he wrote it in the time of his retirement from
the stage." Quoted in Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, ii, 413.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 213

with the story of Cardenio, but we may agree with
Lee that "Theobald doubtless took advantage of a
tradition that Shakespeare and Fletcher had com-
bined to dramatize the Cervantic theme."1 Further
in search for Spanish influences on Fletcher, we
might add Rule a Wije and Have a Wife, and The
Little French Lawyer (both of them comedies of
manners), to the list of such derivatives; as the first
obtained its underplot from El Casamiento Enganoso,
the eleventh of the Novelas Exemplares, and, as Lang-
baine long ago suggested, The Little French Lawyer
derives its main plot from an episode of the famous
picaresque romance, Guzman de Alfarache by Mateo
Aleman.2 We might likewise recur to the unquestion-
able influence of Don Quixote on the plan and con-
duct of The Knight of the Burning Pestle, and recall
how an episode of The Double Marriage reminds
one critic of a similar episode in the same immortal
romance, while another critic finds a personage of
The Prophetess clearly modeled on the adventures
of Sancho Panza as governor of Barataria.3

There remains one play commonly attributed to
Beaumont and Fletcher which is distinguishable
from all others because of its derivation direct from
a Spanish drama, whereas all the rest come from
Spanish romances: and for the most part, as we
have seen, from translated romances, too, at that.

1 Lee, Shakespeare, 267.

2 See L. Bahlsen, Eine KomoJie Fletcher's, Berlin, 1894; and
see Langbaine, 210. Koeppel, i, 60, notes that this story might
have been found in Massuccio di Salerno. As to both these come-
dies, see below, pp. 247, 248.

3 See above, i, pp. 206-208, as to The Knight of the Burning
Pestle ; and Koeppel, i, 82 and 105, quoting M. Rapp, Studien iibet
das englische Theater, Tubingen, 1862.

214

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

l^ovis Cure
or the

Martial Maid,
c. 1626, not
Fletcher's.

Although this play is not strictly a tragicomedy, it is
obvious that it is most properly treated in this place.
Love's Cure or the Martial Maid was first printed in
the folio of Beaumont and Fletcher in 1647, and has
been variously regarded as an early production of
Beaumont's rewritten by Massinger, as Fletcher's
revised by Massinger, or as Massinger's alone.1 The
story of Love's Cure turns on the bold idea of a girl
reared in the camp and inured to martial deeds, and
a boy, her brother, contrastedly housed and effemi-
nated. In both the power of love works a regenera-
tion to the more appropriate temper of each sex. It
now appears that this striking plot is an adaptation
of the Comedia de la Fuerza de la Costumbre by Guil-
len de Castro, a production licensed for print at Va-
lencia, February 7, 1625, an(^ published about three
months later. We may allow, with Stiefel, some eight
weeks for the arrival of a copy of this play in London.
This would make it, say, July. Now as Fletcher
died in August of this year, had he a hand in Love's
Cure it must have been written within the period of
one month. Stiefel accepts this with its corollaries,
that Fletcher read Spanish, and that this was the
latest of his works.2 Rosenbach, on the contrary, com-
bats this view, calling attention to the fact that Love's
Cure exhibits a closer familiarity with the Spanish
tongue and a more frequent and natural employment
of Spanish words than are to be found in any other
play of the Beaumont and Fletcher folio. Besides
this, he finds the blank verse of this comedy totally
unlike Fletcher's, as is the author's free method in

1 Oliphant, xiv, 79; Fleay, i, 180; Bullen, under Fletcher, Dic-
tionary of National Biography.

2 Stiefel, " Die Nachamung spanischer Komodien in England,"
Archiv, xcix, 271.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 215

treating his borrowed plot. On the strength of these
premises, together with the likeness of the verse to
Massinger's and the similarity of certain characters of
that poet to characters in Love's Cure, Rosenbach
accepts Bullen's ascription of the play to Massinger,
and denies Fletcher even the slightest part in it.1

In summary, then, of Spanish influence on plays Summary of
commonly known as those of Beaumont and Fletcher, 2»««'Be
we may record that seventeen of the fifty-two com- mont an<^
monly attributed to these authors show traces in their
plots of Spanish sources. As eighteen others remain
as yet undetermined as to origin, we may accept the
claim of Rosenbach that a third of these plays refer
back to the literature of Castile, or a half of those
the sources of which are known. The degree of this
indebtedness varies from an entire plot, as in The
Chances or The Pilgrim, to a suggestion of plan, as
in The Knight of the Burning Pestle, or the borrow-
ing of a personage or episode, as in The Prophetess
or The Little French Lawyer. Once more, only seven
Spanish authors have been levied on for these seven-
teen plays, Cervantes contributing to nine English
plays, only one other author, Cespedes, to more than
one. All of Fletcher's Spanish material is derived
from the prose romances of the Castilian tongue, as
Love's Cure, which is derived from a Spanish play,
is not Fletcher's. In consequence, there seems no
reason to assume that Fletcher went to the original
Spanish for any one of his plays, unless we except
The Island Princess, for the immediate source of
which it seems not impossible that an English trans-
lation of the Conquista de las Islas Malucas may
once have existed. Again, but three of these seven-

1 Rosenbach MS. under Love's Cure.

216 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

teen plays of Spanish source are now assigned in
any part to Beaumont; hence the credit of first using
Spanish material as a source for English drama must
be assigned to Fletcher, with perhaps a doubt as to
the part which Fletcher's friend and collaborator,
Massinger, may have taken in this broaching of
a new source. Lastly, save for a few plays of earlier
date, the period of Spanish influence on Fletcher lies
between 1618 and 1625; f°r °f tne twenty-five plays
in which that author figured within that period (a
period which coincides with the greatest activity of
English translation from Spanish prose), fourteen of
Fletcher's plays exhibit Spanish origins. The remark-
able thing is that the great contemporary drama of
Lope de Vega seems not to have touched the drama-
tists of the age of King James, notwithstanding that
the first volume of the comedies of Lope (albeit issued
without the consent of the author) was in print as
early as 1604. Indubitably Fletcher learned more
from Spain than these identified sources indicate;
for much of the spirit of the comedias de capa y espada
is preserved in his work, while his dependence on plot
and the original turn thereof, the minor importance
which he attaches to character, with the types which
resulted therefrom, mark others of the many interest-
ing parallels between Fletcherian tragicomedy and
the drama of Spain.

and It is matter of wonder that the way to the riches
s°pln7sh Gipsy °f Castilian literature thus once shown, there should
l623- have been so few to follow Fletcher's example.

Among the plays of an historical cast which deal with
the history of Spain, we found none derivable directly
from Spanish sources.1 The best of these plays is

1 See above, i, pp. 429-434.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 217

Rowley's All's Lost by Lust, and an English inter-
mediary doubtless existed for it. On the other hand,
Rowley's collaboration with Fletcher in The Maid in
the Mill, though the subject here, too, was derived
through translation,1 suggests an interest in Spanish
topics awakened by this collaboration, and makes
clear that Rowley, and not Middleton, inspired the
selection of subject for their joint production, The
Spanish Gipsy.2 This fine and effective drama com-
bines two stories of Cervantes,3 one a somber one of
the wrong done a pure maiden, the remorse of her as-
sailant, and the strange circumstances by which they
are brought to marriage and the wrong redressed; the
other a typical tale of a noble gentleman, Alvarez,
outlawed and living disguised among gipsies, with
the humors of their free life and the romantic attach-
ments which the pretty gipsy maiden, Pretiosa, -
really the daughter of Alvarez, — inspires in certain
young gallants of the town of " Madrill." The Span-
ish Gipsy is a tragicomedy of power and ably written.
Its all but tragic main plot and the romantic spirit
which pervades much of it take this play out of the
category of the comedy of manners and into that of the
tragicomedy of Fletcherian type. 4 The Stuart drama
exhibits no other example of an equally successful fol-
lowing of the lead of Fletcher in drama derived from
the literature of Spain until we come to the work of
Massinger. It can scarcely be a coincidence that The

1 See above, pp. 210, 211.

2 The Maid was licensed in August, 1623. The Spanish Gipsy
was acted by the Lady Elizabeth's players at the Cockpit and at
Whitehall in November of the same year. Fleay, ii, 101.

3 La Fuerza de la Sangre and La Gttantlla.

4 Cf. below, p. 236.

2l8

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Other tragi-
comedies of
Fletcher; The
Mad Lover,
1619;

The Sea
Voyage, 1622;

Spanish Gipsy and Middleton's More Dissemblers
Besides Women, a comedy in which a tribe of gipsies
figures as well, should date 1622 and 1623, or that
both plays should have followed so hard on Jonson's
successful masque, The Gipsies Metamorphosed, pre-
sented before the king in August, 1621.

To return to Fletcher, the remainder of the tragi-
comedies in which his hand appears are based either
upon sources more usual in the earlier drama, are
original, or at least more composite in their employ-
ment of material. The Mad Lover, 1619, with all its
merits of conduct and brilliancy of diction, has been
justly described as "romantic comedy run to riot." l
It is regrettable that the lunatic lover, Memnon (an
elderly man too, at that), with his absurd delusion
that he must offer up his heart literally to be held in
his mistress' hand, has not yet been found among the
puerilities of medieval fable. Bandello contributes the
licentious anecdote of priestly subornation on which
the underplot of The Mad Lover is founded.2 The
scene is appropriately Paphos. Vastly in contrast with
such strained ingenuity and full of novel adventure is
The Sea Voyage, licensed in 1622. Here the story
turns upon castaways and shipwreck; and the various
humors of a ship's company in terror from storm,
quarreling over discovered treasure and near the ex-
tremity of starvation, are dramatized with much vigor.
The fancy of a company of women, self-sufficient and
ruling, and defying man is an old one; it is here

1 Ward, ii, 701. Dr. O. L. Hatcher, in her suggestive mono-
graph, John Fletcher, 1906, p. 44, regards this play as "typical of
Fletcher's handling of Italian material."

2 Bandello, iii, 19; also in Josephus, and mentioned by Lang-
baine.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 219

worked out with considerable humor and not with-
out Fletcherian advantage taken of its objectionable
possibilities.1 Beggars' Bush, acted in the same year, Beggar's Bush,
brings the scene to Flanders, and combines with a l6";
story of a banished noble family, variously disguised
among common folk to escape the machinations of a
usurper against their lives, a series of pleasant real-
istic scenes of the humors of professional vagrants
which were sketched from still nearer home.2 Beg-
gars' Bush is an engaging and effective play. The
glorification of the merchant in whose disguise the
young prince, Florez, masquerades is reminiscent of
the older bourgeois comedy of London life, and a
parallel in the situation of Florez, awaiting his ships
which are rumored to have miscarried, and Antonio,
the merchant of Venice, has not escaped comment.3
No play of Fletcher's presents so forbidding a subject A wfy for a
as A Wife for a Month, which lays its scene in Naples
in the reign of Frederick, a typical lustful and cruel
Fletcherian tyrant. His unspeakable practices on the
virtuous steadfastness of two faithful lovers, with his
own overthrow by the return of his honorable elder
brother, form a drama not without effect, albeit the
play concludes in contrition and forgiveness after
the sinewless method of tragicomedy when human
nature cries out foi redemption in blood.4

1 For several literary parallels, see Ward, ii, 728 ; to these might
be added The Lady Errant of William Cartwright, 1635, a witty
and facile comedy, and Mayne's Amorous Wary 1639.

2 Oliphant is of the opinion that Beggars' Bush was originally
written by Beaumont and revised by Fletcher and Massinger,
Enghsche Studten, xv, 356.

3 Koeppel, i, 109 ; M. Rapp, Studien uber das englische Theater,
67.

4 Langbaine, 216, mentions a resemblance between the story

220 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Shakespearean That the later drama, Fletcher with the rest, is

reminisce)
Fletcher.

Q full of reminiscence of plays of the past is not for a

moment to be denied. We have noted a suggestion
of The Merchant of Venice in Beggars' Bush; and the
likeness of The Sea Voyage to The Tempest, though
superficial, is patent to the casual reader. Koeppel
finds a similarity to a "motive" of As Ton Like It in
The Mad Lover; and an examination of his index
discloses a list of twenty-three plays of Shakespeare,
some of them furnishing, like Hamlet, nearly a dozen
"likenesses" in motive, personage, or word to plays
of the time mostly Fletcher's.1 With due respect for
the industrious and fruitful scholarship of one to
whom this subject owes much, may it not be surmised
that, despite their proximity, the minds of Shake-
speare's great contemporaries fell really less into the
powerful orbit of his compelling influence than do
we, the critics of modern times, who too often, like
powerless and broken asteroids, revolve in never-end-
ing circles about the blinding sun of his genius ?
Typical later Two tragicomedies have been reserved for some-
what fuller consideration as peculiarly typical of
Fletcher's confirmed and matured manner. In the
first, The Knight of Malta, acted in 1619, Fletcher has
submitted an older play, not impossibly Beaumont's,
to a complete revision. The second, The Loyal Sub-
ject, of nearly the same date, is one of the few plays
which the critical dagger of Aristarchus has left to
Fletcher's sole and unaided authorship. In the

of this play and the history of Sancho VIII, King of Leon; but
Koeppel, i, 114, says this remains to be proved, and notes a parallel
between the character Valerio and Amintor of The Maid's Tragedy,
and between Evanthe and Ordella in Thierry and Theodoret.
1 Ibid. 78, 156.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 221

former play Mountferrat, a brave knight of Malta, is The Knight of
afflicted with a mad passion to possess Oriana, sister JJjfJJ^i9'
of Valetta, the grand master of his order. She has knighthood.
repulsed his advances, but concealed them out of
regard to the honor of the order. Goaded to madness,
Mountferrat engages Oriana's Moorish waiting-wo-
man, Zanthia, to forge in her lady's hand a letter,
traitorously giving over Malta to one of its enemies.
The plot succeeds. Oriana is to be cleared by trial by
combat, and Gomera, a Spanish gentleman, novice
of the order, though also a suitor for the hand of
Oriana, throws down his gage to Mountferrat. Mean-
time Miranda, an Italian gentleman, also a novice
and a suitor for Oriana's hand, has helped defeat
the Turks off Malta. Hearing from Mountferrat of
the impending duel, after first defying the traducer,
Miranda begs to be permitted to fight in Mountfer-
rat's place, a boon readily granted by the recreant
knight. Meeting Gomera, Miranda, the lady's
champion, is conquered, as he had planned, and the
honor of his beloved lady is thus saved. This would
have been enough for an older play, but here the story
continues. Gomera marries the Lady Oriana at her
brother's behest, and is worked to a groundless jeal-
ousy of her affection for Miranda. The Moor gives
Oriana a sleeping potion; thought dead, she is con-
veyed to the tomb; she awakes, like Juliet, in the
tomb, which is visited severally by Mountferrat,
Gomera, and Miranda at cross-purposes, and the
last bears off the lady and restores her to health.
Omitting other complications, of which there are sev-
eral, the chief motive of the latter half of the play is
the temptation of Miranda, and his (Fletcherian) vic-
tory, and final taking of the holy vows at the moment

222 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

when the recreant knight, Mountferrat, is degraded
from the order. The possibilities of this plot are great,
and some of them are surprisingly well employed.
The character of Mountferrat, his remorse, his strug-
gle against his nobler self, and his ignoble end are
powerfully conceived. The chivalrous relations, too,
of Gomera and Miranda, together with the struggle
of each between an earthly love and the nobler honors
which the holy brotherhood in arms holds out to them,
are nobly and restrainedly suggested. Moreover,
Fletcher has spoiled the character Oriana less than
might have been expected from other examples of
Fletcherian pure women. And not only have we one
' of the most engaging of all the bluff and hearty sol-
diers of this poet in Norandine, the Danish sailor, but
the Moor Zanthia, who is the mainspring of the action,
is natural with all her wickedness, and admirable in
her unrepentant devotion to the man she has ruined.
The moral Ward praises "the greatest scene in this play,

Fletcher. where Oriana's eloquence directs the thoughts of the
youthful knight Miranda from a less pure passion
[really a love for another man's wife] to a spiritual
love," and remembers " no nobler vindication of the
authority of moral law in the whole range of the
Elizabethan drama." l But to justify all this praise,
at least as to Miranda, we must omit to read several
passages.2 In very fact this admirable drama is sorely
touched with the dangerous taint that mars nearly
every play in which Fletcher had a hand. Miranda,
disinterested in friendship, ideal in his love, and up-
lifted by spiritual yearnings, is presented in two scenes
of struggle and temptation which would have been

1 Ward, ii, 689.

2 v, i, from "Yet will I try her to the very blade."

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 223

impossible, as Fletcher conducts them, to any pure-
minded man, but from which Fletcher would have us
believe that Miranda emerged morally clean.1 That
virtue tried is virtue proved is patent and obvious;
but that virtue put to the test by simulated deprav-
ity is the clearer, that innocency is true innocency
only when it has gathered to its breast all the wisdom
and much of the experience of the serpent — these
things are subtleties in casuistical immorality, out-
fathoming the lowest depths of the Restoration stage.
How infinitely more noble, for example, is the fall
of Richard Feverel with the anguish and the pity
of it all than the unclean chastity and the prurient
triumphs over the flesh of these Fletcherian heroes.

In The Loyal Subject the plot turns on a test of The Loyal Sub
loyalty under extraordinarily wanton royal infliction, (^themefthe
This is a favorite Fletcherian situation, and one test of loyalty,
which we have met in its more natural tragic form
in The Maid's Tragedy and in Valentinian. It will
be remembered that the unhappy Amintor in the
former tragedy is chosen by his tyrant master to be
the stale or stalking horse of the royal amours with
Evadne, who is married to Amintor with that design.
Valentinian offers a closer parallel, for there the brave
old general, Ae'cius, abused, degraded, assassins sent
to kill him, falls on his own sword rather than prove
traitor to his tormentor, who is also his emperor. Sim-
ilarly in The Loyal Subject, an honorable old warrior
who has proved the bulwark of the state is slighted
by his young master in test of his subject's loyalty.
The original of this story, from which Fletcher's
play differs materially, is to be found in the tale of
Artaxerxes and his seneschal, Ariobarzanes, told in
1 HI, iv; and v, i.

224 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Painter's Palace of Pleasure and derived thence from
Heywood's Bandello.1 This story was perhaps first dramatized
in Marshal Osric, a lost production by Heywood
and Smith bearing date I597-2 It was revised and
rewritten in the version which we have by the former
dramatist, about 1618, as The Royal King and Loyal
Subject, and doubtless in consequence of Fletcher's
play. Heywood's play transfers the story from Persia
to England in the reign of an indeterminate king,
converts the seneschal into a marshal, and follows the
original tale with closeness. Here the story is a con-
test in courtesy wherein the subject dares to vie with
his sovereign in princely gifts and favors. The King,
to test his servant's loyalty, orders him to yield all his
honors to his chief enemy, which the Marshal does
without murmur, and retires to his estate. The King
now demands that the Marshal send the fairer of his
two daughters to court. He sends the less fair, and the
King marrying her, the Marshal in return of cour-
tesy bestows a double dowry on her. Months later the
Queen declares (as her father had bade her) that her
sister is fairer than herself, whereupon her lord sends
her home to her father (an outcome foreseen), bidding
him send the younger daughter. This in due time
he does, sending with her the Queen, now restored to
health, and with her, her infant son, the King's heir.

1 Palace of Pleasure, ed. Jacobs, 1890, ii, 176; Koeppel, i, 133,
was the first to point this out.

2 Henslowe, 51 ; and 181 and 184 under date 1602, when the
play was apparently revised for the first time. Cf. above, i, p. 304.
But see the recent edition of this play by Dr. Kate W. Tibbals,
Publications of the University of Pennsylvania, 1906, p. 8, for a
different conclusion as to the identity of this play with Marshal
Osric. See, also, Miss Tibbals' comparison of this play with Chabot,
ibid. 35-37.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 225

The King then bestows the hand of the Marshal's
younger daughter on his eldest son and heir, and
gives the Princess, his sister, in marriage to the
Marshal, who returns her dowry that he may not feel
an inferiority to his wife. At this the King, losing all
patience to be thus ever surpassed, orders the Marshal
tried, and he is convicted of treason. As his head lies
on the block, this persistent if magnanimous sover-
eign completes the contest of favors by royally grant-
ing the loyal subject his life and the return of all his
honors.1 Fletcher's changes in this story are charac- Fletcher's
teristic. The scene is transferred to Muscovy, the test c£™ges m the
of the subject's loyalty becomes analogous to the eter-
nal trial of woman's chastity, and the loyal subject,
a species of Patient Grissel in armor, less courteous
than absurdly long-suffering. He is maligned and heroic loyalty;
traduced and even physically tortured, and when
his son and the soldiers, who love their old general,
rebel to save him, his loyalty extends to an eager en-
deavor to disown his own son as a traitor. As to the "unmaideniy
fair daughters, so fresh and maidenly in old Heywood, m
they are here represented as sent to court together and
succeeding — at least the elder — by sheer effrontery
in getting the Duke for a husband instead of a lover.
This unmaideniy maiden, introduced to the Duke's
presence, hardly utters a dozen words before she is
prating of the betrayal of innocence and of the futility
of such conquests to great men. Dared, she kisses the

1 It is interesting to find Heywood returning at the very end of
his career to this idea of a contest and test in courtesy in the under-
plot of A Challenge for Beauty, 1635. Here the contest, which is
between a Spanish and an English sea-captain, is carried to a degree
of extraordinary inventiveness and improbability. Cf. below, pp.
309» 310-

226 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Duke again and again, and bids her sister also "hug
him softly." Nor does she hesitate to tell him:

" Were I fit to be your wife (so much I honor ye),
Trust me I would scratch for ye but I would have ye,

I would woo ye then."1
•

The Laws of With The Laws of Candy and The Lovers' Progress
ndy, c. i 19. we comp|ete our survey Of Fletcherian tragicomedy.

The former play, as we have it, has certainly been
submitted to a thorough rewriting by some hand
other than Fletcher. But whether this is an early
play of Beaumont's and Fletcher's, revised by Mas-
singer, or "almost entirely Massinger's," is a matter
which must remain beyond determination.2 The plot
involves a contest for military honors between a father,
Cassilane, and his son, Antinous, both of whom have
nobly served the state of Candia. The son is publicly
adjudged the nobler, and his father, in anger and
mortification, disowns him. On the other hand, the
beautiful and imperious Princess Erato, whom the
Prince of Cyprus is courting, is taken with the heroic
character of young Antinous, who is too preoccupied
with his sorrows to care for her. He accepts, however,
the proffer of her love, and by that means his father's
poverty is relieved, a plot upon the state discovered,
and a reconciliation effected. In the end the Princess,
with a return of her native pride, bestows her hand
on her faithful lover, the Prince of Cyprus. The
regeneration which love, her charitable acts, and the

1 Act iv, sc. i. See, however, Ward's amazing encomium of" the
self-possessed purity" and "girlish innocence" of this pair, ii, 701.

2 Oliphant places this play as early as 1604, Fleay in 1619. The
latter critic's notion that the play is Massinger's because the plot
contains a contention between a father and a son, very dissimilar,
be it observed, to that of The Unnatural Combat, seems fanciful.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 227

indifference of Antinous works in the Princess is ad-
mirably represented. Nor do the laws concerning the
reward of him who is best approved and the punish-
ment of those convicted of ingratitude, though made
the chief motives, interfere with the naturalness of the
plot. It seems impossible to subscribe to the low esti-
mate usually put upon this ingenious and effective
play.1

Vastly in contrast is The Lovers' Progress, probably The
first written by Fletcher about 1623 and later revised Pro^e"' l623'
by Massinger or perhaps Shirley. Derived from an
all but contemporary piece of French prose fiction,
The Lovers' Progress has been with reason identified
with a play entitled The Wandering Lovers, registered
as Massinger's in 1653, a title derived from the under-
plot of the play.2 The chief topic is the fervent but
honorable devotion of Lysander, a French gentleman,
to Calista, the wife of his friend, the compromising
situation into which they are innocently thrown by
the false witness of a discarded waiting-woman on
the murder of Calista's husband, and their final vin-
dication. There is an atmosphere of old-time cour-
tesy and all but heroic disinterestedness about several
of the personages of this well-planned and admirably
written play that makes it one of the most attractive
of its time.

The name of Philip Massinger has appeared again Philip Mas-
and again in the foregoing pages, as we have traced S1^r' 's84~
his part in tragedy, in domestic, romantic, and clas-
sical subjects.3 We have likewise found the name

1 Ward, ii, 723.

3 Cf. Lisandre et Calista, by M. d'Audiguier, Paris, 1615. The
Wandering Lovers was licensed December 6, 1623.
3 Above, i, pp. 430-432, 440, 445, 553, 603-605; ii, 39-43.

228 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

of Massinger associated in the preceding paragraphs
of this chapter with that of Fletcher in nearly a dozen
dramas specifically of the class of tragicomedy. The
few facts known of Massinger's life disclose that he
was born at Salisbury, the son of Arthur Massinger,
gentleman, a member of Parliament and trusted in
the service of Henry, the second Earl of Pembroke.
The dramatist was baptized November 24, 1584,
and was entered at St. Alban's Hall, Oxford, in 1602,
which he quitted without a degree four years later,
perhaps because of his father's death. When Mas-
singer began as playwright we do not know. We hear
of him first in this capacity in a letter addressed by
him, together with Field and Daborne, to Henslowe,
beseeching the loan of five pounds, on the secur-
ity of a promised play, to bail the petitioners out of
prison.1 This letter is supposed to have been written
about 1613 or 1614. A bond binding Massinger and
Daborne to pay " Henslowe three pounds of lawful
money of England," bearing date July 4, 1615, is
likewise extant.2 The inference is plain: Massin-
ger began his career in the hard school of Hen-
slowe. The association of Massinger with Fletcher
appears to have begun about 1613 or perhaps a trifle
earlier.3 The two remained close friends to the end;
and Massinger, surviving until 1640, was buried,
according to Cockayne, in St. Saviour's in the same
grave with Fletcher.4 Some of the earlier plays of

1 Malone's Shakespeare, iii, 337.

2 Memoirs of Alleyn, p. 1 21.

3 Fleay finds Massinger in The Honest Mans Fortune men-
tioned by Henslowe under that year.

4 See the several mentions of Massinger in Small Poems of Divers
Sorts, 1658, by Sir Aston Cockayne, his warm personal friend; and
Ward, iii, 5 n.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 229

Massinger's independent composition were written
for the Queen's company; but most of his collabora-
tion with Fletcher, and all of his work subsequent to
Fletcher's death, in 1625, was f°r tne King's players,
which continued to the closing of the theaters the
leading troupe ofactors.

Massinger's name has been associated with no Massinger in
less than fifty-four plays, ranging from 1613 to 1639, collaboratlon-
the year preceding his death. Besides Fletcher, Da-
borne and Field certainly collaborated with him, the
former in work, so far as we know, now lost, Field
especially in the strong domestic tragedy, The Fatal
Dowry, 1619. The Virgin Martyr and the one or
two non-extant plays in which Massinger's name
appears with Dekker's (all about 1620) seem to have
been old productions of Dekker's revised by the
younger playwright,1 who is supposed earlier, in 1615,
to have revised The Old Law of Middleton and Row-
ley, as he is surmised by some to have been concerned
alike in Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen
as early as i6n.2 The several effective comedies of
manners which Massinger contributed to the stage of
his day will claim our later attention.3 We are here
concerned with the tragicomedies in which, with
unaided hand, Massinger carried forward the tra-
ditions which Beaumont and Fletcher had established,
and which he had already had, in collaboration, so
strong an influence in perpetuating.

1 The other two are Philenzo and Hippolito, identified by Fleay
with Henslowe's Philippo and Hippolita, 1594, and Antonio and
Pallia, revised in the next year. Both were destroyed by Warbur-
ton's cook.

2 Fleay, ii, 100 ; i, 189-192, and his Life of Shakespeare, 251 ; Lee,
Shakespeare, 268-272.

3 Below, pp. 253-256.

23o ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Seven plays constitute the group of Massinger's
tragicornedies; and three of them were certainly
written during the latter years of the reign of King
James and while Massinger was still in active collab-
oration with his friend Fletcher.1 Of these three, one,
The Bondman, has already claimed our attention
from the basis of its plot in classical story; although
its treatment is purely that of tragicomic romance.2
In both the remaining, we have excellent examples
The Maid of of the varied and capable art of Massinger. The
Maid of Honor (written probably before 1622) re-
tells from Painter's Palace of Pleasure how the Lady
Camiola ransomed Roberto, a king's base brother
and knight of Malta, from a captivity which his own
rash act of war had brought upon him.3 Although
Camiola had rejected Roberto as a suitor on the
score of his vows to his order, she now accepted his
troth-plight as a test of his gratitude; but Roberto,
having fallen before the blandishments of Aurelia,
Duchess of Sienna, and proving false both to Camiola
and to his knightly vows, Camiola denounces him,
Aurelia repudiates him, and as he kneels repentant
Camiola forgives, but, bidding him return to his
order, herself assumes the veil. Adorni, a faithful
but hopeless suitor, who undertakes his Lady
Camiola's commission to ransom Roberto, is a third
personage, admirably conceived, but not quite suc-
cessfully carried out. Nor should the excellent foolery
of Sylli, a lighter and less elaborate Sir Amorous

1 The Parliament of Love is not here included as it is really a
comedy of manners.

2 Above, p. 39.

3 This play does not occur in Herbert's list. It was acted at the
Phoenix by the Queen's men, though this may have been later.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 231

La Foole, be forgotten among the characters of this
deservedly favorite play.

The Renegado or the Gentleman of Venice was li- The Ren
censed in 1624 an^ ls traceable directly to a comedy l624'
of Cervantes, Los Banos de Argel, printed in 1615. l
The scene, which is laid in Tunis, reminds the reader,
in its Eastern setting, of Heywood's Fair Maid of
the West. But the atmosphere of The Renegado is
utterly in contrast with that refreshing comedy of
adventure. Massinger's tragicomedy combines the
story of a Christian turned Mahometan and pirate,
but brought to a realization of his crimes against
God and man by misfortune, with the search by
Vitelli, a Venetian gentleman, for his sister who has
been sold into captivity in the court of the Viceroy of
Tunis by the renegade. Vitelli, though disguised as a
merchant, inspires a passion in the Turkish Princess
Donusa, while Paulina, Vitelli's sister, is preserved in
virtue, even in the harem of the Viceroy, by a mirac-
ulous talisman or amulet which hangs about her
neck. The Princess, whose amour with Vitelli has
brought them both to prison, turns Christian, and in
the upshot all escape in the galley of the contrite
renegade. The motive power of the plot lies in the
beneficent Jesuit, Francisco, a character exceedingly
well conceived and characteristically thrust not too
prominently forward. The choice of such a theme Massing
as this and of the martyr Dorothea, together with
the denouement of The Maid of Honor, has led to the
surmise that Massinger was a member of the Church
of Rome; and his intimacy with the Earl of Carnar-
von and with Sir Aston Cockayne, both of them of the

1 Koeppel, ii, 97 ; and see, also, T. Heckmann, Massinger's The
Renegado und seine spanischen Quellcn, Halle, 1905.

232 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

elder faith, makes this surmise altogether probable.
It has even been thought that the poet forfeited the
patronage of the Herberts by his apostasy to the Eng-
lish Church, though certain it is that the dedication
of The Bondman was acceptable to Philip, Earl of
Montgomery, the younger brother of William Her-
bert, the then Earl of Pembroke. It is interesting
to recall, in this connection, the familiar fact that in
the preceding year the first folio of Shakespeare had
been dedicated to the same pair of noble patrons.

In four other tragicomedies Massinger continued
his contributions to the drama in the reign of King
The Great Charles. The Great Duke of Florence, licensed in
F/orl "^ J62y, is a pleasing refashioning 'of an old play en-

1627; titled A Knack to Know a Knave, transformed from

an English atmosphere to that of conventional Italy
The Picture, and wide of the slightest historical relations. The
1629; Picture, which was licensed two years later, takes

its title from a miniature of his wife which a Hun-
garian knight, named Mathias, wears hung about
his neck. This miniature has the magic property
of changing countenance as its original changes in
loyalty to the wearer. By means of the pride and
intrigue of the Princess Honoria, both husband and
wife are submitted to the ordeal of temptation, but
A Very both in the end prove true at heart. * A Very Woman

634; *s an a^er plav- Revised by Massinger in 1634, this
tragicomedy has been variously identified with The
Woman s Plot or A Right Woman, acted originally
in 1621, and with The Spanish Viceroy of a year

1 In two other theses of Halle, by E. Gerhardt and A.
Merle, both of 1905, the sources of these plays are set forth,
though the first seems unacquainted with A Knack to Know a
Knave.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 233

earlier.1 The single but somewhat intricate plot
turns upon the scorn with which Almira, an imperious
beauty of the court, dismisses an honorable suitor,
the Prince of Tarent, who, insulted by his successful
rival, Cardenas, rights him and leaves him for dead.
In the end Cardenas recovers from his wound and
from his affection for Almira as well, and that lady,
learning to know the Prince's worth in his disguise
of a slave, claims his love and marries him. Finally,
in The Bashful Lover, acted in 1635, we meet the The Bashful
last of Massinger's plays now remaining extant, and Lover> l635'
one which, in the fullness and variety of its epi-
sodes, is no unworthy successor to all but the best of
Fletcher in its type. In the absence of any discovery
of a definite source, Koeppel has recourse to Shake-
spearean reminiscences, of which it must be confessed
that this play affords several examples.2 The plot,
however, with its diffident hero, a prince in disguise,
whose valor rescues the right princess at the right
moment; with its Viola, or Bellario-like page who
can tell "a pretty tale of a sister," nursing back to
life and to fidelity her recreant lover, — all this is
really of the universal stuff of drama, though memo-
rable in this example for its successful combination of
familiar personages and familiar scenes in the equally
familiar atmosphere of pseudo-historical Italy. The
wonder is that so genuinely pleasing a result could
be produced with such hackneyed material.3

1 Fleay, i, 215, 227. The source of this play is El Amante
Liberal of Cervantes ; see J. Fitztnaurice-Kelly's translation of the
Novelas Exemplares, i, p. xxxvi.

2 Koeppel, ii, 146.

3 Several plays of Massinger's, all of them supposedly non-extant,
occur in Herbert's licenses between the years 1627 and 1640. The
Judge and The Honor of Women were licensed respectively in 1627

ness.

234 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Massinger's contribution to tragicomedy consists,

moral earnest- , i i • • • i

above many other things, in a certain moral earnest-
ness which instinctively preferred themes and in-
volved the presentation of personages for this very
reason new to the stage. A common player, most
despised of men in Roman times, rising in his man-
hood to the respect of his enemy, the Emperor of the
world; the pathetic figure of a dethroned monarch,
hopeless claimant against the tyranny of Rome; a
virgin martyr winning a soul for Heaven in her own
martyrdom, such are Massinger's themes in tragedy.1
Nor is this same originality in serious motive less con-
spicuous in the poet's tragicomedies. The "Maid of
Honor," renouncing love for the cloister on convic-
tion that her lover is unworthy of her; the Prince of

and 1628. Both were in Warburton's list. Fleay thinks the first
capable of identification with The Fatal Dowry, and that the second
is The Spanish Viceroy, registered in 1653, Minerva's Sacrifice or
The Forced Lady, licensed 1 629, and Alexias, the Chaste Lover, 1 639,
are likewise in Warburton's list. Fleay surmises the former to be
the title of Massinger's alteration of The Queen of Corinth. Other
licensed plays of Massinger not already named in the text are The
Unfortunate Piety, 1631, which is entered with the additional title
The Italian Nightpiece in the Stationers' Register, and which Fleay
thinks the same with Fletcher's Double Marriage; secondly Clean-
der, 1634, possibly one with The Wandering Lovers or The Painter;
The Orator, 1635, registered in 1653 with the alternative title The
Noble Choice, and by Fleay identified with The Elder Brother; and
lastly, The Fair Anchoress of Pausilippo, 1640, entered in the
Register as The Prisoner or the Fair Anchoress. Warburton's list
discloses, besides the two lost plays mentioned in Henslowe (see
above, p, 229, note i), The Woman's Plot, The Tyrant, and Feast
and Welcome, concerning which Fleay's further surmises may be
consulted by those unwilling to leave anything unsettled. Fleay, i,
223-229.

1 Cf. The Roman Actor, Believe as You List, and The Virgin
Martyr.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 235

Tarent, winning his beloved almost against her will
by his steadfastness and honorable reserve; the story
of one who had profaned religion, and was won back
by conscience and remorse, such are the correspond-
ing subjects of Massinger's tragicomedies.1 We may his
grant, then, that Massinger's personages are often tenzation'
wanting in the subtler qualities of dramatic charac-
terization, that they occasionally fall into types and
colorless abstractions from his want of humor, and
fail — though not always — of the highest ideals from
his want of poetry. We may confess, too, that Mas-
singer, like Shirley after him, showed himself a close
and capable student of the great dramatists who had
preceded him, in almost every way in which one
writer may be legitimately indebted to another. But and stagecraft,
with themes such as these, treated .with a consum-
mate mastery of stagecraft and with a constructive
skill inferior to no one of his great contemporaries,
none can deny Massinger's claim to a high place
among original dramatists.

Neither Fletcher nor Massinger were without their influence of
contemporary imitators; and even some of the greater Fletfhenan

r j > ^ r> tragicomedy

men sought to shape their work to the new and favor- on his greater
ite mode. Thus, Dekker in his Match Me in London, ct
revived at the Phoenix in 1623, produced a Fletcher-
ian tragicomedy, involving the familiar figures of a
ruthless king and a citizen's chaste wife, and fully de-
serving the very high praise that has been bestowed
upon it.2 The same poet's Wonder of a Kingdom,
identified by Fleay with Come and See a Wonder,
licensed by Herbert in 1623 as by John Day, is of like

1 Cf. A Very Woman and The Renegado.

2 E. Rhys in his Introduction to the Mermaid edition of Dekker,
xxxix.

236 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

general character, although fuller of intrigue and hu-
mor and a far inferior production; * while Heywood's
Captives, 1624, already described, is classical in origin
and domestic in the subject-matter involved.2 Among
plays in which William Rowley cooperated with Mid-
dleton, several display a strong element of romance.
The serious question involved in A Fair Quarrel raises
that fine play above the level of mere comedy, but its
atmosphere is realistic, not romantic.3 On the other
hand, the atmosphere and scene, Madrid, derived, as
we have seen, from two stories of Cervantes, place The
Spanish Gipsy, written by the same two poets about
1622, quite within the category of Fletcherian tragi-
comedy.4 When Middleton writes alone, we have, as
in No Wit, No Help Like a Woman's, 1613, only a
tinge of romance; or, as in More Dissemblers Besides
Women, about 1622, little more, despite its conven-
tional Italian setting, than a comedy of intrigue. If
Rowley had any part in The Thracian Wonder (vari-
ously dated), we have a "romance" in its old heroical
elements and pastoral touch in greatest contrast to the
new school of tragicomedy; while Rowley and Web-
ster's A Cure for a Cuckold (about 1618) repeats the
time-honored test by which a lady, to prove her lov-
er's devotion, bids him kill his own best friend, and in
this and the diverting if improper underplot is once
more pure comedy of manners. If there be a genuine
claim among the comedies of Fletcher's greater con-
temporaries, beside that of The Spanish Gipsy, to a
place among his tragicomedies, it is perhaps that of

1 Fleay, i, 136. a See above, i, p. 352.

8 For a consideration of this play, see above, i, p. 350.
4 For an account of this play and its sources, both from the
Novelas Exemplares, see above, pp. 216, 217.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 237

The Devil's Law Case by Webster, 1623, derived, it is
said, from a story in Goulart's Histoire Admirable.1
But even here we have tragicomedy mainly in the
gravity of the passions involved, and the romantic note
is to a large degree wanting in a story of intricate
intrigue.2 The Stationers' Register of 1612 discloses
the entry of a production called "The Nobleman, a
tragicomedy by Cyril Tourneur," which a manuscript
note of Oldys declares was acted at court in 1613. We
cannot but deplore the loss of a play of this type from
the hand of the author of The Revenger's Tragedy;
though perhaps if we had it intact, it might bear no '
better relation to Tourneur's work in tragedy than
The Devil's Law Case bears to The Duchess of Malfi.

Among the lesser authors writing in the time of Lesser Fietch-
King James there is often palpable imitation of
Fletcher. Thus, in a "tragicomedy," The Twins, by
Richard Niccols, first acted in 1612 or 1613, and later
revised by William Rider," the hendecasyl^bic verse
of Fletcher is consciously imitated, and the plot
is made up of the improbable horror of a wife's lust
after her husband's twin brother, the husband imper-
sonating the brother, and thus converting tragedy
into tragicomedy. Swetnam the Woman Hater Ar-
raigned by Women, 1620, is an exceedingly able anon-
ymous play in which is treated quite independently
the interesting theme of Fletcher's Women Pleased.3
Which drama preceded it would be impossible to say,
and only a closer study than I am able at present to

1 Langbaine, 509 ; doubtless, as Sampson has suggested, Grime-
stone is Webster's real source.

2 The plot of this, as of so many of our old minor dramas, is
given crudely but faithfully by Genest, x, 16.

8 See Grosart's ed. of this play, Occasional Issues, 1875-81,
vol. xiv.

238 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

give to the source of both, the story of Aurelio y
Isabella, by Juan de Flores, could determine the prob-
abilities of the case. It seems likely that we have
here an instance, by no means unexampled, of two
authors employing simultaneously the same material.
Swanam, i6ao; As to Swetnam, although the main plot concerns the
question which of two lovers is guilty of taking the
initiative in love, with a contest between them in dis-
interestedness, the title is derived from the name of an
actual person who had written various pamphlets,
one of them containing an abusive attack on the fair
sex. Swetnam is represented on the stage as a self-
sufficient attorney for the prosecution of the Princess,
who is on trial for having dared to find a lover for
other "women's herself without her father's will. And the pamphleteer
penod. ° is ne^ UP to general ridicule and obloquy. It is of
interest to note in passing that, in 1620 and for a year
or two thereafter, the eternal question of woman's
dependence or independence of man was a favorite
topic on the popular stage. Besides the two plays
just discussed, there was the non-extant Woman s
Plot, one of the manuscripts destroyed by the folly of
Warburton, and an anonymous production entitled
The Female Rebellion.1 There is, besides, The Sea Voy-
age of Fletcher, in which a commonwealth of women
sufficient to themselves constitutes one of the features
of the story. Not improbably the lost plays of 1623,
The Way to Content All Women, by Gunnell, and Hard
Shift for Husbands, by Samuel Rowley, belong to the
same group, in which the comedy of manners holds
an equal sway with more romantic material.2 Another

1 Reprinted by Alexander Smith of Glasgow, 1872, from a
manuscript in the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow.

2 Collier, i, 446, 447.

TRAGICOMEDY AND ROMANCE 239

tragicomedy on the Fletcherian model is 'The Heir of
Thomas May, 1620, which, although it refashions the
old and trite material, — the lustful king and the
steadfast maiden, long-lost brothers, a feud between
two noble houses, and the like, — is an interesting and
well-written play, and notable for a certain power of
genuine pathos. The Two Noble Ladies or The Con-
verted Conjurer, "acted oftentimes with approbation
at the Red Bull by the company of the Revels," and
about the same date, is described by Bullen as "coarse
and noisy." * Tell Tale, the scene of which is laid in
Florence, still remains in manuscript in an imperfect
copy in Dulwich College. From Warner and Bul-
len's description of it, it evidently belongs to the tragi-
comic type.2 Its comic scenes are reported by Bullen
to suggest William Rowley at his worst.3

These, with a few scattering plays no longer extant,
complete our account of dramas of this type in the
reign of James. But the tale of tragicomedy is by no
means at an end; for the time of King Charles was
par excellence the thriving period of this variety of
drama. But with that reign came new authors and
new influences to affect this as well as other types of
the drama. It seems wiser to pause here with the
completion of the impulse which Fletcher and Mas-
singer gave to tragicomedy rather than to pass pre-
maturely on to the new problems which the new age
involved.

1 Egerton MS. 1994, pp. 224-244; Bullen, Old Plays, ii, 430.
Fleay, ii, 334, dates this play 1619-1622.

2 Warner, Catalogue of Dulwich College, 342.

3 Old Plays, ii, 417.

XVIII
LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS

jonsonand I"N 3. previous chapter, that on London life and the
fl^owTm 'later •*• comedy of manners, two varieties of realistic
comedy. comedy were distinguished : that which was content

to picture life directly, if sometimes crudely, as it ap-
peared to the contemporary observer, who was less
concerned to reprehend vice and laud virtue than to
represent things pleasingly and frankly; and secondly,
that kind of comedy which studied the world about it,
but which insisted on representing it more or less with
reference to the ancients and their usages, and with
the ever-conscious attitude of a moral censor. Such
was, in brief, the striking contrast between Middle-
tonian and Jonsonian comedy, a contrast not to be
blurred by the fact that Jonson was, for the most part,
far too good an artist to carry his theories to the ex-
cesses in practice which critics who have not studied
him are wont to declare. The bulk of Middleton's
comedies of manners range, as we have seen, between
1604 and 1613. Bartholomew Fair, 1614, is Jonson's
latest play unmistakably of the type; although the
later dramas of Jonson, shortly to claim our attention,
despite their return to the harder lines and underlying
allegory of the dramatic satires, are none the less full
of telling contemporary strokes and in essence still
of the comedy of manners. The later comedy of man-
ners, when at its best, combines the freedom and
unconsciousness of Middleton with the constructive

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 241

excellence and artistic seriousness of Jonson; though
it is not to be denied that the two contrasted modes
of viewing life persisted more or less independently '
to the end.

But before we proceed to the discussion of this stage history,
later comedy, let us return to the history of the stage, l6l*~*s-
to record in brief the more important matters between
the years 1614 and 1625. Historians of the stage note
a species of "interregnum in theatrical proceedings"
during the years 1614 and 1615. Fleay finds the rea-
sons for this in the closing of the Swan, the recent
burning of the Globe, and " the continuous quarrels of
extortionate Henslowe with his company," deterring
the best poets from production.1 He notes as further
evidence of this depression that the most active play-
wright of the moment was "insignificant Daborne,"
who, with Rossiter and others, became patentee of
the second company of the Queen's Revels in Janu-
ary, 1610, and for them composed the better known
of his two extant plays, The Christian Turned Turk.2
The correspondence of Daborne with Henslowe con-
cerning his hack work for the Princess Elizabeth's
company during several months of 1613 and 1614
affords us an interesting glimpse into the needy,
reckless, and improvident life of a minor playwright,
producing under pressure of his immediate necessities
seven plays (in whole or in part) between April of
the former year and the following March, and being
paid, for the most part, in advance before his work
was ready.8 After the rebuilding of the Globe in 1614,

1 Fleay, Stage, 253. 2 See above, i, p. 292.

3 The plays in question are Macchiavel and the Devil, The Ar-
raignment of London, The Honest Man's Fortune (according to
Fleay, i, 77), with Field, Fletcher, and Massinger, The Bellman

242 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

and the death of Henslowe, in January, 1616, dra-
matic activity revived. The King's company obtained
now the services of Field as actor and perhaps as
playwright, a circumstance which, added to the in-
vincible Burbage and to the excellences of the au-
thors, Fletcher and Massinger, enabled them easily
to maintain their primacy. The Prince's players at
the Curtain were now strengthened by the services of
Middleton. The Queen's men fared less well at the
Bull, and, on the death of their royal patron in 1619,
were succeeded there by the Revels men, shortly
to be followed by the Prince's company, now finally
removed from the old Curtain. The Palsgrave's
company played continuously during this period at
the Fortune, but their earlier plays perished when that
theater was burned in 1621. The Hope was occu-
pied jointly from 1614 to 1616 by .the Prince's and
the Lady Elizabeth's players; after the latter date an
effort was made to secure for them a better theater
by converting a private house in Blackfriars, near
Puddle Wharf, into a playhouse. This venture failed,
and the company divided, the Prince's succeeding the
Queen's at the Fortune, the Lady Elizabeth's com-
pany — after December, 1618, known as the Queen
of Bohemia's — moving to a new theater, the Cockpit
in Drury Lane. 1 Another abortive theatrical venture
of this time was the attempt of John Daniel, the mu-
sician and brother of Samuel Daniel, to establish a
troupe of actors for travel in the provinces. Daniel

of London, The Owl, The Faithful Friends, and The She Saint.
Daborne's other extant play, The Poor Man's Comfort, has already
claimed our attention above, p. 162; the correspondence men-
tioned in the text will be found in The Alleyn Papers, 48-82.
1 Fleay, Stage, 263-300.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 243

secured a patent in 1615; but the prejudices of the
provincial folk were strong.1 The mayor of Exeter,
for example, discovered that the patent empowered
the acting of plays "by children." So finding that,
save for three boys, the company was made up of
adults, he refused them permission to act under such
a license.2 We hear no more of this attempt to estab-
lish a provincial stage after 1618. The King's players
suffered an irreparable loss in the death, in March,
1619, of their great actor, Richard Burbage, cre-
ator of the most important roles of Shakespeare and
Fletcher. Burbage's mantle fell on John Lowin, and
later on Joseph Taylor, both of whom continued the
serious traditions of the elder stage.3 In May, 1622,
Sir John Ashley was appointed Master of the Revels,
succeeding Sir George Buc, now incapacitated. From
August, 1623, Sir Henry Herbert acted as Ashley's
deputy, succeeding to the office on Ashley's death in
1629. 4
A few comedies of manners remain in these later

1 Ibid. 308. 2 Ibid. 310.

3 John Lowin was born in 1576, and began acting as one of the
Earl of Worcester's players at the Rose. By 1608 he had become a
sharer in the Blackfriars theater, and, after the retirement of Hem-
ing and Condell, about 1623, the management of the King's com-
pany devolved upon him and Taylor. At the outbreak of the civil
war Lowin was keeping a tavern at Brentford, and he is said to have
died in poverty, a very old man, in 1659, or, as some say, in 1669.
Joseph Taylor was born in 1586, and became a sharer in the Globe
as early as 1607. After several changes of company, he returned
to the King's players about the time of the death of Burbage and
succeeded to most of his roles. In 1639 Taylor became "keeper
of the King's vestures" under Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the
Revels. Taylor is one of the several actors who took part in the
publication of the folio of the works of Beaumont and Fletcher in
1647. The date of Taylor's death is unknown.

4 Fleay, Stage, 310; Collier, i, 419.

244 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Late Jacobean days of King James, the work of elder men. Besides
s! Jonson and Middleton, Fletcher alone continued
active in this kind, though William Rowley bore his
part in collaboration and Webster shared in one play
of the type. Webster's partnership with Dekker in
the gross realism of Westward and Northward Hoe
has received our attention.1 Neither poet found his
4forte in productions of this kind, although Webster
with the aid of Rowley returned to the type in the
coarse but humorous underplot which gives A Cure
for a Cuckold its ribald title. Two serious stories are
involved as well in this comedy : Clare's irrational
test of her lover's devotion by her demand. that he
kill his best friend, and the interesting adventures
whereby a young gentleman, driven to desperation
and about to turn thief, is reclaimed by an unex-
pected confidence in his honor. While the hand of
Rowley is patent in the underplot, there seems no
reason to deprive Webster of a share in this excellent
comedy. With his "Duchess" in mind, the admirable
Womanliness of Annabel, the bride, alone should
settle this question; though the surer proofs by par-
allel recently advanced are heartily welcome.2 As to
Middleton, the comedies which he contributed to the
closing years of the reign of King James are, almost
to a play, foreign in scene and romantic in tone.
Indeed, it seems not unlikely that the comedies of
English scene and more strictly of manners which
are connected with his name and which fall within
this period are, every one of them, revivals of older
work.8 To this change in the character of Middle-

1 Above, i, p. 502.

2 See the discussion of this play by Stoll, Webster, 34-41.

3 Cf. A New Wonder, Anything for a Quiet Life, The Widow,

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 245

ton's work several things contributed: the collabora-
tion of Rowley, the example of Fletcher, and the
romantic trend of the age. It was in 1614 that the
union of the Lady Elizabeth's players with those of
the Prince Charles threw Rowley and Middleton
together, although they seem not to have cooperated
until two years later, when their admirable domestic
drama, A Fair Quarrel, was staged.1 Fleay assigns a
revival of 'The Old Law to much the same date; and
The Witch, More Dissemblers Besides Women, and
The Spanish Gipsy followed in the early twenties.
Of the first enough has been said; the third belongs
to the domain of tragicomedy and has already been
treated above. More Dissemblers Besides Women was More Diss
recorded as an old play in 1622. 2 Therein the Lord ^*"
Cardinal of Milan, an unctuously eloquent old pre- fore 1622.
late, felicitates himself on the possession of two
models of youthful virtue, the widowed Duchess and
his own nephew, Lactantio. The Cardinal's ideals
are shattered in the intrigue which follows, which
appears conducted with an intent fully to justify the
title. Such pathos as might attach to the wronged
maid who attends the roue Lactantio in the inevitable
disguise of a page is ruined by a grossness of speech
only too characteristically Middletonian. Among the
comedies of Middleton, none is so typical of his ad-
equacy, his mediocrity, and his careless control of
the intricacies of intrigue as this, the latest of his
many contributions to works of its class.

and The Puritan Maid. See Fleay, ii, 103, and above, i, pp. 515,
518; ii, pp. 262, 263.

1 Above, vii, 250, 251.

2 Allowed by Sir George Buc and therefore before May, 1622,
the month of his resignation.

246

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

English and
foreign setting
in later
comedy.

The scene of More Dissemblers is Milan, its gypsies
suggest a Spanish contact.1 After Wit Without Money
and 'The Night Walker, both of which must certainly
have been on the Ftage before the death of Shake-
speare, Fletcher, like Middleton, seems wholly to
have given over English scenes and settings, and to
have preferred thereafter a French or Spanish environ-
ment for comedy. Thus, The Little French Lawyer
declares its scene in its title. But The Wild Goose
Chase, The Elder Brother, and The Noble Gentleman
are likewise laid in France; while The Spanish
Curate and Rule a Wife and Have a Wife are Spanish
in scene as in source. This list might be readily in-
creased by the inclusion of Fletcherian tragicomedies
within the last five years of Fletcher's life. Oddly
enough, on the other hand, Massinger's earliest un-
aided comedies, The City Madam and A New Way
to Pay Old Debts, both of which fall within this same
period, are English in scene and character, although
his probable hand in The Little French Lawyer and
in The Spanish Curate prepares us to find his un-
aided Parliament of Love cast in France and his
Renegado based on a Spanish model. We have prac-
tically thus at the beginning of our search into the
later comedy of manners a distinction which means
far more than an accidental choice of scene. The
comedies in foreign setting shade more or less im-
perceptibly into tragicomedy and tinge their repre-
sentations of the lighter passions with the colors of
romance. The mere circumstance that a play is laid
in London, contrastedly, ties it with surer tether to
the actualities of every-day life. Whatever may have
been his earlier bias towards the realistic comedy of
1 See above, p. 218.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 247

Middleton, it was Fletcher who guided Massinger
to his true vocation in romantic drama. We shall
see that the ever vital comedy of every-day life was
carried forward in the hands of lesser men, such as
Brome, Davenport, Nabbes, and others; but that
Shirley, great romantic poet that he was, did not dis-
dain a valuable contribution to it.

And first as to the several comedies of manners in Later come-
foreign garb in which Fletcher was concerned after JT*
1618. It would be difficult to find a more thoroughly French Law-
diverting and humorous comedy than The Little
French Lawyer, even if some of its scenes are risque
to a degree. The scapegrace Dinant is both impu-
dent and inventive in his pursuit of the lady who has
been torn from him and married to an old poltroon;1
but the minor character of the title role made the
play. The little lawyer is pressed into service as a
second in a duel, and by an accident comes off suc-
cessful.2 Thereupon he becomes a fire-eater and neg-
lects his clients and their pleas until cured by being
left with his opponent on a cold morning by their
mischievous seconds without either weapons or doub-
lets. The little French lawyer is a delightfully comical
personage. Scarcely less excellent in its kind is the TheWM
famous comedy of The Wild Goose Chase, the clever ^"j^,. '
invention of Fletcher alone. Koeppel has called at-
tention to the interesting parallel between the relation
of Mirabel and Oriana in this play and Don Juan and
Donna Elvira in Scribe's libretto of Don Giovanni.9

1 This main plot, as already noted, is derived from the picaresque
novel, Guzman de Alfarache.

2 It is difficult to follow Koeppel, i, 61, in the Shakespearean
parallel which he finds for this duel.

3 Ibid, i, 103. Farquhar gave this comedy a new lease of life
in his version, The Inconstant.

248 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Unusual coarseness of speech about women and
brutality of conduct towards them mark this play,
but these are, unhappily, features recurrent especially
in the comedies of Fletcher. A less boisterous comedy
and one of higher type is The Spanish Curate, already
mentioned above with The Maid in the Mill which
Fletcher wrote with the aid of William Rowley soon
after. Both plays draw on the same translated Span-
ish source.1 Though an inferior play, The Maid is
of much the type of The Curate; and both comedies,
like so many in which Fletcher was concerned, stand
between tragicomedy and comedy pure and simple.
ukaWije In Rule a Wije and Have a Wije we return to pure

iit 1624" comedy of manners while still retaining touch with
the literature of Spain. The minor plot tells how a
penniless woman-in-waiting borrows house and ser-
vants of her mistress, and pretends to be a lady of for-
tune in order to win for her husband a gentleman
adventurer who likewise pretends wealth, but is as
penniless as herself. These personages are borrowed,
even to their names, from El Casamiento Enganoso,
the eleventh of the Novelas Exemplares of Cervantes.
But the main plot, which this serves only to illustrate,
describes how a wealthy lady, Margarita, desirous of
finding a complaisant husband that she may enjoy
a larger freedom than is hers as a maid, marries
young Leon, who has been recommended to her by
her confidant as a suitable man of straw. To her sur-
prise, however, she soon finds that Leon is no milk-
sop, but a capable and masterly man, who after a
spirited struggle gains the upper hand, upholding
all his rights, besides winning the respect and love of
Margarita in the process. This capital plot has not

1 Above, p. 210.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 249

been traced, although it seems suggested by the
familiar motive of the taming of a shrew, as the in-
verted story of "the tamer tamed" had been sug-
gested to Fletcher some years before.1 It has also
been observed that Fletcher's story of Margarita
and Leon is precisely that of Jonson's Morose and
his "silent woman," inverted as to sex. The parallel
is certainly interesting.2 The Elder Brother has been The Elder
identified by Fleay with The Orator or the Noble ^ "/te
Choice, one of the Warburton manuscripts, and con- l6z6-
sequently one of the many plays of Fletcher revised
by Massinger.3 The story relates how Charles, the
elder brother, wholly given over to melancholy and
his books, is awakened by the charm of the society
of a young woman who had been originally destined
for him but was now betrothed to Eustace, his
worldly younger brother; and how, in the upshot,
Charles regained his mistress. No source has been
determined for this pleasing comedy, which is full
of fine thoughts and unusually well written even for
Fletcher and Massinger. Koeppel, ever fertile in the
discovery of likenesses, none the less suggests the
classical parallel of Cimon transformed from a fool
to a man by the power of beauty. He also calls atten-
tion to a singular resemblance between this story
and that of one of the comedies of Calderon, De Una
Causa Dos Efectos, and surmises a possible common
source.4 With The Noble Gentleman, which Fleay
thinks was left unfinished by Fletcher, but which

1 See above, i, p. 341. 2 Koeppel, i, 115-117.

8 Fleay, i, 228. Oliphant dates the first version of this play 1614;
its revision, after 1626.

4 Koeppel, i, 120, quoting Weber, who first noted this resem-
blance.

250

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

The Noble
Gentleman, re-
vised c. 1626.

Types in the
personages of
Fletcher's
comedies.

Oliphant believes to have been an early venture of
both Beaumont and Fletcher revised by Massinger,
we conclude the enumeration of the comedies of
manners in which Fletcher had a hand.1 The Noble
Gentleman turns in its main story on a gentleman's
desire to return to country life, with the plots put
upon him by his wife and her friends to retain
him at court. It is, all considered, an inferior and
purposeless production, little improved by the va-
garies of a madman apparently borrowed from the
similar personage of The Nice Valor.

Many allusions have already been made to the types
of character towards which the personages of Fletcher
are apt to tend, and the usual list of these personages
in tragicomedy has been set forth with the necessary
warning that, when all has been said, there remains
a truly remarkable diversity amongst even the most
typical of Fletcher's characters.2 But the trend to-
wards types is by no means confined to Fletcherian
tragicomedy. The comedies developed certain per-
sonages of equally typical distinctness, although in no
single case can it be said that Fletcher was the first
to bring any one of these types upon the stage. In an
excellent recent monograph on the dramatic art of
Fletcher, his types in comedy are distinguished under
the headings of "the clever maiden in love, the sen-
timental hero, the clever scapegrace, and the brave
soldier." 3 The sentimental hero is not only the least
interesting, but likewise the least distinctively Fletch-
erian. The brave soldier is common to every form of

1 Fleay, i, 222; Oliphant, xv, 340.

2 Above, pp. 195, 197.

8 John Fletcher, a Study in Dramatic Method, by O. L. Hatcher,
1905, pp. 70-73.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 251

Fletcher's plays. "The merry, resourceful maiden
who can at all times use her head to help her heart,
and who welcomes a jest even at her lover's expense,"
is distinctively Fletcher's; though both Field and Day
rejoice in her wit and inventiveness, and her original
is at least as old as Rosalind, if not far older. Some
of Fletcher's women of this type are Belvedere in
Women Pleased, Livia in The Woman's Prize, and,
above all, Mary in Monsieur Thomas. On the other
hand, the "disconsolate maidens who when fortune
goes against their love, accept it meekly without
thought of resistance," are regarded as peculiarly the
creation of Beaumont.1 As to the clever scapegrace,
-Thomas in Monsieur Thomas, Valentine in Wit
Without Money, and many more, — Fletcher assur-
edly borrowed him of Middleton, in whose hands he
had already reached that perfection which unaffected
realism can alone impart. Dryden claimed for
Fletcher, as is well known, that he "understood and
imitated the conversation of gentlemen much better"
than did Shakespeare.2 Allowing for the fact that the His conven-
gentleman of Fletcher was nearly a generation nearer tl(
to the gentleman of the Restoration than were the
characters of Shakespeare, the critic's remark was
doubtless prompted alike by Fletcher's closer realism
in minor detail to the conventional manners of his
rime and by his failure to paint his portraits in those
larger and imperishable lines which endure to all
time. Of Fletcher's gentlemen we cannot but feel,
as of those of Vandyke, his later contemporary: they
are indubitably portraits, their originals must have sat
to the artist; but all have the same touch, the man-

1 Ibid. 71.

2 Of Dramatic Poesy, Scott-Saintsbury, Dryden, xv, 346.

252

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Massinger's
comedies of
London life:
The City
Madam, 1619.

nerism, albeit a pleasing one, of their author. And
yet it is not fair to Fletcher to say that he was either
uninterested or unsuccessful in the representation of
common folk on the stage. When we consider how
invariably it was his custom to add the low comedy
figures to the characters already existing in his
sources, how the former were thus nearly always in-
vented, and how diverse they really are, none can
deny the range and inventiveness of the comedy fig-
ures of Fletcher, readiest, easiest, and most uniformly
capable master of his craft.

It has already been intimated that Massinger, early
in his career, contributed to the stage of his time two
comedies of London life. These are The City Madam
and A New Way to Pay Old Debts, both of them
among the most admirable productions of their type.
The City Madam was licensed in 1632; but Fleay has
assigned several good reasons for placing this comedy
as early as ibiQ.1 The material of this play is much
that of Eastward Hoe: the rich city merchant, his
foolish wife and daughters, fashion struck, their
suitors, the attendant apprentices; but the plot takes
a wholly different course, and one character, that of
Luke Frugal, is developed to a degree and fullness
equally typical of Massinger and unusual in the com-
edy of his day. Luke has been a spendthrift, and,
redeemed from the debtors' prison by his rich younger
brother, the merchant, Sir John Frugal, is treated as a
menial in the household by the merchant's haughty
wife and pert daughters. Alike to cure his extravagant
family and to test his brother, whose conduct is sus-
piciously meek and exemplary, Sir John pretends to

1 Fleay, i, 225-227, and see Ward, iii, 34, who upholds Massinger's
authorship despite Fleav's doubts.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 253

retire to a monastery and make over his wealth to
Luke; but returns disguised as an Indian from Vir-
ginia, assigned to the wardship of Luke. Luke proves
in every way unworthy of his trust. He deceives and
sends to jail the associates of his earlier wild life, ruins
several of Sir John's debtors, and is about to close
with a proposal of the supposed Indian to rid him-
self of the charge of supporting Lady Frugal and her
daughters by transporting them to Virginia, when
Sir John discloses himself. Whether for character,
admirably sustained and distinguished, for witty and
natural dialogue, or for clever construction, this com-
edy leaves little to be desired; and it is scarcely bet-
tered in the more widely known A New Way to Pay
Old Debts, certainly on the stage by 1625.* This last A New Way
is by all odds the most popular of Massinger's plays. 0^1625.
It has held the stage practically without interruption
since Garrick's revival of it in 1745, and has deserved
its reputation. Here once more we meet with a per-
sonage, in the famous Sir Giles Overreach, who rises
in his colossal greed and unrestrained violence through
a series of situations of consummate dramatic con-
ception to a dignity beyond the usual range of com-
edy. Nor is Welborn, his foil, though a commoner
type, less well conceived. It has been well said that
A New Way to Pay Old Debts owes its success no less
to its effective dramatic conception than to "a strong
didactic element, clothed in rhetoric of a very striking
kind." 2 Herein, in short, lies the reason for the lon-

1 Fleay places the first performance of A New Wayzt 1622;
Boyle at 1625. I cannot find anything more of Fletcher in it than
might have been caught by a collaborator writing for the nonce
by himself.

2 Ward, in, 21-22.

254

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Massinger's
combination
of Middle-
tonian and
Jonsonian
comedy.

Massinger's
comedies on
foreign themes ;
The Parlia-
ment of Love,
1624.

gevity of Massinger's comedy on the stage, when nei-
ther A Trick to Catch the Old One, possibly the play
which suggested Massinger's, nor Eastward Hoe with
its many merits could hold its own.1 In A New Way,
too, is illustrated that union of the two varieties of
the earlier comedies of manners already distinguished,
Middleton's realistic play of contemporary life and
Jonson's didactic and constructively more perfect
comedy of humors. In this comedy and in The City
Madam we have the gayety, the lightness, the natural
movement and obvious realism of Middleton; but \ve
find in them likewise an underlying gravity and moral
consciousness, and a constructiveness and rhetorical
excellence which, taken together, constitute much of
Jonson's generous contribution to English comedy.
Massinger in these two comedies of contemporary
English life presents to us a higher social grade than
the more strictly bourgeois types of Jonson's com-
edies or of Middleton in the latter's plays of London
life; and if the Jonsonian method of building up a
character from a single trait is patent in the names of
Massinger's dramatis personae, — Tradewell, a mer-
chant, Holdfast, a steward, Stargaze, an astrologer,
Order, Amble, Furnace, and Watchall, servants to
Lady Allworth, — the author confines this method for
the most part to his minor personages, and contrives
to produce in his chief characters that impression of
personality which the recognition of human beings
as creatures of mixed motives can alone effect.

Two other comedies of Massinger exhibit, with
greater or less clearness, the effects of his association
with Fletcher in their somewhat conventional set-
ting and foreign scene and in a certain tinge of the

1 Koeppel, ii, 138.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 255

romantic which enters into plot and character alike.
The Parliament of Love, acted in 1624, has come
down to us in an imperfect state, and is a disappoint-
ing performance, combining several familiar situa-
tions, such as the exhortation of an incensed mis-
tress to her lover to kill his best friend, a repetition of
the device by which Helena wins back her husband,
Bertram, in All's Well, and the like. The extraordi-
narily coarse underplot sinks the whole product to
the level of a mere comedy of manners; and no part,
albeit the scene is laid in the court of Charles VII of
France, is more disappointing than the love court,
which has nothing in common with the practices of
the middle ages on which the notion is based.1 The The Guard-
Guardian, staged in 1633, is equally complex and a tan' l633'
far abler production. Here the scene is laid in Italy,
but the intrigue, although not definitely traced to a
source, is Spanish in character and worked out in a
manner worthy of the constructive talents of Lope de
Vega himself. A gentleman banished and become a
benevolent outlaw, pardoned in the end by the return
of his supposed victim; love at cross purposes, with
the entanglement of an elopement in which a rival
carries off the lady and the would-be bridegroom is
fain to content himself with my lady's maid; a hus-
band unexpectedly returned, to find his wife arrayed
to meet a lover, with her subterfuges to escape ven-
geance,— such is the trite romantic material of which
this comedy is constructed. But all is combined so
cleverly as to give an effect entirely novel and to pro-
duce from its intentional humor and extravagance a
result wide of the seriousness of tragicomedy. The

1 Koeppel, ii, 107, refers us for the original idea of this play to
Martial d'Auvergne, Aresta Amorum, 1555.

256 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

minor personage who gives title to the play, the hu-
morous and coarse-spoken Guazzo, is not to be
recommended on the score of his opinions or for his
ideals of life, though by no means the worst offender
of the play in this respect. The Guardian, because of
this and because of a certain flippancy of tone which
calls forth from Koeppel the remark that this play
would offer an excellent plot for an opera bouffe,
contrasts notably with the romantic refinement of
The Great Duke of Florence, not to mention the more
serious moods of plays like The Renegado, and thus
offers us an obvious reason for including these last
among tragicomedies while denying such a place to
the two kindred dramas just described.

Daubridgcourt Among the many comedies of manners by minor
Hat* Bttr-p#, authors which cluster in the latter years of the reign of
i6!8. King James, two especially mark the varying border-

line which lies between true drama and work of other
intent assuming the dramatic form. Daubridgcourt
Belchier was a gentleman of good family and an Ox-
ford man resident, apparently in some military capa-
city, at Utrecht.1 There he wrote his one play, pub-
lished in London under the title Hans Beer-Pot, his
Invisible Comedy of See Me and See Me Not, "acted
in the Low Countries by an honest company of Health
Drinkers." This production is accurately described
by the author as "nor comedy nor tragedy, as wanting
first the just number of speakers; secondarily, those
parts or acts it should have." It consists of a series
of dialogues between one Harmant, a country gentle-
man, and his wife, Hans, their servant, and several

1 See the dedication of this play to "Sir John Ogle, Collonell
of our regiment of foot under the Lords the Estates generall of the
United Provinces."

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 257

personages who frequent the tavern of Josske Flutter-
kin. The talk is of good fellowship and martial con-
duct, and shows a soldier's interest in contemporary
events. It is difficult to believe this little dialogue with
its English tone and patriotic passages a translation
from the Dutch, as it is usually described.1 Equally TWO wise
removed from the true drama is Two Wise Men and M<n> l6'9"
the Rest Fools, " a comical moral censuring the follies
of the age, as it hath been divers times acted, Anno
1619." This is little more than a series of dialogues
between various persons, — Proberio, Simple, Busa-
trato, and the like, to the number of some thirty, —
satirically representing types of the age and contain-
ing little or no action. Some of the personages are
cleverly conceived and the dialogue is often exceed-
ingly witty.2 Fleay attempts to show that this play
was written chiefly to satirize Anthony Munday, who,
however, so far as we know, seems by 1619 to have
retired from active authorship into his hereditary
trade of draper.3 Collier notes the epilogue of this
play as "the most recent instance" of a prayer offered
up by the actors for the sovereign.4 This cannot be
regarded as anything but an accidental recurrence to
a custom obsolete in the time of James for at least a
generation.

Two new names first appear among dramatists in
the early twenties. These are Thomas May, already

1 Note the tone of the passages on Elizabeth and her great sea-
captains, 64 and G4 verso.

2 See, especially, the character of the Puritan wife who holds the
birch of correction for her husband in her hand while reading her
Bible.

* Fleay, ii, 333, and Dictionary of National Biography, xxxix,

293-

* Collier, iii, 445.

258 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

mentioned above for his honorable contributions to
English tragedy on Roman history, and for his suc-
cessful tragicomedy, The Heir; 1 and Robert Daven-
port, memorable, if for no other work, for his powerful
May's The tragedy, King John and Matilda.2 May's only comedy
old couple, is The Qld couple, which, although not printed until
1658, Fleay regards as having preceded The Heir,
which was acted in 1620. Additional reason for this
view is to be found in the nature of this comedy, which
exhibits a simplicity and want of acquaintance with
the stage on its practical side, neither of which is
characteristic of the more imitative Heir. The Old
Couple is originally conceived as to plot and suggests
acquaintance with the methods of Jonson. The
Lady Covet, described as "at least four score," and
Sir Argent Scrape, "this year four score and fifteen,"
both of them decrepit and wheeled about in chairs by
their servants, are conceived as about to solemnize a
marriage, each hoping to outlive the other and gain
the other's wealth. Sir Argent has a nephew, Eugeny,
in hiding for the supposed murder of Scudamore, who
has been cheated out of his manor by the Lady Covet,
and now lives disguised as her chaplain. Scudamore
induces the Lady to make over her property to trustees
that it may be kept out of Argent's control when they
shall be married, and then informs Argent of her act,
thus breaking off the match. Argent plots to have
Eugeny executed for the murder of Scudamore that
he may enjoy the entail of his nephew's estate. In the
end both young men regain their estates and inciden-
tally their sweethearts.3 The theme, a regeneration

1 Above, pp. 43-45, 339.

2 Above, p. 304.

3 Why May should have chosen the name Euphues for minor

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 259

from avarice, is further illustrated by the reclaiming
of miserly Earthworm from niggardliness by his vir-
tuous son. This play is worthy of more attention than
it has received, less for its merit, though that is not
inconsiderable, than for its originality of theme and
plan. The old couple, despite their descriptive names,
are not altogether mere abstractions, although the
moral intent is unmistakable.

Of the life of Robert Davenport next to nothing is Robert
known; even the usual dedications to persons of note r^'c,1
are wanting in his plays to establish his relations of Nightcap
patronage or friendship, and his " divine and moral "
poems afford no help.1 Davenport is the author of
two extant comedies both of which were in all like-
lihood on the stage before the accession of King
Charles. The City Nightcap, licensed by Herbert
in 1624, partakes somewhat of the nature of tragi-
comedy, the scene being laid in Italy and some of its
adventures involving more or less serious emotions.
A New Trick to Cheat the Devil, contrastedly tends
towards mere farce and is, in its essence, a comedy of
London manners. Both are full of event and much
elaborated. The City Nightcap is constructed on the
basis of the contrasted situations of a true woman
foully maligned by her jealous lord and a false woman
absurdly trusted by a foolish husband. The husband
of Abstimia, the first of these, sets his friend to try
his wife, and failing thus to unsettle her constancy,
suborns slaves as witnesses to swear that she is false.

characters, a young gentleman in The Old Couple, an old lord in
The Heir, it would be difficult to explain.

1 For Davenport's King "John and Matilda, see p. 304. See, also,
the Introduction to Davenport's Works by Bullen, Old English
Plays, n. s. iii.

260 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

The second husband is over-confident, but is fooled
by his wife, though in the end he convicts her of her
wantonness by pretending to be her confessor, and
she is banished to a convent. After repentance and
much ingeniously devised vicissitude, the husband
of Abstimia, false, jealously infatuated, and brutal
though he has been, regains his wife and, after the
easy manner of tragicomedy, is forgiven. The story
of Abstimia is plainly that of the Curious Impertinent
in Don Quixote, already utilized, as we have seen,
in more than one English play before this. On the
other hand, much of the intrigue of the wanton wife
harks back to the Decameron, though it may well be
questioned in both cases (considering Davenport's
making over of old dramatic material in his King
John) whether both plots were not borrowed direct
from intervening English plays.1 Abstimia in the
brothel scenes seems clearly suggested by the similar
plight of Marina in Pericles.2 Indeed, it might be dif-
ficult to find a plainer example of the later composite
art of dramatic reconstruction than is offered by this
comedy, though it is neither ill-conceived nor care-
A New Trick lessly wrought out. A New Trick to Cheat the Devil
/rjlr! 1639. presents us once more to familiar and typical per-
sonages: a lord and a poor gentleman both suitors
to a fair maid, a foolish mother ambitious of station,
a prudent, if somewhat hen-pecked, husband. But
the material is ingeniously handled and in a novel
way. Anne, the betrothed of Slightall, is won by her
mother to entertain the suit of Lord Skales. Slightall
turns spendthrift in his disappointment and finally
runs mad. He is induced to play Faustus to the

1 For the source, see Decameron, vii, 7.

2 The City Nightcap, iv, i ; Pericles, IV, ii.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 261

Mephistopheles of Changeable, Anne's father, making
in his madness the usual bond rendering his soul to
damnation on the complete payment, with means
supplied by the devil, of all his debts. In the event,
Changeable succeeds in getting Anne married to her
old lover by the absurd device of feigning a marriage
for him with a she-devil. The infernal bond is kept in
the circumstance that Slightall has not, and cannot,
satisfy Changeable, who has paid his son-in-law's
debts. The diverting underplot of the friar who con-
jures for a supper is nearer in form to the Scottish
poem, The Freires of Berwick (published in Scotland
in editions of 1603 and 1622), than the similar story in
The History of Friar Bacon.1 Both of these comedies
of Davenport are well written if over-elaborated, and
both are far from unambitious efforts at the original
use of old material. Davenport tries hard, but he is
not quite a poet; he never labors so unsuccessfully as
when he attempts to write fine lines. On the other
hand, he is far from devoid of a certain dramatic
aptitude which must have given to his personages
both life and success on the stage.2

Several non-extant plays of these years, the titles of Minor non
which suggest their probable character as comedies of of^anne
manners, are A Fault in Friendship, 1623, recorded

as by Brome and Ben Jonson, Junior, who died, a

J

1 See Ker's note on this subject in Bullen's Old P}jys, Daven-

P°rt, 337-340.

2 Non-extant plays recorded as Davenport's are The Fatal Bro-
thers and The Politic Queen or Murder will Out, registered both of
them in 1660; and A Fool and her Maidenhead Soon Parted, regis-
tered in 1663. Doubtless only the last was of comedy type. Dav-
enport collaborated with Thomas Drue, Fleay surmises, c. 1622
(i, 105), in The Woman's Mistaken, registered in 1653. For The
Bloody Banquet of these two authors, see above, i, p. 594.

262 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

son unworthy his great father, in 1635; The Crafty
Merchant, by William Bower, licensed in the same
year; The Madcap, "by Barnes" (perhaps not the
Barnabe Barnes, author of The Devil's Charter), and
The Way to Content All Ladies or How a Man May
Please His Wife, by Gunnell, both licensed in 1624;
A Fool and Her Maidenhead Soon Parted, by Daven-
port, and The Woman s Mistaken, by Davenport and
Drue, both probably already acted by 1625. A com-
edy called The Widow's Prize, by William Sampson,
"which, containing much abusive matter, was allowed
by me on condition that my reformations were ob-
served," says Herbert, belongs likewise to this year.1
A manuscript of this comedy fell victim to the stupid
Warburton and his active cook.

Later come- Among the older writers who had contributed to
wo^uS'wa- tne comedy of the time, Heywood, William Rowley,
liam Rowley. and JOnson survived into the reign of the new king,
and Middleton died in the very year of the accession
of King Charles. Of Heywood's Captives and his
English Traveller, both of them contributions to the
domestic drama, we have already heard.2 They be-
long to an older type that still felt the influence of the
Roman comedians strong upon them. Heywood's
Lancashire Witches, 1633, in which he was assisted
or revised by Brome, has also claimed the modicum
of attention due its mediocre merits.3 To the same
year belonged two lost plays of Heywood and Brome,
The Apprentices' Prize and The Life and Death of
Sir Martin Skink, the former of which may have
belonged to the general class of comedies discussed
in this chapter, while the latter was doubtless of close

1 Halliwell-Phillipps, Dictionary, 272.

2 Above, i, pp. 337, 352. 3 Cf. above, i, pp. 363, 364.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 263

kindred. A Maidenhead Well Lost is certainly of this
class, and an inferior production of offensive plot.
The remainder of the later plays of Heywood are
unmistakably romantic, an observation equally ap-
plicable to the work of William Rowley save for the
comedies of manners that he wrote in conjunction
with Middleton and the one late comedy, The New The New w»n-
Wonder or a Woman Never Vexed, published in 1632. ""' '
It is not impossible, as has been suggested, that this
comedy was Rowley's working over of older material
originally Heywood's.1 Whatever the case, The New
Wonder is an exceptionally pleasing and vigorous
example of the older comedy of London life which
finds its basis in the biographical particulars of the
career of one of the city's worthies. Herein is told the
story of Sir Stephen Foster, sometime lord mayor,
whom the charitable favor of a compassionate widow
took from the counter and selected the partner of her
favor and her fortunes. This comedy is memorable
not only as a favorable example of the broad, kindly,
and virile dramatic stroke of William Rowley, but as
the latest specimen of a variety of the drama of Lon-
don life which was superseded by the more boisterous
realism of Brome and Shirley's more refined comedy
of fashionable life. Whether The Knave in Print
and The Fool without Book, registered by Moseley
as Rowley's with The Nonesuch and Four Honored
Loves, belonged, any of them, to this or other types
of drama, must remain beyond discovery.2

Ben Jonson had been silent to the popular stage
since the unsuccessful performance of The Devil is

1 Fleay, if, 102. For A Match at Midnight, believed by some to
be in part Rowley's, see above, i, p. 515.

2 Fleay, ii, 87 and 107.

264

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

The last
dramas of
Jonson :

The Staple of
News, 1625;

an Ass in the year of the death of Shakespeare. He
had been much occupied, as we have seen, mean-
while, with the composition of masques for the court
in which, so long as King James lived, he maintained
the premier position despite his standing quarrel with
Inigo Jones. In 1623 a fire destroyed the library of
Jonson, and in it may have perished manuscripts of
dramas not only his own.1 In 1625 Jonson's unfail-
ing patron, the king, died, and in February of the
next year was acted for the first time The Staple of
News. In this comedy is told how old Pennyboy,
giving himself out for dead, tests the conduct of his
spendthrift son and usurious brother towards the
Lady Pecunia, "a rich ward of the mines," forgiv-
ing the son in the end for his help in frustrating the
villainy of Picklock, a knavish lawyer, and recovering
his brother from his usurious distemper. The Lady
Pecunia is surrounded by an appropriately named
group of abstractions, among them Mortgage, her
nurse, Statute and Band, her ladies-in-waiting, and
Wax, her chambermaid; and these are provided with
a foil in a group of "jeerers," among them Almanac,
doctor of physics, Shunfield, a sea-captain, and Mad-
rigal, a poetaster. The Staple of News — doubtless
a wild enough flight of the imagination for its day —
is an office for the gathering and promulgation of
news carried on by one Cymbal and offering abundant
opportunity for satire on existing absurdities among
newsmongers. The whole office appropriately col-
lapses on the removal of the patronage of the Lady

1 See Fleay, i, 351, who thinks that the dispersion of fragments
of Jonson's manuscripts may account for the appearance of Jon-
sonian bits of dialogue about this time in plays of Fletcher and
Middleton.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 265

Pecunia. Suggestion of the general theme of this
comedy has been found in the Plutus of Aristophanes;
and the extravagant scene in which the mad usurer
tries his own dogs by form of law is taken from The
Wasps, while the reported death and disguise of a
father to test his son's conduct is paralleled in The
London Prodigal and in several other comedies.1
But the personages of Jonson's play, each constructed
on a basic characteristic or "humor," the over-in-
genious plot, the caustic satirical dialogue, these
things, which are the real constituents of the comedy,
are characteristically Jonson's own. The Staple of its running
News is provided not only with an Induction, but meD^and""1
with what the author calls "Intermeans" running allegory,
between the acts and consisting of a dialogue in com-
mentary on the conduct of the play by personages
such as Censure, Mirth, Expectation, and Tattle,
here conceived as a bevy of "gentlewomen lady-like
attired," seated on the stage, and occupying it during
the action. Nothing could have been dearer to the
heart of Jonson than such a running comment on the
course of his own play. And many of his earlier plays,
it will be remembered, provide such comment in
various degrees of concealment. On the other hand,
nothing could be conceived more absolutely destruc-
tive to that illusion of real life which is the end and
aim of histrionic art, unless it be the hard and ingen-
ious allegory that stiffens these scenes into a series of
groups of automata and carries us back to methods
prevailing in medieval drama.

In The New Inn or the Light Heart, "never acted," The New inn,
the title informs us, "but most negligently played f 19'

1 Koeppel, i, 1 6, where other "sources" are chronicled. Cf.
also, the similar plot of The City Madam, above, p. 252.

266 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

by some of the King's servants and most squeamishly
beheld and censured by others the King's subjects"
in 1629, the old poet seems honestly to have tried to
escape from the hardening of the old humors into
allegory. This comedy in its lost children and dis-
guised parents shows once more the root of Jon-
son's art in the classics. And although an episode is
paralleled in Middleton's comedy, The Widow, in
which Jonson, as we have seen, was thought to have
had a part, the plot in general is Jonson's own inven-
tion.1 Although a somewhat more interesting play
than The Staple, we cannot feel that "the King's
subjects" were far from wrong in their "censure"
The Magnetic of The New Inn. The Magnetic Lady or Humors
Reconciled was Jonson's last effort to recover his long-
lost popularity on the public stage. This comedy
relapses once more into ingenious allegory and is pro- ;
vided with a chorus consisting of an Induction and a
series of "Intermeans" in which figure one Damplay,
an ignoramus, and a notably clever boy who explains
and justifies Jonson's stagecraft at every point. It
is from this knowing youth that we learn that "The
author beginning his studies of this kind with Every
Man in his Humor; and after, Every Man out of his
Humor; and since, continuing in all his plays,
especially those of the comic thread, whereof The
New Inn was the last, some recent humors still, or
manners of men, that went along with the times;
finding himself now near the close or shutting up of
his circle, hath fancied to himself, in idea, this Mag-
netic Mistress: a lady, a brave bountiful housekeeper,
and a virtuous widow; who having a young niece,
ripe for man, and marriageable, he makes that his
1 Above, p. 512.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 267

center attractive, to draw thither a diversity of guests,
all persons of different humors to make up his peri-
meter. And this he hath called Humors Reconciled"
Thus persistent in his theories was the veteran drama-
tist to the last. But sadder than the decaying powers
and relapses into outworn methods is the bitter and
futile personal satire which pervades these later plays.
The gibbeting of his arch enemy Inigo had become
a fixed idea in the old poet's mind, to which he recurs
again and again. Jonson concluded his career as a
dramatist with a revision of an older play, The Tale
of a Tub, acted in 1634, in which, under the character
In-and-in Medlay, he delivered his final cut at his
foe.1 There are passages of merit and flashes of the
old power in every one of these latest comedies of
Jonson. And yet to call them "Jonson's dotages,"
as did Dryden, is only a harsh way of putting what
after all is no less than the truth. Only an honest
esteem for the genuine greatness of the Jonson that
had been can reconcile even the robustest appetite
to a reperusal of these comedies.

Jonson's return to the popular stage was coincident Last days of
with his latter days of poverty and disease. Attacked 1^-^oa'
with the palsy and with dropsy, he spent some of these
last years bedridden. In 1628 Jonson had succeeded
Middleton as chronologer to the city of London, a
post to which was attached a yearly stipend of a hun-
dred nobles. Nor was King Charles wholly forgetful
of his father's old poet, sending him a gift of a hun-
dred pounds in his sickness of 1629 and later raising
his laureate's allowance from a hundred marks to as
many pounds. Jonson had been granted a reversion

1 For a fuller account of this comedy, which seems more wisely
regarded an earlier play, see above, i, p. 326.

268

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Jonson's great
influence on
his immediate
contempora-
ries.

of the office of Master of the Revels as far back as
1621; but an earlier reversion in favor of Sir John
Astley took precedence, and on Astley's death his
deputy, Sir Henry Herbert, succeeded to the full
emoluments of an office the duties of which he had
long exercised, and Jonson was barred. In 1631, too,
Jonson lost his post as city chronologer, and his life
was embittered by his inveterate quarrel with Inigo
Jones. Jonson died August 6, 1637, and was buried
in Westminster Abbey. In the following year a col-
lection of thirty elegies appeared, entitled Jonsonus
Virbius, to which nearly all the leading poets of the
day contributed, while in 1640 was published the
second collective folio edition of his works.

Again and again in these pages has attention been
called to the powerful influence of Jonson on the liter-
ature of his day. His personal relations extended to
nearly every poet of his time, and his example inevit-
ably begot discipleship or active criticism and opposi-
tion. No one could remain indifferent to the literary
arbiter of the age when that arbiter was neither modest
nor silent. Munday and Daniel had for years been
the butts of Jonson's ridicule; Dekker and Marston
had satirized him and been satirized by him in turn.
Chapman, Middleton, and Fletcher — perhaps Shake-
speare, too — had written plays with him;1 Beaumont
began by frankly imitating, as did others, Jonson's
comedy of humors; while May and Richards as
frankly followed Jonson's lead in English tragedy

1 Cf. Se janus, "To the Reader," where the author speaks of this
tragedy as originally written with the aid of "a second pen," and
how he has chosen rather "to put weaker" work of his own "than
to defraud so happy a genius of his right by my loathed usurpa-
tions."

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 269

on Roman historical themes. Among the younger
wits and poets, several were proud to call themselves
the "sons of Ben," as did Herrick and Carew among
the lyrists and Randolph and Cartwright among the
makers of plays. But though the influence of Jonson
was potent through his successes at court on the
gentlemen writers, who permitted none other than
Jonson to popularize the frigidity of their tragedy
and the repetitious classicism of their lighter produc-
tions for the popular stage, Jonson was not without a
powerful influence on more popular writers as well.
Jonson had educated Field, it will be remembered ;
and now the old broken poet, having nothing to leave
his devoted body-servant, Richard Brome, imparted
to him some learning and instructed the worthy man
in the art of making plays.1 Three sizable volumes
of Brome's dramatic works attest the success of this
novel experiment. Brome remained faithfully in ser-
vice until his master's death, and ever after revered
his memory. It was Brome's association with Jonson
that made him; but Dekker, too, addressed him fa-
miliarly as his "son," and appears to have imparted
to him some of his easy humor, although no scruple
of Dekker's subtler gift, that of poetry, is discoverable
in the verses of Brome.

A non-extant comedy, entitled A Fault in Friend- Richard
ship, licensed in 1623 as "by Brome and young f
Jonson," marks the earliest trace of the dramatic Herwork
authorship of Brome.2 The association is significant.

1 As to this relationship, see the lines of Jonson, "To my old
servant and (by his continued virtue) my loving friend fhe author
of this work, Mr. Richard Brome," prefixed to The Northern Lass,
printed in 1632. Works of Brome, ed. 1873, iii, p. ix.

2 Other non-extant plays of Brome are Christianetta, The Jewish

270 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

The extant plays of Brome, which are fifteen in num-
ber, range in point of time from the late twenties to
1640. Brome is spoken of as dead in 1653 by the
publisher of his Five New Plays.1 Brome enjoyed a
considerable success in his day, and from an amus-
ing deprecatory self-consciousness which impelled
him often to allude to himself in his works, has left
us a pleasing image of one who considered himself,
when all had been said, something of an intruder in
the realms of Parnassus. This attitude is well illus-
trated in the Prologue to The Antipodes, in which,
after alluding to the fashion of the moment to run
only to such plays as "carry state in scene magnificent
and language high, and clothes worth all the rest,"
Brome claims only an endeavor " to keep the weakest
branch o' th' stage alive," and then proceeds to justify
the use of "low and homebred subjects," concluding,

"See yet those glorious plays, and let their sight
Your admiration move, these your delight." 2

The City wit, Save for 3. few tragicomedies in which Brome at-
tempts to follow in the wake of Fletcher, works that
will claim our later attention, the term "low and
homebred" precisely describes the scenes and the
personages of Brome.3 In The City Wit or Woman
Wears the Breeches, a young citizen almost bankrupt
is driven by the ingratitude of so-called friends to seek
revenge and the collection of his just debts by trickery
and disguise. He impersonates successively a doctor,

Gentleman, The Lovesick Maid, Wit in a Madness, The Life and
Death of Martin Skink, and The Apprentices' Prize. On all of these,
see Ward in the Dictionary of National Biography, vi, 397.

1 " To the Readers," signed A. Brome.

2 Works of Brome, iii, 230.
s Below, pp. 336-338.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 271

a court messenger, a lame soldier (favorite low com-
edy figure of the time), and a dancer, and "gulls" his
false friends and relations, discovering even in his
wife a tendency to go astray. This excessive number
of disguises and the denouement, for a parallel to
which the reader should compare Chapman's Beg-
gar of Alexandria, suggest early work and a study
of the preceding drama. The underplot presents
several lively characters of low comedy, among them
Sneakup's talkative and scolding wife. The plotting
is undeniably clever, and the dialogue, as commonly
in Brome's comedies, in prose and exceedingly out-
spoken and coarse. The New Academy or New Ex-
change, of uncertain date, turns on the eccentric con-
duct of one Matchil, who marries his maid and drives
his children out of doors. The "Academy" is a
school of dancing, deportment, and worse, which their
worthless uncle tries to set up with the daughter and
niece of Matchil. An uxorious citizen, intriguing wife,
doting mother, and foolish youth, with many more,
complete the familiar figures of the scene. In The The Northern
Northern Lass, printed in 1632, Brome rose some- "' ' 32'
what above the level of his other work. Constance, the
Northern lass (who speaks, by the way, in a species of
Yorkshire dialect), has become honestly infatuated
with a gentleman named Luckless, who had offered
himself, half in jest, to her uncle and in her presence,
as a fit husband for her. She follows him to London
to find him about to be married to a widow. In the
midst of an intricate but exceedingly well-conducted
series of intrigues the Northern lass stands forth,
natural and pathetic in her constancy, clear-sighted,
and absolutely honest. We need not wonder that this
comedy, with its lively and often genuinely humorous

272 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

dialogue and its happy solution of an apparently im-
possible situation, was long a favorite and was acted
even after the Restoration.

other come- The Novella departs from the general run of the
comedies of Brome in laying its intrigue in Italy and
combining two stories which, if not actually of Italian
original, at least preserve the atmosphere of The
Palace of Pleasure. The Novella, 1632, is a clever if
intricately constructed comedy, even if it rises to no
distinction among productions of its class. In The
Weeding of Covent Garden or the Middlesex ^Justice
of the Peace, of the same year, Brome returned to the
more congenial picturing of the city's life about him.
Its looseness of structure all but justifies Genest's
description of it as a comedy that has no main plot.1
The "weeding" has allusion to the cleansing of the
precinct of disreputable and disorderly characters. A
personage named Crosswill, whose "humor" it is to
object to everything proposed, attests, as do other per-
sonages, Brome's faithfulness to the teaching of Jon-
son. The similarly named Sparagus Garden or Tom
Hoyden o' Taunton Green was acted in 1635. Here
the situation of Romeo and Juliet is transferred to Eng-
lish middle-class life and the lovers succeed in recon-
'ciling their angry fathers, two justices of the peace,
by an amusing if shocking device of comedy, which
Brome evidently borrowed from The Heir of Thomas

A Mad Couple, May.2 A Mad Couple Well Matched, which followed
in the next year, reaches depths of coarseness and vul-
garity outfathoming the worst passages of Middleton.
The hero is an utterly contemptible scamp whose very
lecherousness wins him the widow for a wife; "the

1 Genest, x, 42.

8 The Sparagus Garden, v, xii ; The Heir, v, i.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 273

mad couple," Sir Valentine Thrivewell, his wife, and
his city mistress, Alicia, with the wittol, her husband,
are all of them alike shameless. The complaisance
and unaffectedness of the immorality of this play lie
far lower than the worst of Middleton, and with some
other passages of Brome relieve Dryden and Wycher-
ley of the odium of having debased English drama
below depths previously reached in the reign of the
virtuous King Charles. The English Moor has been
praised for its elaborate plot and for "a trace of ardor
in some of the serious passages." The Damoiselle or
the New Ordinary contains some "touches of pathos"
in the character of the "poor wench Phillis." Both
are cleaner plays than A Mad Couple, if not abler.1
In The Antipodes, 1638, Brome conceived an original The Antipodes,
notion and carried it out cleverly. Perigrene has l6s8'
lost his wits by a too attentive study of Mandeville
and other writers of travel. To recover them he is
taken by his doctor on a supposed journey to the An-
tipodes, where everything is topsy-turvy : the lawyer
refuses his fee, Serjeants are besought by a spendthrift
gentleman to arrest him, and like absurdities. But
Brome appreciated neither the romantic possibilities
of such a theme nor, to any subtle degree, the satirical.
Latest in point of time, The Court Beggar, 1640, in a
clever and well-conducted plot, once more turns with
kaleidoscopic effect the familiar figures of separated
lovers, angry father, scheming widow, and attendant
gulls, with the variation of a group of "projectors"
conceived and executed with a spirit that the creator
of "the ladies collegiate" or "the staple of news"
might not have disdained.2

1 These comedies date about 1636 to 1638.

2 Cf. Epiccene, and The Staple of News.

274 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

A jovial Crew, One other comedy of Brome demands more than a
passing mention. This is A Jovial Crew or the Merry
Beggars, acted at the Cockpit in 1641. The story turns
on a novel idea. Springlove, the protege of Oldrent, a
gentleman of fortune, and advanced by him to be his
steward, is seized each spring by an uncontrollable
desire to return to the gipsy life from which he had
been rescued by his benefactor in boyhood. The
young daughters of Oldrent and their suitors induce
Springlove to let them join him among the gipsies,
and several scenes depict the trials and ill-success,
especially of the young gentlemen, in their attempts
to lead the mendicant life. Meanwhile Amie, daugh-
ter of a neighboring Justice, has run away to escape
marrying a fool, taking for her protector her father's
clerk, who, in his meanness of spirit, deserts her to
make his own peace with the Justice. Amie finds
protection among the gipsies, and falls in love with
Springlove. In the end, by an ingeniously managed
play within a play, Springlove turns out to be the true
son of Oldrent, and Springlove's uncle the leader of
the gipsies, or beggars, as they are called. Some of
the figures of this comedy are exceedingly humorous
and well drawn. The Justice, who sentences first and
then hears reasons for his decision, who will allow no
one to speak because neither can hear if both are
talking, the shrewd and humorous servant Randall,
Oldrent himself and his merry friend Hearty, are in
the happiest vein of the Jonsonian comedy of hu-
mors and, free from the didacticism of that master if
also devoid of his trenchant wit, are closer to life and
more simply diverting. With some allowances, it has
been truly said of the comedies of Brome that "his
view of the world is that of a groom, . . . and the

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 275

characters he depicts are drawn from the experience
of a flunky. All the coarse and gross and seamy side
of human life is shown to us with a prosaic ruthless-
ness." l Brome is readable in doses, not too large,
from a certain rude power and an ability to invent
situations and dialogues not devoid of a natural if
often broad humor; but he wearies and in time dis-
gusts, from the dull level of his art, which neither his
clever plots nor his careful workmanship can wholly
redeem.

With the advancement of the reign of Charles sev- other dramat-

1 i « r r> » ical "sons of

eral new names appear among the sons of hJen; Ben«
for Randolph, Davenant, Marmion, and Cartwright,
Nabbes, Mayne, Glapthorne, and Cockayne, even
the Earl of Newcastle himself, great name if small
playwright, all of these deserve this appellation.
Randolph, from the close touch of most of his work
with the university, has already been treated;2 Dav-
enant, from his reach forward into Restoration times,
will be deferred for the present.

Shakerley Marmion was the spendthrift son of a shako-ley
country gentleman, whose estate was already largely ^™^'
dissipated, and friend of clever and riotous Sir John
Suckling. Marmion was one of the troop of horse
that Sir John raised for King Charles in 1639, at an
expense of some £12,000, to repel an invasion of the
Scots. But falling ill at York, Marmion died after
removal to London, and was thus saved a share in
the ridiculous defeat that overtook Sir John's much
bruited expedition. Marmion wrote three comedies
in the earlier thirties.3 In Holland's Leaguer, 1632, of his comedies.

1 J. A. Symonds in the Academy, v, 304 (1874).

2 Cf. above, pp. 85-87.

8 The Crafty Merchant or the Soldiered Citizen is mentioned as

276 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

rigidly Jonsonian "humor," the young author rings
new changes on the variety of seventeenth century
sharper known as a "projector," already familiar to
the stage through Jonson's Meercraft in The Devil is
an Ass,1 and reproduces such time-honored figures
as the braggart soldier (here curiously enough named
Autolicus) and the foolish lad and his scheming
tutor.2 In A Fine Companion, 1633, a rather better
comedy, these figures recur with the inevitable usurer,
intriguing girl, and scolding wife; whilst in The
Antiquary, 1636, a more intricate plot is attempted
in a foreign scene, and other stock figures appear:
the prince disguised, observant of the conduct of his
subjects, the wronged maid masquerading as a page,
and the disinherited gallant, the last a figure in all
of Marmion's comedies and evidently a projection of
the writer's self. The one novel personage in Mar-
mion's repertory is Veterano, the antiquary, though
he dwindles into a mere humor before the play con-
cludes. With all their unoriginality, Marmion's plays
are not contemptible, but abound in witty speeches
and in passages not wanting in eloquence. With
Jonson's conception of humors, Marmion caught
something of his master's trick of satirical railing,
although his best is but a shadow of the English
Aristophanes at his average.

William Cartwright's one comedy of manners, The
Ordinary, 1634, is more purely reminiscent, even to
Jonson's thoughts, his personages, and situations.

by Marmion in Warburton's list. It appears to have been written
about 1623 for the Lady Elizabeth's players by one William Bowen.
Fleay, i, 32.

1 Cf. also, Brome's use of the projector in The Court Beggar,
1640, already noticed.

2 Cf. especially, Middleton's Chaste Maid in Cheapside.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 277

The "humors" of the group of sharpers of which it Minor imita-
treats is absolutely unrelieved in its dullness and ^an^om^dTf
coarseness, and is beneath the level of Brome. Cart- William Can-
wright was capable of better work in tragicomedy. 43.
He appears to have written nothing for the stage after
1638, but enjoyed a great reputation at Oxford as
"the most florid and seraphical preacher in the uni-
versity." 1 Cartwright died of a malignant fever in
1643. His intimate friend, Jasper Mayne, is likewise Jasper
the author of a single comedy, The City Match, acted
at Whitehall by the king's command in 1639 and later
at Blackfriars as well. The City Match is a vivacious
and clever comedy despite its basis in outworn devices.
In it two old merchants, mistrusting the reformations
of their son and nephew, pretend to embark on a long
journey, and returning in disguise with the news of
their own deaths, catch the young rascals red-handed
in the midst of their revels, and, what is worse, rejoi-
cing at their elders' supposed deaths. From this cli-
max the play reverts to a modification of the motive
of The Silent Woman, as one of the old merchants
determines to cut off" the expectations of his nephew
by a sudden marriage.2 Young Plotwell, the scape-
grace, is equal to the emergency. He arranges for his
uncle a false marriage with a girl to whom he is
himself betrothed, and gets a settlement made on her.
She turns out a shrew, and is reported as of question-
able virtue to her supposed husband, the merchant,
who thereupon compounds with his nephew to free

1 Wood, Athena Oxonienses, ed. 1817, iii, 69.

2 Since noting this resemblance I find a detailed statement of
Mayne's specific borrowings from Epicaene in Miss Henry's in-
troduction to her recent edition of that comedy, Tale Studies in
English, xxxi, p. Ivii.

278

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Henry Glap-

thorne, fl.
1635;

him from his bride. There is besides this a variety of
other interest. An hilarious scene is that in which a
foolish lad, made drunk, is exhibited by his compan-
ions, outlandishly decked out to figure a strange fish.1
The Amorous War, Mayne's tragicomedy and only
other venture in the drama, will claim our later atten-
tion.2 Mayne rose in the church to the dignity of
Archdeacon of Chichester, and is also remembered
as the translator of Lucian. Of much the same type
are the two comedies of Henry Glapthorne, of whose
life next to nothing is known. Glapthorne, too, is
more favorably remembered for his ventures in more
serious drama.3 The Hollander, acted in 1635 at
the Cockpit, is little above the level of Cartwright's
Ordinary, which it resembles in its group of roarers,
here called "the Knights of the Twibil," and in its
his wh coarse picture of the life of the city. 'Wit in a Con-

l"6"Constable' stable, acted four years later, is an abler comedy, and
is constructed on a series of tricks involving disguise
and much witty dialogue between a pair of gallants
and a couple of lively citizens' daughters. The de-
nouement is arranged by Busie, who owes more than
his stolen directions to the watch to Dogberry. There
is exceedingly good comedy in the scene in which
Thorowgood, having put his bookish cousin, Hold-
fast, up to trying to be a wit, impersonates Holdfast
after Holdfast's visit to the uncle of Clare, Tho-
rowgood's beloved, and succeeds in making the old
gentleman believe that he is the real Holdfast by his
gravity and discourse of books. One of the "tragi-
comedies" of Glapthorne, The Lady Mother, acted
at Whitehall in the same year with The Hollander

1 The City Match, in, ii. 2 Below, pp. 365, 366.

8 See p. 345.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 279

(1635), from its English scene and general nature
also belongs here. This is a very ambitious and novel
play, and involves a serious plot in which Lady Mar-
lowe, conceived as an imperious woman in middle
life, covets the happiness of each of her daughters in
succession, momentarily wins the lover of each to a
confession of love, and, failing in her machinations,
urges her son to kill one of the young men in duel.
Brought to trial for this supposed crime, her ladyship
is so wrought upon by the reported death by drown-
ing of one of her daughters and her lover that she
becomes thoroughly contrite, accepts in marriage an
old suitor who has remained ever faithful, and has
her children restored to her in a masque. Glapthorne
has diversified this plot with much light comedy not
altogether ineffective in kind, though it cannot be
said that he has succeeded in concealing the intrin-
sic improbability of his serious theme. That any
one could find in the wretched, drunken steward of
this production "a shameless copy of Malvolio," or
a copy of any conceivable kind, is matter as far be-
yond the comprehension of the present writer as that
any one else should discover in Glapthorne's plays
"here and there a muskrose or a violet that retains its
fragrance." l The imagery of Glapthorne has been
praised. It is often, if not commonly, strained and
over-ingenious. Glapthorne tried hard; his success is
at best mediocre.

In the comedies of Thomas Nabbes we meet much Thomas
fresher and stronger work. Nabbes was a Worcester
man, apparently in the service of a nobleman in that
neighborhood. Besides plays, he wrote some other

1 Ward, iii, 154; Bullen, Old English Plays, ii, 101. Cf. as to
subject, Shirley's Constant Maid.

28o ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

poetry, and we have already heard of his "moral,"
Microcosmus, among the masques, and of his classical
tragedy of Hannibal an d Scipio elsewhere.1 Nabbes
wrote three comedies of London manners between
1632 and 1638, all of which appear to have been acted.
Covent Garden, 1632, is a slight affair, but its unpre-
tentious figures, especially those of the lovers, young
Artlove and Dorothy Worthy, mark a return for sub-
ject-matter to life as opposed to the eternal repetitions
of the figures of Jonson and Middleton. The other
comedies are even better. Tottenham Court, 1633,
opens with a promising elopement in which the young
couple are separated in the dark, and the lady, Bel-
lamie, is driven to seek the protection of a milkmaid.
The plot later descends to a more common type of
the comedy of intrigue, though several ingenious
changes are worked into the old situation of a modest
maid innocently lodged in a brothel; and the denoue-
ment, with a lost inheritance restored and the milk-
maid discovered to be a lady, is of the approved stuff
The Bride, of old story. But it is in The Bride, 1638, that Nabbes
has offered his best and most original contribution to
the comedy of his time. The play turns on the elope-
ment of a bride on the eve of her wedding to an elderly
gentleman, Goodlove, with his supposed foster son,
Theophilus. The young people, who are both hon-
orable and virtuous, would have been unequal to such
a deed, fondly as they love each other, but for the
promptings of one Raven, a cousin of Goodlove, and,
should Theophilus be discarded, Goodlove's heir.
Goodlove proves magnanimous, and the whole action
hinges on Raven's tactics to keep the runaways from
returning home to obtain forgiveness. A novel and
1 Above, pp. 45, 46, 137.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 281

successful scene is that in which the young runaways
struggle with their sense of duty and gratitude, and
determine, although already compromised, to seek
reconciliation with Goodlove, even at the risk of
lasting separation.1 Nabbes has been justly praised
for "his modest, well-conducted girls" and "his vir-
tuous and refined young men." The cleanliness of
Nabbes in an age in which coarseness and obscenity
seem to have been regarded necessary ingredients in
every comic scene is as refreshing as is his freedom
from pedantry and fine writing, darling sins of most
of the sons of Ben. Nabbes, although not poetical, has
an ease and a freedom of style and a certain power of
quick and at times dramatic action that place him
well above the average of his lesser contemporaries.

Although perhaps not unmistakably a " son of sir Aston
Ben," it seems most convenient to treat here Sir Aston
Cockayne, a gentleman of wealth and station, hold-
ing degrees of both universities and much traveled
abroad. Cockayne is the author of two plays which
fall, in all likelihood, before the closing of the theaters.
The one, Trapolin Supposed a Prince, is an adapta-
tion of an Italian comedy and clever in its trivial way;
The Obstinate Lady is an original effort.2 This comedy
is very ambitiously plotted and rises at times to melo-
dramatic situations. It offers an interesting example
of that want of touch with actual life that came to
characterize many later comedies; for although the
scene is laid in London, the personages retain the
outlandish names customarily employed in the tragi-

1 The Bride, II, iii.

2 I should date The Obstinate Lady 1638 or 1639, from the plain
allusion to Brome's Antipodes of the former date. Trapolin was
translated before 1640.

282 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

comedies and romances of the time. The Obstinate
Lady is elaborately stilted and grandiloquent in its
diction in parts. On the other hand, it is not without
its own slender merits. Lorice is a capital fantastic
wooer, and his account of his travels in the antipodes
(with which should be compared Jack Freshwater in
Shirley's Ball and Brome's comedy, The Antipodes),
is diverting nonsense.1 Cockayne is of course imi-
tative. Carionel and Lucora repeat, as Langbaine
long since pointed out, the situations of the Prince of
Tarent and Alfnira in Massinger's A Very Woman;*
whilst the amusing scene in which a lover, pretending
to be dead, is rated for his unworthiness by his mis-
tress who knows that he is feigning recalls a clever
scene of Fletcher's Tamer Tamed*
The Duke of Lastly among the followers of Jonson in comedy
must be included William Cavendish, Duke of New-
castle, who, with his duchess of equally literary
proclivities, was the generous patron of several poets
both before and after the Restoration. Newcastle
was the author of certain treatises on horsemanship
and fencing, for which Jonson had praised him; and
the then earl had extended his fostering hand to the
decaying poet and helped sustain him among the dis-
appointments of his later years.4 Indeed, the duchess'
report of her husband's opinion, that he had "never
heard any read well but Jonson," opens to our sur-
mise a pleasant picture of the relations of the young

1 Works of Cockayne, ed. 1874, p. 42.

2 Langbaine, 69. Ovid's Tragedy, Cockayne's one attempt at
more serious drama, falls without our period. For his Masque at
Bretbie, see above, p. 134.

3 Act v, scene iv ; and cf. Shirley, The Witty Fair One, v, iii.

4 Underwoods, Giffbrd-Cunningham, Jonson, viii, 427 ; ix, 15,
324.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 283

and noble aspirant to literary honors and the vet-
eran dramatist.1 Shirley later enjoyed the friendship
and patronage of Newcastle and is said to have fol-
lowed him in his unsuccessful military campaigns
which terminated in 1644. Apparently but two of his comedies.
the four comedies attributed to his grace by Genest
belong to a period preceding the closing of the thea-
ters.2 These are The Country Captain and The Va-
riety, which usually appear together in a rare little
volume printed in 1649. The Variety is a true comedy
of its type, showing mixed influences of Jonson and
Shirley. To the former belongs the assemblage or
club of ladies, addressed by Mistress Voluble on the
absorbing topics, dress and cosmetics, a scene of
some humor, and the " Jeerers, Major and Minor." 3
Shirley's influence is more general in the direct con-
duct of the plot and the easier dialogue; while such
time-honored figures as the widow, the country clown
(here defined in the Jonsonian word "chiause"),4
the stupid constable, and rascally Justice recur with
a sufficient variation not too completely to belie the
title of the comedy. The Country Captain seems the
maturer play. It was reprinted by Bullen in 1882
from a manuscript in the British Museum under
Halliwell's title, Captain Underwit, and with a hasty
ascription of its authorship to Shirley, although this
last may not be so wide of the mark in view of the
assertion of Wood that Shirley assisted his noble
patron in "the composure of certain plays." 5 The

1 Letters of the Duchess of Newcastle, quoted by Ward, ii, 321.

2 Genest, x, 73, 74.

3 The Variety, II, i, ed. 1649, P- X3-

4 Cf. The Alchemist, I, ii, 26.

8 Harl. MS. 7650; Bullen, Old English Plays, ii, 321; see
Fleay, i, 48-49 ; and Athence Oxonienses, iii, 739.

284 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Country Captain is far from a contemptible per-
formance, and its lively scenes of contemporary Eng-
lish country life must have proved readily actable
by the King's company at Blackfriars. Besides the
dangerous intrigue of Sir Francis with Lady Hart-
well and the courting of her sister by several suitors,
we have the fresh humors of Underwit, captain of
the "trained band," or militia as we should now
call it, conceived in a manner and carried out with a
success by no means unworthy of either of the noble
author's great sponsors. Internal evidence goes to
prove that The Country Captain was acted in or
about the year 1639. The Variety may have shortly
preceded it. The dramatic work of the Duke of
Newcastle deserves neither the encomium of his
lady, who considered him with pardonable wifely
enthusiasm "the best lyric and dramatic poet of his
age," nor yet the obloquy of Pepys, who found The
Country Captain "the first [play] that ever I was
weary of in my life." 1

james Shirley, James Shirley was born in London in September,
1596, and educated at the Merchant Tailors' School,
at St. John's College, Oxford, and at Catharine
Hall, Cambridge, taking his final degrees in 1619,
and entering into holy orders soon after. On his con-
version to the Roman faith in the early twenties,
Shirley held for a year or two the mastership of
St. Alban's grammar school, but by 1625 we find
him living in Gray's Inn and, as Wood puts it, "set
up for a play maker." 2 Shirley had already made his
first venture into authorship in an erotic narrative

1 Life of Newcastle, ed. C. H. Firth, 1886, pp. 2OI, 2O2; Diary
of Pepys, ed. Wheatley, ii, 126.

2 Athence Oxonienses, iii, 737.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 285

poem, afterwards entitled Narcissus, and, when no
more than a bachelor of arts, had celebrated in verse
the obsequies of Queen Anne.1 From the year of the his activity as a
accession of Charles onward Shirley continued an Playwnsht-
active professional dramatist, writing, up to 1636,
almost wholly for the Queen's men, who were play-
ing at the Phoenix and later at the Cockpit, and grad-
ually gaining the voice and patronage of the court
and the king until he succeeded, without dissent,
to the popularity of Fletcher. Shirley seems to have
been an estimable man, living on terms of easy
familiarity with many gentlemen of rank, and per-
sonally esteemed by King Charles and his queen,
Henrietta Maria. It was the king himself, according
to Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels, who sug-
gested to Shirley the plot for one of his most success-
ful plays, The Gamester ; 2 and it was into the hands
of Shirley that the four societies of the inns of court
intrusted the preparation of the splendid masque
of 1634, The Triumph of Peace, which was presented
alike as a refutation of the outrageous attacks of
Prynne on both the queen and the drama and to
emphasize the Templars' outburst of personal loyalty
to a sovereign who, whatever his political shortcom-
ings, was much beloved by those who were nearest
to him.3

In 1636 the London theaters were closed for many Shirley in ire-
months by reason of the prevalence of the plague; an '
and Shirley was therefore the more readily induced
by one of his patrons, the Earl of Kildare, to visit
Ireland in order to write for the new theater recently

1 Giffbrd-Dyce, Shirley, vi, 463, 514.

2 Herbert's Register, Malone, Shakespeare, iii, 236.

3 See above, pp. 131, 132.

286 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

established in Dublin. At least four, if not a larger
number, of Shirley's plays were written for the Irish
stage; 1 though he seems to have maintained dra-
matic relations at home until his final return to Lon-
don in 1640. With the closing of the theaters by
Parliament in 1642, Shirley's activity as a playwright
came to an end. He appears to have taken some
part, as we have seen, in the unsuccessful campaigns
of his patron, the Earl of Newcastle; but before long
he returned to his early profession of schoolmaster
and combined with it the writing of a Via Latina
and an English Grammar. In 1646 Shirley gathered
his poems into a volume; and in the following year
edited the first folio of the plays of Beaumont and

his later Fletcher. Towards the close of his life Shirley drudged

as a literary hack and translator for John Ogilby,
translator of Homer and Vergil, and Ogilby forgot
to acknowledge his assistance. Shirley with his wife
was driven out of his home in Whitefriars by the
great fire in 1666 and survived only two months, his
wife dying on the same day, "being in a manner,"
says Wood, "overcome with affrightments, discon-
solations, and other miseries occasioned by that fire
and their losses." 2
's come- Ten of the dramas of Shirley are comedies of Lon-

life! ° 1 don life, albeit the earliest of these, Love Tricks or the
School of Compliment, mentions no scene except "our
fairy isle" and clothes its familiar types — the old man

1 These are The Royal Master, St. Patrick for Ireland, The Con-
stant Maid, and The Doubtful Heir first produced under title
Rosania or Love's Victory. See Ward, iii, 91. Fleay would add
to the Irish plays of Shirley, The Politician and The Gentleman
of Femce.

2 Athence Oxonienses, ii, 740.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 287

who would marry, the lover who loses his wits, the
silly lad, and the lame soldier — in the obscurity of
Italian names. This production, which must have
been acted in 1625 before the death of King James,
is a composite of a comedy of manners, a tragicomedy,
and a pastoral. It owes at least one situation, that of
the maidens disguised as shepherdesses, to As You
Like It, the coward's challenge suggests Twelfth Nighty
and the mock duel and "school of compliment" are
pure Jonson.1 In short, Love Tricks is precisely the
imitative production which we might expect of a clever
young man, well read in the drama that had preceded
him but as yet unmoved by the mainspring of original
invention. In The ffedding,'W\\ic\\ followed in the next The Wedding,
year, Shirley struck for the first time his pace in comedy.
The play turns on the separation of a couple, about to
be married, by a charge of unchastity in the bride, ac-
tually believed to be true by Marwood, the cousin and
friend of the bridegroom who makes it, but disproved
after the duel, which the situation demanded accord-
ing to the manners of the time, and shown to have
been the result of a plot on Marwood's credulity and
the outcome of his dissolute pursuit of pleasure in very
different quarters. The scenes between Beauford,
the wronged lover, and Marwood afford abundant
opportunity for strong dramatic situation, and the
conversion of the profligate Marwood to an honest
man, willing to do restitution for the wrong he has
done, is finely conceived. The lighter element is com-

1 Love Tricks, iv and v; As Ton Like It, II, iv, and thereafter. See
"the Ladies Collegiate" of The Silent Woman and "the Staple
of News" in the comedy of that title; and note the recurrence of
this Jonsonian device of a group of "irregular humorists " in The
Ordinary, Holland's Leaguer, The Damotselle, and The Hollander.

288

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

The Brothers,
1626.

bined with this serious plot in a series of scenes gather-
ing about the humors of Rawbones, a happy variation
on the eternal usurer in his economy of appetite, and
in his employment, in his courtship, of a legal jargon
like that of Ignoramus. This comedy is especially
clever in its novel use of old material, and in the
effective plotting by which each scene ends with an
appropriate climax; and the greater ease, power, and
naturalness of the true dramatist is at once apparent
in a comparison with the group of bookish jonsoni-
ans who have just claimed our consideration.1 In his
next comedy, The Brothers, acted in 1626, Shirley
turned to that favorite quarry of Fletcher and Mas-
singer, Spanish story, and worked over once more the
familiar theme of the tyrannical father who, in his
eagerness to have his daughter marry riches, passes
her from suitor to suitor only to be duped in the end.
The play is purely a comedy of English manners,
although the scene is laid in Madrid. It is impos-
sible to follow Fleay in the nice distinctions by which
he transfers the title, The Brothers, to the anony-
mous Dick of Devonshire, and identifies Shirley's
play before us with The Politic Father, licensed for
the King's men in 1641. 2

In The Witty Fair One we have a model of its type,
^or *ts nove^ an^ inventive plotting (which none the
its constructive less transcends very little the possible course of events)
and for its fresh and clever use of old and favorite ma-
terial in both situation and personage. The plot turns
on a contest between Violetta, the ingenious "fair

1 This comedy, with some others of Shirley, has been referred
by Stiefel in Romanische Forschungen, v, 196, to a Spanish source,
but that source is not named.

2 Fleay, ii, 236, 246.

The Witty

ingenuity.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 289

one," who is betrothed against her will to the foolish
knight, Sir Nicholas Treedle, and an elderly and
knowing servant, called Brain (in reminiscence of
Jonson's Brainworm), set by Violetta's father to watch
and outwit her in her endeavors to favor the suit of
her lover, Aimwell. Seldom in the old drama has the
principle of climax and surprise been so cleverly
employed as in this comedy. Thus, Violetta has sent
a message to Aimwell discouraging his suit. The first
act ends with Aimwell's favorable interpretation of
this message, an interpretation which the witty fair
one purposed. The second act concludes with the
conveyance of a letter by Sensible, Violetta's maid,
into Aimwell's hand. But Brain has observed it. The
climax is not, as might be expected, a frustration of
Violetta's purpose by Brain, nor yet a temporary tri-
umph of the lovers. Sensible has returned Aimwell's
own letter to him instead of her lady's missive; and
Aimwell is dashed in an instant from anticipated bliss
to the misery of disappointment which this apparent
scorn of his suit signifies to him. Moreover, Brain has
purloined and given to her father the letter in which
Violetta had accepted the proffered love of Aimwell.
Brain now triumphs. Sensible is dismissed from her
lady's service, and Brain himself is to "man" Violetta,
by her father's orders, in all her walks abroad until
she is safely married to foolish Sir Nicholas. But
our "witty" lady now employs another device: the
Tutor of Sir Nicholas has made advances to her; she
encourages him and bids him assault Brain for her
sake as she is walking with him near the Exchange,
masked as was the custom with ladies on the street in
her day. This the Tutor does; Brain beats him, and
Sensible, who has followed, dressed like her mistress,

290

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Shirley's com-
edies of 1632:
The Changes;

Hyde Park;

takes her place while Violetta escapes to her waiting
Aimwell. But Brain's humiliation is not yet complete :
the Tutor returns with Serjeants and Brain is haled
off to answer a charge of assault and battery at the
end of act fourth. In the last act Sir Nicholas meets
his recreant Tutor with Sensible, the supposed Vio-
letta, rescues her and marries her in her mask; and
the comedy ends with the return of the runaways,
Aimwell and Violetta, married, and with the dis-
covery of the supposed Violetta, now Lady Treedle.
An interesting underplot in which Fowler, an avowed
libertine, is won to reformation and matrimony by
means, originally daring if risque even in this age of
dramatic unrestraint, is equally well conducted, but
is not allowed to usurp an undue share of the audi-
tors' attention.

To the year 1632 belong three excellent comedies
of Shirley. The Changes or Love in a Maze tells with
buoyant spirit the cross purposes of three pairs of lov-
ers. Gerard cannot decide between two sisters, both
in love with him; Thorney is diverted from one lady
to another, but returns to his earlier love; Youn-
grave wins by his generosity, not the lady on whom he
first set his heart, but another. Sir Gervais Simple,
the foolish young knight, is an agreeable variation of
an old figure; his gulling by a page disguised as a girl
and marriage to him is a novel use of an old device;
whilst Caperwit, the poetaster, is a lively fool of a new
type. In Hyde Park and The Ball we have closer
and more realistic pictures of contemporary man-
ners. Here Shirley is more than a bookish dramatist,
and draws his figures, dialogue, and episodes direct
from the fashionable life of his day. Hyde Park cen-
ters in the races (apparently of men as well as horses),

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 291

which society attended in the then rural Hyde Park.
Carol is an excellent example of the sprightly, witty,
virtuous, but free-spoken young woman of fashion.
She and her lover, Fairfield, conduct their courtship
by the process of a trial of wit and become each oth-
er's by right of mutual conquest. Nor are the scenes
in which a husband, returned incognito, is forced by
his intending successor to dance at his wife's mar-
riage and in which the husband forces his would-be
successor to dance alone, less diverting in their more
farcical way. The Ball turns attention to the fashion- The BaU.
able assemblies for public dancing. The word "ball"
was then new, and these meetings were surmised by
scandal-mongers to be a cloak for vice. "The main
purpose of this comedy," says Ward, "seems to have
been to give the lie to the scandalous reports which
had arisen in connection with the first attempts to
establish subscription balls." * But there was more
than this in the play. For Herbert adds to his license
of this comedy in November, 1632: "In the play
The Ball written by Shirley and acted by the Queen's
players there were divers personated so naturally,
both of lords and others of the court, that I took it ill
and would have forbidden the play but that Beeston
promised many things, which I found fault withal,
should be left out." 2 In the same passage Herbert
observes that a poet who so offends "deserves to be
punished, and the first that offends in this kind of
poets or players shall be sure of public punishment."
Shirley was careful not to offend so again. When
this play was printed, in 1639, the title contained the
words, "written by George Chapman and James

1 Ward, iii, 107 and note.

2 Herbert's Register, Malone, Shakespeare, iii, 231.

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

The alleged Shirley." We have already found these names in jux-
of 'shiriey'w'ith taposition on the title of the historical tragedy, Chabot,

Chapman.

The Gamester,
1633; its for-
tuitous promi-
nence.

Admiral of France, printed in the same year.1 What
may have been the relations of the two poets in 1632
it would be difficult to say. Chapman was now sev-
enty-three years of age, and had yet two years to
live in the arduous and protracted poverty which was
the affliction of his life. Shirley was thirty-six, at the
height of his popularity at court, and happy in the
personal patronage of his sovereign. It is pleasant
to think that in making over old material the most
successful dramatist of his day should have coupled
his name with that of the aged translator of Homer;
for that Shirley should have collaborated with Chap-
man at so late a date in a manner otherwise than in
the revision of old material seems impossible in view
of the fact that Chapman cannot be shown to have
had a share in any other plays than these subsequent
to the death of Shakespeare. As to The Ball, it is
difficult to discover anything of Chapman in it, or to
follow Koeppel as to the hints which he supposes
furnished by Jonson's Puntavolo for Jack Fresh-
water, the traveler, or by Fletcher's Lapet for the
coward Bostwick.2

The Gamester, acted 1633, is conspicuous among
the comedies of Shirley from the circumstance that
King Charles, through Herbert, had suggested to
the poet his plot, and on seeing it acted declared that
"it was the best play he had seen for seven years."3

1 Above, i, pp. 420, 421.

2 But see Fleay, i, 238 ; Koeppel, ii, 69, 70.

3 Herbert's Register, Malone, Shakespeare, iii, 236. Part of the
plot, Langbaine, 479, informs us, is to be found in the Ducento
Novelle of Celio Malespini, Part II, novel 96, and in the eighth
story of Margaret of Navarre.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 293

Owing to this fortuitous prominence, The Gamester
has attracted more than one attack, to which the
radical immorality of the story and a coarseness of
speech, beyond even the average of its outspoken
age, have rendered it only too justly liable. But the
popularity of The Gamester, both in Shirley's time
and on its revivals by Garrick and Poole in I757>
1772, and 1827, is based not solely on its appeal to the
pruriency of its auditors, but likewise on the admir-
able knitting of its plot and the success with which
the dramatic suspense is sustained to the very end.
Wilding is a contemptible brute; Hazard, the game-
ster, a colorless gallant, save for his reputed bravery.
And the women of the play, albeit virtuous according
to the letter of that word, are tainted by their asso-
ciations. We may assuredly agree that the ideals of injustice of re-
Puritanism, like all other ideals of decent living, ^™f *pj.ai
must stand antithetical to the realities of such life, of Shirley and
and wonder with Kingsley that a virtuous monarch
should have chosen such a subject and then have
praised it.1 And yet it cannot be said that Shirley,
in painting for us this picture of the profligacy and
sensuality of his age, has sought to render vice at-
tractive, to justify it or in any wise extenuate its
grossness. To pick and choose this play as typical of
the comedy of its age, and of Shirley in particular, is
almost as unfair as it would be to select the discourse
of Mistress Overdone and her tapster Pompey as
characteristic of Shakespeare's dialogue at large, or
hold up the device by which Helena wins her hus-
band, Bertram — a device by the way not altogether
dissimilar to that employed by Mistress Wilding

1 See Charles Kingsley, Plays and Puritans (1873), ed. I
pp. 57-61; and also Gardiner, History of England, vii, 331.

294 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

under similar conditions — as typical of the master
dramatist's prevalent ethics of conduct.

The Example, With The Example, 1634, The Lady of Pleasure,
pf'a^Tht J^35' anc* ^h* Constant Maid, probably first acted
Constant Maid, in Ireland between 1636 and 1639, we complete the
tale of Shirley's comedies of London life. The plays
of Shirley into which romantic elements enter to a
controlling degree must claim our later attention.1
The Example is a serious drama turning upon the
regeneration of Fitzavarice, a profligate lord, by the
simple steadfastness of Mistress Perigrene, a true
wife.2 The fine punctilio by which his lordship insists
on meeting Captain Perigrene in duel to satisfy the
honor of both, after he has released the Captain's
debts to him and freed him from prison (whither he
had been dragged by the officious zeal of one of his
lordship's creatures), might have afforded Kingsley
and other detractors of Shirley a more honorable and
a no less faithful picture of the manners of the times.
The Lady of Pleasure is, once more, an admirable
specimen of its class. Lady Bornwell has become
addicted to the pleasures of social life; her husband
cures her by pretending to follow similar courses. In
an underplot the author repeats in new guise the
story of the regeneration of a noble roue by the wit
and charm of a virtuous woman. Celestina, a widow,
young, beautiful, and rich, is a very engaging figure,
though her anticipated marriage with her reformed
suitor is not a part of the conclusion of the play.
Lastly we have The Constant Maid or Love Will
Find Out the Way, a play of more careless construc-

1 Cf. below, pp. 312-326.

2 This play has also been declared of Spanish origin; see above,
p. 288.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 295

tion and more corrupt text than is usual with Shirley.
The plot turns upon the unpleasing situations of a
daughter and mother, rivals for the love of the same
man, and shows a reversion to many of the commoner
types of Middletonian comedy. A novel feature for a
play of this class is the impersonation of the King by
one of the characters for the purpose of fooling the
usurer Hornet, a scene which, like others by Shirley,
may have been calculated for the meridian of Dub-
lin, and could scarcely have been allowed by Herbert
on the London stage.1

Shirley's later comedies of manners, while favor- Shirley's «ni-
able examples in scene after scene of that dramatic ^of'con0-^
aptitude which he shares in full measure with his temporary life;
peers, are less artificially and consummately plotted
than his earlier work. They seem closer to real
life and more suggestive of a portraiture of actual
personages and occurrences. Shirley's power as a
writer of comedies of realistic type lies in these stage
pictures of the higher grades of the social life about
him. These he treats in the gay spirit of a participant
rather than with the phlegm of satirical caricature.
Yet while Shirley's figures are measurably true to life,
they often fall into the well-worn grooves of type,
repeating, albeit with happy variations, the person-
ages of Middleton and Fletcher which seem un-
wearyingly to have amused the theater-goers of the
time. The foolish youth, often a knight newly come his types in
into his estate, like Sir Nicholas Treedle, or Sir charactcr'
Gervais Simple, is a Middletonian figure, like the
sundry kinds of gulls, and "humorous" suitors,

1 The Constant Maid, in, ii. A certain similarity in the main
situation between this comedy and Glapthorne's Lady Mother,
which may have preceded it a year or two, has already been noticed.

296

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

his favorite
situation;

his dramatic
adequacy.

Lord Rainbow, Sir William Scentlove, Alexander
Kickshaw, and Confident Rapture, and the inevitable
"usurers," Woodhamore, Barnacle, and Hornet.
Fletcherian are "the merry, resourceful maiden,"
Violetta, Carol, or Celestina, though Shirley loves to
present them to us in twos (as in The Witty Fair One),
or even in threes (as in The Ball), thus to increase
the vivacity of his scene. Prime favorite with Shirley,
as with most of his predecessors, is " the wild young
gentleman." Such is Fowler in the underplot of The
Witty Fair One, reclaimed and won to virtue, or at
least to marriage, by the outrageous stratagem of
Penelope, such is Marwood in The Wedding, of whom
we have heard above, and the three pleasure-loving
lords of Hyde Park, The Example, and The Lady of
Pleasure. Indeed, we may set down the conversion
of a libertine, won to virtue in the pursuit of pleasure
by the steadfastness or cleverness of his intended
victim as Shirley's favorite situation in this form of
comedy, for it enters into at least five of these plays.1
As to the style and conduct of his comedies, Shirley
has more grace, if not more vivacity, than Middleton,
and he is free from the mannerisms of Fletcher's
verse and phrase. Shirley falls neither into Mas-
singer's tendency towards rhetorical and inflated
language, nor into Jonson's didactic attitude and ob-
jective morality. In a word, the best of Shirley's
comedies of manners, like those of Massinger, unite
in. happy combination Middleton's power to trans-
late into dramatic terms the contemporary life of
London with a restraint and care in constructive
detail which is distinctive of the comedies of Jonson.
Shirley is always natural and adequate of phrase. He

1 Cf. also, the underplot of Love's Cruelty.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 297

is a sure master of eloquence where eloquence belongs;
and we shall find him equally capable, in his ro-
mantic work, of the imaginative portrayal of poetical
emotion.

Of John Ford, one of the truly great names in John Ford in
the annals of English dramatic literature, we have cc
already heard as the author of the excellent his-
torical drama, Per kin ffarbeck.1 We have also met
with Ford in collaboration with Dekker in that pain-
fully effective and pathetic tragedy, The Witch oj
Edmonton, and in the exquisite masquelike produc-
tion known as The Sun's Darling.2 Ford's distinctive
work in the domain of tragedy and his striking share
in the disintegration of the old drama belong to the
next chapter.3 Suffice it here to note that Ford has
left no single play which belongs wholly to the com-
edy of manners, although abundance of intrigue and
an overplus of intolerable foolery mark The Fancies,
while The Lady's Trial touches in its more serious
plot the skirts of romantic domestic drama. The The Fancies
Fancies Chaste and Noble was acted by the Queen's
players at the Phoenix, and therefore before May,
1636; a clear gird at Shirley's Gamester in the pro-
logue may place it a year or two earlier.4 Ford's
comedy is a deliberate and cynical appeal to the
pruriency of his auditors. "The fancies" are three
young women living in the court of Octavio, Marquis
of Siena, described as a bachelor. They are in charge
of a coarse-spoken matron, Morosa, who is sur-

1 Above, i, p. 305.

2 For these plays, see above, i, pp. 362, 363, and ii, 137.

3 Below, pp. 327-336.

4 Cf. the words, "Nor ... is brought in a thriving gamester,
that doth chance to win a lusty sum," etc.

298 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

rounded by a group of foul-mouthed figures of low
comedy. A post of honor in the court has been
found for one Li vio, friend of a nephew of the Marquis,
and it is suggested to him that in return he send his
fair sister, Castemela, to court as a companion to
"the fancies," whilst it is foully insinuated that she
can come to no actual harm at the hands of the Mar-
_quis for the best of conceivable reasons. When the
author has thus deliberately debased his scene, he lays
each of the disgusting ghosts of his own raising by
explaining that "the fancies" are the good Octavio's
nieces, and that Castamela has merely been brought
to court to further a design of the Marquis' nephew
to separate the lady from her lover and marry her
himself, a consummation which the precious scoun-
drel is permitted to compass. The underplot of
Flavia, divorced by a worthless husband and mar-
ried, or rather sold, to a rich lord is based on the
same ruse. Flavia appears a wanton, but our ex-
pectation of her wickedness is foiled, and the author,
tongue in cheek, leers at us for falling victims to his
malign art; for art there is in this strange comedy,
the insinuating art of a Sterne, tempering as frank
v a brutality as that of Brome or of Wycherley. Here,
as elsewhere, Ford is extremely solicitous to be
thought original; and yet it is notable that he re-
mains tethered to the old conventions of the corrupt
life of the petty Italian court of the Renaissance, and
only twangs an old string with a stronger hand.
The Lady i The Lady s Trial, licensed in May, 1638, and acted

Trial, ,638. at the Qj^pi^ is believed to be the latest of Ford's

plays, and is a comedy of genuine excellence, power,
and literary worth. Auria, a noble Genoese, is called
to service against the Turk. He leaves Spinella, his

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 299

fair young wife, to the protection of his dearest friend,
Aurelio, a grave, suspicious, but loyal man, who,
during a party at Lord Adorni's house, surprises his
lordship and Spinella under compromising circum-
stances. Spinella is guiltless, but hearing of her hus-
band's early return home and fearing his displeasure,
leaves his house. Auria returns and is confronted
with Aurelio, whose zeal in friendship is open to
question as officious; with Adorni, who comes to bear
witness to Spinella's steadfastness and offer honorable
satisfaction for his wrong act; and finally with Spi-
nella, who returns, recovered from her temporary
panic, yearning for her husband's love and protection,
yet fearful of his displeasure. It is with the moods
and passions which flicker about this surcharged situ-
ation that Ford plays in several scenes with a grasp
and emotional subtlety unparalleled by any other dra-
matic poet. Even the minor characters, the gloomy
lover, Malfato, the light-o'-love, Levedolche, and
the two ridiculous suitors, Guzman and Fulgoso,
are drawn with a decision and distinctness which is
the more pleasing that even the low-comedy parts
are free from the coarseness and uncleanliness that
commonly disfigures the comic personages of Ford.

As we draw towards the end of our period, several The early com-
young writers appear whose labors for the stage were
to be resumed with the restoration of King Charles.
It was to William Davenant and Thomas Killigrew
that the new king was to issue a patent in 1660,
granting them the right to "create" two companies
of players; and both were playwrights of accredited
success before the ordinance of Parliament closed
the theaters eighteen years before.1 In pre-Restora-

1 As to Davenant, cf. pp. 299-344 ; as to Killigrew, p. 302.

3oo

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

tion times Davenant and Killigrew figure more con-
spicuously as writers of tragicomedy than in the less
ambitious comedy of every-day life. And yet their
comedies of manners which date from these earlier
days are important, if not for their intrinsic excellence,
for the clear indications which they afford us of the
trend of later Stuart drama. The scene of The Just
Italian, 1629, Davenant's earliest venture in the
comedy of manners, is laid in Florence, but the play,
despite some high-flown language and an apparent
gravity in parts, is purely of the type. This comedy
is compactly planned and well worked out, and
turns in chief on Altamont, the just Italian's, diffi-
culty with his extravagant and high-born wife and
the generous treatment by means of which he suc-
Tke wits, 1634. ceeds in the end in reclaiming her. Davenant's
next comedy was The Wits, acted in 1634, which
enjoyed in its day an unusual popularity. The plot
turns on the ambition of a couple of foolish country
gentlemen, the elder Palatine and Sir Morglay
Thwack, to live by their wits in London, and details
how both they and Sir Tyrant Thrift, guardian of
the heroine, are robbed and misused by the younger
Palatine, a typical specimen of* that old favorite, the
clever unthrift. Davenant's dialogue is well written
and often very sprightly. His plot is lively and in-
ventive if improbable, and vindicates to the full
"the claims of town gallantry to a monopoly of the
art" of living by one's wits. It was of this play that
Herbert records with unconscious humor a difference
of opinion between his master, King Charles I, and
his pragmatic self. Herbert had gone over Davenant's
comedy with censorious scrutiny, and, troubled not a
whit at the breadth of a situation in one scene " which

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 301 •

would have suited," as Ward puts it, "the most frolic
pages of Boccaccio," had carefully expunged certain
strengthening words with which, after the fashion
of their kind, the gallants of the play had seasoned
their conversation.1 His majesty ordered these words «
restored to the text, and Herbert obeyed, noting his
obedience in the following wise : " The king is pleased
to take 'faith,' 'death/ 'slight,' for asseverations and
no oaths, to which I humbly submit as my master's
judgment; but under favor conceive them to be oaths,
'and enter them here to declare my opinion and sub-
mission." 2 Davenant's other early comedy of man- News from
ners was licensed in August, 1635, under the title, ^°"'h'
News from Plymouth. It has been regarded as the
alteration of an earlier play, the work of one superior
to the young Davenant in the practice of the dramatic
art; but little remains to uphold such a surmise or to
disclose the identity of Davenant's supposed prede-
cessor.3 News from Plymouth offers the reader the
somewhat novel situation of three young officers in
the royal navy stayed for wind in Plymouth harbor,
with their adventures ashore with gentle and other
women. The subject demanded little more than a
string of scenes sustained by animated dialogue, and
this Davenant was abundantly able to supply. Here
more closely, too, than elsewhere does Davenant seem
to follow the models of Jonsonian "humor," in such
personages, for example, as the talkative old knight,
Sir Solemn Trifle, whose important news from the
continent would do credit to Jonson's own Staple of

1 Ward, iii, 172.

2 Herbert's Register, Malone, Shakespeare, iii, 235.

3 Fleay, i, IO2.

302

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Thomas KU-

News, or in Sir Furious Inland, whose belligerency
stretches even the generous bounds of caricature.1

Thomas Killigrcw's one comedy of manners in
lp^m"Jw€dr pre-Restoration times is The Parson s Wedding. It
ding, 1635. Was written at Basle, while that worthy and compan-
ion of princes was on the grand tour in 1635, and
acted in 1640 at Blackfriars by the King's men. The
plot concerns the overreaching of a parson by a
"witty" captain, who marries him to his discarded
mistress, and with the aid of other gallants reduces
his victim to the most contemptible situation in which
a man so circumstanced can be conceived to exist.
The Parson s Wedding is unparalleled for the un-
blushing effrontery of its situations, both suggested
and portrayed, and for the intolerable ribaldry and
obscenity of its dialogue, which the wit and verbal
dexterity of its author cannot for an instant redeem.
It cannot but add to the horror which every lover of
the drama must feel at the sight of such a prostitution
of art to learn that on a certain revival of Killigrew's
comedy the play was "presented all by women as
formerly all by men." 2 But this was in later Resto-
ration times and does not concern us here.

The years immediately preceding the closing of the
ytars°ofthe theaters witnessed the performance of several com-
thc old drama, edies of greater or less merit, the work of obscure
authors, all of them marking the abiding popularity
of homely scenes of the life which daily surrounded
the Londoner. An odd and cleanly little play of
anonymous authorship is The London Chanticleers,
1637, in which the characters are all of them street
venders such as Heath, the broom-man, Ditty, the

1 Davenant, ed. Maidment and Logan, 1872, iv, 167, 195.

2 Historia Histrionic a, Dodsley, xv, 412.

Minor realistic

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 303

ballad-man, and Hannah Jennetting, an apple-wench.
The Gossips' Brawl, also anonymous and of uncertain
date, is an exceedingly coarse sketch of a quarrel in
an ale-house in which Doll Crabb, a fish-woman, and
Meg Lantale, a "tub-woman," unite to abuse the
hostess and cheat Nick Pot, the tapster, of the reck-
oning; 1 while Thomas Jordan's Walks of Islington
and Hogsdon is an equally vulgar if more ambitious
attempt to picture the low tavern life of the time, and
is reported to have been acted in 1641 for "nineteen
days together." More strictly a drama of intrigue
is A Knave in Grain by J. D., 1639, in which inven-
tive use is made of much old farcical material, and the
disguise of a plot laid in Venice does not prevent a
realistic satire on the contemporary sect known as the
Brownists. The Spightful Sister by Abraham Baily
is a cruder production in which the popular super-
stition of the day is employed by a debtor who, by
conjuring the devil, contrives to frighten his creditor
into a surrender of his bond to save his life. The
Ghost or Woman Wears the Breeches, of unknown au-
thorship, but described as "written in the year 1640,"
is an extraordinarily coarse story of a virago who,
forced to marry an old usurer, literally unbreeches
him and parades this emblem of her conquest of man
on a pole about the stage. Lastly, two comedies of
higher grade, both of them exceedingly well planned
and written, are The Swaggering Damsel, 1640, by
Robert Chamberlain, and The Country Girl by T. B.,
hastily identified as Tony Brewer.2 In the former we
have a capital picture of the relations of the family of
a needy knight to that of a rich moneyed man. The

1 The Gossip's Brawl was published in 1654.

2 Printed in 1647.

3o4 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

scene between the two fathers as to the arrangement
of a marriage portion is excellent. Some of the char-
acters of this play stand out in the memory with a
pleasing distinctness. Sir Timothy Testy is a delight-
ful specimen of the type of father which his name
imports, and Crambagge is a respectable variation
on the inevitable usurer; while Sabina, who, wronged
by her lover, lures him back in a disguise, is a spir-
ited and natural young woman. The Country Girl,
turning although it does on a widow hunt, contains
much ingenious variation on that time-honored theme,
and on a situation not unlike that of Shirley's Game-
ster which forms the underplot.
Summary of We need not here recur to the later college dramas
which borrowed material (as did Randolph and
Cowley) from the comedy of manners while preserv-
ing none the less a certain flavor of the universities.
They disclose their ultimate paternity in the appli-
cation of Aristotelian theories or a reproduction of
Plautine situations or personages.1 In summary it is
to be observed that while the later comedy of manners
revealed again and again the humors of Jonson, the
Hogarthian realism of Middleton, or the socially
somewhat more refined comedy of Fletcher, it was
ever in its best examples an actual picture of its
immediate time. The older comedy often reflected
the civic pride of London or depicted with instruc-
tive realism the contrasted careers of vice and virtue.
It recognized class distinctions, but looked upward
to rank which it respected, condoning in the higher
classes certain levities of conduct, but appreciating
the more for this very reason the recognized bourgeois

1 Cf. The Muses' Looking Glass of Randolph and Cowlcy's
Guardian as examples.

LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS 305

virtues. The later comedy of manners, on the other
hand, became more a matter of diversion, more com-
monly a picture of life viewed not sympathetically
but satirically and cynically, and the attitude of the
well-born playwright grew into one of contempt
towards citizen or countryman whom he admitted
with condescension or held up to the feathered shafts
of his ridicule. It was not the least of the gathering
misfortunes of the years in which England was drift-
ing into civil war that the questions involved between
Puritan and Cavalier should have resulted in arraying
class against class. The theater, still — though in a
limited sense — the mirror of its age, reflected this
cleavage, which was parting farther and farther the
tastes, pursuits, and ideals of the two, alike in the
coarseness and cynicism of its comedies and in the
heroic inanities of inferior tragicomedy. The average
man with the wholesomeness of his average senti-
ment and his sane ideals of decent living was for the
most part gone from the theaters which, under Puritan
teachings, he had learned to reprobate as the en-
couragers of vice and to shun as he would shun the
gins and snares of the devil. This left the frivolous
and idle, the low and the brutal, in a larger proportion
than earlier, representative of the actual constituency
of the stage. The appeal of the drama hence became
more and more an appeal to a class, and from the
favorite amusement of the whole people, it shrank
into the particular pastime of the few whose rank,
wealth, or ambition justified their claim to enrollment
in the book of polite society. The later comedies
of manners are for the most part well written. They
reflect with admirable fidelity the manners and con-
versation of the court and the gentry of their time,

306 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

and they reflect as well the loosening hold, among
the classes of Englishmen who were proud to be
distinguished as " Cavaliers," of that earnestness to-
wards life and that fear of God that strengthened
the councils of Hampden and armed the Ironsides
of Cromwell.

o

XIX

DECADENT ROMANCE

UR story of the English chronicle play has been Decadent ro-
fully told. Its kindred, the historical drama, SSSlT*"
whether that founded on annals of foreign countries "note" of the
of modern Europe or based on the richer stores of King Charles i.
antiquity, have been traced from their beginnings to
the latest specimens which held the stage before the
opening of the civil war. In the last chapter, too, we
brought to a conclusion our account of the successive
steps by which the comedy of Jonson and Middleton
was succeeded by that of Fletcher, Brome, and Shirley.
It remains to us to complete the tale of romantic
drama which we left as to tragedy and comedy, as
well as with respect to the hybrid, tragicomedy, at
the beginning of the reign of King Charles. The sep-
aration of material which this treatment involves
is especially justifiable in this case; for, while the his-
torical drama, tragedy on classical subjects, and even
the masque, are earlier types persistent in the new
reign, romantic drama, like the comedy of manners,
took on a new character and enjoyed, in its latest
modifications and decadence, a popularity hitherto
unexampled. In a word, just as the chronicle play
was distinctive of the la^t decade of the sixteenth
century, or the comedy of humors and the tragedy
of revenge mark the earlier years of King James, so
Fletcherian tragicomedy, modified by the changed
and at times fantastic ideals of the day into a de-

3o8

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Theatrical
repertory of
the reign.

Dramatists of

still active.

cadent romanticism, stands as the typical dramatic
utterance of the reign of King Charles. The origin
and inherent nature of this drama, with the modifica-
tions which led on insensibly to the heroic play of the /
Restoration, will form later themes of this chapter./
We have first to trace the course of romantic comedy
and tragedy through the reign of Charles and find
wherein each preserved, wherein each departed, from
previous work in its kind.

When Charles came to his throne in March, 1625,
Fletcher, with half a year to live, was at the height
of his popularity, and his friend, Massinger, alike in
the revision of Fletcher's plays and in work more
wholly his own, continued in full stream the Fletch-
erian traditions. In estimating the stage of King
Charles, it is not to be forgotten that side by side with
the rising crop of new plays came revival after revival
of old favorites. The dramas of Beaumont, Fletcher,
Jonson, and Shakespeare, with the makings over of
many less famous plays, held the stage throughout
the reign, and a liberal minority of them were revised
in early Restoration times, as were some of Mas-
singer's, Ford's, and Shirley's, to rival the emphasized
tragicomedy of Davenant and Dryden and the tinsel
splendors of lesser heroic plays.

Nearly a score of plays were licensed in the name
of Massinger between the date of Fletcher's death
and that of his own in March, 1640. Among them
were the two tragedies, The Roman Actor and Believe
as You List, both considered, by reason of their
classical and historical associations, above; and some
half dozen tragicomedies, for The Great Duke and
The Guardian, though denominated comedies, are
of a type hardly distinguishable from plays like The

DECADENT ROMANCE 309

Picture, A Very Woman, or The Bashful Lover.1 To
none of these dramas of Massinger need we again
recur. They have already been justly regarded as the
direct continuance of older romantic types, despite
certain idiosyncrasies of their author. Dekker and
Heywood both lived well through the reign of King
Charles.2 But the former had turned to city pageantry,
the writing of pamphlets, and that final recourse of
impoverished authorship, the publication of old plays,
sometimes not wholly his own. As to Heywood, his
domestic comedies, The Captives and The English
Traveller, must have been acted, the one not long
before the accession of Charles, the other soon after.
Royal King and Loyal Subject, 1618, and A Challenge
for Beauty, 1634, alone among the plays of Heywood,
show the effect of Fletcher's tragicomedy. The former
may well have been rewritten, as has been surmised,
in revision of an old play, Marshal Osric, because of
Fletcher's handling of the same theme in The Loyal
Subject in that year. A Challenge for Beauty is a
similar play of contest and may likewise have been
written with an eye to this same production of Fletcher
or such a tragicomedy as that author's and Mas-
singer's Laws of Candy.* A Challenge relates how
Queen Isabella of Spain haughtily boasts herself be-
yond comparison and above all women, and how she
puts upon Bonavida, one of her courtiers who has
dared to question her vaunts, the task of finding her
equal or perishing for his temerity. Bonavida finds
his paragon of course in English Helena, whose
cleverness and devotion triumph after extraordinary

1 Above, i, pp. 430-435 ; "» PP- 42, 23°. 233-

2 Dekker died about 1641 ; Heywood survived until 1648
* For these plays, see i, pp. 337, 352 ; ii, pp. 223, 227.

3io ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

difficulties and save her lover from death in the nick
of time. A less attractive underplot, involving like-
wise a contest, this time in courtesies and favors
between Valladaura, a Spanish gentleman, and Fer-
rers, an Englishman, both captains at sea, results in
a similar English victory. The drama, with all its
merits, is a bourgeois attempt to compass the fashion-
able cavalier's ideal of a contest for honors, and it is
interesting to notice in the old popular playwright
how the old English spirit that throttled the Armada
bursts forth in an alien age and in a disguise that ill
fits its old-fashioned hearty manner. Of the other
survivors of old time, neither Middleton nor Rowley
certainly produced any new play in the two years that
were left the one or the dozen or more the other.
As to Jonson, he was retrograde, as we have seen,
into his old " humors," which had now hardened into
sheer allegory.1

stage history, King Charles, on assuming his throne, continued
1625-42, tjie rOyaj patronage extended to the companies by his
father. King James' company became King Charles',
and the chief actors of his own late company, the
Prince's men, were incorporated with the King's.
Queen Henrietta assumed the patronage of Lady
Elizabeth's players, lately called the Queen of Bohe-
mia's, and the young Prince Charles, born in 1630,
became two years later the patron of the players
who had been known in the former reign as the Pals-
grave's. On the opening, in 1629, of the new theater
in Salisbury Court, Charles had also extended the
royal patronage to this troupe under the name of the
King's Revels. But no company reorganized as the
Queen's Revels, and "the Five Companies" remained
1 Above, pp. 264-267.

DECADENT ROMANCE 311

now but "four;" although a fifth company, devoid
of patron and without a name, continued to play
variously at the Bull or the Fortune, and was known
by the name of its playhouse.1 The playhouses of
the reign of King Charles were The Globe and Black-
friars, still in the hands of the King's men and the
leaders of their profession; the Cockpit, occupied by
Queen Henrietta's players; the Bull, the Fortune,
and the new theater in Salisbury Court, these last
variously occupied.2 In 1637 Christopher Beeston
attempted the revival of a company of boy actors
under the joint patronage of the king and the queen ;
but the attempt proved a failure. Although the king
was actively interested in the stage and conde-
scended at times to take a dignified part in the
masques at court, or to suggest, as we have seen, a
subject for dramatic authorship, the growing Puritan
spirit caused the playhouses to flourish less luxuri-
antly towards the close of our period, and the Puritan
hand is discoverable in several enactments which wilJ
receive our attention in their proper place.8

In our survey of English tragedy in the reigns of slender basis
Elizabeth and King Tames we found its varieties °! Jf d,rama

5 J or Charles in

manifold, its range extending from crude if faithful fact.
pictures of the brutality of contemporary low life or
of domestic crime to the consummate portraiture of
famous personages of ancient and modern history
and the tragical falls of great princes. Large though
the various classes of tragedy were which thus dealt
primarily with what was accepted as fact, a larger
class were those the avowed sources of which were
earlier fiction or the invention and amplification of
the poet's imagination, and hence romantic in tone
1 Fleay, Stage, 321. 2 Ibid. 332. 3 Below, p. 369.

3i2

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Shirley's ro-

variety.

alike from their choice of novel material and from
their evident attempt to present that material in a
novel form. A romantic tone had come, too, to per-
vade many forms of drama which had hitherto pre-
served historical or realistic ideals. For example, the
interest excited by Shakespeare's plays on the English
kings is clearly historical, precisely as Julius Ccesar or
Coriolanus relate in dramatic verse what is supposed
actually to have happened in ancient Rome. With
Ford's Perkin Warbeck or Massinger's Believe as
You List the purpose of the drama has changed, and
with it its method. It is the romantic situation of a
claimant for a throne of whose actual identity we are
not permitted to be certain that fills the center of each
canvas. So, too, where Webster or Middleton dra-
matized the story of an historical Duchess of Malfi or
an actual Bianca Capello, Shirley in contrast adapts
an old story to new and ingenious situations (in his
Cardinal), and Ford invents (in "Tis Pity as in The
Broken Heart) out of the whole cloth.1 In a word,
fidelity to the actual event and the old faithfulness
to the example where the theme was historical have
been superseded by an inventive drama intent to
put the hypothetical case or at least to appeal to
the sense of novelty rather than to tie to known
events.

We have already traced the general career of James
Shirley and recorded in the last chapter his generous
contribution to the later comedy of manners; in an
earlier one his place in the history of the English
masque.2 But Shirley's masques and comedies of
manners represent scarcely more than a third of the

1 Above, i, pp. 586, 589; below, ii, pp. 330-333.
3 Above, pp, 131, 132, 284-297.

DECADENT ROMANCE 313

dramatic productions that came from his fertile pen.
For the nonce let us turn to Shirley's romantic dra-
mas, which, rising in point of number to just a score,
range in character from light comedies such as The
Humorous Courtier and pure extravaganza like The
Bird in the Cage to serious dramas like The Grateful
Servant, pseudo-histories such as The Politician, and
tragedies like The Traitor or The Cardinal. In point
of time Shirley's romantic plays scatter throughout
his career; they are ushered in with The Maid's
Revenge, licensed by Herbert in February, 1626,
Shirley's second play; and they extend beyond the
period of his latest comedy of manners to The Sisters,
licensed in April, 1642, and The Court Secret, which
was written too late to escape the act which closed
the London theaters to public performances. By the Breaking down
time that Shirley came to write, the elemental dis- °on between
tinction between tragedy and comedy had come to be tragedy and
commonly obscured by the practice of tragicomedy, "
which frequently averted the necessary catastrophe in
the interests of " the happy ending," or at least dis-
tributed rewards and punishments with the even hand
of distributive justice. The Politician, for example,
concludes with the discomfiture and death of all the
conspirators and wicked figures in the cast; the vir-
tuous, save one, are preserved for future happiness.
Such a play is only half a tragedy, and the moral
struggle has been supplanted by intrigue and counter-
intrigue. Nor is the line of demarcation between
serious drama and pure comedy much more surely
drawn, as such a play as The Opportunity must dis-
close. For which reasons, although none could doubt
the absolute tragedy of The Maid's Revenge, or The
Cardinal, or the sheer comedy of The Humorous

3H ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Courtier, the majority of Shirley's romantic dramas
are of one class, and a separation of the comic from
the tragic becomes purely artificial. With this caveat,
we may group Shirley's romantic plays into lighter
comedies; tragicomedies in which is maintained, to
a greater or less degree, an historical atmosphere;
tragicomedies of romantic intrigue, free from the
semblance of history; and lastly the four plays which
fulfill the stricter conditions of tragedy.
Shirley's lighter Three romantic comedies of Shirley belong to the

™ticc°m" 7ear l632 and the 7ears which immediately follow.
These are The Arcadia, The Bird in a Cage, and The
Opportunity. If the identification of The Humorous
Courtier with a comedy licensed as The Duke in
1631 and revived as The Conceited Duke eight years
later is to be accepted, all four of Shirley's lighter
romantic comedies fall within the earliest years of
his activity.1 The vivacity and extraordinary gross-
ness of this comedy, as well as the unusual corrupt-
ness of its text, all point to the probability of an

The Arcadia, early date. The Arcadia is described as " a pastoral,"
and was originally acted at court to celebrate the
king's birthday, November 19, 1632. 2 As a matter
of fact, in this dramatization of the principal events
of Sidney's famous romance the slight pastoral ele-
ment of the original has entirely evaporated. It seems
more likely that Shirley went direct to Sidney than
to Day's Isle of Gulls, in which are employed mainly
the same events.3 Shirley has given a more serious
cast to the main story by including the supposed
death of Basilaus and the trial. The Arcadia is con-

1 See Fleay, ii, 237.

2 Ibid, ii, 239, and cf. The drcadia, ill, ii.
* Cf. above, i, p. 397.

DECADENT ROMANCE 315

spicuous among Shirley's dramas for its close follow-
ing of his chosen material; it is memorable for no
other reason. In The Bird in a Cage Shirley turned The Bird in a
to pure extravaganza.1 A suitor, banished the court age'1 33'
of Mantua, returns in disguise and wagers with the
Duke that, provided with sufficient money, he will
make his way into the presence of the Duke's daugh-
ter, who has been immured by her father with all her
ladies in a castle under strong guard. In the event
of failure the lover is to lose his life for his effrontery.
His achievement is a foregone conclusion. A savagely
ironical dedication to Prynne, then in prison for his
offensive allusion to the queen's acting, supports
Malone's surmise that the title of Shirley's play was
changed and the play itself adapted to the circum-
stance of the moment.2 The Bird in a Cage is full
of contemporary satirical allusion and deserves more
attention than it has received.

Lastly, among these lighter productions we reach The Opponu-
The Opportunity, licensed in 1634, "acted at the mty' l634'
private house in Drury Lane," and apparently a
close rendering of El Castigo del Penseque by Tirso
de Molina.3 A gentleman of Milan named Aurelio,
visitor to Urbino, is mistaken, through a fancied

1 Fleay, ii, 239, identifies this play with The Beauties, licensed
in January, 1633; Malone, Shakespeare, iii, 232.

2 For an account of Prynne's book, Histriomastix, see above,
pp. 88, 89, 173, 174.

8 On this topic, see Stiefel, "Die Nachahmung spanischer Ko-
modien in England unter den ersten Stuarts," Romamsche For-
schungen, v, 197-220. Tirso's play is itself modeled on Lope's
La Occasion Perdida. See A. DessoflF, " Uber englische, italienische
und spanische Dramen," Studien fur vergleichende Litteraturge-
schichte, i, 421. Stiefel claims a Spanish origin also for The Wed-
ding, The Young Admiral, The Humorous Courtier, The Example,
and The Royal Master.

316 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

resemblance, for one Borgia recently recalled from
banishment, and in a spirit of adventure accepts the
situation. Introduced at court as Borgia, the Duchess
takes a fancy to him and makes him her secretary,
but he feels drawn to Cornelia, sister of the man
whom he is impersonating. In an intrigue consid-
erably complicated by the presence of the Duke
of Ferrara, suitor to the Duchess, and by the suit of
Ursini, the previous court favorite, for the hand of
Cornelia, Aurelio stands distraught between his af-
fection for Cornelia and the opportunity which the
Duchess' favor holds out to him. He yields to ambi-
tion, avows his love to the Duchess and is scorned for
his pains; but bidden immediately after to write
at her dictation a letter avowing her love, appointing
a meeting, and promising her hand, she signs the
letter, and when asked to whom to direct it, replies :
"To him that loves me best." 1 In this dilemma
Aurelio palters, gives over the letter to the Duke,
repents it, tries to meet the Duchess before him, fails,
and in the end, turning to Cornelia with the avowal
of his love and his identity, is refused by her also.
The Opportunity is a model comedy of intrigue, and
the development of Aurelio's character by his novel
situation is well conceived and admirably executed,
his- Among the tragicomedies of Shirley which main-
81" tain to a greater or less degree an historical back-
The Young ground, Chabot has already claimed attention.2 The
Young Admiral, 1633, is a bustling drama full of
action and wholesome in tone. Herbert went out
of his way in licensing Shirley's work to declare his
"delight and satisfaction in the reading" of it, and

1 The Opportunity, IV, i.

2 Above, i, p. 420.

DECADENT ROMANCE 317

to hold it up as "a pattern to other poets, not only
for the bettering of manners and language, but for
the improvement of the quality which," he justly
concludes, " hath received some brushings of late." *
The Coronation, which was written, like Chabot, in The
1635, is a play of finer fiber, well planned, and carry- t"m> l635
ing out to the full the tragicomic ideal of a series of
quick and unexpected changes, involving threatened
danger and death strangely averted. Two princes, for
their protection, have been reared, neither knowing
that he is a prince nor that he has a brother. Their
sister has been regarded as sole heir to the throne,
and on her coronation day defeats the plans of the
Lord Protector — ominous and prophetic title in 1635
— -to marry her to his son, by choosing the younger
of her brothers as the partner to her throne. This
choice compels an avowal of the identity of the prince;
and the discontent of the Protector at the failure of
his plans causes him to set up the other brother as a
claimant to the throne, little thinking that he is sup-
porting the true prince. The denouement is obvious.
There is a refined, a chivalric atmosphere about this
play which, however at variance with ancient" Epire,"
in which the scene is laid, is refreshing of any time
and place. The characters, too, are well differentiated;
and Sophia, the princess, is a noble and capable young
woman.

Neither The Doubtful Heir, 1640, a pseudo-his-

1 Herbert's List, Malone, Shakespeare, iii, 232. An imitation
of a scene of The Alchemist in this play is interesting as an almost
unique example of such borrowing by Shirley. Cf. The Young
Admiral, IV, i ; The Alchemist, III, V. According to Stiefel, Ro-
manische Forschungen, v, 196, Shirley's play is an adaptation of
Lope de Vega's Don Lope de Cardona. Stiefel offers no parallels.

3i 8 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

other pseudo- torical romance full of vicissitude and change, nor
The Court Secret, which was not acted until after

mances.

the Restoration, need detain us. The scenes of both
are laid in Spain, the only examples apparently of
the employment by Shirley of plots concerning the
Peninsula. St. Patrick for Ireland, printed in 1640,
was of course written for the Dublin stage. This is
one of the most curious dramas of later times, com-
bining, as it does, the elements of a miracle play, a
chronicle history, and a tragicomedy of romantic
intrigue. The circumstance that it was printed as
"the first part" and that both prologue and epilogue
held out the promise of a second, leads to the suppo-
sition that Shirley was sanguine of success in this
extraordinary experiment. The surmise of Ward that
Shirley may have conceived the idea of such a play
from Kirke's Seven Champions of Christendom, a
production of the old extravagant heroical type,
printed in 1638, seems not unlikely.

The Politician, In The Politician Shirley essayed a play of more
serious and ambitious type than the tragicomedies
just described. This production was not licensed,
unless it be capable of identification with The Politic
Father, allowed in May, 164.1.* It has been placed
in the year 1639. It was written for the Salisbury
Court theater. Langbaine refers us for a parallel
subject to The Countess of Montgomery's Urania, a
romance of the type of the Arcadia, written by Lady
Mary Wroth, niece of Sir Philip Sidney and pub-

1 Ward, iii, 100 note.

2 Fleay, ii, 242, 246, objects to this because The Politic Father
was licensed for the King's company, while The Politician was
acted by the Queen's men. Fleay believes The Politician to have
been first acted in Dublin.

DECADENT ROMANCE 319

lished in I62I.1 But it seems improbable that Shirley
received more than a hint from this source. The
scene of The Politician is Norway; the protagonist
is Gotharus, councilor of state to a weak and credu-
lous king. The king has married, for the second time,
Marpissa, between whom and Gotharus a liaison
of mingled love and ambition has long subsisted. It
was for Marpissa's son, young Haraldus, whom the
politician believed also to be his own, that both were
plotting. But Haraldus, though an amiable lad, was
of weak constitution ; while Turgesius, the son of the
king by his first marriage, against whom all the poli-
tician's plots were leveled, was a warlike prince,
beloved of the soldiery and under the especial pro-
tection of his bluff and kindly uncle, the Duke Olaus.
Out of this material Shirley constructed a very effec-
tive drama in which Queen Marpissa, " proud, subtle,
and revengeful," is contrasted with the neglected,
virtuous, and suffering wife of Gotharus; the supine
and foolishly doting king with the outspoken military
Olaus; and the sickly and pathetic figure of little
Haraldus with Turgesius returned successful from
the wars with a devoted army at his heels. No other
play of Shirley's is constructed so frankly on the
method of contrast. In the event, both soldiery and
rabble rise, believing their beloved prince to have
been killed by the treachery of Gotharus. And Ha-
roldus dying, Marpissa turns against her lover and
gives him, under guise of a cordial, a vial of poison
which he takes in extremity when, pursued by the
mob, he has taken refuge in a coffin supposedly pre-

1 Langbaine, p. 481. It is interesting to recall that it was to this
noble and literary lady that Jonson dedicated The Alchemist in
1610.

320

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

pared for the Prince. Strained to the verge of im-
probability though much of it is, there is a holding
power in the last scene of this tragedy into which is
crowded the unexpected discovery of the dead traitor,
the pitiable lamentations of his miserable wife, the
splendid Marpissa at bay, and the reconciliation of the
Prince and his father. As already remarked, The
Politician is, after all, but half a tragedy. It is only the
evil-doers who fall; the good survive to future hap-
piness. In such plays as this and under the strong
influence of contemporary tragicomedy, the idea of
tragedy as an expiation breaks down and the death
of the protagonist becomes no more than the fitting
conclusion of a wicked life.
Shirley's tragi- We turn now to the class of Shirley's romantic
tragicomedies which assume not even the semblance
of history. All are laid as to scene in principalities
of Italy, and center, to a greater or less degree, in the
amorous intrigues of the court life of these petty
states. They belong to no one period of Shirley's
activity, but extend, with his other plays, through-
out the reign. The earliest of these is The Grateful
Servant, licensed in 1629, an ingenious play not with-
out much genuine merit, and turning upon the ad-
ventures of a princess disguised as a page in the court
of her lover, the Duke of Savoy, with other clever
manipulations of old material. This tragicomedy
is memorable, if for no other reason, for the noble
figure of the disinterested Foscari, who maintains the
report of his own death lest his presence defeat the
project of the Duke to raise Qeona, Foscari's be-
loved, to a place by his side. In 1636 followed The
Duke's Mistress, sometimes chronicled as a tragedy
from a misprint so describing it in the prefatory note

DECADENT ROMANCE 321

of Dyce's edition of Shirley's works.1 Here again
we meet with a novel treatment of old and familiar
figures: the infatuated prince, the faithless intriguer
caught in the end in his own toils, the imperious
beauty, known as the duke's mistress, preserving her
virtue in this case, however, despite appearances, the
neglected wife, and the bluff and honest captain. The
stage of the day seems never to have wearied of these
anticipated puppets, and doubtless their familiarity
as well as the unexpected relations into which they
were thrown by such masters of change as Shirley,
served to maintain their popularity.

The Royal Master is the most interesting of this The Royal
group of Shirley's tragicomedies, for while we are %g*. licensed
ushered here once more into the familiar group of a
court thrown into confusion by a seeming favorite,
the character of the fair maiden Domitilla and her
honest infatuation for her king, with its cure, offers a
pleasing variation on an outworn theme.2 Shirley's
conception of virtuous womanhood is much above
that of Fletcher, and measurably superior to Mas-
singer's. Shirley knew the court of his day wherein,
whatever the freer manners of the time, King Charles
and Henrietta Maria upheld a gracious ideal of do-
mestic virtue. True, Shirley's heroines, like those of shireiy's hcro-
his predecessors, resolve themselves mainly into two mes'
types: the imperious beauty, — Ardelia, Sophia, the
Duchess Rosaura, and the Duchess of The Opportu-
nity,— on the one hand;3 the lovable, enduring, and

1 Ward, iii, 97 ; and Dyce-Gifford, Shirley, iv, 190.

2 This play, too, has been referred to a Spanish source. Cf.
Stiefel, as above, p. 196.

* The Duke's Mistress, The Coronation, The Cardinal.

322

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

The Sisters,
1642.

The tragedies
of Shirley:
The Maid's

devoted maiden, — Cleona, Polidora, Cassandra,1 —
in whom faith to a lover becomes a religion, on the
other. But it cannot be said that these latter are often
insipid; and in his romantic plays, save for such
tragic figures as those of Marpissa in The Politician
and Clariana in Love's Cruelty, it cannot be avowed
that Shirley delights to picture wanton womanhood.
The Imposture, licensed on Shirley's last return from
Ireland, in 1640, and highly esteemed by the author,
is full of action but based on a plot involving decep-
tion by means of impersonation carried to the degree
of utter improbability. Finally, The Sisters, 1642,
enjoys the melancholy distinction of being one of
the latest plays to be licensed for the pre-Restoration
stage. This production, which turns on the old con-
trast of a haughty and a submissive sister, is hasty
and unworthy the repute of its author.

Let us turn now to the tragedies, which are to be
found equally scattered through the long period of
1626. Shirley's activity. The Maid's Revenge, 1626, Shirley's
earliest effort in this kind, is a tragedy of much pro-
mise, swift in action, capably plotted, and fluently
and lucidly written, on a theme derived from Rey-
nolds' God's Revenge against Murder.2 The single plot
relates the sudden passion which young Antonio de
Ribiero inspires in two sisters, his exchange of vows
with Berinthia, the younger, and the elder's intrigues
against the lovers, by which she brings about their
deaths, her brother's, and her own. The characters
are differentiated chiefly in their adventures, and the
element of relief is afforded by an inventive variation
of several familiar personages, — the braggart, the

1 The Grateful Servant, The Coronation, The Young Admiral.

2 Book II, history 7.

DECADENT ROMANCE 323

charlatan doctor, and the witty page. The Maid's
Revenge is melodramatic, and the denouement, in-
volving as it does a sudden change in Berinthia's
nature, is inartistic. But the play is otherwise natural, Shirley's in-
healthy in tone, and — matter for surprise — abso- ^.f^01
lutely free from the influence of Fletcher. Indeed,
to this dominating influence Shirley never submitted,
but seems from the first to have sought a new and
legitimate channel in which to continue the traditions
of the older romantic drama. No less independent,
too, was Shirley of Massinger and his rhetorician's
substitution of a moral for an aesthetic purpose, and
of Ford's dangerous suggestion of a problem for
intellectual analysis on the basis of disturbed emo-
tional equilibrium.

Two tragedies of Shirley were licensed in 1631, The Traitor,
The Traitor in May, Love's Cruelty in November. l6*1'
The former is a play of quasi-historical cast and is
well-knit, direct, and effective. It is surprising to find
how successfully this consummate dramatist has con-
trived to throw the worn-out puppets — a lustful
prince, scheming favorite, steadfast maiden, and
foolish new-made lord — into attitudes both novel
and interesting. Nor does all depend by any means
on situation. The amazing effrontery of Lorenzo,
the traitor, his resourcefulness in danger of discovery
and subtle play with Sciarrha, his dangerous and
passionate dupe, even the comically lugubrious fig-
ure of Depazzi, the parvenu, whose weak head can-
not stand the strong wine of treason, such figures are
of the essence of true drama. A theme consonant
with the passing fashion of the moment is that of
Cosimo's sacrifice of love to his ideal of friendship,
whilst the ingenious denouement could not but have

Love't Cruelty,
1631.

The Cardinal,
1641.

324 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

claimed the admiration of even the most hardened
habitue of the stage of its time alike for its novelty
and for its completeness. It is impossible to find a
more successful drama of its type than Shirley's
Traitor. Love's Cruelty is a less conspicuous work
and turns upon a domestic tragedy, although the
subject is suggested in part by a tale of Cinthio, and
the romantic Italian atmosphere has been retained.1
The episode out of which the tragedy grows is a
striking one, although the underplot employs once
more Shirley's favorite situation, a roue won to a
better life by the steadfast resistance of a virtuous
woman to his advances.2

Shirley's latest tragedy, The Cardinal, licensed in
November, 1641, is likewise his best. Here we return
to familiar Navarre and to the close atmosphere of
court intrigue; but the familiar personages and situa-
tions are lit up once more with a new light, and what
seems to begin in reminiscence ends in effective
novelty. The relation of the Duchess Rosaura to the
Count d'Alvarez is not unlike that of the Duchess of
Malfi to her husband, Antonio Bologna. The politic
Cardinal, the King's aspiring favorite, the honest
soldier, hastily dishonored by a great man, these
things are the mere dead timber of romantic drama.
But Shirley has refashioned them all. The Duchess
Rosaura, young, beautiful, and wealthy, is destined
by the Cardinal's contrivance and the King's com-
mand to marry the proud and fiery Columbo, the
Cardinal's nephew; but the lady loves Alvarez. She
contrives to get from Columbo a release of his claim
to her hand, takes it to the King and obtains his con-

1 Hecatomithi, in, vi ; Langbaine, 480.

2 Cf. above, p. 296.

DECADENT ROMANCE 325

sent to her marriage with Alvarez. Here Shirley gives
us one of the most artfully prepared climaxes in the
range of our drama. Her ladyship has had words
with the Cardinal and matched him in cleverness
and repartee; l but the King commands reconciliation,
and the Cardinal has consented even to attend her
wedding. A capital scene of comedy now follows in
which the servants of the Duchess are represented
preparing for a masque.2 They are interrupted in the
moment of their entrance by a company of revelers,
"in gallant equipage newly alighted," who call the
bridegroom, Alvarez, aside for the moment and,
returning, lay his dead body at the feet of his bride,
Columbo standing forth to justify his bloody deed.
The resolution of this extraordinary climax is skill-
ful and leisurely. Columbo under the Cardinal's
influence is restored to favor, but is killed in duel
by Hernando, a colonel whom he had disgraced and
who had vowed himself Alvarez's avenger. The
Duchess seemingly loses her mind and is intrusted
to the Cardinal as his ward, after the custom of the
time. The catastrophe is fretted by a confusion of
drinking potions, a device so dear to our old trage-
dians; but the Duchess' vengeance is carried to the
Cardinal by the valiant hand of her agent, Hernando,
in the end, and the Duchess herself falls in the mo-
ment of the triumph of her revenge, so that the tra-
gedy is complete. This supreme effort of Shirley has
been criticised as to the figure of the Cardinal, who,
it is objected, "cannot be said to become its principal

1 The Cardinal, II, iii.

2 Ibid. Ill, ii.

8 Cf. Hamlet, Woman Beware Woman, the catastrophe of
each.

326 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

personage till towards the end of the play." 1 But
when we consider that the entire motive power of the
tragedy lies in the Cardinal's ambition to put his
nephew in possession of the fortune of the Duchess,
until that ambition is transformed into revenge for his
thwarted plans, the figure of the silent and impla-
cable churchman, who " holds intelligence with every
bird i' the air" and "sits at the helm of state," seems
even more impressive in the earlier part of the play
than later where he struts the stage in all " his purple
pride."2

Shirley in The Cardinal was the latest English tragedy to

achieve success along the beaten track of romantic
drama. Whatever is true of other works, the tragedies
of Shirley remained to the last singularly independent
of the traditions which Fletcher had established for
serious drama. Ever adequate of phrase and absolute
master of a limpid and perspicuous style which rarely
leaves the reader to puzzle over a single line, Shirley
escapes the rhetorical extremes of Massinger, though
he as rarely rises to the heightened imagery and suf-
fused thought that maintains for Fletcher his place
among the poets. Sufficiency, moderation, inventive-
ness,— such are the virtues of Shirley. A restoration
of simplicity in plot, the supression of the underplot
to an episode or two fashioned for comic relief, a
greater naturalness of detail combined with an often
ingenious manipulation of familiar personages and
situations into "something new and strange," such
are Shirley's services to romantic drama; although
in all of this it must be confessed that he little affected
the counter trend of his age.

1 Ward, iii, 98.

2 The Cardinal, I, i; Dyce-Gifford, Shirley, v, 278.

DECADENT ROMANCE 327

If versatility and inventiveness in ringing changes John Ford,
on old material thus distinguished Shirley, a stranger /a5te^
and subtler originality, and one far more difficult of
analysis-marks the distinctive work of John Ford.
For his two comedies, so contrastedly characteristic, •
for the poetry which he contributed to his and Dek-
ker's beautiful "moral masque," The Sun's Darling,
and for the overpowering pathos of the scenes attrib-
uted to him in the domestic tragedy, The fFitch of
Edmonton, the reader must be referred back to the
passages in this book which treat them.1 Ford's dar-
ing and successful attempt, likewise, to revive in
Perkin Warbeck the forgotten glories of the chronicle
play has claimed our discussion elsewhere.2 We are
here concerned with the Ford of romantic tragedy,
with the Ford whose wonderful and dangerous powers
of analysis and emotional casuistry stretched art and
ethics beyond their legitimate spheres and foreboded
a new departure in literature. Ford was a Devonshire
man, born in 1586, and related to Chief Justice Pop-
ham. The last years of the old queen's reign found
him a student of Exeter College, Oxford, and later
of the Middle Temple. Between 1606 and 1620 Ford
put forth several pamphlets of no great literary im-
port, and enjoyed, after the manner of the time, the
fitful patronage of several noble patrons, among them
the literary Earl, later Duke, of Newcastle. It has
been thought that Ford followed the law as a legal
agent or factor. Ford's extant plays lie between 1621,
the date earliest assignable to The Witch of Edmonton,
which he wrote in conjunction with Dekker and Wil-
liam Rowley, and The Lady s Trial, acted late in

1 Above, i, pp. 362, 363 ; ii, pp. 137, 297-299.
2 See i, p. 306.

328 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

1637. l His association with authors includes not only
the names just mentioned, but also those of Webster,
Shirley, Brome, and Crashaw. His collaboration with
Dekker, Rowley, and Webster was perhaps chiefly
by way of revision of their earlier work, and it may be
questioned if his association with the stage was as
wholly unprofessional as his repeated assertions
might appear to sustain.2 Indeed, Ford seems to have
been as much troubled about his amateur standing as
a modern American college athlete. He protests too
much, urging again and again that his plays are "the
fruits of his leisure," "the issue of his less serious
hours," and that his "courtship of greatness" never
"aimed at any thrift." 3 This attitude is further
emphasized by Ford's pose for originality and a Jon-
sonian assumption of a censorship over his age. Ford
cares not, he tells us, "to please the many;" and
affirms that his plays

" He doth not owe

To others' fancies, nor hath he lain in wait
For any stolen invention, from whose height
He might commend his own," 4 —

boasts which the originality of most of his plots goes
far to justify.

1 Four plays assigned to Ford were destroyed with the War-
burton manuscripts. These were Beauty in a Trance, The Royal
Combat, The London Merchant, and An III Beginning has a Good
End. The first was registered for publication in 1653, the other
three in 1660. See Fleay, i, 234, on this topic. The Fairy Knight
was registered as by Ford and Dekker in 1624.

2 Cf. especially, the Prologue to The Lover's Melancholy :

" It is art's scorn that some of late have made
The noble use of poetry a trade."

3 See the dedications to the play just quoted, to 'T is Pity, and
to The Broken Heart.

4 Prologue to The Lover's Melancholy.

DECADENT ROMANCE 329

Ford is the author of three romantic tragedies, Ford's roman-
'Tis Pity She's a Whore, The Broken Heart, and tic tragedics'
Love's Sacrifice, all of them first printed in the year
1633. The first and third were acted by Queen Hen-
rietta's players at the Phcenix, and have been referred
respectively to the years 1626 and 1630. The Broken
Heart was first performed at the Blackfriars by the
King's men, perhaps as early as 1629.* To these
may here be added The Lover s Melancholy, a tragi-
comedy of kindred spirit, described by the author as
"in this kind" with him "the first that ever courted
reader." 2 The precise chronology of these plays is
indeterminable. The Lover s Melancholy was licensed The Lovers
for the King's men in 1628, and must have followed ^"^
'Tis Pity and preceded the two other tragedies. The
Lover's Melancholy turns on a double restoration
from melancholia to a normal state of mind; first in
a prince the beloved object of whose brooding affec-
tion has been spirited from him, but who returns,
thereby recovering him; secondly, in the case of an
elderly counselor, whose dignities, estate, and daugh-
ter have been torn from him, but who is restored to
mental health on the tide of returning happiness. This
novel subject for a play was clearly suggested to Ford
by the then new and popular book, Robert Burton's
Anatomy of Melancholy (1621), which he follows in
detail in a tasteless masque of madmen.8 On the other
hand, the influence of Fletcher is apparent in the Bel-
lario-like heroine whom the reader meets first in the
vale of Tempe in musical duel with a nightingale, and
who troubles the heart of mistress and maid alike in

1 Fleay, i, 233. 2 See the dedication to this play.

s The Lover's Melancholy, iii, 3, and cf. Burton, ed. Shilleto,
1893, i, 158 ff.

330 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

her assumed masculine perfections.1 Well written
and pathetic as this tragicomedy is in parts, much
of it is unduly protracted, and the low comedy, as
commonly with Ford, is beneath contempt.
The tragedies Let us turn now to Ford's three tragedies, Loves
L^Lrifie; Sacrifice, 'Tis Pity, and The Broken Heart. The
first is a tale of love and jealousy in which the revenge
of Philippe Caraffa, Duke of Pavia, the injured hus-
band, is frustrated by the "heroism" of the lovers,
whose strife against their infatuation and pause,
barely short of the consummation of their infidelity,
raises in the reader a false sympathy for their fate —
TM Pity she" t a fate which is really deserved. 'Tis Pity She's a
prkitcd''i6Mt.h Whore is a horrible story of incestuous love falsely
suffused with a sentimental interest, and played and
dallied with in a manner alike daring and seductive.
Causistryi eloquence, and poetry are lavished on this
monstrous creation, and reminiscences of Romeo,
Juliet, her nurse, and Friar Laurence flit across the
mind as we read of these fatally infatuated lovers,
Giovanni and Annabella. But their figures and those
that surround them are distorted, as natural objects
are distorted in the brain into grotesque and revolt-
ing images by the fumes of some deadly drug. In
Ford's poetical a word, these two plays mark the most notable trait of
Ford, a peculiar and dangerous power of analysis,
of poetical casuistry, which stretches art and ethics
beyond their legitimate spheres, and which, clothed,
as all is, in consummate poetic art, has the quality

1 With this sentimental episode compare Crashaw's poem,
Music's Duel, and the original of both English poets, the Latin hex-
ameters of Famianus Strada, Prolusiones Academics, ed. 1617,
p. 353. For other parallels and "suggestions" in this play, see
Koeppel, ii, 174.

DECADENT ROMANCE 331

of a strange and unnatural originality like a gorgeous
and scented but poisonous exotic of the jungle.

In The Broken Heart Ford recovered a healthier The Broken
equilibrium and produced an abiding monument of
sentimental art. The pride of Ithocles, a young gen-
eral of the Spartans against the Messenians, had
caused him to interfere in the true love of Penthea,
his sister, for her suitor, Orgilus, and to insist upon
her marriage with Bassanes, a noble of greater wealth.
Bassanes proves unreasonably and brutally jealous,
and keeps Penthea immured as in a prison, whilst she,
in her broken faith to Orgilus, regards her married
life a life of shame, although her virtue is proof even
against the passionate pleadings of her lover. Orgilus,
overwhelmed with melancholy, pretends a journey to
Athens, but really remains in Sparta, disguised, to
await the course of events. Ithocles returns victorious,
chivalrously acknowledges his wrong to Penthea and
Orgilus, and joins them in furthering a marriage be-
tween his friend Prophilus and the sister of Orgilus,
whilst he himself becomes a suitor for the hand of
Calantha, heiress to the Spartan throne, and is ac-
cepted by her in preference to Nearchus, her cousin,
prince of Argos. But Penthea sickens and dies and
Orgilus becomes desperate. So, despite the noble
courtesy of Ithocles, Orgilus traps him by means of
a mechanical chair and murders him on the eve of
his wedding to Calantha.1 The final act of this tra-

1 Koeppel, ii, 177, suggests that Ford borrowed this device from
Barnes' tragedy, The Devil's Charter, a suggestion the more likely
in that Barnes appears among the writers of commendatory verses
in Fame's Memorial, eulogistic verses published by Ford in 1611
on the death of the Earl of Devonshire, the unfortunate Lord
Mount joy.

332 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

gedy has been highly praised for its structural rise to
an heroic and surprising catastrophe, and as severely
criticised for constraint and unnaturalness.1 Calantha
is represented in the midst of the stately "revels"
which precede her approaching nuptials with Ithocles,
when word is whispered her that her father, the King,
is dead, yet she continues the measure which she is
dancing. Then follows the news that the unhappy
Penthea is "pined to death," and hard upon it comes
Orgilus to boast of his murder of Ithocles. The mea-
sure concluded, Calantha, now Queen of Sparta,
metes out death as the fruit of the murderer's crime;
and, arrayed in royal robes on the temple steps before
which stands the hearse of Ithocles, her beloved,
arranges the affairs of state, making Nearchus her
successor; espouses with a ring her dead love, and
falls before her people, equally with Penthea the lady
of the broken heart. The very fact that it is impos-
sible to describe this scene in words which can con-
ceal its artfulness and preserve in any wise the heroic
dignity and surpassing pathos of the situation is a
sufficient tribute to Ford's subtle art. Nor does it
seem true, as sometimes suggested, that the play was
written for this single climax.2 The Broken Heart
is a compact and admirably planned tragedy, its
characters, save for the wretched Bassanes, breathe a
dignity, nobility, and pathos truly tragic and seem
immeasurably removed, in their unreal Sparta, from
the heated intrigues of the petty Italian states which
form the background of Ford's two other tragedies.

1 Ward, Hi, 8l; Hazlitt, Lectures on Dramatic Literature, ed.
1902, v, 272, where the suggestion for this surprising scene is
referred to Marston's Malcontent, iv, i, 68-1 OO.

2 Ibid. 182.

DECADENT ROMANCE 333

For no one of these plays has a source yet been dis-
covered, and consonant though they are with the*71*1**"
practices of the drama which preceded them, Ford's
freedom from the influence of Italian models is as
remarkable as his independence, after we leave The
Lover s Melancholy, of the pervading influences of
Fletcher and Shirley.1 Above all, the plays of Ford
are informed with a beauty of expression and that
spirit of true poetry which fashions words from the
glow of actual emotion. There had been no such
poetry in tragedy since the days of Webster; and
Shirley seems tame and unstable, Massinger strident,
in comparison with the rich, low music of much of
the blank verse of Ford. In the lyrics of The Broken
Hearty too, Ford claims intimate kinship with the
greatest lyrists of his age.

No change in the growth and development of the
drama of the rimes of James and Charles is more
marked than that which took place in the ethical basis
of the plays of the day. The earliest plays, whether at
court or in the city, were often coarse, and contained
allusions in the conversations of gendemen, and even
of gendemen with gentlewomen, which shock the
cleaner sensibilities of our day; but there is in them,
for the most part and none the less, a wholesome per-
•' vading moral atmosphere. They are, after all, ethically
clean. It is faithfulness to the actualities of life that
tempts Shakespeare into what would to-day be con-
ceived lapses of good taste. Even with some of the
comedy scenes of the earlier part of Measure for
Measure, the temptation of Marina in Pericles, and
the unpleasant device by which Helena wins back

1 On the "sources" of Ford, none the less, see Koeppel, ii, 172-
»97-

334 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

her husband in All's Well in mind, we may affirm
this as a general truth. Such is not true of some of
Middleton's comedies of manners or of the tragedies
of Ford, just discussed, which we feel, at times, were
written for the pleasure of trifling with vice and dally-
ing with the devil. Shakespeare writes of the passion-
ate love of Romeo and Juliet, of the earth earthy but
pure and clean, and at once natural and poetical;
Fletcher disfigures his most heroic character, Phi-
laster, by making him the victim of a jealousy which
only an unclean mind could conceive, and illumes the
alabaster whiteness of the incomparable Princess
Arthusa by creating for her an ugly blackened foil,
Megra. More, in another love tale, he heightens the
interest by raising between the lovers an ominous
cloud by letting us believe that there is a terrible let
and hindrance to their love in their consanguinity,
only to dissipate it all in the end and laugh at us for
the anxiety or perhaps prurient interest which we
Ford's strained have taken in the tale.1 Ford went beyond all this to
able situations. °^GT us tnis situation in its terrible and tragical real-
ity, to work upon our feelings of pity, to shake our
ethical code, and make a problem of a subject which
should hardly be mentioned. There can be no ques-
tion of Ford's art, whether for its fidelity to nature, its
analytic power, its poetry, or its dramatic passion.
But why such topics ? The answer is twofold. First,
a long and successful dramatic age had preceded
Ford and the range of characters and dramatic sit-
uations had been already worked to the utmost. In
his search after originality, Ford strained his art in
this direction and added the analysis of the human
heart in a predicament of danger to soul as well as to

1 See A King and No King.

DECADENT ROMANCE 335

the body to the teeming categories of English dra-
matic art. The analogues of this are Massinger's
substitution of moral earnestness for the old poetic
justice, and Shirley's revived simplicity and ingenu-
ity of plot; for both are equally referable to an eager
search after the novel and effective. Secondly, Ford
recognized the change that had come over the audi-
ence of his time. Puritanism had taken many from
the theater, it had estranged the God-fearing, the
serious-minded, whether from the walks of every-day
London or the court, and the constituency thus left
was more frivolous, more jaded in its appetite for
pleasure, more in need of strong and unusual stim-
ulants in its art than the audience of Shakespeare's
hey-day, which represented very nearly all England.
Hence this change, and hence, too, Ford's success.

In the upshot Ford has added a new province to the Ford's dra
material of the drama in the creation of a situation
intolerable to an ordinary acceptation of the relations sis
of men, and in treating this he added a new method to
the literature of his day — common enough to ours
— the method of analysis. Shakespeare had already
foreboded this in Hamlet, which is, when all has been
said, less a play than a supreme study of character,
of soul in a position peculiar though not strained.
But Shakespeare, none the less, constructed a har-
monious whole about his central study and problem.
Ford writes his play for his problem. The Broken
Heart rises on an artfully constructed ascending plane
to the last consummate scene. Perkin Warbeck must
have attracted Ford because of the problematic iden-
tity of that pretender to Henry's throne; and the art-
fulness with which the poet has contrived to leave
this problem, like that of Love's Sacrifice and 'Tis

336

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

The tragi-

The Lovesick
Court, acted c.
1627.

Pity, unsolved is not the least count in the triumph
of his art.

Whilst Massinger and Shirley were thus dividing
the honors of romantic drama between them, save
for the few years when the daring originality and sur-
passing poetry of Ford wrested the scepter from the
hands of both, Carlell, Cartwright, Glapthorne,
Arthur Wilson, and many others continued with
varied success the traditions of Fletcherian tragi-
comedy; Davenant began his long dramatic career
with an attempted revival of the old tragedy of blood,
but fell, too, under the spell of Fletcher; and even
Brome left his favorite comedies of life seen from
below stairs to essay, with his heavy but honest hand,
the subtleties of dramatized intrigue and romance.
Strange as it may appear, not one of these ventures
of the old servant of Jonson is without its interest.
The Lovesick Court tells of the heroic deadlock of
two Thessalian youths, bred as brothers, and both
lovers of the Princess Eudina, who is as unable to
decide between them as they are unable to determine
the matter for themselves, each placing friendship
above love. The influences on the making of this
play are more obvious than usual. Eudina's difficulty
and nature is much that of Emilia in The Two Noble
Kinsmen, the relation of the brothers and sisters of
the play suggests the situation of The Coronation
reversed, though Shirley's play was licensed later.
The talkative nurse is modeled on Shakespeare, and
the casuistical talk of a sister's love for a brother
ought to fix the date of 'Tis Pity as prior to Brome's
play. Brome lacked the ease and subtlety to com-
pass such a play, and his Lovesick Court remains a
parody on its kind. The originality of the intrigue

DECADENT ROMANCE 337

raises The Queen's Exchange, acted about 1632, to The Queen's
a higher position. Here we have a romantic tragi- f^"1*''
comedy in guise of a chronicle history of Saxon times,
in which are echoes of the story of Gloster and his
two sons in Lear and another of 'Tis Pity in the
midst of an intricate and elaborate plot. The charac-
ter of old Segebert is not without a certain natural
pathos, and the exchange of suitors by which a stranger
fills the Northumbrian throne while its king seeks a
wife in Wessex is cleverly worked out. Brome's last Queen and
romantic play, which must date between 1635 and ,63"s"""'a
1640, is entitled Queen and Concubine, and is by
far his best effort in its species.1 The King of Sicily,
like Henry VIII in history, has become infatuated
with Alinda, one of his Queen's maids of honor. He
divorces his Queen on suborned testimony, banishes
his friends, and holds even the Prince, his son, in sus-
picion. The Concubine becomes more and more
exacting, demands her own father's head and the
deaths of all her foes. While, on the other hand, the
good Queen Eulalia, who is living in retirement,
teaching young children, disarms all attempts against
her life by her wifely obedience and her constant
offer of good for evil. The conclusion is creditable
to Brome's moral sense ; for not only is Alinda sent
repentant to a "house of convertites," but the King,
too, retires to do penance for his wickedness, asking
forgiveness of his wronged Queen and placing the
Prince on his throne. Brome is alike less and more
than a follower of Fletcher. Even in romance Brome
never forgot the teachings of his ingenious master,
Jonson. But ingenuity, industry, and honest senti-

1 For the source of this tragedy in Greene's Penelope's We\>, see
Koeppel, Quellen, ii, 209.

338 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

ment, admirable as they all are, by no means fill out
the equipment of a romantic artist. Considering their
homeliness of style and absolute want of poetry,
Brome's tragicomedies maintain a surprising amount
of interest. They could not have failed to have of-
fered the habitue of the commoner theaters of the age
a coarse but wholesome dramatic diet.

Arthur wa- If more ambitious and self-complacent, the tragi-

1652' lm~ comedies of Arthur Wilson reaped no such popular
Swhzer, 1631, success as those of Brome. Wilson was a gentleman

and Inconstant . , . <• h r> r i /* r> i i • /-

Lady, c. 1633. m the service of the harl or Essex and something of
an adventurer in his way.1 He entered Oxford as a
student rather late in life and was reputed by a con-
temporary as of "little skill in the Latin tongue and
less in the Greek," but of " a good readiness in French
and some smattering of Dutch." 2 Wilson's three
plays belong to the early thirties. The Corporal has
been lost.3 The Swizzer, which concerns intrigues of
the court of old Lombardy, is a conspicuous exam-
ple of the familiar composite drama of the age of
Charles which Shirley compassed with genius but
which lesser men commonly essayed with a weari-
some repetition of the time-honored old furniture of
the stage.4 Thus, in the example before us we have

1 See ed. of The Inconstant Lady, Oxford, 1814, Appendix II,
p. 109, Wilson's own account of his life, entitled Observations of
God's Providence in the Tract of my Life.

2 Edward Bathurst's note prefixed to Wilson's History of Great
Britain, 1653, the copy in the Library of Trinity College, quoted
in the above, p. 156.

3 From the dramatis personae, which is extant, the scene of this
play appears to have been Lorraine.

4 Feuillerat, The Swizzer (p. Ixv, see below), finds the sources
in Warnefridus, De Gestis Langobardorum, and in The History
of Italy, by William Thomas, first published in 1549.

DECADENT ROMANCE 339

the lecherous tyrant; the love-lorn girl page; the ban-
ished lord, here the "Swizzer" or soldier of fortune;
two old men of noble houses, enemies; their chil-
dren, in love; poison evaded by the substitution of a
sleeping potion; a fair captive generously treated
by a chivalrous soldier, her captor; and the favorite
"horror" of the moment, consanguinity a bar to
virtuous love. There needs no great reading in old
drama to reel off Philaster, The Malcontent, Romeo
and Juliet, Campaspe, and "Tis Pity as the obvious
"sources" for such inspiration. But it is more than
likely that in all this such a writer as Wilson was
doing little more than unconsciously employing what
had become the veriest dramatic commonplaces of
the age. The Swizzer is not bad, as such productions
go. Wilson's other extant tragicomedy, The Incon-
stant Lady, is less ambitious and a better work. There
is a fine spice of gentility about Aramant, who prefers
his beloved to his property; and the intrigue by which
his brother becomes the instrument of protection to
the misused sister (who turns out a princess) and of
restitution of his brother's fortune is well managed.
Wilson writes lightly and in an easier blank verse
than the average among the minor poets of his gen-
eration. He deserves the attention that he has re-
cently received at the hands of an excellent young
French scholar of English literature, but he deserves
no more.1

It seems difficult to think of Sir William Davenant, sir waiiam
poet-laureate of the Restoration and early rival of
Dryden, as writing while Heywood and Rowley were
still active, and Fletcher, revised by Massinger, was

1 Cf. the Introduction to The Swizzer, edited by A. Feuillerat,
Paris, 1904.

340 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

holding the stage. But Davenant began authorship
early, was a playwright at twenty, and succeeded
Jonson to the laureateship in 1638; so that the major
part of his work, including his meritorious epic, Gon-
diberty falls before the accession of King Charles II.1
Born in 1606, the son of an Oxford vintner who rose
to the dignity of mayor of his native town, Davenant
was intended for trade, but appears to have been
diverted to literature when in the service of Lord
Brooke, who is better remembered under the name
of Fulke Greville, friend of Sidney and author of two
notable Senecan tragedies.2 It is hard to discover
any actual literary influence of Greville on his young
attendant. The old counselor's contact with the
drama came to an end early in the reign of James
with Alaham and Mustapha, and these exercises in
statecraft in dramatic form claimed and possessed
no kindred with actual plays. Davenant, on the
other hand, was from the first a writer of plays for
the stage. Each was subjected to influences emanat-
ing from France; but Greville was only remotely
touched through Daniel with the Senecanism of
Gamier and Jodelle, while the French influence on
Davenant was mainly that of the preciosity of Mile,
de Scudery and her like.

It is customary to dub Davenant "a limb of
earlier plays: Fletcher;"3 anj to Fletcher, the chief influence in the

1 His earliest poem, said to have been written at the age of eleven,
is an Ode lamenting the death of his godfather, Shakespeare. See
the edition of Davenant 's Plays by Maidment and Logan, i, p. xxiii.
For the gossip concerning Shakespeare's paternal relation to
Davenant, see Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, ii, 43 ; and Aubrey,
Lives, ed. A. Clark, 1898, i, 204.

2 Above, pp. 10-14.

3 Ward, iii, 169.

DECADENT ROMANCE 341

drama when he began to write, Da venant unquestion-
ably owes much^ut he^was wanting neither in origi-
nality nor in versatility^nd other influences, as we
shall see, soon flowed in upon himTj Of Davenant's
masques and his early comedies, The Just Italian, News
from Plymouth, and The Wits, we have already heard.1
His earliest romantic plays are bloody and coarse in
workmanship. Albovine, possibly written as early as

1626, details the horrible story of the mortal affront l6l6;
which that savage king of Lombards put upon his
captive queen, Rodolirida, in pledging her health

on their marriage night in a cup made of the skull
of her father, whom he had defeated and slain.2
The play seems a recrudescence of the old tragedy
of blood, and suggests Thierry and Theodoret or The
Bloody Brother as its inspiration. The Cruel Brother, The Cruel

£ . i /• T i* • • • Brother. 1617;

1627, 1S a tragedy of Italian court intrigue giving us
in a dramatis personae which might be duplicated in
any playwright of Fletcher's school, one personage,
Foreste, whose nicely adjusted sense of honor de-
mands that he kill his sister for falling a victim to
lustful violence, though he spares his anointed sover-
eign, the cause of her fall. The age, from Fletcher
up, abounds in dramatic exemplifications of that
fallen adage, "the king can do no wrong;" but it
rarely displays it in so frank an avowal as is this of
The Cruel Brother. Fletcher had dared to kill on
the stage the royal paramour of his Evadne.8 It was

1 Above, pp. 135, 136, 299-302.

2 As to the source of Albovine in Paulus Diaconus, De Gestis
Langobardorum, i, ch. 27 ; and ii, chs. 28-30, see K. Campbell, in
Journal of Germanic Philology, iv, 2O. This story forms, likewise,
part of Middleton's JPitch.

* The Maid's Tragedy, v, ii.

342

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

The Coiond,

Davenant and

reserved for the polite Mr. Waller in a post-Restora-
tion revival to revise this vigorous scene into one of
noble reconciliation, lest its rigors should offend the
sensibilities of the royal lover of Nell Gwynn.1 The
Colonel, 1629, is an excellent military drama alike for
the serious plot in which a lady repudiates a suitor
who has sacrificed his allegiance to his country for
her love, and for the humorous action of Mervole,
an ensign, who levies tribute on two coward volun-
teers and abuses them in a manner both original and
diverting. The Colonel is superior in construction
and for its diction to either of its forerunners. This
circumstance and the elements of heroic disinterest-
edness which enter into the character of Bertolina,
the heroine, especially, suggest that the play received
considerable revision before it appeared as The Siege
in the folio of Davenant's works, 1673.

Between 1630 and 1634 Davenant suffered a period
°^ severe illness. On his return to the stage his dra-
mas take on a new color. Love and Honor, licensed
in November, 1634,* The Platonic Lovers, a year
later, and The Fair Favorite, 1638, form together
Davenant's contribution in pre-Restoration times to
the forebears of the heroic play.3 As such they will

1 See Genest, i, 337 ; the prologue and two epilogues of this
alteration find place in Waller's Poems, ed. G. Thorn Drury, 1893,
224-227. There is a copy of the altered version, bearing date 1690,
in the Dyce collection.

2 This play was first called The Courage of Love, secondly, The
Nonpareilles or Matchless Maids, lastly Love and Honor, v

3 I exclude from this group The Unfortunate Lovers, from its
tragic nature and concern with the deeper passions, although it
must be confessed that, next to the three plays named in the text,
it most nearly approaches the heroic ideal among the pre-Restora-
tion dramas of Davenant.

DECADENT ROMANCE 343

require a closer scrutiny than their intrinsic merits
might demand, the more particularly when we recall
that by Dryden's express affirmation the invention
of this species of drama is referred to his predecessor
in the laureateship.1

In Love and Honor •, Evandra, "heir of Millain," Lave and
is captured in war by an impetuous young soldier, Hoaor> l634-
Prospero of Parma, and taken to Turin, where, in
consequence of the Duke's determination to put her
to death in retaliation for the supposed death of his
brother at the hands of the Milanese, the princess
is kept concealed from his fury. Alvarez, son of the
Duke, Prospero, and Leonel (who with his sister
Melora has been captured as well), are all devotedly
and chivalrously attached to the Princess Evandra.
Prospero is overwhelmed with remorse that he should
have captured the lady, Leonel with humiliation
that he could not have defended her. Alvarez vies
with both in his efforts to effect her deliverance, and
when he discovers that both Prospero and Leonel
are in love with the Princess, as he is himself, exclaims:

"O what a satisfied delight I feel
When others in their love concur with mine !

And we in that chief hope are wisely glad
Of rivalship."

Nor are the ladies of the play less complete in their
virtues than these paragons, their cavaliers. They
succeed in entrapping two of the gentlemen in their .
cave of concealment, obtain the pledged word — a
thing sacred and inviolable, no matter how extorted

1 Of Heroic Plays, Scott-Saintsbury, Dryden, iv, 19. "For
heroic plays, . . . the first light we had of them, on the English
theatre, was from the late Sir William Davenant." ,

344 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

— of the third to keep them prisoners, and seek the
Duke. In his presence, each lady claims to be the true
Evandra; and the puzzled Duke, to be sure of his
revenge, condemns them both to death. In the upshot,
before Alvarez can raise the people against his father's
tyranny, his uncle, supposedly dead, returns from
Milan and the heroic ladies are saved. Reminded of
a previous betrothal to Melora, which had slipped
his memory, Alvarez honors his word like a gentle-
man, Evandra bestows her hand on faithful Leonel,
and Prospero accepts the inevitable with a grace
Fair Fa- which only the heroic drama knows. In The Fair
te, 1638. Favorite we have sentiment equally strained and
lofty. A young king (whose domains, not otherwise
determined, border upon Otranto) has, as a prince,
long loved Eumena. On his return from the wars
she is reported dead, and, after two years of mourn-
ing, the king is persuaded to marry for reasons of
state. At his wedding Eumena appears. The King
refuses to live with his Queen and returns to his
first love, courting her with a lofty and ideal passion
which she returns in kind. This novel situation gives
rise to doubts and jealousy — as well it might —
in Oramont, Eumena's brother, but raises for her
a champion in the romantic Prince Amador, who
visits the court to bring Oramont his ransom. In
the end Eumena's virtue and pity for the Queen pre-
vail to win the King to his wife's love, and Amador,
whose impetuous generosity precipitates this denoue-
ment, marries the fair favorite. There is dignity
and elevation in this play and much discourse in the
casuistry of heroic love.

Between these two plays of Davenant appeared
The Ladies' Privilege by Henry Glapthorne, of whom

DECADENT ROMANCE 345

we had already heard among writers of comedies of
manners and elsewhere.1 Herein Chrisea, a haughty
beauty, tests her lover's fidelity by bidding him court "636.
his friend for her, though in so doing she separates her
own sister from her betrothed. The consequences
of this situation bring Doria, the lover, into peril of
his life for the supposed slaying of his friend. While
the hauteur of the lady and the sensitive "honor"
of Doria are of the true heroic type, the play fails
towards the end in dignity because of the device of
the ladies' privilege whereby Doria accepts his life
on the request of an unknown beauty that she have
him for a husband, and she turns out to be not
Chrisea but his page masquerading as a girl. Glap-
thorne is always ambitious to be thought a poet, but
here as elsewhere his success is indifferent.2 .Robert
Mead's inferior college play, The Combat of Love
and Friendship, about 1636, reproduces the situation
of Chrisea and Dorea; but the lady loses her lover.

It was in 1634, a few months prior to the per- The cult of
formance of Love and Honor, that Davenant had Platomc love-
prepared his most elaborate masque, The Temple of
Love. This masque was a glorification of the court
fad ofjhe^.rnrtrnpn f^Plato niello ve ; and Queen Hen-
rietta was apotheosized in it as the founder ot' the
"new religion ofjpve." 1 his was deserved. For her
majesty~lTr~TrIetbrmative period of her life had been
subject to the influences of the salon which the Mar-
quise de Rambouillet had founded in protest against
the rudeness of speech and manners which charac-

1 Above, i, p. 442 ; ii, pp. 278, 279.

* Three lost plays of Glapthorne are chronicled: The Duchess
of Fernandina, The Noble Trial, and The Vestal. All were in War-
burton's collection.

346 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

terized the French court of her time.1 The English
queen was thus in reality the leader of French preci-
* osity in the court of her royal husband, whose delicate
and romantic temper fell in naturally with the refine-
ments of the new cult. "The reforms of the Hotel
de Rambouillet," writes a recent authority, "were
directed principally toward two ends — the purifi-
cation of the language and of the relations between
the sexes, and its code-book in both matters was the
preciously written love-encyclopedia in the form of
a novel, L'Astree, by Honore D'Urfe.'^2 That this
work was the immediate inspiration of the cult of
Platonic love in England need not be questioned,
despite the fact that the whole matter is, in a sense,
a recrudescence of medieval asceticism and chivalric
love.3 The extraordinary vogue of the Platonic cult
in poetry, lyric as well as dramatic, in the prose of
romance and of epistolary correspondence, need not
detain us here. The salons of such ladies as the
Duchess of Newcastle and the Countess of Carlisle,
the letters of Sir John Suckling to the lady whom
he addresses as Aglaura, and the lyrics of Waller to
Lady Sidney, his Sacharissa, all are charged with
Platonic love Platonic love and analogous preciosity. As to the
drama. <jrama> as early as j62Q we find m Lady Frances

j

1 On this topic, see the excellent paper of Professor J. B. Fletcher,
" Precieuses at the Court of Charles I," Journal of Comparative
Literature, i, 125; and Professor W. A. Neilson, in Harvard
Studies, vi.

2 Professor Fletcher, as above, 132.

8 See the older authorities on the subject V. Cousin, La Soctete
Francaise au XVIPSiech, 1873, ii, 302 ; and Saint-Marc Girardin,
Cours de Litter ature dramatiqite, 1855, ii, 36, iii, 37. For an account
of L'Astree and kindred romances, see Geschichte des franzosischen
Romans, H. Korting, 1891.

DECADENT ROMANCE 347

Frampul of Jonson's New Inn a true "
and "most Socraticlady," whose "humor" it is to
regard "nothing a felicity, but to have a mmtitude of
servants and be called mistress by them.'y* In a well-
known letter of James Howell, dated Westminster,
June 3, 1634, Platonic love is wittily described; and
we are informed that "this love sets the wits of the
town on work,"2 a statement abundantly proved,
for example, in Lady Alimony, a curious satire in
dramatic form wherein, mixed with much extraneous
material, six "alimony ladies" are represented with
their "Platonic confidants" and "cashiered con-
sorts," with coarse but humorous and by no means
ineffective stroke.

But it is in Davenant's Platonic Lovers that the cult Davenant'
receives its chief dramatic exposition. This play has %*°ln£5L
been well described as "a drama of love-debate."3
Save for a paltry and improbable underplot, there is
next to no action; but what there is proceeds by
means of a series of subtle and "ingenious disputations
for and against fruition of love in marriage." 4 The
contrast of a pair of lovers who love platonically
with a pair who love unaffectedly is not very well
worked out, and although the discourses are high-
flown and well-written, at times rising in their "soul-

1 The New Inn, dramatis personae, Cunningham-GifFord, Jon-
son, v, 304. "Servants" is here cavalieri seruenti, and "mistress,"
beloved.

2 Howell, Letters, ed. 1890, ii, 230; Lady Alimony was printed
in 1659, but plainly belongs to the thirties.

3 Davenant must have found the unpleasing device by which
the attempt on the virtue of Eurithea is defeated in Massinger's
Parliament of Love, 1624, whither he may have gone for other
suggestions.

4 I am indebted in this estimate to several of Professor Fletcher's
happy phrases.

The heroic
play; its
contrasts
with heroical
romance and
true romantic
drama.

348 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

ful converse" to the dignity of poetry, Davenant
leaves the reader in no doubt as to his own decidedly
agnostic attitude with respect to Platonic ideas. It
is noteworthy that neither of the two remaining plays
of Davenant which preceded the Restoration pre-
serve in any degree the heroic ideals. yThe Unfortunate
Lovers, licensed 1638, is a tragedy of purely Fletch-
erian type, but below its model in plotting, poetry,
and improbability of action. The Distresses, which
followed in the next year and is doubtless the same
with The Spanish Lovers of the folio, is little more
than the translation of a typical Spanish drama of
cloak and sword.

It is something of a misfortune that Davenant
should have dubbed his productions, such as Love
and Honor, "heroique plays," l and that he should
have given them this title when he had imparted to
their salient features and mannerisms a degree of
emphasis in his Siege of Rhodes which only his suc-
cessors, Dryden, Orrery, and others surpassed. We
have met with the heroic ideal in the drama again
and again in these pages, and, without recapitula-
tion, two major types are readily distinguishable.
These may be best contrasted with the normal ro-
mantic drama in view, as each is but a species thereof.
Thus, in the old heroical plays, such as Common
Conditions or The Four Prentices of London, action
and adventure count for everything and the inter-
est revolves about the event. The method of these
plays is that of hyperbole and dilation, and the exag-
geration involved leads to the realization of the ex-
traordinary and the supernatural.2 Alphonsus levies

1 Dedication to The Siege of Rhodes, folio of 1673.

2 See above, i, pp. 198-205.

DECADENT ROMANCE 349

tribute on the kings of three continents; Tamburlaine
conquers the world. Such is the hero superhuman. /
In true romantic drama the ruling force is passion^
and passion can be portrayed only in a recognition
and development of character.-/ The method of the
romantic drama is poetical, and exaggeration of per-
sonage and event is not one of its salient character-
istics. >Lear dies, a man overwhelmed with the might
of human passion- The hero of romantic drama is the
hero passionate vOIn the new heroic play, in place ^
of the action of the old and the passion of romance, /
we have heightened sentiment/ in place of event or S
character, analysis of conduct/in place of the hyper- I
bole of poetry, too often inflated rhetoric^ Exaggera- )
tion here leads not to the dilation of the supernatural,
but to the humanly extraordinary and the amazing.
Alvarez and Prospero in Love and Honor display a
devotion, a courtesy, disinterestedness, and fidelity
above the reach and understanding of ordinary men.
The hero superhuman and the hero passionate have
been displaced by the hero supersensitive, by " the par- ,
agon of virtue and the pattern of noble conduct." V
The themes of the heroic drama are " honor won by
valor" and " vajo^ins£ire^__b£joye." "Its rivalries
are rivalries rnnoKIIity of soul;" its combats, less
those of the sword than those of fortitude, loyalty,
and the sacrifice to honor and plighted word.

It is easy to take such a play as Dryden's Con- Sources of the
quest of Granada or his Aureng-Zebe, tabulate its
qualities, dilate on the character of "heroic verse,"
and exclude all dramas which differ from this com-
pleted type from the category of its species. In lit-
erature no type springs, like Minerva, full armed
from the head of Jove. Hence a consideration of the

350

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

(i) the tragi-
comedy of
Fletcher;

"heroic" elements in the drama of the reign of King
Charles should logically take count of the many
separate characteristics which, combined, produced
this particular product.1 Now its personages of ex-
alted rank, its antique scene in a land exotic if not
indeterminate geographically, with its pseudo-his-
torical background of war, conflict, and intrigue, the
heroic drama inherited direct from the tragicomedy
of Fletcher. J Its direction of the romantic spirit
towards the illustration of the personal qualities of
valor, generosity, and courtesy was likewise presaged
in Fletcher and Massinger, for example, in Miranda,
the pattern of knightly virtue in The Knight of Malta,
in the contest for military honors between father and
son in The Laws of Candy, and in the similar contest
in courtesy on which turns the whole conception
of Royal King and Loyal Subject.2 Under the im-
mediate influence of French romance and preciosity
just described, this romantic spirit was strung to a
higher key, and its dominant tone became heroic pas-
sion, its falsetto note Platonic love. The first is the
theme of that interesting play of Fletcher's already
described, The Lovers' Progress, 1623; the second,
Massinger failed to comprehend in his Parliament
of Love licensed in the following year; / though, as

1 On this topic in general, see the suggestive paper of my friend
and colleague, Professor C. G. Child, " The Rise of the Heroic
Play," Modern Language Notes, xix, 166-173, to which I am much
indebted; and also " The Relation of the Heroic Play to the Ro-
mances of Beaumont and Fletcher," by J. W. Tupper, ibid, xx,
584-621. The English Heroic Play, by L. N. Chase, 1903, is con-
cerned with the type in its completeness and deals with its contrasts
rather than with its resemblances to earlier drama.

2 For an account of these plays, see above, pp. 220-227.

3 Above, pp. 227, 254, 255.

DECADENT ROMANCE 351

we have already seen, Jonson had ridiculed its ab-
surdity but five years later and almost before it had
taken its actual hold on the society of his time. But (2) Fletcher's
further, the method of heroic drama is largely that lightened
of heightened contrast, a method confessedly intro- contrast;
duced into English drama by Beaumont and Fletcher;
while if any distinction is to be drawn between the
plot construction of these authors and that of the
writers of heroic plays, the influence of the French
prose romances on the heroic drama must be acknow-
ledged in their greater want of unity, their amplifica-
tion of merely theatrical incident, and their general
unknitting of the closer structure of earlier drama.
A reduction in the number of the dramatis per-
sonae has sometimes been claimed as a distinctive
characteristic of the heroic play.1 But this likewise (3) Shirley's
was a virtue of Shirley. We have, too, hyperbolic ^
diction used in heroic drama as a method of all work;
but this, too, was abundantly exampled, more wisely
employed, in nearly any romantic drama of the earlier
age. Lastly, we have the tardy return to dialogue (4) the contem-

11- i • L • L L • j 1 porary fashion

couched in couplets, in which heroic drama merely £? C0upiets;

shared in what had become the fashion of the verse of

the day. From this discussion we may infer that the (5) the example

i r f i i • • i • i of French "ro-

particular form of decadent romanticism which we mances;'
term the heroic play was a product of the romance
and preciosity of D'Urfe, Mile, de Scudery, and their
like, introduced into England by Queen Henrietta
Maria and rendered fashionable at court, working on
tragicomedies degenerated from the type introduced
by Philaster. And, with due deference to this for-
eign influence, we may agree that, none the less, "the
drama of the Restoration would in the natural course

1 L. N. Chase, The English Heroic Play, 42, 43.

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Davenant not
the typical ex-
ponent of the
heroic play.

Lodowick
Carlell, 1602-

75;

of evolution have been produced out of the elements
already developed on the stage, even without the in-
tervention of French models." 1

Davenant holds in some respects a place of fortui-
tous prominence in the development of the heroic play
by reason of two things, — his conspicuous position
as the predecessor of Dryden, and, secondly, his later
services in the development of the more purely formal
elements of the species as practiced after Restoration
times. j[f we leave these special matters of aftergrowth
out of our consideration, the typical exponent before
the Restoration of the contemporary heroic romance
dramatized is not Sir William Davenant but, in the
first instance, Lodowick Carlell, whose ten years of
dramatic activity were passed in the very heart of the
English court, and, secondly, Thomas Killigrew, whose
life abroad exposed him to more direct French influ-
ences of the kind. Davenant was, after all, eclectic in
the practice of his profession before the Restoration of
Charles. He followed largely, if not wholly, the line
of English theatrical tradition. As for Killigrew, he
knew nothing but the comedy of manners brutalized
and heroic romance on French models. Carlell knew
only the latter.

Lodowick Carlell was born in 1602 and came of
the border stock of the Carlyles of Brydekirk, the
stock that gave to the nineteenth century the mem-
orable name of Thomas Carlyle.2 As a younger son,
Lodowick left his country early to seek advancement

1 J. A. Symonds in Academy, March 21, 1874.

2 I prefer to follow the title-pages of Carlell's plays, as in the
case of Shakespeare, for the spelling of his name. He seems to
have signed his name Carliell and otherwise. Lodowick Carliell, by
C. H. Gray, Chicago, 1905, p. n.

•

DECADENT ROMANCE 353

at court. This he received, rising through several
offices in the king's household to be one of the two royal
keepers of the great Forest at Richmond, a post which
he retained throughout the period of the Common-
wealth and until his death in August, 1675. His life
at court made Carlell a playwright. He writes always
with the refinement and intimate knowledge of the
courtier and in full sympathy with the exalted and
impracticable ideals of contemporary romance. In
short, it would be difficult to find any author more
completely the man of the moment than Carlell. His
work, save for a post-Restoration translation of the
Heraclius of Corneille, belongs to the last dozen
years of the old drama; and it varies not a whit from
the precise standard of his own making. Carlell's his plays:
earliest effort was The Deserving Favorite, acted at
Whitehall in 1629 and "not designed," writes the
author, " to travel so far as the common stage." * The
plot is an intricate one, like all of Carlell's, though it
is well-constructed and consistently sustained. The
story turns on a struggle between love and duty on
the part of Lysander, who owes his life to the Duke
but is secretly betrothed to the very lady whom the
Duke is seeking for his wife. It has been recently
shown that this plot is derived from a well-known
Spanish "novel," La Duquesa de Mantua, by Don
Alonso del Castillo Solorzano, published in the same
year.2 An allusion by Thomas Dekker to Carlell's
knowledge of Spanish makes this ascription certain.*
The next two tragicomedies of Carlell disclose in a
minor particular their paternity in the lengthy material

1 Dedication to The Deserving Favorite, Gray, p. 72.

2 Ibid. 57-60.

3 Ibid. 63, quoting Dekker's Match Me in London.

354

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Philicia, 1636.

The Passion-
ate Lovers, c.
1636.

of contemporary romance, albeit their precise sources
have not yet been discovered, as both were capable
of representation on the stage only in two parts form-
ing really a continuous drama, in each case, of ten
us and acts. Arviragus and Philicia, acted at the Cockpit
and before the king at Whitehall and Hampton
Court, has already claimed a casual mention from the
accident that its scene is laid in old Britain.1 The
work is purely of heroic-romantic cast, the story of the
devoted friendship and extraordinary adventures of
Arviragus and Guiderius and of the heroic passion
and generosity of the Danish Princess Cartandes.
Although nearly the entire range of Fletcherian per-
sonages appears, — the tyrant king, heroic prince,
faithful friend, sage counselor, imperious princess,
and the steadfast maid, Philicia, — the last in the in-
evitable masquerade of doublet and hose, — yet this
tragicomedy discloses great variety of situation, in-
volving the display of the usual heroic virtues in the
highest tension. Nor can we deny a certain theatrical
distinction to these impossible figures. It would be
interesting to know Carlell's source, if source he had,
still more interesting to know the process by which
the courtier-dramatist became possessed of the Shake-
speare-resonant names, Arviragus and Guiderius.

The Passionate Lovers, likewise in two parts and
also presented before the king and at Blackfriars, is a
less able production. The story hinges on the rivalry
of two princes, sons of the King of " Burgony," for
the love of Clarinda, their cousin, and the keynote of
the play is "love without the possibility of satisfac-
tion." A characteristic scene is that in which the
younger brother relinquishes his crown to the elder,
1 Above, i, p. 303.

DECADENT ROMANCE 355

whom he has captured in war and whom he im-
mediately challenges to mortal combat to redress the
grievances between them. The heroic spirit is present
in the conception of the characters, if not always in
the language; and the "chaste restraint" of the
ladies smacks unmistakably of the prevalent Pla-
tonic notions. In The Fool would be a Favorite or The The Fool
Discreet Lover, Carlell continued his heroic, adven-
turous vein. The plot here is both intricate and
inventive. The hero, Philautus, loves successively two
ladies and is loved by one of these and a third. He
encounters a rival as an unknown champion and
worsts him, besides fighting a duel with his best
friend on a punctilio of honor. A Moor figures in
this play but takes no important part, and the hero's
impersonation of his own ghost to effect a species of
testamentary union between a lady who insists on
loving him, and his dearest friend, who insists on
loving her, must be pronounced glaringly artificial
even among the artificialities of degenerate heroic
romance. The remaining play of Carlell is Osmond
the Great Turk, already described, from its slender
basis in history, among the plays of its immediate
type.1 Osmond is the veritable pattern of virtue in a
Constantinople as unreal as the author's " Burgony,"
Utranto, or England. But the comparative brevity
of Osmond and its tragic ending in events not unlike
those of Greville's Mustapha and the anonymous
Revenge for Honor, impart to it a tone of compact-
ness not that of the rambling adventures of Carlell's
other tragicomedies.2 All of Carlell's plays are writ-

1 Above, i, p. 449.

3 A lost tragicomedy of Carlell, entitled The Spartan Ladies, is
mentioned in the manuscript Diary of Sir Henry Mildmay, Harleian
MS. 454. See Gray, 35.

356 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

ten in a degenerate mixture of blank verse and prose
which, though easy and natural in flow, is too fiberless
for good verse and too rhythmical for successful prose.
There are passages in which Carlell is not wanting
in eloquence, and he is often dramatically effective in
scenes and situations; but to claim poetry for any part
of these productions is to claim too much. All of Car-
lell's plays seem to have been popular in their day.
Aruiragus was revived after the Restoration and of-
fered up with a prologue by the great Dryden.1 But
it must have shown loose and abortive beside the
compact rhetorical glories of the great laureate of the
Restoration; for all of Carlell's dramas mark a*
structural, imaginative, and poetical degeneracy from
their great model, Fletcher.

Thomas Kuii- The three pre-Rcstoration tragicomedies of Thomas
I'?"1 Killigrew correspond in type precisely with the works

of Carlell, and vie with them in the overplus of their
adventure, heroic dialogue, and sentiment, and in a
general looseness of style and plot. Killigrew was
reared a page in the court of Charles I and continued
a favorite companion of his son. Killigrew appears
to have written his earlier plays while abroad between
1635 and i64O.2 His later theatrical career falls with-
his tragi- out the limits of this book. Claracilla sets forth a
I^K-^O.' palace intrigue in a nondescript ancient country at
enmity with Rhodes, wherein the Princess Claracilla
is rescued from a usurper by an ingenious counter-
plot of the Princess' lover and his friends. The
Prisoners introduces us to a melodramatic pirate,
Gillippus, who holds nobles as his slaves and kidnaps
princesses. The locus is Sardinia and several scenes,

1 This was in 1672 ; see Genest, i, 133.

3 See Fleay, ii, 24, as to the dates of these plays.

DECADENT ROMANCE 357

take place at sea.1 Although the action is too brisk
for long disputation, the heroic ideal is maintained
not only in the general conception of the characters
and their relations to each other, but in such a debate
as that of the two noble-slaves as to whether it is hon-
orable to betray their master's trust in them or drag
a fair captive into servitude.2 In The Princess is re-
lated the adventures of Cicilia, Princess of Sicily, and
Sophia, sister to "Virgilius, son to Julius Caesar."
Cicilia is sold as a slave in Naples' mart, is restored
to her brother, the King of Sardinia, and, after long
siege, is won to marry Virgilius, enemy to her country.
Sophia scarcely fulfills the demands of her extraordi-
nary kinship. This play is pervaded by the heroic
spirit. Cilius, especially, is a type of the noble self-
denying hero. The scene of recognition between
brother and sister and that wherein Cicilia weighs the
claims of her love for Virgilius with her love of coun-
try are not without merit in their kind.3 Killigrew's
tragicomedies are adequately written in the lilting
verse-prose which Carlell employs, and he is equally
devoid of a scintilla of poetry. The circumstance that
his Cicilia and Clonnda or Love in Arms, one of the
earliest of his post-Restoration tragicomedies, is from
the first book of Le Grand Cyrus sufficiently dis-
closes the general inspiration of these, his earlier
"romances."
A few other plays of this adventurous romantic

1 Cf. the many examples of this in older drama. Fortunes by
Land and Sea, The Fair Maid of the West, and especially Fletcher's
Double Marriage, which may have furnished Killigrew suggestions.

3 The Prisoners, I, i, leaf 18, ed. 1641.

8 See, especially, The Princess, iv, vi ; Works of Thomas Killi-
grew, folio 1664, p. 42.

358 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

type synchronize with the period of the activity of
Carlell and Thomas Killigrew. Among them is a
lengthy and curiously incoherent production by
Henry Kim- Henry Killigrew, younger brother of Thomas, pre-
Conspi™y, pared for a noble marriage and entitled The Con-
l634- spiracy, printed in 1638 as Palantius and Eudora,

and actually given a public performance at Black-
friars. According to one authority, this was "the first
English play publicly acted with scenery," an extraor-
dinary statement, the precise meaning of which it is
difficult to make out.1 There was a third and elder
brother of Thomas and Henry, Sir William Killigrew,
and his several plays — such as Selindra, Love and
Friendship, and The Siege of Urbin — carry on the
traditions of this variety of tragicomedy, though there
is nothing to show that any one of them was acted or
Lower's The even written before the Restoration. An unquestion-
™ame*, '" * * a^^e ^ extravagant specimen of the degenerate prose
l639- romance dramatized is The Phoenix in Her Flames,

printed in 1639 and the work of Sir William Lower,
later the adapter of several French plays of Corneille,
Scarron, and Quinault.2 The Phoenix relates the
wanderings in Arabia of Amandus, Prince of Damas-
cus, who has been deprived of his city by Tartars.
He is captured by robbers who have likewise in their
power a fair Princess of Egypt whom Amandus pre-
serves, but against whose amorous blandishments he
is proof because he has fallen in love with a picture of
the fair Phaenecia, Princess of Arabia. In the end he

1 Fleay, ii, 23. On this topic, the employment of scenery, see
above, i, pp. 171-177.

2 See Langbaine, 332, who relates that Lower, "during the heat
of our Civil Wars, took sanctuary in Holland." Lower was of Tre-
mare, Cornwall, and died in 1662.

DECADENT ROMANCE 359

meets Phoenicia, and after killing her father's enemy,
King Perseus of Persia, unhappily expires of wounds
received in that encounter. As for the Arabian Prin-
cess, she dies, like the Phoenix, smothered in the
fumes of sweet incense.1 The Strange Discovery by
John Gough, written before 1640, has already been
described as a dramatic version of Theagenes and
Charlclea of Heliodorus.2 It is of much the same
extravagant type, and wanders from Egypt to Greece
and thence to Ethiopia in a straggling series of scenes
devoid of any real plotting.

It cannot have escaped the reader that the drama- Recrudescence
tized romance of the reign of King Charles sought °^
its effect not only by the delicate aroma that exhales
from high-strung emotion, but by the more sanc-
tioned methods of a surfeit of adventure. The Phoenix
in her Flames, though well enough written, is as crude
in its way as Common Conditions, and far less inter-
esting because far less naive.3 As might be expected,
such productions as The Phoenix and The Strange
Discovery led to a recrudescence of the ruder earlier
type of heroical romance, precisely as the popularity
of prose romance begot a renewed output of the de-
generate versions of old story in the shape of chap-
books and broadside ballads. It is of interest to note
that productions such as The Four Prentices, such
as Chinon of England and Charlemagne, ceased to
hold the stage after the first decade of the reign of
King James until the two or three revivals, at this late
date, about to be noted.4 Such a production is The

1 The Phoenix, quarto, 1639, Ma. * Cf. above, p. 48.

3 As to Common Conditions and the plays of its type, see above,
i, p. 199.

4 For these early dramatized romances, see above, i, pp. 202-205.

360 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Guy Earl of Tragical History of Guy Earl of fFarwick, written
^^39*' by B. J. (whom it is needless to say was not Ben
Jonson), printed in 1639 and again in 1661. This
"dolent history," as it is described, tells with happy
embellishment the well-known tale of its hero, whom it
glorifies absurdly in the good old fashion, and throws
into consort not only with Paynims and giants, but
Kirke's The likewise with Oberon, king of fairies.1 Even more
p/™" 16^" preposterous is The Seven Champions of Christendom,
"acted at the Cockpit and at the Red Bull (in 1634),
and never printed till the year 1638," by John Kirke.
This play opens in the cave of Calib, a witch who
is visited by Tarpax, the devil. George, discovering
that these personages have killed his father, "heir to
great Coventry," overwhelms them and sets free six
champions whom they have kept in thrall. The seven
knights now take oath that they will repress enchant-
ment, kill Mahometans, and redress the wrongs
of distressed ladies. The scene wanders from Tre-
bizond, which is infested with dragons, to Tartary,
where "devils run laughing over the stage." There
is much marginal thunder and lightning interspersed
with soft music. George fights each champion in turn
and beats him, and the play ends at a castle in Mace-
don, where seven swans are changed to fair maidens
to wed the seven champions. Romance could run no
wilder.2

Returning to less extravagant specimens of later

1 It is impossible to identify so naive a production as this with
the play of the same title registered in 1620 as by Day and Dekker,
and alluded to by Taylor the Water Poet in 1618 as acted by Lord
Derby's men. Penniless Pilgrimage, Works of Taylor, ed. Spenser
Society, 1869, i, 140.

2 Neither of these productions has been reprinted.

DECADENT ROMANCE 361

romantic drama, the later thirties witness, besides the other late ro-

•i /• 01 • i 11 ' mantic dramas.

maturer triumphs of bnirley and the romances just
described, the tragicomedies of Cartwright, from
their slender touch with the classics and the perform-
ance of the most notable of them at Oxford, already
noticed;1 the two lost comedies. The Soldier and The
Scholar by Richard Lovelace, the darling of his age;
and the several dramatic endeavors of that witty,
original, and hare-brained trifler, Sir John Suck-
ling. Suckling was born in 1609, the son of the sir John Suck-
controller of the royal household, who died in 1627, *
leaving the young poet a large fortune. Suckling was
educated at Cambridge, was of the same circle as
Carew, Lovelace, and Nabbes, and particularly inti-
mate with Davenant and "the ever-memorable"
John Hales, from whom he may have acquired the
enthusiastic regard in which he held the memory of
Shakespeare. A spendthrift and gambler for high
stakes, Suckling lived his short day, foremost among
the wits and roistering cavaliers of the days pre-
ceding the war. But although his reputation for
valor was impeached, he maintained the friendship
of King Charles and the regard of several serious-
minded men. Suckling's prodigality put his first play,
Aglaura^ on the stage in 1637, more sumptuously
furnished and costumed than any before its time.
The same trait caused him to furnish the king in 1639
for his disastrous Scottish campaign, a contingent of
a hundred horse accounted at a cost, it was said, of
£ 12,000. 2 A discovery of the prominent part which
Suckling played in a plan to secure for the king the
control of the army and to liberate Straflford from the

1 Above, pp. 46-48, 90.

8 Aubrey, ii, 241, 244; Langbaine, 497.

362

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

The Goblins,
1638.

Brennoralt,
1639.

Tower drove Suckling into exile, and he ended his
life by suicide in Paris in the spring of 1642. Aglaura,
, 1637. a somewhat gloomy tragedy of court intrigue, laid
as to scene in an impossible Persia, has already
claimed our attention among the pseudo-historical
plays that follow in the wake of the historical drama
on foreign annals.1 Into this incongruous scene
Suckling obtruded Semanthe, a "Platonique" lady,
though less is made of the role than we might have
expected from the author of the Platonic letters to
which allusion has already been made.2 It was for
this play that Suckling wrote a final act ending hap-
pily, the only example of such an alternative act in
the drama of old time.3 The Sad One, also a tragedy,
is a mere skeleton or sketch of a play as we have
it, intended to turn on no unusual intrigue in the
court of Sicily. The Goblins, written about 1638, is
an original and sprightly production, full of action
and intrigue, in which figure certain merry outlaws
who masquerade, disguised as devils, as much for their
diversion as for gain. Several time-honored situations
figure in this comedy — two noble families at vari-
ance, for example, and a prince in love with a maiden
whom he relinquishes to her lover to solve an appar-
ent impasse. The Goblins may not impossibly have
been conceived in the nature of a parody on the
deadly serious tragicomedies of his contemporaries :
for such was the temper of Suckling. However, in
Brennoralt or the Discontented Colonel, 1639, Suck-

1 Above, i, p. 450.
3 Above, p. 346.

8 Cf. i, p. 450, and note the later parallel case of a double fifth
act in Sir Robert Howard's Festal Virgin, printed in 1665. See

Langbaine, 277.

DECADENT ROMANCE 363

ling was thoroughly serious, and produced, as a re-
sult, his best dramatic work. Brennoralt is ably
planned and well written, full of action, and not
wanting in characterization, especially of its gloomy
Byronic hero.1 Almost alone of these latest play-
wrights of the reign of Charles has Suckling actual
distinction of style, a happy informing wit, gnomic
wisdom, and power to rise, on occasion, into genuinely
poetic imagery. And yet, hampered by the conven-
tions of the decadent art of his day, Suckling is not
truly dramatic. For in Brennoralt on the background
of an unhistorical Polish rebellion recur the familiar
heroic figures, the noble adversary, the lady infatuated
with a youth who turns out to be the inevitably re-
current pathetic masquerader of her own sex. The
play, too, is but half a tragedy, as in the end Bren-
noralt, of whom we might have expected an heroic
suicide, remains alive, though broken in spirit with
the deaths that his fatal hand has dealt. In view
of contemporary events of the moment the political
attitude of Brennoralt is of no little interest. He is
"discontented," but loyal; and resents the infer-
ence that anything could "tempt his honor." "Dost
think," he exclaims,

" 'cause I am angry with
The king and state sometimes, I am
Fallen out with virtue and myself? "

1 As to the heroic note in this play, see the words of Brennoralt,
HI, i, p. no:

" I will raise honor to a point
It never was — do things of such
A virtuous greatness, she shall love me.

I will deserve her

Although I have her not."

364

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Minor roman-

of King
Charles.

Elsewhere he adds:

" Religion

And liberty (most specious names) they urge:
Which like the bills of subtle mountebanks,
Filled with great promises of curing all, though by
The wise passed by as common cosenage,
Yet by the unknowing multitude they're still
Admired and flocked unto." 1

Such in general was the attitude of the contemporary
dramatist towards the momentous questions that
were hurrying England to civil war and regicide.

The scattering minor dramas of a romantic cast
which were written in the last few years of King
Charles' reign conform almost absolutely to the gen-
eral mode and defy classification as to their minor
characteristics. A larger proportion of them are tra-
gic than are earlier plays of the reign, and in some
we mark a recurrence to the strong stimulants of the
tragedy of blood and horror. Such is the melo-
dramatic Fatal Contract, 1637, of William Heming,
son of the fellow-actor of Shakespeare, in which a
wronged woman compasses her revenge in the novel
disguise of a court eunuch; 2 and such, too, is the
intricate and overwrought Sicily and Naples, 1640,
by Samuel Harding, wherein the disguise of a Moor
— favorite device of the moment — is similarly em-
1639. ployed.8 Imperiale, by Ralph Freeman, recurs to
Senecan methods and devices to produce its genuinely
powerful effect. There is something truly heroic in
the story of Molosso, the wronged slave, and his com-
plete and outrageous revenge, wrought in sight of the

1 Brennoralt, HI, i, Works of Suckling, Library of Old Authors,

ii, 104-105.

2 Cf. above, i, p. 426, for a fuller account of this production.

3 Above, i, p. 410.

DECADENT ROMANCE 365

now helpless master who had wronged him.1 The
Rebellion by Thomas Rawlins, medalist in the Royal
Mint, tells a more pleasing tale of a noble gentleman
disguised as a tailor, and uses to the full all the old
romantic devices of disguise, bandits, rescues, visions,
and what not. John Tatham's inferior Distracted
State is another "Sicilian history" of which Genest
remarks that "the plot answers well to the title;" 2
whilst George Cartwright's Heroic Lover or the In-
fanta of Spain offers nothing in its Polish scene that
need detain even the most conscientious student, and
a trial of Nabbes' Unfortunate Mother, "refused by
the actors," will uphold the justice of the words of
the editor of Nabbes that it " hardly allows itself to
be read." 3 Andromana, The Merchant's Wije, by
J. S., who was not James Shirley, is a well-written
dramatic version of the story of Plangus in Sidney's
Arcadia, which furnished Fletcher with the major
plot of Cupid's Revenge. The Marriage Night is by
Henry Gary, Viscount Falkland, who lived until 1663,
and not by Lucius, his son, whose untimely death in
1643 was deplored by so many who were destined
themselves to fall in the royal cause. Neither of these
tragicomedies was certainly written before 1642.*

Romantic comedies were few in these last years. Last romantic
The Amorous War by Jasper Mayne is a lively and comcdle*-

1 This play is not to be confused with The Imperial Tragedy,
published anonymously in 1669, and thought by Langbaine to be
by Sir William Killigrew. This latter concerns the life of the Em-
peror Zeno, and falls, with all its accumulated horrors, without
our period.

2 Genest, x, 75.

8 Bullen, Old Plays, n. s. i, p. xvii.

4 See Ward, iii, 336, for parallels to Shakespeare and Tourneur
which he finds in this play.

366 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

somewhat extravagant play in which, by means of a
pretended conquest by Amazons, certain ladies of
Bythynia test the bravery and the fidelity of their
husbands and lovers. The idea seems suggested, like
that of Cartwright's Lady Errant, by some of the
scenes of Fletcher's Sea Voyage. Of the same year,
1639, is Alexander Brome's sprightly and attractive
comedy, The Cunning Lovers, wherein an eccentric
duke, Prospero of Verona, locks up his daughter
in an impregnable tower; but is outwitted and de-
luded by the cleverness of the lover and his friends
with devices which smack of the supernatural but
are really simplicity itself.1 Alexander Brome was a
writer of songs of some merit and publisher of the
plays of his namesake, Richard Brome, to whom he
The virgin tells us explicitly he was not related.2 Francis Quarles,
Quarles. * serious religious poet that he was, and famous as
the writer of Emblems, left behind him a single play
entitled The Virgin Widow, which "the stationer"
informs the reader was "sometimes at Chelsea pri-
vately acted by a company of young gentlemen."
A first edition of this "comedy" was printed in 1649,
five years after the death of Quarles. The Virgin
Widow is a very amateurish performance and curi-
ously free from the prevailing theatrical conventions.
A fair maid, married to a despicable usurer, and an
honorable King, father of three sons and husband

1 This story in slightly different form is found in the Latin His-
toria septem sapientium Roma, the thirteenth tale. See The Seven
Sages, Percy Society's Publications, xvi, p. Ixiv; a medieval me-
trical version is given at page 94. Cf. also, the tale called "The
Two Dreams," in The Seven Wise Masters, G. Ellis, Early English
Metrical Romances, ed. 1 868, p. 442.

2 On the Comedies of Richard Brome, prefixed to Five New
Plays, 1659.

DECADENT ROMANCE 367

of a wicked Queen, are platonically attached. The
usurer dies of poison sent by the Queen, and a stroke
of divine lightning destroys the royal family, save for
the King, who marries at once the maid, wife, and
widow, thus fulfilling an oracle. There is much low
comedy of an innocent kind to fill up the slender
main story. The play is well written, but it is diffi-
cult to believe it other than an early production of
its serious author.

The Lost Lady of Sir William Berkeley, subse- Berkeley's
quently governor of Virginia, is highly praised by f^
Ward, but he miscalls the hero and mistakes the
disguise of the "lady." l The novel plot of this
tragicomedy, which is well sustained although the
exposition is decidedly obscure, details the nightly
devotions of Prince Lysicles of Thessaly before the
tomb of his beloved, Milisia, whom he believes to
have been murdered; and how in the disguise of a
female Moor that lady tests and proves his devotion,
despite appearances which result from the generosity
of Lysicles to an absent friend. That charming and
vivacious young woman of Commonwealth times,
Mistress Dorothy Osborne, who became the wife of
Sir William Temple, gives us a delightful touch of
the reality of these old plays in one of her letters.
"They will have me," she gossips, "at my part in a
play; 'The Lost Lady' it is, and I am she. Pray
God it be not an ill omen." 2 This play has all the
preternatural seriousness of the heroic spirit; and

1 Ward, in, 163. The Lost Lady was printed in 1639.

2 Letters from Dorothy Osborne to Sir William Temple, edited by
E. A. Parry, p. 304. The editor's idea that Dorothy played the
role of Hermione is incorrect, as Hermione is neither the heroine
nor "the lost lady."

368 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

we cannot but wonder, when "the lost lady," with
blackened face, is ill of the potion hastily admin-
istered by her loyal but mistaking Lysicles, and her
face is laved with water thereby disclosing her iden-
tity, did witty Mistress Dorothy retain her gravity ? 1
Habington's In 1640 Cleodora, the Queen of dragon, was staged
, 1640. ^^ at CQun an(j zt g^ckfriars with great expense.

The author was William Habington, author of Cas-
tara, a collection of lyrical poetry of considerable if
fastidious merit and an historian of note. The Queen
of dragon is a play of elevated and refined senti-
ment, by no means ineffective in its chief characters,
which consist of the Queen and her three lovers,
two warring generals, and the King of Castile. A fine
heroic tone pervades the whole production, and it is
neither wanting in poetry nor in independence of
thought. Another play of a Queen of Aragon was
given to the press in Commonwealth times by Alex-
ander Gough and doubtless belongs to times previous
to the closing of the theaters. It was entitled The
Queen or the Excellency of her Sex, and the plot con-
cerns the sudden fortune of Alphonso raised from the
block to be king, his pride and the devotion of his
Queen. This play has been thought Ford's, and is not
unlikely the work of a dramatist of note. With the
chronicling of The Noble Stranger by Lewis Sharp,
an obvious plot of a prince disguised, not altogether
badly told, and of The Just General by Major Cosmo
Manuche, still another "Sicilian history" printed in
Commonwealth times, our tale of the romantic dramas
of the reign of King Charles I comes to an end.

1 This incredible scene may be found by the doubting in Dodsley,
Hazlitt's ed. xii, 609, 610. A play called Cornelia, by Berkeley,
appears to have been acted after the Restoration. Fleay, i, 28.

DECADENT ROMANCE

369

The Puritan spirit of the Parliaments of King Puritan attack
Charles is patent in a statute of the very first year of ^d^*8"
his reign which forbids "the acting of interludes and suppression of

i o j »» i T L r 11 • performances,

common plays on Sunday. In the following year, ,64Z.
1626, a petition for the building of an amphitheater in
Lincoln's Inn Fields failed when it was discovered
that theatrical performances were to be given therein.2
The notorious Nathaniel Giles, too, — who seems to
have carried on his traffic of furnishing boys to the
stage for some thirty years, — was finally forbidden to
supply any of the children of the royal chapel for the
acting of stage plays, "for that it is not fitt or desent
that such should sing the praises of God Almighty."8
In 1631 the Puritans had become bolder, and a peti-
tion was presented to the Bishop of London by the
inhabitants of Blackfriars demanding the removal
of the playhouse there. They recalled the ancient
prohibition of a playhouse within the city, and com-
plained of its interference with traffic, trade, and
church worship. But nothing came of this petition.4
A year or two later followed Prynne's offense, his
trial and condemnation, of which enough has been
said. In 1636 and 1637 the playhouses were closed
for a month on account of the plague; and in 1640
an order was issued to suppress the players, although

1 Fleay, Stage, 342; and see Hazlitt, Documents, 59.

2 Fleay, Stage, 343 ; Collier, ii, 11-15, wnere it appears that this
was the renewal of a petition of 1620.

3 Ibid. 1 6. This prohibition appears as a clause in a warrant of
the privy seal authorizing Giles, as formerly, to take up singing boys
for the chapel royal.

4 Fleay, Stage, 344 ; and see Collier, ii, 34-36, for some quaint
punishments put upon the participants for their part in a per-
formance of A Midsummer-Night's Dream at the house of the
Bishop of Lincoln in this same year.

370 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

this document, one of Collier's finds, has been sus-
pected.1 At length, in September, 1642, came the ordi-
nance of the Lords and Commons, putting a cease to
the performance of all plays on account of the civil
war; and several further ordinances were passed to
complete the suppression. The final one of February,
1647, declared all players rogues within the meaning
of the old statutes of Elizabeth and James, authorized
the mayor, justices, and sheriffs to dismantle all play-
houses, assigned whipping as the punishment for an
actor caught pursuing his calling, fined each spectator
five shillings, and turned over the door money to the
relief of the poor. 2

1 ¥\eay, Stage, 365; Collier, ii, ed. 1879, P- 34-

2 Ibid, ii, 36-50; where these ordinances and the manner in
which they were carried out is discussed. See, also, Hazlitt, Docu-
ments, 63-70, where the texts of these statutes are reprinted. *J

XX

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT

OUR structure is now complete, and we may Census of plays
demolish the scaffolds with some little pause JJ^1,^
in the process. It is related that Malone, a competent and 1642.
judge, once estimated the total output of plays on
the London stage between the accession of Queen
Elizabeth and the closing of the theaters at something
like two thousand.1 In view of the large number of
plays which must have perished and left not even
their titles behind them, this estimate cannot be con-
sidered excessive. And yet, when we come to an ac-
tual census of the material at hand, — plays extant,
in print or still in manuscript, plays entered for print-
ing in the Stationers' Register and otherwise re-
corded or alluded to, — the sum total rises scarcely to
sixteen hundred; and to eke out this we must include
a hundred and thirty university plays, Latin and
English, a hundred and forty masques and entertain-
ments, and between thirty and forty city pageants,
productions, all of them dramatical, but, like the
translations of foreign plays (likewise included), only

1 I do not find this estimate in any of Malone's published works.
Fleay, in his Life of Shakespeare, 356, gives precisely this figure,
and reduces it to the unnecessarily low number 1320 (in his His-
tory of the Stage, 254) between 1587 and 1641. Fleay bases his
estimate on the forty-two plays of Herbert's list in eighteen months
of 1622-23, anc^ subtracting six old plays, gets an average of
twenty-four new plays per year. The activity of the hey-day of
Henslowe must certainly have been greater.

372 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

to be classed as true dramas with a certain latitude
and indulgence. To one who has never had occasion
to work with material such as this, a complete and
satisfactory list, including every dramatic production
between two definite dates, must seem a matter of
simple enumeration. But several considerations enter
into such a count to complicate it and to render any
result merely approximate. There is, for example,
uncertainty as to the actual dates of plays at the
beginning and at the end of the period; the date of
publication, performance, and even of mention being
frequently misleading. There is uncertainty, again,
as to the identity of the same play, revived, as it
often was, under a totally different title, or as to the
actual difference of plays (when one or both are lost)
of the same or of similar titles. There is doubt as to
whether some registrations and mentions actually
refer to plays or to productions of another kind; and
there is question as to the extent of revision which
should be taken to constitute a new play. And yet
with all these doubts and with liberal allowances
and deductions there remain at the very least twelve
hundred titles of English plays written within these
eighty-five years, all save a very few of which were
staged and more than half of which were so approved
by their time that they were acted again and again,
printed, sometimes in many editions, and rejuve-
nated, some of them in repeated revivals.1 As to the
proportion of this total now extant, the student who

1 Mr. Greg's recent List of English Plays "written before 1643
and printed before 1700 " includes 764 titles. It obviously includes
a number of pre-Elizabethan productions, and, from his plan to
include all the works of any author, some of whose plays fall before
his upward limit, a number written later.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 373

should be so Quixotic as to plan a personal acquaint-
ance with the entire body of Elizabethan drama
must prepare to read at least nine hundred plays,
English and Latin, masques, entertainments, and
civic pageants included, and account for something
less than six hundred and fifty mentions.1

While it must be remembered that our knowledge inferences as
in these particulars is defective and must from the to
nature of the case remain so, one or two inferences
which may be drawn concerning the distribution of
these productions within the period are not without
a certain interest. The middle point numerically
falls, curiously enough, just short of the date of
Elizabeth's death, so that we may affirm that just
about as many plays were staged during the forty-
five years of the queen's reign as were perform*ed in
the thirty-nine that follow to the closing of the thea-
ters. But if we turn to the two periods of eleven years
each (from 1589 to 1600 and from'i6oi to 1611)
which constitute Shakespeare's active career, we find
a preponderance of nearly four to three in favor of
the earlier period.2 Indeed, no decade of the drama
can vie with the last of Queen Elizabeth in dra-
matic as for that matter in other literary activities.
Certainly no less than four hundred plays were writ-
ten and acted within those ten years, an average per
year more than double that which appertains to the
whole period. But enough of these dry deductions.

Turning to the authors of this old drama, we find

1 My own figures, on a rough estimate of my material for this
book, are 875 plays and masques, to which should be added 33
civic pageants and 640 productions no longer extant.

2 The figures of my rough list are 377 plays in the earlier period
against 279 in the later.

374 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

The gentleman at the least two hundred names.1 The activity of
playwright/ ^ this horde of writers varied from the single play of
the gentleman amateur who affected a concealment
of his authorship, effective only to posterity, to pro-
fessionals of the surprising activity of Thomas Hey-
wood, who confessed to a share in two hundred and
twenty plays, or the more reasonable contribution
of Dekker, with whose name no less than seventy-
six titles have been associated. The noble and gentle-
man author is a constant figure of the whole period,
from my Lord of Oxenford, Sidney's enemy in the
seventies, and Hughes and his fellows, Bacon and
others, ten years later, to Carew, King Charles' cup-
bearer, the Duke of Newcastle, and cavaliers like
Lovelace and Habington and triflers like Suckling
and Thomas Killigrew. The university man, too,
grave, scholarly, and a theorist like Watson, Ascham's
friend, remains little changed four generations later
in William Strode, canon of Christ Church in the
time of King Charles, sage, scholarly, and contempt-
uous of the drama. In the cut and thrust, likewise,
of the personal satire of college drama, the difference
between the drastic humor of Nash (had we his Ter-
minus et non Terminus to judge by) and Randolph,
wit, scholar, and lover of sack that he was, could have
been only one in degree, not in kind. It was otherwise
with the popular playwright, whether he plied his
trade at court or on the boards of the London play-

1 Fleay, Stage, 377, 378, lists some 180 writers, omitting from
among them so popular a name as William Hunnis, for example.
The list of Latin college plays furnishes several additional names,
and there are a few men like Campion, William Browne, and Milton,
who wrote masques without writing for either the popular stage or
at the universities.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 375

houses; and the contrast lies in the circumstance that
he was plying a craft in which adaptability was the
first condition of success. Bale, the controversialist;
John Heywood, the court jester; Udall, Hunnis, Lyly,
the schoolmaster developed into the professional man-
ager and playwright; Sackville, Gascoigne, Daniel,
the gentleman of the inns of court perfecting the
amateur's adaptation of Latin, Italian, and French
examples; Peele, proceeding from the college to the
court and from the court to the stage of the city, —
such are the well-known steps to Shakespeare and
"the actor playwrights."

The term, "actor playwright" has been much ex- "The actor
tended and misused. As a matter of fact, this title p
has been denied Marlowe and, of late, Greene also.1
It is doubtful if Lodge, a lord mayor's son, who
tried to conceal his converse with the drama, ever
trod the boards; and this doubt applies to Kyd, who
revolved in an outer orbit of the Pembroke circle.3
The class which Shakespeare glorified almost alone
took its humble rise in men like Robert Wilson the
elder, writer of belated moralities; in Tarlton, the
clown; and Anthony Munday, who "was everything
by starts and nothing long." Peele seems, after all,
to have been the only man of note, Shakespeare's
earlier contemporary, who certainly shared with him
the double function of actor and playwright. The

1 The ballad in which Marlowe is described as a player at the
Curtain "in his early age" is now considered one of Collier's for-
geries. See Sidney Lee in Dictionary of National Biography, xxxvi,
181. As to Greene, see Gayley in his Representative English
Comedies, 402.

2 See C. M. Ingleby in Notes and Queries, sixth series, xi, 107,
415. Mr. Boas' recent work on Kyd contains no suggestion that his
author was an actor.

376 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

authority which makes Jonson an actor seems not
wholly unapocryphal; at the least he could not long
have exercised "the quality" successfully with his
"mountain belly and his rocky face." 1 In the nine-
ties came Armin, Thomas Heywood, Field, and
Samuel Rowley; and William Rowley soon followed.
If a group of "actor playwrights" is to be constructed,
it must be allowed to extend in point of time from
before the Armada well into the reign of King Charles,
when Heywood still continued active, and to include
as divers names as Shakespeare's, Armin's, and;.
Barkstead's. In short, among two hundred play-
wrights of the period and two hundred and seventy-
five actors, scarcely a score combined the creative
function with mimetic art.
Dramatic au- None the less, it is not to be denied that by the date
james. °f tne accession of King James theatrical author-
ship had begun to attract the talents of men of better
nurture; and Marlowe, the shoemaker's son, Shake-
speare, the yeoman's, and Jonson, whose father was
apparently a small parson, were followed by Beau-
mont, son of Judge Beaumont of Grace Dieu, Leices-
ter, Fletcher, younger son of the Bishop of Worcester,
and by Chapman, Middleton, and Marston, each of
whom might write himself "gentleman" without a
present invocation of the Heralds' Office.2 But men
of obscure origin worked and likewise glorified the
drama in this and in the next reign, — men like Web-

1 The only allusion to Jonson as an actor apparently is the
charge of Dekker in Satiromastix, "I have scene thy shoulders lapt
in a plaiers old cast cloake/'etc. (Works of Dekker, ed. 1873, i, 202),
put into the month of Tucca, a notorious liar and boaster. On the
subject, see Giffbrd in Cunningham-Gifford, Jonson, i, p. xxxii.

2 Cf. the efforts of Shakespeare to obtain a grant of arms, Lee,
Shakespeare, ed. 1898, pp. 188-193.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 377

ster, of whose birth and family we know nothing,
Brome who began life as a body servant to Ben Jon-
son, and Day, briefly described by the same great
poet as a rogue.1 Moreover, Ford, although as loath
to steal a book as to purloin its contents, was but a
lawyer's factor, and Shirley began a schoolmaster and
returned to this hapless vocation and to hack writing
in later life.2

A rational attempt to group the authors of this Personal reU-
long period, and restore to our understanding in any |a°^snsn0^ J*1"
wise their personal relations, must proceed by means dramatists,
of a consideration of the stage history of the time
and especially take into account the contemporary
practice of collaboration, of which enough has been
already said in these pages.3 Thus Lyly's affiliations
were solely with the semi-professional companies of
boys at court. With their suppression his career was
at an end. Peele transferred his talents from the
Chapel Children to the popular stage, writing chiefly
after 1594 for the Admiral's men. On the other hand,
Greene, like Tarlton who preceeded him, wrote
only for the Queen's company of adult actors, the
troupe which from 1583 to the formations of its
rivals, the Admiral's, Pembroke's, and Lord Strange's
companies, in the late eighties, achieved the earliest
popular successes on the London boards. Lodge and
Marlowe made frequent transfer of their talents
from company to company, the latter writing suc-
cessively for the Admiral's men, the Queen's, Pem-
broke's, and Lord Strange's. Kyd may perhaps have

1 Conversations, 4.

2 Day is reported to have been expelled from Cambridge for
stealing a book.

8 Cf. especially, above, i, pp. 265-267.

378 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

written for this latter company as for the Earl of
Pembroke's.1 Shakespeare is a notable exception
among the poets of the first rank, as he, like Greene
before him, wrote for but one company throughout
his career. By 1590, despite the able rivalry of the
Admiral's and Pembroke's men, the company to
which Shakespeare was attached had begun to at-
tract to itself the greater actors and playwrights of
the time. Alleyn had acted with that company, then
known as Lord Strange's players, in 1593, although
he now left them permanently for the Admiral's.
Peele and Robert Wilson, most experienced of the
older playwrights, came to them in 1590, Burbage
joined them from the Queen's players in 1592, Mar-
lowe just before his death in 1593, and Lodge per-
haps in 1595. Although these more prominent prede-
cessors of Shakespeare formed in no sense a coterie,
as has sometimes been stated, there is abundant proof
that the university men, Peele, Greene, Lodge, Mar-
lowe, and later Nash, were intimately known to each
other. Lyly, from his slightly greater years and from
his professional relations to the court, must have
stood somewhat apart from these young Bohemians;
though, from his share with Nash in the Marprelate
controversy, we cannot feel too sure of this.2 Al-
though we know that he once wrote in the same
room with Marlowe, Kyd, too, a scrivener's son and
no collegian, was surely looked at askant by Greene,
despite his success with his Spanish Tragedy, and
regarded in the same category with the "upstart
crow" who, younger man that he was and likewise
of no college, dared successfully rival Robert Greene,

1 Fleay, ii, 26.

2 On the subject, see Bond, Lyly, i, 51-54.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 379

Magister utriusque academiae. Shakespeare must
have joined his company before any of these "gentle-
men" were attracted to it by his success. After the
nineties he could not have remained unknown to them.
Save for Greene and perhaps Kyd, there is nothing
to gainsay the probability that Shakespeare was on
terms of familiar acquaintance with these fellow-
workers in his own company and esteemed by them,
as he was by Chettle, for his civil demeanor, "his
uprightness of dealing," and "facetious grace in
writing." l

On the death of Marlowe, Shakespeare succeeded Shakespeare in

i i j r i_ • r • ' ' his professional

at once to the head of his profession, remaining to reiations and
the end of the reign practically the only permanent friendships with

f I /-I I • > T J' Jonsonand

poet of the Chamberlain s company. In extraordi- others.
nary contrast to this, Henslowe employed during the
same period for his Admiral's men at the Rose and
at the Fortune no less than five and twenty play-
wrights; and although Haughton, Rankins, Porter,
and Samuel Rowley seem to have written solely for
him, the majority transferred their talents at will to
the highest bidder, though often willing to return to
Henslowe when in straits. Jonson was the first
to leave the Admiral's men. This was in consequence
of his killing of Gabriel Spenser in 1598. Chapman
and Heywood severed their connection in the next
year; Middleton, Webster, Drayton, Dekker, and
others in 1602; Chettle and Day in 1603. The only
other writers for the Chamberlain's men were Armin
in 1599, Dekker in Satiromastix in 1602, and Dray-
ton, perhaps, intermittently between 1597 and 1605.
Jonson returned to Henslowe in 1602 but soon re-

1 Kindheart's Dream, 1592, "To the Gentlemen Readers," Pub-
lications of the Percy Society, v, p. iv.

380 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

joined the company of Shakespeare, for which he
wrote, alternating with the Children of the Chapel
and their successors, practically to the end of his
career.1 The lasting friendship of Shakespeare and
Jonson must have been founded on Shakespeare's
recommendation of Every Man in His Humor to
his company in 1598. That the friendship endured
the touch of time and the hand of death, ignorance
alone can deny. A tradition repeated by John Ward,
Vicar of Stratford, relates that Jonson and Drayton
paid a visit to Shakespeare's New Place in 1616,
just prior to the owner's death.2 Drayton may well
have been among Shakespeare's friends, and there
is nothing improbable in the story, although its con-
sequences to Shakespeare may well have been ex-
aggerated by the ministerial reluctance to spoil a good
story for the want of fact. But Shakespeare's closest
intimates were indubitably among his fellow actors,
Burbage, Heming and Condell, later his executors,
and Augustine Phillips. Indeed, if we may judge
by the circumstance that the Earl of Southampton,
to whom Shakespeare dedicated his narrative poems,
is the only patron of Shakespeare that "is known to
biographical research," 3 the great dramatist appears
to have scorned, or at least neglected, that incessant
search for preferment and cultivation of "great ones"
that gives to Jonson a list of more than eighty dedi-
catees and noble patrons.4 Jonson's friends, too,
were legion, as his poems disclose, with upwards of
sixty poets, authors, actors, and translators signalized

1 Cf. Fleay, i, 157-160; and L. Whitaker, Michael Drayton as a
Dramatist.

2 See Halliwell-Phillipps Outlines, ed. 1898, ii, 70.

3 Lee, Shakespeare, 130. * Fleay, i, 337-340.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 381

in encomium, ode, or epigram.1 His closest intimates
in the drama were Marston, with whom he quarreled,
and Chapman, whom he ever esteemed. His sim-
ilarity in character and ideals must have drawn his
fellow scholar very near him. Daniel, Jonson held
in contempt, Munday he long ridiculed, Inigo Jones,
as we have abundantly seen, was first his associate
in the masque and then his bitter enemy. Field he
had educated, Randolph and Carrwright in later
times were his poetical sons, and Brome had such
art in making plays as he possessed, a legacy from
Jonson. In short, the associates of Jonson in litera-
ture, in the drama, and at court embraced every well-
known man in the England of three generations.

There is little more than their incessant collabora- Personal rela-
tion to determine the personal relations of men like 0°^, Hey-
Dekker and Heywood. The former seems to have wood» and
been hopelessly improvident, spending years in a
debtor's prison. It is difficult to find a playwright in
Henslowe's list with whom Dekker was not at one
time or another in active collaboration; and for mend-
ing, patching, revising, and rewriting he appears to
have been the Johannes Factotum of his employer.
Heywood's life, too, is obscure. He seems, however,
to have worked more independently than Dekker,
and, like him, for many companies. Both men were
of the journalist's type and possessed of the journal-
ist's ease, fluency, and carelessness in writing. It is
likely that all of these playwrights of Henslowe led
a semi-Bohemian existence, as remote from the easy
access to court and to gentle society which men like
Jonson, Fletcher, and Beaumont enjoyed as it was
removed from the steady industry and substantial

» 335-337-

382 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

money return of Shakespeare.1 That these writers,
however, were not without an appreciation of their
own literary standing and relations, one to the other,
is witnessed by more than one of their allusions,
though perhaps no one of these is so characteristic
as that of Webster's dedication to The White Devil,
wherein he tells us: "For mine owne part, I have
ever truly cherisht my good opinion of other mens
worthy labours; especially of that full and haightned
stile of Maister Chapman; the labor'd and under-
standing workes of Maister Johnson ; the no lesse
worthy composures of the both worthily excellent
Maister Beaumont and Maister Fletcher, and lastly
(without wrong last to be named) the right happy
and copious industry of M. Shake-speare, M. Dekker,
and M. Hey wood; wishing what I write may be read
by their light; protesting that, in the strength of
mine own judgement, I know them so worthy, that
though I rest silent in my owne worke, yet to most
of theirs I dare (without flattery) fix that of Martiall:

— non norunt haec monumenta man."

Heywood's pleasant jocular couplets, too, on the
brotherhood of "our moderne poets," deserve the fre-
quent quotation they receive, even if they shock our
preconceptions of the dignity of Parnassus to know
that

"Mario, renown'd for his rare art and wit,
Could ne're attaine beyond the name of Kit ;

Excellent Bewmont, in the formost ranke

Of the rar'st Wits, was never more than Franck.

1 Dekker shared poetic honors with Jonson in the welcome of
the new king to London. He does not appear to have served royalty
directly thereafter, though employed, like Heywood and Middleton,
as a city poet and maker of civic pageants.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 383

Mellifluous Shakespeare, whose inchanting Quill

Commanded Mirth or Passion, was but Will.

And famous Johnson, though his learned Pen

Be dipt in Castaly, is still but Ben.

Fletcher and Webster, of that learned packe

None of the mean'st, yet neither was but Jacke.

Deckers but Tom ; nor May, nor Middleton.

And hee 's now but Jacke Foord, that once were John." *

Such passages prove beyond the peradventure of a
doubt the easy sociability of the time and the agree-
able relations of this small body of talented men
pursuing their common vocation in a small capital
as yet free from the congestion and overplus of pop-
ulation which paralyze the amenities in modern me-
tropolitan life.

Beaumont and Fletcher, after writing variously The relations of
for the Queen's Revels and the Lady Elizabeth's %££>"*
companies, gravitated by the weight of their talents Shakespeare,

i -ir- , •"•/•! i • o; •; Massinger, and

to the King s men, writing for them their rhilaster others.
about 1610. Beaumont had written likewise for the
King's Revels, but left the stage on his marriage,
not long after Shakespeare's retirement, and died a
month before Shakespeare. It was doubtless soon
after the performance of Philaster that Fletcher
formed his association with Shakespeare, writing
under his supervision, if not with him, The Two
Noble Kinsmen, and revising Henry VIII for revival.
It does not strike one as irrational to think of Shake-
speare, determined to retire, looking about him for
a fit successor and selecting this ready and facile
young dramatist who had already won his spurs.
Leaving this surmise for what it may be worth, cer-
tain it is that Fletcher succeeded Shakespeare defi-

1 Hier archie of the Blessed Angels t 1635, quoted in Shakespeare's
Century of Praise, 1874, p. 128.

384 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

nitely about the date of the latter's death, as chief
poet of the King's players, and that he maintained his
place as the leading popular dramatist of his day to
his own untimely death by the plague in 1625. But
Fletcher was far less alone in his premiership than
Shakespeare had been, in his time. Field became a
member of the King's company about 1616, and
Massinger, save for a very brief period, was added
as a permanent acquisition in the following year. In
this year, too, though for the most part engaged
with other companies, Webster wrote his great play,
The Duchess of Malfi, for this leading troupe, and
Middleton and William Rowley added their talents
in 1623. Thus, during the last two or three years of
the reign of King James we find Fletcher, Jonson,
Massinger, Middleton, and Rowley all writing for
the favorite company. Heywood and Dekker with
the Lady Elizabeth's players at the Cockpit were
their only rivals of note; but their plays were ad-
dressed, taken all in all, to an inferior audience. The
names of Beaumont and Fletcher have been linked
forever on the title of the folios containing their
work; but the personal relations of Massinger with
Fletcher could have been no less intimate, if their
incessant collaboration signifies anything. Their
friendship is attested by more than one allusion all
but contemporary, and when Massinger died, in 1639,
he was buried in St. Mary Overies, in the grave of]
Fletcher.1

Though writing little for the public theater in the
reign of King Charles, and that little ill received by
a younger generation that had not known him in his

1 See, especially, the passages from the Small Poems of Cockayne,
1658, quoted by Oliphant in Englische Studien, xiv, 55, 56.

'

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 385

prime, Jonson maintained none the less the esteem Jonsoninthe
of the judicious whom he loved, and presided in con- Charles- shir-
tentment the sovereign of literary Bohemia. The ley> last of the

i • r J • L. • r ™ i S1"631 drama-

chiet dramatic poet on the accession of Charles was tists.
Massinger, who continued in the King's company
the traditions and the success of Fletcher. Ford,
Davenant, Brome, and many lesser men were Mas-
singer's fellow-dramatists after the death of Fletcher,
and he had to withstand a rival, his equal in pro-
ductivity, inventiveness, and dramatic tact and com-
petency; for James Shirley, writing chiefly for Queen
Henrietta's men at the Cockpit, possessed every one
of these merits. But in Shirley's case, as in that of
so many who had gone before him, the attractions
of the King's company prevailed. Before the death of
Massinger in 1639, Shirley joined the favorite com-
pany and soon succeeded to the post of its chief poet.
But the closing of the theaters, two years later, de-
throned him, as it displaced lesser men, and the
playwright now became a man without a vocation,
the actor a pariah in stern Puritan England. The
last few years of the drama witnessed an increasing
number of gentlemen amateurs writing for the stage
as an amusement. Carlell, Habington, Arthur Wil-
son, Suckling, Killigrew, and Newcastle all contrived
in these latter years to have their plays performed
by the King's men before royalty. Such a thing
would have been impossible in the days of Elizabeth
or even of King James. In short, the line between the
professional and the amateur dramatist had broken
down and Charles himself became the literary ad-
viser of these gentlemen adventurers in the drama
and master of his own revels.1
1 Cf. Herbert's account of the royal definition of "asseverations,"

sion
tists.

386 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Lead of shake- From this epitome of the relations of the chief
San"einthT playwrights to each other and to the companies for
profession; its which they wrote certain inferences may be drawn.
ya0fUdrama- The most striking is the absolute lead which Shake-
speare's company maintained from the moment of
his first assured success in 1593 to the close of the
old drama, a generation after his death. Secondly,
we may note the primacy among playwrights of the
chief writer for that company in a succession extend-
ing from Marlowe, whose death left Shakespeare
without a rival, through Fletcher and Massinger to
Shirley. It is interesting, too, to note how the careers
of these men overlap, Marlowe and Shakespeare
appearing as co-workers for the company in 1593,
Shakespeare and Fletcher in 1610-1611, Fletcher
and Massinger in the latter years of the reign of
King James, and Massinger and Shirley in the last
two years of the former's life. Indeed, it may be
asserted that the rivals of this triumphant troupe,
despite the lively competition of Pembroke's men in
Elizabeth's reign, the Prince's players in James',
and Queen Henrietta's in that of King Charles,
were in a sense little more than training-schools for
the one truly royal company. Lastly, it is of inter-
est to notice that it was adaptable and mediocre
Davenant, not Shirley, last of the great Elizabethan
brotherhood, who became the reorganizer of the stage
at the resuscitation of the King's company when
Charles II assumed his throne. Shirley had joined
the King's men too late; Davenant had been eight
years his predecessor in writing for them, and had
belonged to no other company. Thus this most

and the royal likes and dislikes. Malone, Shakespeare, in, 235, 236,
241.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 387

famous of theatrical companies stretched its lead into
a new age; but in breaking with Shirley it broke
forever with the great poetical traditions of its past.

From the foregoing chapters it is patent that the interrelations
English drama in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and °de^c ,nad"
in those of her two successors was made up of two vernacular
strands, the scholarly and academic drama and the
plays that flourished in the popular playhouses.
While the two types are at all times distinguishable
and offer a contrast at once noteworthy and strik-
ing, their interrelations, owing to the royal patron-
age of theatrical entertainments throughout the
three reigns, is close, and their influence the one upon
the other unintermittent. The ideals of the court
involved elegance, display, and costliness; those of
the people the wider appeals of terror, humor, and
realistic truth. Hence, while the inns of court and
the universities pondered on the precedents of the
ancients, and writers at court consulted the prac-
tices of the contemporary French and Italian stage,
the popular theaters were independent of these lets
and hindrances, and the vernacular drama devel-
oped with a freedom and an unrestraint unparal-
leled in the history of literature. And yet it was in
the schools and the court that the first true drama
took its rise, as we have abundantly seen. Every
early prominent name in dramatic history is that of a
schoolmaster, a courtier, or both; and it is not until
the Spanish Armada had come and gone its way to
destruction that a vernacular drama worthy to com-
pare with that which was already flourishing at
court and in the schools can be said to have come
to exist. Lyly was wholly of the academic school,
and the only "predecessor of Shakespeare" of whom

388 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

this can be said. Daniel was as wholly of it, in later
Shakespearean times, and so was Fulke Greville,
though Greville's tragedies belong not to the stage.
The only other name which deserves to stand beside
these is that of Thomas Randolph, who, although
assuredly to be classed as one of the "sons of Ben,"
seems to have lived and written otherwise in pecul-
iar freedom from popular contemporary dramatic
influences. To the academic school the drama owes
the Senecan craze out of which momentous things, as
we have seen, came to pass. To the academic school
must be credited, too, the pastoral and the masque,
though it is notable that within their stricter limita-
tions these exotics would have remained unfruitful but
for the vitalizing influences which the vernacular
drama exercised upon them. In the utmost contrast
we found the popular and vernacular writers, whose
salient traits were the eclecticism of their practice and
an unorthodoxy as to "Aristotle's precepts and Euri-
pides' examples " which set the teeth of delicately bred
scholarship on edge. But the successes of Greene,
Marlowe, Shakespeare, and the rest of the romanti-
cists routed the theorists once and for all; though a
new type of author arose in such men as Kyd, Chap-
man, Jonson, and Marston, whose efforts tended to
a judicious tempering of the extravagances of Eliza-
bethan romantic art by an adaptation to English
conditions of the rules and precedents of ancient and
Italian drama. There is not one of these authors-
even Jonson — who is not at times extravagant and
bizarre, for all were Elizabethans. But their extrava-
gance is for the most part satirical, and therefore
conscious and premeditated; it is the true romanticist
alone who is rapt in his own passion and borne away

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 389

on the fluttering wings of fancy or into greater heights
with the wider sweep of the pinions of poetic imagina-
tion. Save for Jonson, Chapman, Marston, and their
like, — the dramatists of conscious effort, as we have
dubbed them, — the great Elizabethans cared neither
jot nor tittle for the theories of Aristotle nor any
one else; much less did they concern themselves with
the compromise between ancient and modern art or
with the counter claims of classic or other ideals. If
there be a trait more prominent than any other in a
group of writers the multiplicity of whose gifts pre-
sages nearly every quality that can grace and dis-
tinguish literary art, that trait is their fine spontane-
ousness and abandon; a spontaneousness that has
ever the right word, the natural solution, the rational
outcome, an abandon that carries them lightly over
difficulties that would wreck self-consciousness and
achieves great things apparently as easily as the
merest trifles.

It is a mistake to suppose the drama of the age London actors
of Elizabeth and James confined to the precincts of
London and the environment of the schools, the
universities, and the court, whether in London or on
progress. Allusion has been made more than once
in these pages to the wanderings of theatrical com-
panies into the English provinces, to Scotland and
Ireland, and abroad. Halliwell-Phillipps,who investi-
gated only the visits of Shakespeare's company to the
provinces, records fifteen places as visited within the
lifetime of Shakespeare, some of them, like Oxford,
several times, making a total of twenty-six recorded
trips in some twenty years.1 A more recent investi-

1 See Halliwell-Phillipps, Visits of Shakespeare's Company to
Provincial Towns. These records are begun with the year 1597.

390

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

gator, whose concern is with the circumstances at-
tending the performances of plays in the provinces
between the years 1550 and 1600, and not with the
number or localities of these performances, names
incidentally more than twenty towns of England
and Scotland which were visited — some of them
frequently — by traveling troupes within this period.1
If we add to this the records of certain title-pages, and
even the few plays printed in towns other than Lon-
don, the inference is clear that the range of histrionic
entertainment was wide and shared in by towns and
villages throughout England, which were thus con-
tinuing, and doubtless without interruption, a custom
handed down from medieval times.2 This is not the
place in which to go into the details of this subject.
Suffice it to say that upon the approval of such cre-
dentials as the company may have been able to bear
with it, a performance was given before the mayor
and his council. For this performance, which was
the analogue of a private performance at court, the
mayor's gratuity was all that the players could expect;
but thereafter they might play publicly and for such
charges as they might be able to obtain.3 It is of

An investigation of the earlier years would materially enlarge the
list. Moreover, of some such visits no records may have been kept,
and the records of others must certainly have perished.

1 J. T. Murray, " English Dramatic Companies in the Towns
Outside of London," Modern Philology, ii, 539.

2 It is recorded that the wandering troupes again and again
acted their secular plays in churches. This was true of Doncaster
in 1574, of Plymouth in 1559-60, and its refusal at Leicester as late
as 1602 only emphasizes the practice. Cf. ibid. 548, citing J. Tom-
linson, Doncaster from the Roman Occupation, 47; R. M. Worth,
Calendar of the Plymouth Municipal Records, llj; and W. Kelly,
Notices of Leicester, 223.

3 Collier, ii, 274, quoting from Willis, Mount Tabor, 1639.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 391

course unquestionable that in many cases but one
performance was given, and this must have shared
the dual characteristics of a public and a private per-
formance.1 The place of performance was variously
a church, the guildhall, a private house, inn, or inn-
yard.2 It has even been surmised that open-air
amphitheaters were so employed and that in other
places besides London " regular playhouses" existed.3
Whilst certain towns of Scotland, like many in Eng- English
land, seem to have early cultivated the art of acting abroad,
with town "companies," doubtless wholly amateur,
the London companies, there as elsewhere, were held
in the highest favor and received the most liberal
rewards. Of Lawrence Fletcher and his two visits to
Scotland enough has been said; and likewise of the
part which James Shirley played in carrying over
to Dublin the traditions of the Elizabethan stage.4
Notable, too, are the many visits which troupes of
English actors are known to have paid to the con-
tinent, to Holland, Denmark, and especially to Ger-
many and even Austria.5 Nor are the evidences

1 See Murray, 544, and the cases there cited.

2 As to the use of churches, see above, p. 290 note ; at Oxford in
1562, the guildhall was so used (Turner, Selections from the Re-
cords of Oxford, 299) ; at Nottingham, the town hall (Records of
Nottingham, iv, 168); at Leicester, an inn called the Cross Keys
(Kelly, Notices of Leicester, 224).

3 On this topic, see Murray, 550 ; E. Phillips, History of Shrews-
bury, 201, and cf. Ordish, Early London Theatres, 125-141. It is
worth noting that the "playhouses" at Exeter as early as 1348, at
Great Yarmouth in 1538, and at Worcester in 1584, are none of them
playhouses in the sense in which that word is employed of the
Globe or of Blackfriars.

4 Cf. above, i, pp. 493-495 ; ii, pp. 285, 286. See, also, J. C.
Dibden, Annals of the Edinburgh Stage, 1 888.

5 On this topic, see, in general, Cohn, Shakespeare in Germany,

392 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

of their presence in innumerable towns and cities
confined to theatrical lists and town records. Eliza-
bethan drama exerted through these performances
abroad a widely extended influence on the German
stage, and the repertoire of these itinerant companies
has been extended by industrious research so as to
include between fifty and sixty plays of English origin,
among them some of the more popular works of
Greene, Kyd, Marlowe, and Shakespeare, a couple
of plays each of Fletcher and Massinger, and single
examples of Dekker, Heywood, Chapman, Marston,
and Ford.1 Without here raising a question once much
mooted, it is of interest to note a recent reaffirmation
of the opinion that the German popular Faust-drama,
so rich in example and so national in character,
sprung from the introduction of Marlowe's play into
Germany by these itinerant troupes rather than
from independent adaptations of the Faust Book to
indigenous dramatic form.2 Shakespeare, too, how-
ever garbled and Germanized, was better known to
the habitue of the popular German stage of the sev-
enteenth century than to the literati of the eighteenth
before his German rediscovery about the middle
of that century. But if English actors traveled thus
widely abroad, English plays went even farther, tra-
versing the wide seas between the decks of English
ships. It is startling to hear that at Sierra Leone,

1865; Creizenach, Schauspiele der englische Komodianten, 1889;
and Herz, Englische Schauspieler und englisches Schauspiel zur
Zeit Shakespeare's in Deutschland, 1903.

1 Ibid, especially the second part.

2 Ibid. 74, reaffirming the conclusions of Creizenach, Versuch
einer Geschichte des Folks schauspiels von Dr. Faust, Halle, 1878;
and refuting the opinion of Bielschowsky and Werner, in Zeitschrtft
fur osterreichische Gymnasien, xliv, 204.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 393

on the coast of Africa, the drama was no unusual
accompaniment to the courtesies exchanged by Eng-
lish sea-captains at sea. Under date of September 5,
1607, Captain Keeling, commanding the Dragon,
writes: "I sent the interpreter according to his desier
abord the Hector whear he brook fast and after
came abord mee, wher we gave the tragedie of Ham-
lett" Later in the month he continues, "Captain
Hawkins dined with me, wher my companions acted
Kinge Richard the Second" Whilst on the following
day he concludes, "I envited Captain Hawkins to a
ffishe dinner and had Hamlet acted abord mee: which
I p'mitt to keepe my people from idlenes and unlaw-
full games or sleepe." x

Turning for the last time to the classification of the Roots of Eliza-
drama by species (one of the chief purposes of this j^1^*™*!
book), a resume of the ground traversed with a recur- forebears,
rence to its most striking landmarks cannot prove
impertinent. It has been the endeavor of this book
to show that the roots of Elizabethan drama lie deep
in the miracles and especially in the moral plays of
medieval times, and that even the extraordinary
diversity in kind and in species which the later drama
examples is prefigured in them. So far as the mir-
acle play itself was concerned, from its height in
the complete cycle of the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries, it had ebbed through single plays like that
of Mary Magdalene (c. 1485), biblical moralities
such as Bale's Johan Baptistes (c. 1538), and biblical
interludes, exemplified in The History of Jacob and

1 Narratives of Poyagts towards the North-west, edited by Thomas
Randall, for the Hakluyt Society, 1849, p. 231, quoting portions of
the Journal of Captain Keeling not published by Purchas in his
Pilgrims.

394

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Esau (written in Mary's reign), to emerge in regular
dramas such as Peele's David and Bethsabe (1589). l
This parent stem of the old sacred drama now ceased
to be productive, despite an attempt among the
writers for Henslowe to revive the biblical play for
the popular stage in 1602 and such late buddings
forth in academic form as Sandy's translation of
Christ's Passion of Grotius (1639), and Milton's im-
mortal Samson Agonistes, which lies beyond our
period. The miracle play embraced the whole scope
of human history as medieval Christianity conceived
it; so, too, the morality comprehended a complete
range of Christian ethics and an ideal of the conduct
of life. The miracle play was tied to the concrete of
received fact; the morality might range free among
abstractions and find no experience of human life
foreign to it as an illustration of its universal theme.
It was hence freer and withal nearer to every-day
life. And precisely as the miracle had tended to
agglomeration until the unwieldy cycle was the re-
sult, the morality* tended to break up into independ-
ent parts and individual scenes from the illustrative
and concrete manner in which its abstractions were
necessarily represented. The comprehensiveness of
the morality is illustrated in such productions as
The Castle of Perseverance (1471) and in admirable
and searching Everyman. The ruling interest is
here still that of religion. But the sphere of the mo-
rality naturally and logically widened under early
humanist influence from that of merely religious
teaching to embrace the pedagogical morality which.

1 References to the fuller treatment of the topics and plays
alluded to in this summary will be best found by the reader by
reference to the Index.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 395

exhorted the young to diligence by the praise of
learning (The Four Elements, 1517), or warned them
of the dangers of the broad way in moralities con-
cerning the temptations of youth, typically repre-
sented by Hicks corner (c. 1530). Another extension
of the range of the morality was equally logical.
Medieval learning was founded on the sanction of
authority, its processes were those of dialectics, and
the stir in men's religious thoughts that followed the
advent of Luther begot a cloud of buzzing and ven-
omous controversialists that darkened counsel as they
darkened the sun. The morality, already a recog-
nized popular means of instruction, was converted
in the hands of men like John Bale to a weapon of
offense and defense when the learned world yielded
to that darling sin of the theologian, the refutation of
error in others. These three groups of the morali-
ties, the controversial, those in praise of learning,
and those on the temptations of youth, continued
through plays of lighter interlude type (for example,
New Custom, an Edward VI play, John Redford's
Wit and Science, 1540, and Nice Wanton, before
1553) into actual drama. Controversial moralities
came to an end with triumphant Protestantism en-
throned in the person of Queen Elizabeth. The
pedagogical moralities emerge into true drama in
Gascoigne's Glass of Government, 1575, and end
there; for the humanists' pedagogics of incessant
precept had by this time palled on a much-instructed
world, and it began to be suspected by some — a
lesson not yet learned by the many — that the drama
and the arts might possess some other function than
that of deterring the evil-doer and correcting the
child. One offshoot of the morality, if not indeed of

Vital clement
of medieval
drama its con-
tact with life.

396 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

the miracle itself, continued alive in the midst of all
these dead branches — that is the one derived from
the parable of the prodigal son; for the universal con-
trast involved in this ancient story informs alike such
quasi-moralities as The Disobedient Child (c. 1561)
and Misogonus (1560-77), and such true comedies
as The London Prodigal and Eastward Hoe, both of
the early years of James.

Of neither miracle play nor morality can it be truly
said that the one was merely a dramatic transcript
of scripture or the other a matter wholly of abstrac-
tions. Both were the work of men who, whatever at
times their learning, were as contemporaneous and
absorbed in the manners and usages of their own
times as men have. always been. The result, as al-
ready more than once expressed in these pages, was
that whether the theme was bible story, their own
English past, the foreign, or the purely imaginary, all
was expressed in terms of the familiar present. Thus,
the old drama contained ever within it elements
which made it, to a greater or less degree, a picture
of actual contemporary life. It is, therefore, in the
group of moralities in which these elements are strong-
est,— the group that depicts the social and political
life of the times, — that We find the true progenitors
of the great English drama to come; for when all has
been said concerning classical and foreign influences,
these are only the forces that trim and prune ; the
actual growth of this noble forest of Elizabethan
literature has ever been native and indigenous. Of
the moralities, then, biblical, pedagogical, polemical,
and satirical of society and of state, the last alone
proved fertile; and out of the comedy scenes of such
productions as Skelton's Magnificence (1515) and

K^
1
J

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 397

Lyndsay's Satire of the Three Estates (1540), were be-
got, with the intervention of John Heywood's farces,
late moralities such as Like Will to Like, 1561, and
those of Wilson the elder, the numerous and extensive
progeny of the domestic drama, and the comedy of
manners. Heywood's service to the drama was not
the invention of the farce-interlude nor yet the intro-
duction of it into England from his French originals.
His real service was the recognition of the drama as Services of
a means of pure diversion, a thing therefore to be J°t£e J^
cultivated without ulterior ends and as an art. Even
this was no discovery of Heywood's own; for the
pageantry and other mimetic entertainments of the
court had long accustomed those in high life to
the employment of the stage for purposes other than
those of instruction and edification. In medieval
literature it is always difficult to adjust the counter
claims of didacticism and amusement, for the trail
of the pedagogue is over it all. That the claims of
pure diversion were reckoned with almost from the
first and even in the miracle plays themselves, the
anathemas of the stricter clergy sufficiently attest.
Heywood recognized the giving of pleasure, however,
not as one of the essentials of the drama, but as the
nly essential, and in this his coarse and vigorous
nterludes became the instrument that set the artistic
principle free.

From quite another range of medieval ideas the Place of
morality came likewise to be affected; and legend, lad^and'st
balladry, and story were drawn on to tinge the moral among the

i r i • • 1 i t -11 forebears of

plays or the time with what then received the sane- the drama,
tion of history. To the category of legend belong the
medieval plays of St. George, of which we find so
many traces and possess such uncertain knowledge;

398 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

to that of balladry the medieval and later dramati-
zations of tales of Robin Hood; to stories more of
actual fact, Bale's King Johan and the lost Burning
of John Hussy both of the days of Henry VIII. Of
legendary tales of chivalry more in a moment. The
position of King Johan, — mere politico-controver-
sial morality though it be, — at the threshold of the
stately structure of the chronicle play which the
Elizabethans reared to the memory of English kings
and historical worthies, is as striking as it is readily
recognizable. The steps to the chronicle play lead on
through Senecan Gorboduc (1562) to Edward II (1592)
and Henry V (1599). Foreign history shows a cor-
responding evolution, from the lost Robert of Sicily
(1529), in which the religious element of the sover-
eign served by an angel could not but have figured,
to the interlude of The Conflict of Conscience (c.
1560), wherein the author, Nathaniel Woodes, " Min-
ister at Norwich," introduced to the stage the career
and fate of Francis Spiera, an Italian renegade to
Protestantism. This development later evolved true
dramas such as Marlowe's Massacre at Paris (1593)
or Chapman's plays on Byron (1608). Abstraction
entered into medieval legend, even into medieval his-
tory; balladry was measurably free from it. It may
not be too much to affirm that the ballads of Robin
Hood, dramatized as we know them to have been at
least as early as the days of the Wars of the Roses,
performed for the forerunners of the historical drama
what Heywood later accomplished, as we have just
recorded, for the comedy scenes of the morality of
social satire.

It was in the wonder- workings of the saints and
the marvelous prowess and strange adventures of

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 399

knight errantry that the middle ages found the supply The
of romantic material which human nature always med^vlund
craves. It is, therefore, with expectation rather than later drama-
surprise that we note the early advent of the heroical
element in the drama, affecting the morality of The
Marriage of Wit and Science (1569) so as to trans-
mute these two abstractions of the title into a knightly
lover, enamored of his fair lady, and begin at court
a series of knightly plays. It was through such ex-
travagant productions as Sir Clyomon (before 1584),
wherein the world as it is conceived in The Faery
Queen is transferred to the stage, and in Fair Em
(1589), in which the allegory of contemporary allu-
sion still lingers, that we emerge into the heroical
play in more regular dramatic form, such as the
anonymous Charlemagne (before 1590) and Greene's
Orlando Furioso (1592).

But the romantic took other forms of manifesta- Medieval and
tion. The court plays of Lyly link as surely with
the past as the farcical scenes of John Heywood. Lyly;
The life of Lyly's comedies is their satire; the ele- drama
ment in which they exist, allegory. Both of these **•
things are medieval and English. To this they added
several traits, derived from the Renaissance spirit
of Italy, amongst which their preciosity, their sense
of dramatic unity and artistic form, were far from
the least. Like Heywood's farces, the comedies of
Lyly were written for the narrow confines of a court
circle; but their appeal was at the opposite extreme
to Heywood's. Lyly sought and reached the culture,
the lighter learning, and the sense of the beautiful
in his auditors. For the first time, in his comedies,
English drama breathes unmistakably the atmosphere
of refinement. Lyly raised the drama of the court

400 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

to an art, banished for the time both grossness and
amateurishness, and raised the writing of plays to
the dignity of a profession.

classical in- In our resume thus far, the transition from medi-

111" eval drama, with its secondary religious and didac-
tic aims, to modern drama, conceived as an art, has
been found to have been brought about by means
of John Heywood's recognition of the element of
diversion and his consequent erection of the drama
into an independent agency, by the secularizing in-
fluences of interludes and plays derived from popu-
lar story and from the romances of chivalry, and by
Lyly's conscious lift of the drama into an art. Qas-
sical influence on English drama is directly refer-
able to two sources, the schoolmasters' employment
of the acting of Latin comedies as a pedagogical
device and the humanists' movement that coincides
with the earlier activities of the Reformation. With-
out here repeating in any detail what it is hoped
has already been made sufficiently clear in these
pages, it was through such interludes as the Eng-
lish version of Textor's Ther sites (1537) and the no-
table comedy of Roister Doister (before 1541) that
the influence of Plautus extended down to serve as
a general model for the intrigues of the comedies of
Chapman and for the plots and personages of Jon-
son. Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors (1590) was a
side issue and an experiment, however acquainted
Shakespeare may be shown to have been with the
literature of the ancient world. * The strength of Plau-
tine influence, despite the two great classicists just

1 See, on this topic, the scholarly essay of Mr. Churton Collins,
"Shakespeare as a Classical Scholar," Studies in Shakespeare,
1904.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 401

cited, and a scene or two purloined by Heywood and
others, was manifested in the comedies, Latin and
English, which continued to flourish at the univer-
sities from Gascoigne's Supposes (1566) and the
celebrated Pedantius (1581) to the equally famous
Ignoramus of King James' time and Cowley's Nau-
fragium Joculare, in the latter days of King Charles.
Nor need this generalization be in the least damaged
by the admission that, whether in the case of Gas-
coigne, of Chapman, or in that of no small number
of the university plays, the influence of the Roman
comedian had filtered through Italian intermediaries.

As to the influence of classical tragedy, a Euri- classical m-
pidean period has been determined with George f^11^ in
Buchanan (c. 1540), its chief figure so far as* writers
of the British islands are concerned. This was fol-
lowed in the earliest years of Elizabeth's reign by
the Senecan craze, exemplified by the translation
(we may be sure largely for purposes of acting) of
all the tragedies at that time ascribed to the Roman
tragedian's pen and by such imitations of his man-
ner through Italian and French intermediaries as
Gascoigne's Jocasta (1566) and Kyd's Cornell a (1592).
But Seneca had meanwhile passed beyond transla-
tion to affect most powerfully alike the dramas of the
court and those of the popular stage. Gorboduc (1562)
is pure Seneca. Tancred and Gismunda (1568) is
Seneca applied to the telling of a romantic story of
modern passion. The step to The Spanish Tragedy
(1586) crowned this line of development, and Seneca
popularized was the final outcome. Marston in the
latter years of the queen was the last great drama-
tist to recur to this outworn example, although the
striking group of plays, known par excellence as the

402 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

tragedies of revenge, is its indubitable derivative,
and Ben Jonson and those who imitated him still
later compassed a variety of drama modeled on the
classical manner which maintained the best ideals
of ancient tragedy. That Senecan influence should
continue to animate as it did the endeavors of the
academic stage from Daniel's Cleopatra and the
famed Roxana of Dr. Alabaster (both of the early
nineties) to Freeman's English Imperiale and the
Latin Thibaldus (both at the end of our period), the
conservatism of the academic drama rendered a fore-
gone conclusion.

The variety of Within the first twenty years of Elizabeth's reign
d^'rma^preTaged nearty every variety of drama known to the later
m the first decades had been clearly presaged. The Norwich

two decades of n r , ... • r» i •

the reign. Pageants or the temptation of man in Paradise were
still flourishing, it is true; and biblical and other
moralities such as Wager's Mary Magdalene, the
anonymous Liberality and Prodigality, and Lup-
ton's All for Money were on the stage, or at least of
sufficient interest to attract the cupidity of publishers.
But subjects derived from ancient literature and
history — Meleager, Orestes, Ajax and Ulysses — had
taken the fancy of the court, together with heroical
romances — Sir Clyomon, Common Conditions, and
the Knights, Blue, Red, Irish, Solitary, and other,
which figure in the Revels' Accounts of the early
seventies. Domestic drama, already mature in Gam-
mer Gurton, finds its example in the diverting inter-
lude Tom Tyler; and the biographical theme, later
to prove so rich, is Englished in Woodes' transla-
tion of the story of Spiera, mentioned above, and in
Byrsa Basilica (1570), a fantastic biography of the
great contemporary financier, Sir Thomas Gresham.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 403

Moreover, British history was broached, after the
example of Bale's King Johan, in the anonymous
and lost King of Scots (1564), and in Legge's Ri-
chardus Tertius (1579), Latin and Senecan, a poor
affair at best, but significant as the earliest extant
true drama founded on the annals of an English
king. If the "masques of apes, wild men, hunters,
and ladies" exhibit as yet little of the grandeur and
expense that was to make the masque the wonder
of the next generation, the entertainments of royalty
and the nobility were already taking on appropriate
dramatic form in such work as that of the various
poets employed by the Earl of Leicester to entertain
her majesty at Kenilworth (in 1576), or the slightly
later devices of Munday and Churchyard at Nor-
wich. Sir Philip Sidney, too, in that keen search of
his for every classical or foreign form in literature
which might beautify the beloved art of poetry in
his native tongue, successfully proved in his Lady of
May such possibilities as the exotic pastoral of Italy
might possess; and productions such as the anony-
mous Rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune, if its form-
lessness and other defects may take it back into the
seventies, anticipated, in its romantic tale, its my-
thological personages, and the low comedy carried
on by the servants, the combination out of which
Peele and Lyly wrought the artistic court drama of
the next decade. The earlier years of Elizabeth's
reign witnessed the vogue of Seneca, the performance
of Gorboduc, and what followed; but they witnessed,
likewise, Tancred and Gismunda (1568) and Whet-
stone's Promos and Cassandra (1578), in both of
which, despite many shortcomings, appear for the
first time drafts on that fertile quarry of the later

404 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Elizabethans, the romantic and amorous tales of the
Italian novellieri.

The period of The third decade of Elizabeth's reign is, for the
Lyly, 1579- drama, the period of Lyly, with whom there was
no one to vie in repute, unless it may have been
Dr. Gager, whose Latin tragedies and comedies—
Ulysses Redux, Meleager, Dido, and Rivales — enjoyed
a great repute at Oxford. Even greater was the suc-
cess of Pedantius, now definitely ascribed to 1581, at
the sister university. As to the popular stage, it was
still groping, up to 1585, in the semi-moralities of
Robert Wilson, with his abstract Lords and Ladies of
London, or in medley plays such as Tarlton's Seven
Deadly Sins must assuredly have been. But the title
Murderous Michael suggests the coming bourgeois
murder play, soon to reach its height in Arden of
Feversham. The Blacksmith's Daughter, " containing
the Treachery of the Turks," suggests the breezy
drama of adventure soon to rise into popularity; and
The Famous Victories of Henry V — not impossibly
also Tarlton's — the inspiriting scenes of the national
historical drama. Of Lyly and his success no more
need be said. His only rival at court was George
Peele, who had come from the tutelage of Gager and
soon passed to the companionship of Wilson, for
whose company, the Queen's (about 1586), it seems
reasonable to believe that Peele wrote The Lament-
able Tragedy of Locrine.1 Locrine is Seneca popular-
ized with such a vengeance that we cannot but sus-

O

pect so notorious a wit as honest George of an intent
in it to parody the Senecan craze as he later parodied

1 Locrine was printed by Thomas Creede, who printed other
plays certainly of the Queen's men. See Fleay, ii, 320.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 405

the extravagances of heroical romance in The Old
Wives' Tale.

Much doubt and difference of opinion still at- The first great
taches to the precise dates of the three important trage "
dramas, The Spanish Tragedy, Tamburlaine^ and Ar-
den of Feversham, and the decision of their various
claims to priority, one over the other, need not con-
cern us here or elsewhere. Whether Arden dates so
late as 1592, as most recently argued, in no wise
affects the character of the group of murder plays
of which it is the most conspicuous example. That
Tamburlaine and The Spanish Tragedy were on the
stage before the coming of the Armada seems now
generally accepted, and no discovered priority of
other plays of like kind can disturb the preemi-
nent historical position which these two remarkable
tragedies hold at the threshold of serious romantic
drama. To contrast them here once more or add
further word about their famous authors would be
impertinent in a summary such as this. Suffice it
to recall that the services of Kyd's Spanish Tragedy
and the best of his other work consist to a large de-
gree in his inventive example, in the device of effective
situations, and in his power to vitalize the person-
ages of the stage; while Marlowe's Tamburlaine^
with the great works that followed close upon it
from his pen, gave to English literature for the first
time a truly heroic conception of human passion
in dilation under stress of inordinate desires and
extraordinary afflictions.

In the six or seven years that lay between Mar- The period of
lowe's Tamburlaine and his untimely death, the ™arlowe' '588'
extraordinary variety of Elizabethan drama first
exhibits itself to the full. The popularity of roman-

406 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

tic tragedy and of chronicle history was all but si-
multaneous. The height of the domestic drama, of
romantic comedy, and the comedy of manners came
later. The heroical romance continued from Greene's
Orlando to its bourgeois degradation in Heywood's
absurd Four Prentices of London (1594); the Tam-
burlaine or conqueror plays, in Cyrus, Alphonsus,
Selimus, and the lost Scanderbeg, maintained a steady
popularity all but equaled by the series on palace
intrigue and revenge represented in the plays on Titus,
The Lascivious Queen, and the early lost Hamlet.
And all of these classes vied with the growing vogue
of dramatized history of England which from mere
interludes, like Jack Straw, and panoramic trilogies,
like Henry VI, was raised through an unexampled
variety to Marlowe's consummate tragedy of Ed-
ward II (1592) and the epic-dramatic completeness
of Shakespeare's Henry IV and Henry V (1598-99).
But these were not only the days of Shakespeare's
dramatic rivalry of Marlowe in the chronicle plays;
Greene, too, with his great but lesser talents, dared
to measure swords with the author of Tambur-
laine, not only in the conqueror play (with Alphon-
sus and perhaps Selimus), but in matching the
harmless white magic of his Friar Bacon with the
sinister black magic of Faustus. In this transmu-
tation of a tragic theme to one of comedy, careless
and dissolute Greene displayed the strength of his
dramatic talent, which was less that of the large-
toned utterance of the conquerors' bombast or the
romantic extravagance of Orlando run mad than
the representation of simple English rural life in
comedy (as in Friar Bacon and The Pinner of Wake-
field}, or in situations no more serious than the

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT

407

pathetic loves and cross purposes of The Scottish
History of James IV. Despite a very few noteworthy
exceptions and the fact that the earliest comedies of
Shakespeare certainly fall before 1593, this period
was not one in which romantic comedy can be said
to have flourished. Such comedies as Peele's Old
Wives' Tale and dainty Mucedorus, which we would
fain believe the work of Thomas Lodge, may both
be regarded as in a sense the outcome of the heroi-
cal romances, the former ironic, the latter naive. As
to Shakespeare, he was clearly as yet in his appren-
ticeship and imitative period, experimenting with
Plautine intrigue in The Comedy of Errors and with
Lyly's court comedy of satiric allusion in Love's La-
bour's Lost. These years, which are par excellence
the years of Marlowe, were the times of serious ro-
mantic drama and of epic, historical, and tragic pre-
ferences; and it is interesting to notice how out of
them arose the long series of popular dramas founded
on classical and modern foreign history, beginning
with such productions as Lodge's Wounds of the
Civil Wars of Marius and Sulla (before 1590), and
Nash and Marlowe's Dido (not much later), with the
latter's Massacre at Paris (1593), and leading on, the
latter to Chapman's Bussy D'Ambois (1601) and his
other French " histories," the former to Julius Casar
(of the same year) and the later achievements in drama
on classical themes of Shakespeare and Jonson.

From the death of Marlowe to the accession of Shakespea
King James, or, in parlance better suited to our sub- ^

Ct, from Richard III (1593) tO Hamlet (l6O2), We preeminence in
i 7i ' 01 i T>I • chronicle his-

nave the years par excellence .Shakespearean. 1 his tory and ro-
was the hey-day of the chronicle history, which manticcomcdy-
continued in ever-increasing vigor to the close of

4o8 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Elizabeth' s reign, and in what may be termed the
obituary plays, a year or two beyond.1 To this, the
most distinctively English group of the entire drama,
Marlowe had contributed the concentrated passion
and pathetic end of his King Edward, Heywood
the touching domestic story of Jane Shore, and now
Shakespeare, in the stories of a dozen kings, breathed
immortality into the old tales of Holinshed and em-
balmed the memory of English sovereigns in the
pomp and splendor of imperishable art. This was
likewise the flourishing period of the domestic
drama and of the romantic comedy of Shakespeare
as well. The actual is the theme of the former, — the
actual in its mediocrity, as in the gruesome line of
murder plays; the actual illuminated by a turn of the
romantic as in Dekker's Shoemakers' Holiday (1590),
or seasoned with hearty humor as in this same com-
edy, and in Porter's Two Angry Women (1598) or
The Merry Devil of Edmonton (1600). Save for The
Merry Wives of Windsor (1598), we find Shakespeare
not in domestic drama of native English scene. But
when we consider, as we have so often been reminded,
how superficial at best was the outlandish and ro-
mantic setting of the average Elizabethan play, the
story of Kate the Curst and her subjection to man,
of Helena's winning of a reluctant husband, of Isa-
bella's devotion to an unworthy brother, the loves
of Romeo and Juliet, and the tale of Othello, wrought
and practiced on to jealous madness, — all are of the
very essence of domestic drama. As to romantic
comedy, nowhere is the supereminence of Shake-
speare more striking; for while the lighter produc-
tions of these years teem with romantic situations;

1 Cf. below, p. 412.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 409

such as the love stories contained in plays like the
older King Leir, Old Fortunatus, or Jonson's Case is
Altered, this element is usually combined with others,
as in these cases with a chronicle play, a tale of folk-
lore, or a comedy of Plautine situation. It was left to
Shakespeare, for the time almost alone, to pen, in
The Merchant of Venice, in Much Ado, and in Twelfth
Night, those lightsome and charming pictures of the
courtship and the heart's sorrows of young lovers,
thrown into the enchanted land of Italy to veil but
not conceal their true English natures, and thus add
the zest of novelty to their delightful adventures.
This is not all that the romantic comedies of the
master contain, whose view of life was ever so steady
and so whole that he, least of all authors, ever with-
drew its elements into a biased draught of the half
truth. But the quality of romantic beauty (whatever
else is in them) is the distinguishing quality of all of
these comedies, as it remained the salient feature of
the more serious comedies — All's Well and Measure
for Measure — that followed them in the last years of
the old queen's reign.

As we approach these years there are other things Jonson's satire
to chronicle. First, an over-ingenuity in the comedy ^^£f.y
- it might almost be called the farce — of disguise Mansion's
and mystification in plays such as Munday's John a frj^dy°of
Kent and Look About You, both slenderly connected revense-
with the chronicle play and belonging to the middle
nineties. This led on to the preposterous entangle-
ments of such plots as Chapman's early comedy,
The Blind Beggar of Alexandria (1596). There was
also Heywood's attempt to popularize dramatized
ancient mythology in his five ingenious plays on the
golden and the other four ages of much the same

4io ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

date; and Shakespeare's successful solution of the
representation of classical history on the popular
stage in Julius Casar (1601). This success elicited,
two years after, a rejoinder from Jonson, who held
up his classical ideals in Sejanus, a replication of
protest against Jonson's pedantry from Marston in
his Sophonisba, and an humble imitation from Hey-
wood in his Rape of Lucrece (all three of the year
1603). No less important was Chapman's recurrence,
in All Fools (1599), and in May Day (1601), to
Plautine intrigue; and Jonson's epoch-making Every
Man in His Humor (1598), with his revival in Every
Man out of His Humor, Cynthia's Revels, and Poet-
aster (1599-1601), the great dramatic satires of the
war of the theaters, of the old comedy of satirical
allusion with an arrogant self-righteousness and an
inordinate power unequaled in the history of literature
save for the comedies of Aristophanes. In this stage
quarrel, as elsewhere, Daniel was Jonson's butt;
Marston was his antagonist if not the provocative
cause of the whole affair; and Dekker, in his Sati-
romastix (1602), a paid mercenary, against Jonson.
There was more noise and fence about it all than
actual combat, and the notion that Shakespeare
was in any wise seriously involved may be dismissed
as one of the vagaries of ingenious criticism. The uni-
versities, too, seem to have shared in this revival oi
dramatic satire, for to this period belong the clevei
Parnassus plays at Cambridge with their interesting
commentary on the popular stage of the moment
Lastly, these latest years of Queen Elizabeth witnessec
Marston's deliberate revival, in the second part o
dntomo and Mellida (1599), of the old tragedy o
revenge with Jonson's consequent revisions of Th

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 411

Spanish Tragedy, Shakespeare's rival rewriting of
the old Hamlet of Kyd, and the lesser following of
Chettle's Hoffman.

With the coming to England of the Scottish king Contribution
and the social activity of a new court, a new impetus thedra^Tb0
and new directions were imparted to the drama. the first years
The court and the gentlemen of the inns of court muquTami
had produced nothing distinctive since the earlier the Pastoral-
successes of Lyly, save the premonitory masque of
Campion and Davison in the Gesta Grayorum of 1594.
Both were wedded to trumpery mumming and to
Seneca in the modified French form which the Earl
of Stirling was still practicing in Monarchic Tra-
gedies after the earlier models of Daniel's Cleopatra
(1594) and Philotas (1604). Jonson (and Daniel
in a very minor part) now developed the masque to
its artistic if not to its sumptuary height; and, with
the aid of Inigo Jones, the royal architect, introduced
movable scenery, effects of change, color, and light
as the customary accompaniments of theatrical per-
formances at court. Even if unquestionable evidence
did not exist to disprove so incredible an hypothesis,
it would be impossible to believe that the popular
stage, with its patronage by the royal family and its
constant relations with the court, should have re-
mained for a generation or more wholly unaffected
by these striking innovations in dramatic tech-
nique.1 Unquestionably the staging of plays on the
London boards was profoundly affected and modified
by the new devices at court. A second addition of
the court poets of the early days of James to the
teeming dramatic categories of the time was the
pastoral drama; and here Daniel stands, despite the

1 Cf. Lee, Shakespeare, 39.

4i2 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

pastoral tone of certain of Peele's, Lyly's, and Shake-
speare's earlier comedies,1 the indubitable. corypheus
of a new departure with his Queen's Arcadia (of 1605),
and slighter Hymen's Triumph (nine years later).
Despite the attempt and failure of John Fletcher in
his Faithful Shepherdess (1608) to transfer this exotic
of distant lands to the popular stage, and despite
many other interesting and poetic examples of its kind
in the reign of James and his successor, the pastoral
never obtained a footing among indigenous English
dramatic modes. Fletcher's poetical comedy, with the
fragment of Jonson's Sad Shepherd, which, notwith-
standing recent ratiocination, one would fain connect
with the momentary vogue about 1614 of its kind,
are the two best pastoral dramas in the language.2
Of the rest no further word is necessary here.
The popular On the popular boards the succession of species
fir^ears'of6 m tne earlier years of King James is more continuous
King james; of the past. The chronicle history, except for such
ic tragedy, obituary plays as Heywood's // Ton Know Not Me
You Know Nobody (1604), ceases to hold the stage,
although there were revivals, such as that of King
Henry VIII (in 1613). The murder play, too, loses
its impulse with The Yorkshire Tragedy (1605). But
the domestic drama of less tragic type, romantic
tragedy in variety greater than ever, history more
particularly classical and foreign, and comedy ro-
mantic, realistic, and satirical, all held the stage in
simultaneous profusion. It was just about the time
of the new king's accession that the domestic drama
gave to the stage the powerful and pathetic scenes

1 Cf. The Arraignment of Paris, Love's Metamorphosis, Gallathea,
and As Ton Like It.

2 Cf. above, pp. 166-168.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 413

of Hey wood's Woman Killed with Kindness; and
that profound and artistic treatment of the world
theme, woman's undying conflict with man, The
Honest Whore (by Dekker and Middleton), followed
in the first year of the reign. Into this period con-
tinued, too, from the last those dramas of the un-
conscionably patient wife as exampled in Heywood's
fine comedy, The Wise Woman of Hogsdon (possibly
1604); and The Taming of the Shrew, of earlier date,
was revived for the production of Fletcher's enter-
taining sequel, The Tamer Tamed (perhaps as early
as 1606). The most striking group of plays which
received their impetus in the last years of Elizabeth
was, as we have seen in a paragraph above, the
tragedy of revenge. To Marston's Antonio's Revenge,
Hamlet, and Hoffman therein mentioned, must be
added in the new reign Tourneur's powerful Atheist's
Tragedy, a patent effort to outdo the horrors of Hoff-
man, and a far abler play. Chapman's Revenge of
Bussy D'Ambois courts a closer comparison with
Hamlet in its "Senecal" hero, Cleremont, and The
Revenger's Tragedy, also attributed to Tourneur,
reaches the ne plus ultra of its kind in originality
of situation and consummate employment of dra-
matic irony by means of which it depicts the utterly
wicked and depraved life of one of the hideously cor-
rupt courts of the Italian decadence. But romantic
tragedy in this the greatest period of Elizabethan
drama reached heights, save for Hamlet, beyond the
series of revenge. For these were the days of Othello,
Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra, all hud-
dled (marvelous to recall) into four successive years;
as these were, too, the years of Beaumont and
Fletcher's Maid's Tragedy, of Marston's Insatiate

4H ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Countess, Middleton's Women Beware Women, and
Webster's White Devil, even if recent research must
date beyond it, as late as 1617, this great poet's
companion masterpiece, The Duchess of Malfi.1 The
line of great dramas on classical story inaugurated
in Julius Ceesar, and followed in Sejanus and So-
phonisba, received further addition, a few years later,
not only from Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra,
Coriolanus, and Timon (not to mention Pericles and
Cymbeline, which belong in different categories), but
likewise from Jonson's Catiline, in which once more
Jonson proved, if not to the world, at least to " the
judicious," how a classical drama might be con-
structed with a full regard for the conditions of the
contemporary English stage. Chapman's plays on
modern French historical subjects, which are less
dramas of the chronicle type than studies in dramatic
portraiture, continued throughout this period. A
new feature in them, especially in The Conspiracy
and The Tragedy of Byron (1608), was their none
too covert allusions to contemporary- politics andi
scandal in the French court, a feature that elicited i
a complaint from the ambassador of that nation
threatened the author with imprisonment, and muti
lated his text.

The years between the accession of King Jame
and the retirement of Shakespeare likewise mark
height of English comedy. Though Shakespear
himself after Measure for Measure (c. 1604 ) turned t>
tragedy and "romance," the effect of his ideal treat
ment of romantic character in comedy was by n
means lost on his greater contemporaries. Echoes c
lighter Shakespearean romantic art can be heard i
1 Above, i, pp. 589-592.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 415

joyous comedies such as Day's Isle of Gulls (1605)
and Humor out of Breath (1608), although the first
at least retains much of the flavor of Lyly. In Chap-
man's admirable Gentleman Usher and Monsieur
DJ Olive, too, Shakespearean reminiscences recur;
and even in Marston and in early work of Mid-
dleton, although the satirical and realistic genius of
both of these turned them more to the comedy of
manners. Above all do Beaumont and Fletcher dis-
close their romantic paternity in word and phrase.
Jonson turned now from his futile warfare with the
gulls and poetasters to the masque at court and to
the composition of his learned Roman tragedies, as
we have just seen; but he also found time to con-
tinue the practice of his comedies of humors, now
tempered by his acceptance of .English scene, his
recognition of the superior claims of truth to personal
satire, and converted into the most consummate
comedies of manners in the range of the literature,
Eastward H'oe, The Alchemist, The Silent Woman,
Bartholomew Fair: in Volpone alone (which pre-
ceded all of them save perhaps the first) did Jonson
revert to foreign scene and to the satirist's whip of
scorpions to produce a cool and consummate study
in human depravity, unsurpassed in all the heated
dramatic paroxysms of the romanticists. The Jon-
sonian comedy of manners, despite its English dress
and its tempered satire (if contrasted with his true
comedies of humors, both earlier and later), never
lost its self-consciousness and its remembrance of
Roman comedy. The comedy of manners of Mid-
dleton, on the other hand, was free from both of
these restrictions and content to produce a picture,
too often grossly faithful, of the lives and the doings

4i 6

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

of the lower middle classes of London. The Mid-
dletonian comedies of London life from Michaelmas
Term (1604) to No Wit, No Help Like a Woman's
(in 1613) are of an extraordinary excellence in their
kind and led to a host of rivals and imitators, -
greatest among the first, Fletcher in this time, — and
to a school of comedy writing, however stiffened
at times by the more stringent and difficult practice
of Jonson, that extended down to Etheridge, Van-
brugh, and the later days of Sheridan.

Shakespearean But perhaps the most important change in the
and^etcherian drama of these years was that which brought into
tragicomedy, vogue the new dramatic species known as " romance"
and tragicomedy. Definition and distinction is un-
necessary here. Suffice it to recall that this species
of drama demands the excitation of the more serious
emotions with a ban upon the tragic outcome; its
cry is for novelty, surprise, and variety, and for a
sumptuousness in costume and setting which it de-
rived from the vogue of the masque. The sudden 1 1
uprise of this kind of drama when James had been
on his throne some half dozen years has been referred
to various causes, among them the changing taste of
the age, the logical development of Shakespeare's
art, and the deliberate and conscious invention of
Fletcher. This last may be denied, at least so far as
its corollary, which declares that a momentous change
in Shakespeare's practice of his art in the strength
of his maturity — the change from Twelfth Night
and Macbeth to Pericles, The Winter s Tale, and Tem-
pest — is referable to the direct example of Fletcher.
a beginner in the drama at this time and a man fif-
teen years Shakespeare's junior.1 That Shakespeare:
1 Thorndike, 5-7, 149-150.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 417

when it was his to do as he would, should have found
a solace after the storm of his tragic period in stories
of the melancholy wanderings of Pericles, the wifely
devotion and constancy of Imogen and Hermione,
and the sweet young maidenhood of Perdita and
Marina, is as reasonable as that he should have
humored audiences, satiated with terror and wearied
with incessant reflections of themselves in comedies,
realistic and satirical. The reader must be referred
for these matters elsewhere.1 But certain, it seems to
the present writer, are the manifold unlikenesses of
the "romances" of Shakespeare with their wander-
ings over strange seas and into strange lands, their
shipwrecks and other adventures, and their imagi-
native flights into regions supernatural, to anything
in Fletcherian tragicomedy, the life of which is in-
doors, or at least within the precincts of the court, its
themes the intrigues of love, ambition, and revenge,
its tendency to typical characters, and its contrasts of
sentimental feeling with tragic passion and situation.
Beaumont and Fletcher's Philaster (1609) must ever
be chronicled an epoch-making play; for, with its
close successor, King and No King, it marks a new
departure in combining with elements heroically tra-
gic a comedy of sentimental interest, and effecting
by a method^ confessedly that of contrast and sur-
prise, a result alike vivid, novel, poetical, and effective.
This method Fletcher extended to tragedy, to the
pastoral, and later to ancient British and to classical
history, accomplishing therewith such notable dra-
matic successes as The Faithful Shepherdess (1609),
The Maid's Tragedy (1611), and the later histories
of Bonduca and Valentian. The new Fletcherian
1 Cf. above, pp. 197-204.

4i8 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

technique was like a music less sweet and full of hid-
den beauties but more intricate and brilliant; like a
painting less harmonized in color than vivid in tone,
The period of keyed daringly high, and effective for its daring. Yet
jonson, 1603- notwithstanding the striking character of Fletcherian
tragicomedy and Middletonian comedy of manners,
equally successful in its kind, and notwithstanding
that Shakespeare was now in the maturity of his
splendid tragedy, followed by his gracious and beau-
tiful last plays, this period of the first decade of King
James is perhaps best denominated the period of
Jonson for the revolution which his masques effected
in the entertainment of the court, for the professional
technique which his enlightened classicism imparted
to the drama at large, the literary success of his
Roman plays, and the literary and popular triumph
of his unmatchable comedies of manners. Shake-
speare is ever in the more restrictive sense of the
word Elizabethan; Jonson was Jacobean, and for
that reason the dominating dramatic influence of the
earlier half of the reign of King James.

Dramas of con- The year 1616 witnessed the death of Shakespeare
temporary his- an(j Beaumont, both retired from dramatic activity

toncal allusion. ...

some five years before. Old Henslowe, acquisitive
and aggressive to the end, likewise died in this same
year, and Burbage followed three years later. The
old regime was passing rapidly away. Jonson, too,
had turned from the stage to the more lucrative vo-
cation of maker of masques to the court; and these
by-products of the drama continued in his hands, and
in those of Chapman, Campion, Browne, and others,
of increasing complexity, splendor, and costliness.
A feature of this time was the allusiveness of the
historical drama to affairs abroad and even at home.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 419

The Noble Spanish Soldier (of doubtful date) and
Thierry and Theodoret (1617) tell tales of scandal
in the French court, the first in terms of a story of
Spain, the second in the disguise of an old French
chronicle. Barnavelt (1620) dramatized events in
Holland before they had crystallized from the fluidity
of news to the fixity of history; and Middleton's
Game at Chess (1624) struck nearer home and dared
allegorically to represent the course of contemporary
English politics with reference to the negotiations
for the Spanish marriage, placing not only unmistak-
able caricatures of nobles and bishops of both nations
on the stage as pieces in the game, but actually
figuring forth their majesties of Spain and of Eng-
land in a manner sufficiently unmistakable to rouse
the ire of the Spanish minister and move the royal
council to action against the bold players.1 No won-
der that flight alone prevented trouble for the satirical
dramatist in more than one such case, and that sev-
eral plays of the kind have come down to us in muti-
lated form (as have Chapman's dramas on the Duke
de Biron), or, escaping both print and the censor,
have either perished or remained to be discovered, as
was Barnavelt, in our own day.

Aside from a few tragedies and historical dramas, The period of
-among them The Changeling, The Duchess of fs*cher' l6ia"
Malfiy and the Nero of 1624, — tne comedy of man-
ners and tragicomedy divided the honors of the time;
although some noble plays of the domestic type, such
as A Fair Quarrel (1617) by Middleton and Rowley,
The Fatal Dowry (1619) by Massinger and Field,
and The Witch of Edmonton (1621) by Dekker, adorn
dramatic annals. When all has been said, however,

1 On the subject, see Bullen, Middleton, i, pp. Ixxviii-Ixxxvi.

420 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

the latter half of the reign of King James is the
period of Fletcher, who stood in serious drama the
foremost, even if he was followed in both by his col-
laborator Massinger, rivaled in the comedy of man-
ners by Middleton, and surpassed in the one supreme
tragic effort of Webster, The Duchess of Malfi (1617).
Of the adaptability and careless ease of Fletcher's
dramatic art enough has been said. That he bor-
rowed readily and appropriated what he borrowed
with skill is not to be denied. Fletcher utilized the
old sources for plot and character, and opened a new
source in his employment of Spanish story, derived,
we may feel reasonably sure, in every case through
the medium of a language with which he was more
familiar than with that of Castile. But, withal, the
inventiveness of Fletcher is not for a moment to be
gainsaid; and it is almost as easy to find reasons for
praising his resourcefulness in plot and the variety
which his personages offer to the appreciative reader
as it is to fall into the usual paroxysms over his degen-
eracy into types of character and situation. Fletcher
and his followers had alike the advantage and the dis-
advantage of a great drama before them. The exam-
ples of their predecessors were fruitful in warnings
and sign-posts to success. Fletcher and Massinger,
and Shirley after them, were practical playwrights,
not theorists like Jonson. They put ideals aside and
were content to please their audiences by a careful
attention to the contemporary taste. In this they
differed at once from Shakespeare, who was able to
guide his public and raise it to an appreciation of
his own lofty standards, and from Jonson, who fought
hopelessly and without conciliation against the de-
generating moral and artistic taste of his time. Ir

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 421

Fletcher and Massinger the romantic spirit of Shake-
speare's later plays became the predominating influ-
ence, and what in Shakespeare was but one of many
modes of dramatic utterance becomes in them all but
the only note. Even the comedy of manners, barring
some exceptions, assumes in the hands of these even-
paced writers a quasi-romantic mien, and they are as
far as possible from the vigorous Jonsonian accent
of personal satire. On the whole, the dramatic ca-
pability exhibited in the group of plays known as
Beaumont and Fletcher's has never been surpassed.
Jonson is more ingenious and learned in plot; in
pathos and poetry Beaumont and Fletcher have
been equaled, in humor and characterization sur-
passed. But English literature knows no other such
complete dramatists. Even Shakespeare, because he
is so much more, is less typically the master of dra-
matic art.

Fletcher has commonly been arraigned as the cor- Degeneracy of
rupter of the stage, the author to whom is due, more ^d Caroia™

than to any other, that degeneracy in ethical tone drama in moral

i- i • -i i • tone-

which is apparent in the most casual comparison

of the theater of Marlowe and Shakespeare with that
of Davenant and Dryden. This is only partly true:
for this old drama, written wholly by men for per-
formance by men before an audience in which no
reputable woman appeared unmasked, is broad
of speech throughout, and capable of frankly repre-
senting situations which would be impossible (save
by innuendo) on the modern stage. As to mere open-
ness of speech, Fletcher is less coarse than Shake-
speare, far less so than Jonson. But this decline in
ethics is no mere matter of language; it lies deeper
and is subtler far. It enters into the fiber of the story

422 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

and into the very heart of the characters to unknit
those sinews of moral law which alone can sustain
the flesh that moulds the form of artistic beauty. The
purity of the love of Romeo and Juliet and the natural-
ness and truth of the theme and the telling of it have
already called for our comment. In Beaumont and
Fletcher's tragicomedy, King and No King, the plot
turns, as we have seen, on the passion of Arbaces,
king of Iberia, for Panthea, his reputed sister; and
the reader is lured by this heightened situation to a
climax in which the threatened enormity of the
lovers' union is resolved into comedy by the discov-
ery that the report of their consanguinity is false.
In the revolting underplot to Middleton's Women
Beware Women incest is frankly the theme; it is the
lovers who are deceived, and tragedy is the inevitable
outcome. Finally, in Ford's subtle and dangerous
tragedy, 'Tis Pity She's a Whore, the criminal passion
of a brother and sister is turned into a problem, and
we are harrowed with pity where pity belongs not,
and asked to admit an exception to an ethical gen-
eralization of universal acceptance. Here in brief
are exemplified the steps in the moral decline of
tragedy, steps by no means illustrative of the whole
drama, but steps in which Fletcher, like Middleton
and others, fell in, all too readily, with the social
trend of his time. Fletcherian drama exhibits a
narrowing of the dramatic range, a flaw in the ethical
logic of tragedy, a fault in the more trivial relations
of comedy, and flippancy only too often with re-
spect to conduct which serious-minded men regard
seriously. For all this several reasons may be as-
signed. Most important among them is the loss of a
national spirit due to the occupancy of the throne by

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 423

a foreigner, for in those days King James was no
less; the narrowing constituency of the stage refer-
able to the spread of the Puritan spirit; the recent
formation and growth of a metropolitan society;
and, lastly, the tendency towards conventionality,
characteristic of the later products of all literary
schools. Into these matters there is no need here
repetitiously to enter. Suffice it to recognize in
Fletcher the lens which, breaking up the clear white
light of Shakespeare's dramatic art, allowed only the
vivid rays of tragicomedy and the diminished lights
of romantic sentiment and conventional comedy of
manners to pass through to a later age.

The death of Fletcher in the year of the accession Fletcher the
of King Charles could little have affected the stage, IXIeno^of
so strong was the hold of Fletcher's own plays upon serious drama
it, so confirmed had become the Fletcherian man- years of King
ner in all its species, and so well were the young charles-
Fletcherians drilled in his familiar personages and
situations, even in his tricks of speech and tripping
hendecasyllabic line. Grant to Massinger a modi-
cum of independence in these matters, a certain
moral earnestness, and a variety in theme; grant him,
moreover, in his two famous comedies, The City
Madam (1619) and A New Way to Pay Old Debts
(1625), an enlightened following of both Middleton's
realistic play of contemporary life and of the more
consummate constructiveness of Jonson's comedy of
humors, and yet this famous collaborator of Fletcher
none the less swung powerfully within the latter's
orbit and prolonged the practices and triumphs of
Fletcherian art in many a fine drama of his sole
writing. The Great Duke of Florence, The Roman
Actor, The Picture, The Renegado, Believe as Tou

424 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

List, it matters not whether the scene is Italy, an-
cient Rome or Carthage, modern Hungary or Tunis,
all is informed with the same light, romantic spirit,
accomplished with the same careless ease, effect,
and inventiveness that belong to Fletcher himself.
The most remarkable thing about Massinger's tragi-
comedy is the circumstance that any author could
be at once so frankly imitative in the larger sense
and yet escape, as Massinger indubitably does es-
cape, the charge of mere borrowing and literary
theft. But this delicate art of follow my leader in
gait and mien became, with greater or less problem-
atic success, the abiding characteristic of Carolan
tragicomedy and lighter drama at large; for by the
thirties the pinnaces of Shakespeare's earlier art,
and even the larger hulks of the great comedies of
Jonson, stood well down on the horizon, and save for
Shirley, of whom more in a moment, and some mi-
nor craft that refused to fly the sovereign flag, it was
Fletcher everywhere. If exceptions to this prevalent
mode are to be recorded, Davenport's King John
and Matilda (1625-1636) is an honest and able en-
deavor to revive an interest in the forgotten plays
of chronicle type, and the underplot of the anony-
mous Dick of Devonshire (1625) thrills, for the nonce,
with a fine old-fashioned insularity. We might add
to these Ford's historical tragedy of Perkin Warbeck
(1633), were it not for a suspicion that the theme was
chosen by the master of " the problem drama" of his
day less for its English scene than, like Massinger's
Believe as You List, for its historical problem.
Davenant's revival of the pseudo-historical tragedy of
blood is even less certainly in contrast with the pre-
vailing mode; for his Albovine and his Cruel Brother

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 425

(1626 and 1627), with Fletcher's Thierry and The
Bloody Brother in mind, show a paternity in more
than the accident of the recourse of the one to old
chronicles and the title of the other. It was in the
early years of King Charles that Randolph wrote his
Amyntas, the most successful pastoral drama in the
language, if we except a single play of Fletcher and
a fragment of Jonson. It was perhaps as late as these
years that William Rowley achieved his terrible mas-
terpiece, All's Lost by Lust (printed in 1633), and
Heywood contributed his pleasing later comedies, The
English Traveller and A Challenge for Beauty; though
the last seems to reflect, like his revived Loyal Sub-
ject, the Fletcherian tragicomedies of a contest for
honors such as The Knight of Malta, The Laws of
Candy, and Royal King and Loyal Subject. Further,
in these years of King Charles, Thomas May at-
tempted a revival of Jonsonian Roman tragedy, while
his old master returned to the satire, allegory, and
" humors " of all but his earliest efforts for the stage.
But even the classical tragedies of May are touched
with the romanticism of Fletcher, whose influence,
do what they might in serious drama, his immediate
successors seem not to have been able to escape.

Massinger's happy combination of the method and The new
constructive excellence of Jonson with Middleton's m^Lrs°
freer treatment of subjects derived from daily life persistence of

1 i 11 11 i • ' --n i Jonsonian

has already been adverted to in this resume. 1 o the comedy in
habitue of the theaters of the time of King Charles, Brome"
Richard Brome must have bulked large. Though,
like the rest, "a limb of Fletcher" in tragicomedy,
Brome's comedies, from The City Wit (in 1629) to
The Northern Lass (1632) and The Jovial Crew
(1641), are Jonsonian through and through, if

426

ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

Degenerate

ration heroic
play.

lightened of the Jonsonian learning and drastic sa-
tire and void of the finer qualities of the master's
art. And Brome, as we have already seen, was but
one of the dramatical " sons of Ben," the number of
which included an earl and many gentlemen, but no
cleverer playwright than Brome himself.

There remain two great names and one charac-
teristic development of the drama. It has already
been affirmed that the distinctive "note" of the drama
of the reign of King Charles was a decadent roman-
ticism. The forms which this took were several.
Among them was Fletcherian tragicomedy, in the
hands of Fletcher's successors mainly repetitious and
conventionalized; and the revival by certain minor
writers of the heroical romance of impossible ad-
venture in impossible lands, exampled in Kirke's
preposterous Seven Champions of Christendom (1634)
and Lower's Phoenix in her Flames (1639). But
most important historically was the intermediary
drama which, claiming Fletcherian tragicomedy for
the chiefest of its forebears, led on through the work
of Davenant, and especially of Carlell, to the he-
roic play of Restoration times. The nature of such
plays as Davenant's Love and Honor (1634) and his
Fair Favorite (1638), of Carlell's Deserving Favorite
(1629), Passionate Lovers (1636), and the rest, has
already been sufficiently set forth in the foregoing
chapter, together with the contrasts between these
productions and both the old heroical romance and
the true romantic drama. The author, too, has
given his reasons for assigning to the Fletcherian
method of heightened contrast a chief place in the
development of the Restoration heroic play, allowing
to the example of French romances, to Shirley's sim-

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 427

plified plot, and the contemporary fashion of writing
in couplets a subsidiary influence in the evolution,
and regarding Carlell and Thomas Killigrew rather
than Davenant as the conduits from Fletcher to
Orrery and Dryden.

And yet despite this flood of Jonsonian and Fletch- The period of
erian imitation, the reign of Charles is, above all, JJ"1**' l6z$~
the period of Shirley. The art of Ford was subtler,
more profound, and more poetic than that of Shirley.
Ford saw life neither steadily nor yet as a whole; but
he could probe as none before him to the quick the
soul of torturer or tortured, dizzily poised by his own
or others' passions on the brink of destruction to body
and soul. Ford's ponderings on life and conduct are
often morbid and his ethics exhibit at times a curi-
ous and a dangerous warp, but his power as a dra-
matic artist and as a poet of the first rank have left
us in 'Tis Pity She 's a Whore and in The Broken
Heart works imperishable among their kind. Ford's
tragedies cluster about the early thirties. His success
was overpowering, but it was momentary. None in
his day followed Ford, and he boasted, not without
reason, that he was the disciple of no one. Shirley's
career and disposition were very different. From the
very year of the accession of King Charles until the
Puritan ordinance silenced his Muse, this admirable
man labored with steady industry and ready com-
petence to furnish the stage with rational, original,
and, for the most part, wholesome entertainment.
Shirley is no mere "limb of Fletcher," and the ab-
ject follower neither of the unromantic and unsa-
tiric comedy of Middleton nor of the "humors" and
preachings of Jonson. Shirley studied the drama
that had preceded him to avoid plagiarism, not to

428 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

perpetrate it. The Politician (1629) may remind the
superficial reader of Hamlet, and The Cardinal (1641)
suggest to any one who has read the two plays the
major situation of The Duchess of Malfi. But how
different are Shirley's dramas from their "originals,"
and how thoroughly, with two superlative dramas of
all time for his theme-givers, has Shirley modestly
and efficiently maintained his own! Shirley studied
the life about him to produce, in such comedies as The
Ball, Hyde Park, and the more sinister Gamester, truer
pictures of the better society of Carolan London than
Middleton or Fletcher ever drew in their comedies of
the London of King James. Shirley is, when all has
been said, an able, conscientious, and ingenious dra-
matist, and withal no contemptible poet. Then why,
despite his contemporary repute, his failure genuinely
to impress either his time or the times to come ? A
reason is not far to seek. Shirley, coming at the end
of a great drama, was eclectic in the practice of his
art. He was neither frankly a disciple like Massinger
nor daringly an innovator like Ford. The age lis-
tened to his plays and measurably liked them. It
applauded him when he forced his art down in The
Gamester; but it liked and applauded still more the
obscenities of Brome and Killigrew's daring brutal-
ity. It measurably enjoyed the original situations
of Shirley's Opportunity or the ingenious plotting of
his Coronation; but its delight was in adventures such
as those of Killigrew's Princess Cicilia, "sister to
Virgilius, son to Julius Caesar," and in the insipid
intrigues of Carlell's pseudo-romantic tragicomedies
with their Platonic and other twaddle. Shirley's were
the shortcomings of the moderate man, and his desert
is a moderate repute.

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT 429

Our task is complete, our journey at an end. This Epilogue.
land of Elizabethan drama is a delightful land to
dwell in and worthy the traversing of many leagues
to see. But as with other lands, the tourist can be-
come little acquainted with it; and it must remain
least known to him who hears only the empty echoes
of report. For the sojourner here is the fullness of
life, for this old drama, like the old London in which
it thrived, contains in itself the epitome of Eliza-
bethan England and much besides. There were
streets in old London which were as commonplace and
dreary as the streets of to-day: we can avoid them
on our return. There were localities in the old city
which the prudent and the cleanly avoided: there
are such spots in the old drama. But there were like-
wise in old London many noble palaces and struc-
tures of beauty, quaint gardens, highways thronged
with cheerful and engaging people, and dark, crooked
byways in the threading of which the venturesome
or those happily yet a little superstitious might ex-
perience strange thrills of terror and delight. Such,
too, is Elizabethan drama, for here can be beheld
in the pomp in which they lived many stately kings
and queens, and noble folk whose troubled or heroic
lives fret and adorn the annals of time. Here are
simple tales of lovers and of parents and children
who were lost and found, of country mirth and glee
with the hearty humors of the city street, the tavern,
and the market-place. Thither adventurers return
to recount strange stories of land and sea and tell of
deeds of daring and of guile, of devotion, magnan-
imity, intrigue, revenge, and deviltry. Exhaustless
is the range of Elizabethan plot and personage as
were the dress, the habits, and lives of those who

430 ELIZABETHAN DRAMA

crowded the London thoroughfares. Exhaustless,
too, is the variety of Elizabethan thought as exem-
plified in these plays; for the wise and the foolish,
the idealist and the sensualist, the man of the street
and the philosopher and the poet, each had his hand
in the making. To him whose search is for the
actualities of Tudor and Stuart life, the living scenes
of these old plays offer the very "age, his form and
pressure." Nor do they less triumphantly stand the
test which we habitually apply to the conduct of men
in their relations and obligations and pompously call
the philosophy of life. For with all its inequalities
and occasional moral lapses, Elizabethan drama is
wholesome, judged at large, and free from moral
sophistries and conventional ethics. The age turned
instinctively to dramatic expression, and hence, with
allowance for contemporary methods of staging, the
vast majority of Elizabethan plays must have proved
theatrically effective while preserving none the less a
literary standard unequaled in earlier or in later
times. But when all has been said of its universality
of appeal, of its spontaneousness and abandon, its
uniform adequacy in style and not infrequent literary
distinction, the glory of Elizabethan drama abides
in its imperishable poetry, which, like the impartial
sun, lavishes its light on all subjects, lending dig-
nity and splendor to serious themes and transfiguring
many a trifle to a precious possession of unwonted
beauty. Elizabethan drama was potent in its time
because it expressed to the full the bewildering com-
plexities of Elizabethan life; because, in short, it was
a great national utterance. Elizabethan drama con-
tinues vital and effective to move us to-day because
it combines with essential truth efficient artistry;

THE DRAMA IN RETROSPECT

43*

because it presents life to us hopefully, not cynically
nor pessimistically, and possesses, as few literatures
have ever possessed, the power to disclose the world
as it is and simultaneously guide the delighted reader
a realization of that world transfigured by the

to

magic of poetry.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

THE following paragraphs are offered as a working
outline. They are planned to assist the reader who
may wish to search somewhat more deeply into the sub-
ject, or into parts of it, than the plan of this book permits:
their purpose is guidance, not exhaustive information. For
this reason previous bibliographies have been for the most
part indicated, not incorporated. The arrangement and
succession of subjects is that of the subject-matter of this
book. A reference to the Index will make the finding of any
specific entry comparatively easy. For minor matters the
reader is referred by means of the Index to the text, which
is furnished throughout with references to the authorities
on which the author's opinions or arguments are grounded.
Contemporary editions of individual plays will be found,
not in this Bibliography, but in the Index List of Plays,
under title. A few of the works most frequently cited are
abbreviated after first mention in this essay, in the notes
accompanying the text, and in the List of Plays. The fol-
lowing comprise most of these abbreviations:

Anglia. Anglia: Zeitschrift fiir englische Philologie. 28 vols. 1878
to date. [In progress.]

Archiv. (Herrig's) Archiv fur das Studium der neueren Sprachen.
115 vols. 1848 to date. [In progress.]

Brandl. Quellen des weltlichen Dramas in England vor Shake-
speare, ein Erganzungsband zu Dodsley's Old English Plays.
Herausgegeben von A. Brandl. Strassburg, 1898. Quellen und
Forschungen zur Sprach- und Culturgeschichte der german-
ischen Volker, Ixxx.

Brotanek. Die englischen Maskenspiele. R. Brotanek. 1902.
Wiener Beitrage zur englischen Philologie, xv.

Chambers. The Mediaeval Stage. E. K. Chambers. 2 vols. 1903.

Collier. The History of English Dramatic Poetry to the Time of

434 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

Shakespeare: and Annals of the Stage to the Restoration. J. P.
Collier, 1831. New ed. 1879.

Creizenach. Geschichte des neueren Dramas. W. Creizenach.
Vols. i-iii, 1893-1903. [In progress.]

D. N. B. Dictionary of National Biography. Edited by L. Stephen
and S. Lee. 66 vols. 1885-1901.

Dodsley. A Select Collection of Old English Plays, R. Dodsley.
Chronologically arranged, revised and enlarged by W. C. Hazlitt.
4th ed. 15 vols. 1874-76. [Originally issued in 1744.]

E. E. T. S. Early English Text Society. Original Series 129 vols.
1864-1905; New Series 93 vols. 1867-1904. [In progress.]

Engl. Stud. Englische Studien, Organ fur englische Philologie.

37 vols. 1877 to date. [In progress.]
Fleay. A Biographical Chronicle of the English 0^1113,1559-1642.

F. G. Fleay, 2 vols. _l8o,ij._
Fleay, Stage. A Chronicle History of the London Stage, 1559-

1642. F. G. Fleay, jftpa
Gayley. Representative English Comedies, from the Beginnings

to Shakespeare, edited by C. M. Gayley and others, 1903.
Genest. Some Account of the English Stage from the Restoration

in 1660 to 1830. J. Genest. 10 vols. Bath, 1832.
Greg I. A List of English Plays written before 1643 an^ printed

before 1700. W. W. Greg. For the Bibliographical Society, 1900.
Greg II. A List of Masques, Pageants, etc., supplementary to a

List of English Plays. W. W. Greg. For the Bibliographical

Society, 1902.
Henslowe. Henslowe's Diary. Edited by W. W. Greg. 2 vols.

1904. [But one has as yet appeared.]
Herford. The Literary Relations of England and Germany in the

Sixteenth Century. C. H. Herford, 1886.
Jahrbuch. Jahrbuch der deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft. 42

vols. 1864 to date. [In progress.]
Koeppel I. Quellen Studien zu den Dramen Ben Jonson's, John

Marston's und Beaumont's und Fletcher's, von E. Koeppel,

Miinchener Beitrage zur romanischen und englischen Philologie,

xi, 1895.
Koeppel II. Quellen Studien zu den Dramen George Chapman's,

Philip Massinger's und John Ford's, von E. Koeppel. Quellen

und Forschungen zur Sprach- und Culturgeschichte der german-

ischen Volker, Ixxxii, 1897.
Langbaine. Some Account of English Dramatick Poets. G.

Langbaine, 1691.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 435

Lee. A Life of Wilb'am Shakespeare. S. Lee. 1898; 5th ed.
1905.

Malone. Plays and Poems of William Shakspeare with the Correc-
tions and Illustrations of Various Commentators. E. Malone,
21 vols. 1821.

Mod. Lang. Notes. Modern Language Notes, a monthly publica-
tion, devoted to the interests of the Academic Study of English,
German, and Romance Languages. 22 vols. 1886 to date. [In
progress.]

Mod. Lang. Publ. Publications and Transactions of the Modern
Language Association of America. 22 vols. 1884 to date. [In
progress.]

Mod. Phil. Modern Philology. 4 vols. 1902 to date. [In progress.]

New Sh. Soc. Trans. New Shakspere Society's Publications and
Transactions, 1874-96.

Nichols, Elizabeth. Progresses and Public Processions of Queen
Elizabeth. With historical notes, etc. J. Nichols. 2d ed. 3 vols.
1823.

Nichols, James. Progresses, Processions, and Festivities of
James I his Court, etc. J. Nichols. 4 vols. 1828.

Old Sh. Soc. Publ. Shakespeare Society's Papers and Publica-
tions. 48 vols. 1841-53.

Oliphant. The Works of Beaumont and Fletcher. E. H. Oli-
phant, Englische Studien, xiv, xv, xvi, 1890-92.

Ordish. Early London Theatres (In the Fields). T. F. Ordish,
1894. [The Camden Library.]

Outlines. Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare. J. O. Halliwell-
Phillipps. 9th ed. 2 vols. 1892.

Pollard. English Miracle Plays," Moralities, and Interludes. A. W.
Pollard. 3d ed. 1898.

Revels. Extracts from the Accounts of Revels at Court in the
Reigns of Elizabeth and King James I. P. Cunningham.
Shakespeare Society. 1842.

S. R. A Transcript of the Register of the Company of Stationers
of London, 1554-1640. E. Arber. 5 vols. 1875-1894.

Thorndike. The Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shak-
spere. A. H. Thorndike, Worcester, Mass., 1901.

Warburton. A List of Old Dramas in Manuscript, the Property of
William Warburton, destroyed about 1750 by a servant. Gentle-
man's Magazine, 1815, ii, 217.

Ward. A History of English Dramatic Literature to the Death of
Queen Anne. A. W. Ward, zd ed. 3 vols. 1893.

436 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

No general bibliography of the English drama exists
except English Drama, a Working Basis, by K. L. Bates
and L. B. Godfrey, 1896, a somewhat unequal attempt
to cover the entire field. The subject, however, forms
a part of the plan of various Grundrisse with which
German industry has from time to time furnished the
scholarly world; such as that of G. Korting, Grundriss
der Geschichte der enghschen Litter atur, 3d ed. 1899; and
that of H. Paul, Grundriss der germanischen Philologie, new
ed. 1896-1903, in which, however, modern drama has not
yet been reached. On matters involving "comparative
literature" the student is referred to the excellent volume
of L. P. Betz, La Litter atur e Comparee, 1900, new ed. 1904.

For the bibliography of printed plays we are much bet-
ter off, as lists have been printed from time to time from
a period soon after the Restoration. Such publishers' lists
of plays as those of Rogers and Ley, 1656; Archer, 1656;
F. Kirkman, 1661 and 1671; W. Mears, 1726; and T.
Whincop, 1747; with W. Winstanley's Lives of the Most
Famous Poets, 1687, are historically curious. The impor-
tant matter of the earlier ones has been excerpted by W.
W. Greg, in the appendices to his List of Masques, 1902.
Some Account of English Dramatick Poets, by G. Lang-
baine, 1691, is the first serious attempt at a dictionary of
English plays, and is an excellent old compendium for its
day. Among later works of this type may be mentioned
Biographia Dramatica, first published by D. E. Baker in
1764, continued by I. Reed in 1782 and by S. Jones in 1812.
This work was rewritten, if not improved, by J. O. Halli-
well-Phillipps in 1860, under title A Dictionary of Old
Plays. A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama,
by F. G. Fleay, 2 vols., 1891, comprises not only biblio-
graphical material, but biographical and critical as well,
and is indispensable, however vexatious at times in its con-
jectures and contradictions. An independent work of a
purely bibliographical character is A Manual for the Col-
lector and Amateur of Old English Plays, by W. C. Hazlitt,

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 437

1892. Our latest acquisitions in this kind are the two ad-
mirable bibliographies: A List of English Plays written
before 1643 and published before 1700; and the supplemen-
tary List of Masques and Pageants, compiled by W. W. Greg
and published, in 1900 and 1902 respectively, for the Bib-
liographical Society. The Lords Mayors' Pageants were
listed in 1831 for the Percy Society by D. G. Nichols. For
a list of minor play-lists and dictionaries of the drama the
curious may be referred to Notes and Queries, fifth series,
xii, 203. Further bibliographies of earlier editions of the
drama may be culled from works of a more general nature,
such as J. P. Collier's Bibliographical and Critical Account
of the Rarest Books in the English Language, 4 vols., 1865;
and W. C. Hazlitt's Handbook to the Popular and Dramatic
Literature of Great Britain, with its successive Supplements,
from 1867 to 1890; and from the bibliographies appended
to the histories of literature which it is becoming more and
more the fashion to write. See, also, R. W. Lowe, A Biblio-
graphical Account of English 'Theatrical Literature, 1887,
and the "Bibliography of the English Drama," contributed
to The Antiquary, xx, 1889. The starting-point of all origi-
nal bibliographical inquiry into Tudor and Stuart literature
is of course The Register of the Stationers' Company, 1554—
1640, a transcript of which, in 5 vols., 1875-1894, has been
furnished by the self-abnegating industry of E. Arber.

For the biographies of English dramatists as of other
Englishmen of note, the standard authority is The Dic-
tionary of National Biography, 1885-1901, edited by L.
Stephen and S. Lee, and the work of experts in each topic.
This work has practically incorporated the material of the
several biographical dictionaries of the drama that pre-
ceded it (the chief of which have just been mentioned
above), with newer material, biographical and historical.
Fleay's Biographical Chronicle contains, besides what has
been thus incorporated, much other matter of value; and
J. P. Collier's "Memoirs of the Principal Actors in the
Plays of Shakespeare," Old Sh. Soc. Publ 1846, with

438 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

other publications for the same society, such as Henslowe's
Diary, The Memoirs of Edward Alleyn, The Alleyn Papers,
and other works should be consulted. The Lives of Brit-
ish Dramatists, 2 vols., 1837, by S. A. Dunham, is of minor
importance.

As to texts of the drama, aside from the separate edi-
tions of individual poets which will find mention in their
places below, the following are the more important collec-
tions of old English plays: Dodsley's Old Plays, first pub-
lished, 12 vols. in 1744, enlarged by I. Reed in 1780, again
by J. P. Collier in 1825-27, and lastly chronologically ar-
ranged by Hazlitt, 15 vols., 1874-76; Bell's British Theatre,
34 vols., 1797, with a Supplement in 6 vols. soon after;
Sir Walter Scott's Ancient and Modern British Drama,
together 8 vols., 1810-11; The Old English Drama, by
Baldwyn, 2 vols., 1824; T. White, Old English Drama,
4 vols., 1830; J. S. Keltic, Works of the British Dramatists,
1870. Supplements to Dodsley are those of C. W. Dilke,
Old English Plays, 6 vols., 1814-15; J. P. Collier, Five
Old Plays, Roxburghe Club, 1833; T. Amyot and others,
A Supplement to Dodsley's Old English Plays, 4 vols., 1853;
and A. Brandl, Quellen des welthchen Dramas in England
vor Shakespeare, Quellen und Forschungen, Ixxx, 1898.
Exceedingly valuable, too, are the reprints of old and some-
times hitherto unpublished dramas by A. H. Bullen, Old
English Plays, 4 vols., 1882; and a second, new series, 3
vols., 1889. Other works of wider contents, if less critical
value, are the compendious old collections of Mrs. Inchbald,
42 vols., 1808-11; of W. Oxberry, 22 vols., 1818-25; and
of J. Cumberland, 44 vols., 1829. Of a more scholarly and
restricted character are T. Hawkins, Origin of the English
Drama, 3 vols., 1773; Six Old Plays, 1779; and Four Old
Plays, the latter edited by F. J. Child, 1848. J. Maidment
and W. H. Logan, Dramatists of the Restoration, 14 vols.,
1872-79, reprint the works of several late dramatic authors
the work of whom falls in part within the period of this
book. To R. Simpson, however eccentric some of his views,

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 439

we owe reprints of several rare early plays in his School
of Shakspere, 2 vols., 1878. Excellent, if popular, is the
Mermaid Series of the Best Plays of the Old Dramatists,
projected by J. A. Symonds, 1886, and now containing 23
vols., the work of various editors. H. M. Fitzgibbon, Fa-
mous Elizabethan Plays, 1889, and W. R. Thayer, The
Best Elizabethan Plays, 1890, are popular collections in one
volume each. Besides their limited choice of material, both
are open to criticism, like most of the previous collections,
on the score of a modernized text. Of collected extracts
from the dramatists, Charles Lamb's Specimens of English
Dramatic Poets, 1808 (new ed. by I. Gollancz, 2 vols.,
1893), holds the place of honor for the occasional jewels
of precious critical insight which it contains. A recent book
of similar plan is that of W. H. Williams, Specimens of
Elizabethan Drama from Lyly to Shirley, 1905; another is
G. E. and W. H. Hadow's Oxford Treasury of English
Literature, 1907, the second vol. of which concerns the
drama. In J. M. Manly's Specimens of Pre-Shakespearean
Drama, 2 vols., 1897, the choice is extended, the texts com-
plete, and reproduced with scholarly care. The same may
be affirmed of C. M. Gayley's Representative English
Comedies, edited by various hands, 1903. The Temple
Dramatists, begun in 1895, and edited by I. Gollancz,
includes, besides Shakespeare, upwards of a score of plays
the works of other dramatists, singly edited and sepa-
rately published. The Belles Lettres Series of English Dra-
mas, under the general editorship of G. P. Baker, 1902;
and the series founded by W. Bang in the same year
and entitled Materiahen zur Kunde des dlteren englischen
Dramas, are both marked by careful scholarship and are
likewise still in progress. A reversion to the vicious habit
of a modernized and sophisticated text has recently marked
the appearance of the Publications of the Early English
Drama Society, edited by J. S. Farmer, 1906; but better
things are promised for the future. Sounder methods pre-
vail in the work of The Malone Society, founded in 1906,

440 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

the Honorary Secretary of which is W. W. Greg. The
four volumes which have already appeared are mentioned,
each in its place, below.

Among histories of the modern drama the authoritative
one is that of W. Creizenach, Geschic hte des neueren Dramas,
1893 to date and still in continuance. R. Prolss, Geschichte
des neueren Dramas, $ vols., 1881-83, IS a work of less im-
portance, while J. L. Klein's large Geschichte des Dramas,
13 vols., 1865-79, is prolix and to a considerable degree
now antiquated. The chief authority for the general his-
tory of the English drama is A. W. Ward, History of Eng-
lish Dramatic Literature to the Death of Queen Anne, 2 vols.
1871, 2d ed. 3 vols. 1899. J. P. Collier, History of English
Dramatic Poetry, first printed in 1831, new ed. 1879, con-
tains much material which is accessible nowhere else; but
from the untrustworthiness of the author, must be followed
with the utmost caution. A more recent work is that of
J. J. Jusserand, Le Theatre en Angleterre, new ed. 1 88 1.
The conclusions of this work have been for the most part
incorporated in the same author's Literary History of the
English People, 4 vols., 1895-1904, and still in progress.
The history of English drama in whole or in part forms,
too, a portion of the more general histories of English lit-
erature and poetry, such as that of T. Warton, History
of English Poetry, first published in 1774-81, new ed. by
Hazlitt, 4 vols., 1871; H. A. Taine, Histoire de la Littera-
ture Anglaise, 4 vols., 1863, English translation, 1872;
G. Saintsbury, History of Elizabethan Literature, 1887;
H. Morley, English Writers, 1 1 vols., 1887-95; B. Ten
Brink, Geschichte der englischen Litteratur, first published
in 1877, new £d- by A. Brandl, 1893, English translation,
1884-96; W. J. Courthope's notable History of English
Poetry, 5 vols., 1895-1905, and still in progress; G. Saints-
bury, Short History of English Literature, 1895, and many
more. The history of English drama in the time of Shake-
speare is the theme of several excellent older works: N.
Drake, Shakspeare and his Times, 1817; W. Hazlitt, Dra-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 441

matic Literature of the Age of Elizabeth, 1821; H. Ulrici,
Ueberblick iiber die Geschichte des englischen Dramas, 1847 ;
F. R. G. Guizot's Shakespeare et son Temps, 1852; trans-
lated, 1855; F. M. von Bodenstedt's Shakespeare's 2,eitge-
nossen und ihre Werke, 1856-60; A. J. F. Mezieres' excel-
lent Contemporaines et Successeurs de Shakespeare, 1864;
and E. P. Whipple, Literature of the Age of Elizabeth,
1869. A later suggestive book is J. A. Symonds' Shak-
spere's Predecessors in the English Drama, 1881; A. F.
von Schack, Die englischen Dramatiker vor, neben, und
nach Shakspere, 1893 ; and J. C. Collins, "The Predeces-
sors of Shakespeare, "Essays and Studies, 1895, are valuable,
too; F. S. Boas, Shakspere and his Predecessors, 1896, is a
slighter work. C. M. Gayley's Representative English
Comedies, 1903, like several of the older collections of
plays, contains much valuable critical and historical ma-
terial in the form of introductions, prefaces, notes, and
other apparatus. J. R. Lowell's Old Dramatists, 1902, is
distinctly below his usual critical acumen. Among several
recent histories may be mentioned The Age of Shakespeare,
by T. Seccombe and J. W. Allen, 1901, the second vol. of
which is concerned with the drama. For the history of the
stage, the reader is referred to the paragraphs of this essay
which correspond to chapter iv of this book. References
to other specific material will likewise be found below.

For the bibliography of the critical literature of the
drama we are less well off, and such matter is best gleaned
from the incidental bibliographies and mentions contained
in works on more specific parts of the subject. Lists of new
books, appended to many of the scientific periodicals de-
voted to the study of English and other modern tongues,
and the annual resumes of contemporary critical activity
such as the "Jahresbericht der germanischen Philologie, twen-
ty-sixth year, 1905; that of the Shakespeare-Jahrbuch, or of
Anglia, afford the scholar material aid in keeping abreast
of the times. The more important journals and collections
of papers and reprints that include a consideration of the

442 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

English drama are the following: Shakespeare Society,
Papers and Publications, 1844-53; (Herrig's) Archiv fur
das Studium der neueren Sprachen, 1848-; "Jahrbuch fur
romanische und enghsche Litter atur, 1859-76; ^ahrbuch der
deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft, 1865-; Quellen und
Forschungen zur Sprach- und Culturgeschichte der german-
ischen Volker, 1874-; New Shakspere Society, Publications
and Transactions, 1874-96; Enghsche Studien, 1877-;
Anglia, Zeitschnft fiir enghsche Philologie, 1878-; Lit-
teraturbibhothek fiir germamsche und romanische Philolo-
gie (monthly), 1879-; American "Journal of Philology,
1880-; Publications and Transactions of the Modern Lan-
guage Association of America, 1884-; Modern Language
Notes (monthly), 1886-; Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Lit-
teraturgeschichte, 1887-; Munchener Beitrdge zur roman-
ischen und enghschen Philologie, 1890-; Wiener Beitrage
zur enghschen Philologie, 1895-; Forschungen zur neueren
Litteraturgeschichte, 1896-; Studien zur enghschen Phi-
lologie, 1897-; "Journal of (English) and Germanic Phi-
lology, 1897-; Litterarhistonsche Forschungen, 1897-;
Modern Language Quarterly, 1897-1902; Pal&stra, Unter-
suchiingen und Texte aus der deutschen und enghschen
Philologie, 1898-; Modern Philology, 1902-; Mater ialien
zur Kunde des alteren enghschen Dramas, 1902-; Journal
of Comparative Literature, 1903; Modern Language Re-
view, 1905, successor of The Modern Language Quarterly,
named above.

I. THE OLD SACRED DRAMA

Owing to the solidarity of the Medieval Church in West-
ern Europe, the origins of the sacred drama are best studied
with the lines of nationality to a large extent disregarded.
Aside from the excellent work of Creizenach in the first
two volumes of his Geschichte des neueren Dramas, the au-
thoritative book is that of E. K. Chambers, The Mediaeval
Stage,2\o\s., 1903, a valuable feature of which is the ample

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 443

bibliography with which it is furnished. (See, also, the ad-
ditional bibliography by D. Klein, Mod. Lang. Notes, xx,
1905.) The subject is more briefly treated in "The Transi-
tion Period," by G. Gregory Smith, Epochs of European
Culture, 1900; and in the general histories of literature and
the drama. See, too, the article of B. Matthews, " The
Mediaeval Drama," Mod. Phil, i, 1903. The liturgical ori-
gins of the drama are especially the theme of C. Magnin's
Origines du 'Theatre, 1846-47; of the Introduction to E. Du
Meril's Origines latines du Theatre moo1 erne, 1849; °f M.
Sepet's Origines catholiques du Theatre moderne, 1901; and
of the same author's Le Drame chretien au Moyen Age,
1878. C. Davidson's Studies in the English Mystery Plays,
1892, contains much that is valuable. See, also, the article
of M. Bateson, " The Mediaeval Stage," Scottish Historical
Review, July, 1904. The texts of the Quern Quaeritis may
be studied in T. Wright, Early Mysteries and other Latin
Poems, 1838; in Du Meril as above; in G. Milchsack,
Die Oster- und Passionsspiele, 1880; in C. Lange, Die
lateinischen Osterfeiern, 1887; and L. Wirth, Die Oster-
und Passionsspiele bis zum XFI "Jahrhundert, 1889; E. de
Coussemaker, Drames liturgiques du Moyen Age, 1860,
gives the music as well as the text. R. Froning, Das Drama
des Mittelalters, 1891, includes the Antichristus. The tropes
will be found in L. Gautier, Histoire de la Poesie liturgique
au Moyen Age, 1 886, and W. H. Frere, The Winchester
Tropes, 1894. Convenient reprints of these as of other
specimens of the old sacred drama are contained in J. M.
Manly, Specimens of Pre-Shakespearean Drama, 1 897, vol. i.
The liturgical plays of Hilarius were published by J. J.
Champollion-Figeac, Hilarn Versus et Ludi, 1838; a more
accessible account of Hilarius is that of H. Morley, Eng-
lish Writers, vol. iii.

An effort towards a general bibliography of the English
miracle plays is that of F. H. Stoddard, References for
Students of Miracle Plays and Mysteries, 1887; another is
contained in K. L. Bates, The English Religious Drama,

444 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

1893. By far the most complete is that of Chambers, in the
Appendices to his second volume. The best accounts of
the English miracle play are those of Ten Brink, Ward, and
Creizenach as above, and the Introductions of A. W. Pol-
lard, English Miracle Plays, Moralities and Interludes (3d
ed. 1898); and of C. M. Gayley, Representative English
Comedies, 1903. See, also, this author's "The Earlier," and
"The Later Miracle Plays in England," The International
Quarterly, x and xii, 1904 and 1906; and the Harvard
Thesis, by F. M. Tisdel, Comedy in the Mystery Plays
of England, 1906. Besides Collier, now superseded, and
Symonds', Jusserand's, Courthope's, and others' histories
of literature and poetry, the topic is especially treated by
K. L. Bates, The English Religious Drama, 1893. Earlier
English learning on the subject may be found in T.
Warton, History of English Poetry (ed. Hazlitt, 1871); in
E. Malone, Historical Account of the English Stage, his
Variorum Shakspeare, 1821, vol. iii; in W. Hone, Ancient
Mysteries Described, 1823; and in the Dissertation of the
antiquary T. Sharp, On the Pageants or Dramatic Mys-
teries anciently performed at Coventry, 1825. Earlier Ger-
man interest in the subject is manifest by A. Ebert, "Die
englischen Mysterien," Jahrbuch fur romanische und en- \
glische Litteratur, i, 1859. A few later contributions are: |
R. Brotanek, "The Dublin Abraham and Isaac," Anglia,
xxi, 1898; F. Liebermann, "Das Osterspiel zu Leicester,"
Archiv, cvii, 1900; M. Peacock, "The Wakefield Mys-
teries, their Place of Representation," Anglia, xxiv, 1901;
W. van der Gaaf, "Miracles and Mysteries of S. E. York-
shire," Engl. Stud, xxvi, 1906. A recent popular work on
the general subject is that of E. H. Moore, English Miracle
Plays and Moralities, 1907.

The following are the editions of the four great cycles
of miracle plays: The York Plays, edited by L. Toulmin
Smith, 1885; the Towneley (or Wakefield} Plays, by an
editor unknown, for the Surtees Society, 1836, and by G.
England and A. W. Pollard, E. E. T. S. 1897; the Ches-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 445

ter Plays, by T. Wright, Old Sh. Soc. Publ 1843-47, and
byH. Deimling in part, E. E. T. S. 1893; the Ludus Co-
•uentriae, by J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, Old Sh. Soc. Publ.
1841. Most of these editions are furnished with valuable
introductory matter. A collection miscellaneous in char-
acter and consisting of late plays has been printed from
the Digby Manuscript in the Bodleian Library by T. Sharp
for the Abbotsford Club, 1835, and by F. J. Furnivall, New
Sh. Soc. 1882, and E. E. T. S. 1896. The Cornish cycle
was published with a translation by E. Norris, The An-
cient Cornish Drama, 1859. See, also, T. C. Peter, The
Old Cornish Drama, a Lecture, 1907.

On the relations of the English miracle-cycles, A. Hohl-
feld, "Die altenglischen Kollektivemisterien," Anglia, xi,

1889, should be consulted; on the sources of the York
Plays, P. Kamen, in the same, x, 1888; and on those of the
Chester Plays, H. Ungemach, in Munchener Beitrdge, i,

1890. The Dissertation of K. Schmidt, Die Digby-Spiele,
1884, and A. Bunzen, Etn Beitrag zur Knttk der Wake-
fielder Mysterien, 1903, are neither of them important. F.
Holthausen has contributed to a clarification of the text of
the York Plays in Herrig's Archiv, Ixxxv-lxxxvi, 1890-91.
See, also, his "Zur Textkritik der York Plays," Philo-
logische Studien, Festgabe fur E. Sievers, 1896; "Studien
zum alteren englischen Drama," Engl. Stud, xxxi, 1902,
and other works; and Davidson's Studies, 1892, as above,
which contains, besides much else, an important contri-
bution to the vexed subject of the meters of the miracle.
Finally, in H. S. Symmes, Les Debuts de la Critique Dra-
matique en Angleterre, 1903, will be found valuable mate-
rial concerning the attitude of the clergy towards the
drama.

On the authorship of the miracle plays the reader should
consult an interesting paragraph of Chambers, vol. ii. Our
chief authority for the life and dramatic writings of John
Bale is contained in his own works, especially his Illustrium
Majoris Britannia Scriptorum Catalogus, 1548, and I557~

446 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

59, and his " Vocacyon to Ossory," Harleian Miscellany,
ed. 1808, vol. i. Later accounts of Bale are those of Collier,
Ward, Cooper's Athena Cantabrigienses, and that of M.
Creighton in th,e D. N. B. Bibliographies of Bale's dra-
matic writings may be found in the Introduction to M. M.
Schroeer's edition of his Comedy Concerning Three Laws,
1882, and in Chambers. See, also, the contributions of W.
Bang, Engl. Stud, xxxiv, 1904-05. The best account of
George Buchanan is that of JE. Mackay in D. N. B. See,
also, G. A. Morton, George Buchanan, a Biography, 1906;
and the Glasgow Quartercentenary Studies, also 1906.
The best edition of his works is that of Thomas Ruddi-
man, 1725; the reprint of 1735 contains a full bibliography.
The biblical plays of Buchanan have been frequently
translated into English; both of them by A. Gibb in 1870;
Jephthes, by A. G. Mitchell, 1903, and both again by A.
Brown, into verse, 1907. A special if questionable interest
attaches to the translation ofBaptistes attributed to Milton.
On the topic, see F. Peck's New Memoir of Milton, 1740.
Ochino's tragedy, as translated by Bishop Ponet, 1549,
has been edited by C. E. Plumtre, 1899; M. W. Wallace
edits Arthur Golding's translation of Beza's Abraham's
Sacrifice, 1907. The chief points in the life of Nicholas
Grimald are epitomized by E. Arber in his edition of Tot-
teVs Miscellany; by E. Fliigel in Gayley, and by Cham-
bers. On his place in the drama, see Herford. Aside from
the reprint of Christus Redivivus, by J. M. Hart, Mod.
Lang. Publ. xiv, 1899, Archipropheta has been recently
translated, 1907. W. W. Greg reprints for the Malone
Society the Enterlude of Johan Baptistes, 1906. Acolastus,
its author, and translator, are also treated by Herford. Bale
is our authority for Radclif. For references to the lesser
authors named in the chapter corresponding to this section
of the bibliographical essay the reader is referred to the
notes accompanying that chapter, and to the list of authors
below. For further authorities on the humanists' drama
see the next section of this essay.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 447

II. THE MORALITY AND THE EARLIER SECU-
LAR DRAMA

Historical accounts of the English moralities are con-
tained in the larger histories of literature and the drama,
such as Klein, Collier, Ten Brink, Symonds, Creizenach,
Jusserand, and Courthope. They are likewise specifically
treated by Pollard, Bates, Gayley, and Chambers, for all
of which see the preceding sections of this essay. The In-
troduction to A. Brandl, Quellen des weltlichen Dramas in
England vor Shakespeare, 1898, adds much matter and
some surmise. Texts of the moralities are available in
Dodsley's Old English Plays (ed. Hazlitt, 1874-76), the
earlier volumes; in extract in A. W. Pollard, English
Miracle Plays, Moralities and Interludes ^d ed. 1898);
J. M. Manly, Specimens of Pre-Shakespearean Drama, 1897,
vol. i; in Brandl, Quellen (as above); and in some of the
older collections of early plays mentioned above, such as
F. Hawkins, Origin of the English Drama, 3 vols., 1773;
J. P. Collier, Five Old Plays, 1833; and F. J. Child, Four
Old Plays, 1848. An excellent bibliography of the English
morality is contained in Chambers, ii, 436.

Bibliographies of the Feast of Fools, and of the Boy
Bishop will be found in Chambers (vol. i, 274 and 336),
where, too, as in Creizenach, these subjects are thoroughly
discussed. On the latter topic in England, see A. F. Leach,
"The Schoolboys' Feast," Fortnightly Review, n. s. lix,
1896; and the material gathered by E. F. Rimbault, "The
Festival of the Boy Bishop in England," Camden Mis-
cellany, vii, 1875. For the whole question of the folk
drama, which lies beyond the purpose of these volumes, the
reader is once more referred to Chambers and his ad-
mirable bibliographies. On old English customs,}. Brand,
Observations on Popular Antiquities, 1770 (new ed. by
W. C. Hazlitt, 1870); T. F. T. Dyer, British Popular Cus-
toms, 1891, and P. H. Ditchfield, Old English Customs,
1896, are popular and valuable, if scarcely scientific works.

I

448 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

The sword-dance is elaborately studied by K. Miillenhoff,
"Ueber den Schwerttanz," Festgaben fur Gustav Homeyert
1871, and in Zeitschrift fur deutsches Alterthum, xviii. For
the morris dance, see F. Douce, Illustrations of Shakspeare,
1807 (new ed. 1839), and A. Burton, Rushbearing, 1891.
The subject of medieval minstrelsy is likewise well treated
and at large by Chambers, where sufficient bibliographies
of the subject will be found.

On the dialogue at large the chief authority is R. Hir-
zel, Der Dialog, ein litterarhistorischer Versuch, 1895. An
interesting account of the medieval dialogue in its inter-
national relations is contained in Herford as above. Speci-
mens of the medieval dialogue may be found in K. Bod-
deker, Altenglische Dichtungen, 1878; W. C. Hazlitt,
Remains of the Early Popular Poetry of England, 4 vols.,
1864-66, and other like collections. On the mummers'
plays, see T. F. Ordish, "English Folk Drama," Folk-Lore,
ii, iv, 1891, 1893. Chambers gives a list of these produc-
tions, vol. i, 203. On the mummings of Lydgate, see R.
Brotanek, Die englischen Maskenspiele, 1902; and E. P.
Hammond, in Anglia, xxii, 1899, and xxviii, 1905. The
original sources of our information concerning early royal
masking will be found in the various volumes of the Calen-
dar of State Papers, especially Letters and Papers of the Reign \
of Henry VIII (1862-1903); the Revels' Accounts; and
The King's Book of Payments; in the Chronicles of Hall,
The Union of Lancaster and York, 1548, ed. 1809; and in
A. J. Kempe, The Loseley Manuscripts, 1836. Collier's
"Annals of the Stage" in his History of English Dramatic
Poetry, 1831, new ed. 1879, now becomes useful despite
its defects; and W. C. Hazlitt, The English Drama and
Stage, 1869, supplies reprints of several interesting docu-
ments. For the Interludium de Clerico et Puella, see Cham-
bers, vol. ii; and Jusserand, Literary History, vol. i. For
the French analogues of this fragment of the early secular
drama, see G. B. Bapst, Essai sur VHistoire du Theatre,
1893, and Creizenach, vol. i.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 449

For the humanists' drama see, besides Creizenach, W.
Cloetta, Beitrdge zur Litter aturgesc hi chte des Mittelalters
und der Renaissance, 1890-92; and especially C. H. Her-
ford, Studies in the Literary Relations of England and Ger-
many, 1886. G. Saintsbury's The Earlier Renaissance,
1901 (chapter vi), is a more popular work. On the general
subject of the continental humanists, see L. D. Bahlmann,
Die Erneuerer des antiken Dramas und ihre ersten dra-
matischen Versuche, 1314-1478, 1896; and Die lateinisc hen
Dramen, 1480-1550, 1893. Reprints of many of these Latin
plays, by J. Bolte and others, will be found in Lateinische
Litter aturdenkmdler des X V and XVI JahrhunJerts, 1901,
to date. Accounts of early English Latin plays at the Eng-
lish universities will be found in an anonymous article in
the Retrospective Review, xii, 1826. A Harvard thesis re-
ported as of "unusual quality" is that of C. F. Brown,
A Study of the English Drama Schools before the Reforma-
tion, 1906. For later Latin plays at the universities, see the
authorities mentioned in section xiv of this Essay.

As to the influence of Plautus and Seneca on earlier
English drama, the reader is referred below, section x of this
Essay. Features of the vernacular comedy element in early
drama are discussed by L. W. Cushman, "The Devil and
the Vice," Studien zur englischen Philologie, vi, 1900; and
by E. Eckert, "Die lustige Person in alteren englischen
Dramen," Pal&stra, xvii, 1902.

The Pride of Life, Mankind, Nature and Respublica,
each therein reprinted, receive specific treatment by A.
Brandl in his Quellen des weltlichen Dramas, 1898. For the
first of these, see, also, H. Morley, English Writers, vii, 173.
Pollard describes and prints a fragment of The Castle of
Perseverance; the diagram of the playing place is repro-
duced from the original manuscript by T. Sharp, A Dis-
sertation on Pageants, 1825. Mind, Will, and Understand-
'•ng was most recently reprinted by F. J. Furnivall with
:he Digby Plays, 1882. Wealth and Health is reprinted by
P. Simpson, for the Malone Society, 1907. The World and

450

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

the Child and several other moralities are edited by Manly,
Specimens (as above). Everyman has been frequently re-
printed: by H. Logemann, edited with the Dutch Elcker-
lijk, 1892; by T. Sidgwick, 1902; A. W. Pollard in Fif-
teenth Century Prose and Verse, 1903; by M. J. Moses,
1903; byW. W. Greg in Materialien zur Kunde, iv, 1904;
and by Farmer in Early Dramatists, Anonymous Plays,
series i, 1905. On the relations of Everyman to the Dutch
versions, see H. Logemann's ed. as above; K. H. de Raaf,
Spyeghel der Salicheyt van Elckerlijk, 1897; Logemann's
reply, Elckerlijc-Everyman, de vraag naar de prioriteit
opnieuw onderzocht, 1902. On the wider relations of the
same, see K. Godeke, Everyman, Homulus, and Hekastus,
1865; and A. Roersch, "Elckerlijc-Everyman-Homulus,"
Archiv, cxiii, 1904.

Hickscorner, Youth, and The Nature of the Four Ele-
ments are all contained in Dodsley, and Youth with frag-
ments of the Play of 'Lucre and Nature are reprinted by
W. Bang and R. B. McKerrow, Materialien zur Kunde,
xii, 1905. The last has been most recently reprinted by J.
Fischer in Marburger Studien, v, 1903. Redford's Wit and
Science is in the Old Sh. Soc. Pull. 1848. Its relations to
other like moralities is discussed by J. Seifert, Wit- und
Science-Moralitaten, 1892. H. Fernow discusses the late
moralities of Robert Wilson in his edition of The Three
Lords and Ladies of London, 1885. On other moralities
mentioned, see the resumes of Chambers and the notes to
the text. As to the more important authors of the moral-
ities, for Bale see the previous section of this Essay. The
standard edition of John Skelton is that of A. Dyce, 2
vols., 1843; it contains an excellent memoir. Older author-
ities will be found cited in S. Lee's article in D. N. B
Recent studies are those of A. Kolbing, Zur Charakteristii
John Skelton s, 1904; and F. Brie, "Skelton-Studien,'
Engl. Stud, xxxvii, 1907. The best editions of Sir Davi<
Lyndsay are those of Chalmers, 3 vols., 1806; and D. Laing
3 vols., 1879; to each a life of the poet is prefixed; th

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 451

ed. of Lyndsay undertaken by the E. E. T. S. in 1865
includes A Satire of the Three Estates, 1894.

The latest account of John Heywood is that of A. W. Pol-
lard in Gayley's Representative English Comedies, 1903.
The article by Pollard in D. N. E.; and the older Hey-
wood als Dramatiker, by W. Swoboda, Wiener Beitrdge,
1888, should also be consulted. W. W. Greg, in Archiv,
cvi, 1899, tells of "an unknown ed." of The Play of Love.
K. Young, in Modern Philology, \, 1903-04, discourses
on The Influence of French Farce upon the Plays of Hey-
wood; and A. Brandl discusses the interlude Love and its
relations in his Quellen Studien, 1898. See, also, F. Holt-
hausen, "Zu Heywood's Wetterspiel," Archiv, cxvi, 1906.
Heywood's works have been recently collected by J. S.
Farmer in a reprint of unauthoritative editions among the
Publications of the Early English Drama Society, and a
study is promised for a future volume by the same editor.
Besides the accounts of these authors in D. N. B., for John
Rastell, see A thence Oxonienses, vol. i; for George Ferrers,
A. J. Kempe, The Loseley MS. 1836; for Thomas Preston,
Cooper's Athena Cantabrigienses, ii, 247, 550, and T. Har-
wood's Alumni Etonenses, 1797. Of the plays mentioned
among the "first regular" comedies, Misogonus is dis-
cussed by A. Brandl in Quellen des weltlichen Dramas,
1898 (and see G. L. Kittredge, "Misogonus and Laurence
Johnson," Journal of Germanic Philology, iii, 1901); Tom
Tyler is reprinted by F. E. Schelling, Mod. Lang. Publ.
xv, 1900; A. S. W. Rosenbach discussed " The Influ-
ence of the Celestina in the Early English Drama,"
Jahrbuch, xxxix, 1903; and F. Holthausen disclosed the
"Sources of Thersites in Textor," Engl. Stud, xxxi, 1901.

On the disputed authorship of Gammer Gurton, see
I. Reed in Biographia Dramatica, ed. 1782, s. v.; C. M.
Ross in Anglia, xix, 1896; and H. Bradley in Gayley's
Representative English Comedies, 1903. On the equally
disputed date of Roister Doister, J. W. Hales in Engl.
Stud, xviii, 1893; and E. Fliigel in Gayley, who has col-

452 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

lected, both here and in the Furnivall Miscellany, 1901,
much valuable material from Archcsologia, xxi, and else-
where. See, also, the briefer account of Udall and his
work by H. W. Williams and P. A. Robins in their edition
of Roister Doister, Temple Dramatists, 1901; and some ad-
ditional notes of the former in EngL Stud, xxxvi, 1906. An
earlier account of Udall is that of Cooper, Athence Canta-
brigienses, 1 86 1.

III. EARLY DRAMAS OF SCHOOL AND COURT

The larger histories of literature and of the drama con-
tinue available throughout this and subsequent periods.
A list of them will be found in the earlier paragraphs of
this Essay. For the Italian nature of the renaissance in
England, the reader is referred to M. Creighton, The Early
Renaissance in England, 1895; G. Saintsbury, The Earlier
Renaissance, 1898; and L. Einstein, The Italian Renais-
sance in England, 1902. On the personal character of Queen
Elizabeth as affecting the drama, see the contemporary
estimates of William Camden, Annals, 1615 (3d translated
edition by R. Norton, 1635); and that of Fulke Greville,
Lord Brooke, in his Life of Sidney, ed. 1652, new ed. by
A. B. Grosart, in Fuller Worthies' Library, 4 vols., 1870.
Among the many excellent lives of the queen may be men-
tioned that of A. Jessopp in D. N. B.; E. S. Beesley,
Elizabeth, in Twelve English Statesmen, 1892; M. Creigh-
ton, Queen Elizabeth, 1896; and the wider treatment of her
reign by A. D. Innes, " England under the Tudors," in
A History of England, 6 vols., edited by C. W. C. Oman,
1905. The progresses and other entertainments of the
queen are recorded in the monumental work of J. Nichols,
Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth, 2d
ed. 3 vols., 1823, which collects and reprints many con-
temporary accounts of these august functions. Queen
Elizabeth's Non-dramatic Englishings were printed for the
E. E. T. S. 1899; a chorus of the Hercules (Etceus, trans-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 453

lated by the royal hand, is reprinted in Anglia, xiv, 1892.
Elizabethan translations of Seneca by various hands be-
tween 1559 and 1581 were collected and completed in the
latter year by Thomas Newton, reprinted for the Spenser
Society, 2 vols., 1887. Thomas Sackville has been treated
by W. D. Cooper in the edition of Gorboduc for the Sh.
Soc. 1847, and by L. T. Smith in Engllsche Sprach- und
Litter aturJ en kmale, i, 1883. See, also, Ferrex and Porrex,
eine litterarhistorische Untersuchung, F. Koch, Halle Dis-
sertation, i88i,and F. Liebermann, in Archiv, cvi, 1899;
George Gascoigne, by E. Arber, "Chronicle of the Life,
Works, and Times of Gascoigne," English Reprints, 1868;
unsatisfactorily by W. C. Hazlitt, Complete Works of Gas-
coigne, 2 vols., 1869-70; by F. E. Schelling, "The Life and
Writings of George Gascoigne," Publications of the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania, 1893; and by J. W. Cunliffe in
ed. of Supposes and Jocasta, Belles Lettres Series, 1906.
3th of the latter contain bibliographies of Gascoigne.
:e, too, the excellent article on The Glass of Government,
C. H. Herford, Engl. Stud, ix, 1886. Thomas Hughes
id his fellows receive the attention of H. C. Grumbine
the Introduction to his edition of The Misfortunes of
Arthur, Litterarhistorische Forschungen, xiv, 1900. On
ie influence of Seneca upon Elizabethan tragedy, see the
iluable thesis of J. W. Cunliffe of that title, 1893; on the
rider results of that influence, the equally valuable Zur
lunstentwicklung der englischen Tragodie, by R. Fischer,
the same year. Cunliffe also contributes a paper on
nsmond of Salerne to Mod. Lang. Publ. xxi, 1906. See,
Iso, below, section xiii of this Essay.
The best accounts of the Office of the Revels will be found
in Collier and Ward, s. v., in the lives of Sir Edmund Tyl-
ney, Sir George Buc, and Sir Henry Herbert in D. N. B.,
and in R. W. Bond, Works of John Lyly, 1902, vol. i. Ex-
tracts from the Accounts of the Revels at Court between 1571
and 1588 were published by P. Cunningham, Old Sh. Soc.
%ubl. 1842, and the volume contains much valuable ma-

454 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

terial despite aspersions on the authority of some of the
later entries. The entries of the Register of the Royal
Council were first drawn on by G. Chalmers in 1797, and
later incorporated in the Boswell-Malone tariorum Shak-
speare of 1821, vol. iii. They are now also available in
Acts of the Privy Council of England (up to June, 1601),
1890-1906, edited by J. R. Dasent. On Court Performances
before Queen Elizabeth, see an interesting paper of E. K.
Chambers in The Modern Language Review, ii, 1906. I
regret that I should not have been able to see the same
author's Notes on the History of the Revels Office under
the Tudors, 1906, before my own paragraph on the subject
was in plate.

On the organization of the boy companies and their
earlier history, besides Collier and Malone, F. G. Fleay,
Chronicle History of the London Stage, 1559-1642, 1890, is
the most important work. H. Maas gives in his dissertation
(Gottingen, 1901), Die Kindertruppen, 1559-1642, a brief
resume of our present information. The traffic in the boy
actors carried on by Nathaniel Giles and others is illus-
trated in documents discovered by J. Greenstreet and com-
municated to The Athenaum of August 10, 1889. These
documents are epitomized by Fleay in his History of the
Stage, as above; and a popular account of the traffic is
given by F. E. Schelling in the essay, "An Aery of Children,
Little Eyases," The Queen's Progress, 1904. The only
masters of choirs and schools likewise theatrical managers,
to be mentioned in D. N. B., are Richard Mulcaster, Wil-
liam Elderton, and Nathaniel Giles; in the case of each is
added some earlier bibliography on the subject. Mulcaster,
for his wider interests in education, has been well treated
by C. Benndorf, "Die englische Padagogik im 16. Jahrhun-
dert," Wiener Beitrage, xii, 1905. Wood, Athena: Oxonienses,
i, has a note on Elderton, and see Ritson, Reliques of An-
cient English Poetry, ed. 1794. As to the earlier masters
of the Children of the Chapel Royal and other early boys'
companies, see W. Y. Durand, "Notes on Edwards," Jour-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 455

nal of Germanic Philology, iv, 1901-02; C. C. Stopes,
"William Hunnis," Athenceum, March, 1900; and Jahr-
buch, xxvii, 1892. See, also, J. Sargeaunt, Annals of West-
minster School, 1898, and the note of E. J. L. Scott, Athe-
nceum, February 14, 1903.

The manner of the performances of early court plays is
best gleaned from the stage directions of the plays them-
selves, provided sophisticated modern editions be not em-
ployed. In C. Plummer's Elizabethan Oxford is contained
a Latin account by W. Bereblock of the arrangement of a
hall at Oxford for the performance of a play before the
queen in 1566. This has been translated by W. Y. Du-
rand with a sensible commentary, Mod. Lang. Publ. xx,
1905. Much information on the question of actual staging
and properties can be obtained from the Revels as above,
and from The Old Cheque-Book of the Chapel Royal, ed-
ited by E. F. Rimbault for the Camden Society, 1872.

For John Lyly the latest word is contained in The Com-
plete Works of John Lyly, edited with exhaustive Introduc-
tion and explanatory matter by R. W. Bond, 3 vols., 1902.
2, also, Bond's earlier "John Lyly, Novelist and Drama-
ist," Quarterly Review, January, 1896; and J. D. Wilson,
issay on John Lyly, 1905. Bond's reprint of Lyly's works
has quite superseded the earlier edition of F. W. Fairholt,
The Dramatic Works of John Lilly, 2 vols., 1858, by no
means a bad work in its day. Both include the Sixe Court
Comedies, first collected and printed by E. Blount in 1632,
and other work ascribed to Lyly. The best account of
euphuism, its origins and characteristics, is that of C. G.
Child, "John Lyly and Euphuism, " MunchenerBeitrage,vii,
1894, where an excellent bibliography up to its date will be
found. The chief earlier authorities are H. Morley, "On
Euphuism," Quarterly Review, cix, 1861; R. F. Weymouth,
"On Euphuism," Transactions of the Philological Society,
Part III, 1870-72; and F. Landmann, Der Euphuismus,
1881. There is a Halle dissertation by L. Wendelstein, Z«r
forgtschichte des Euphuism, 1901. See, also, the earlier

456 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

papers of C. C. Hense on the qualities of Lyly's style, Jahr-
buch, vii and viii, 1872-73, and the valuable "Biographical
Introduction " to G. P. Baker's ed. of Endymion, 1894. The
earliest of the many attempts at the elucidation of Lyly's
dramatic allegory was that of N. J. Halpin, Oberon's Piston
in Midsummer Night's Dream, Old Sh. Soc. Publ. 1843.
For later theories on the subject, see Baker's ed. of Endy-
mion and Bond's Lyly, both mentioned above. E. Koeppel
has an article, "Zu Lyly's Alexander und Campaspe,"
in Archiv, ex, 1903. " On the Authorship of the Songs of
Lyly's Plays" (here ascribed to Dekker), see W. W. Greg
in Modern Language Quarterly, i, 1905. For Lyly in his
relations to Shakespeare, see the paragraphs below under
title Romantic Comedy, section viii.

The Dramatic Works of George Peele were first collected
by A. Dyce, 3 vols., 1829-39, anc^ republished by the same
editor in 1861. The latest collective edition is that of A. H.
Bullen, 2 vols., 1888. For Peele's life, see R. Lammerhirt,
George Peele, Untersuchungen iiber sein Leben und seine
Werke, 1882, and the article by A. W. Ward in D. N. B.
vol. xliv, 1895. An excellent critical essay by F. B. Gum-
mere on Peele, his place in the drama, and the significance
of The Old Wives' Tale, will be found in Gayley. See, also,
E. Penner, "Metrische Untersuchungen zu Peele," Archiv,
Ixxxv, 1890; A. R. Bayley, "Peele as a Dramatist," Ox-
ford Point of View, February 15, 1903; and G. C. Odell
in Bibliographer, ii, 1903. Peele has attracted of late the
attention of the German dissertation: E. Kroneberg, Jena,
and W. Thieme, Halle, writing on Edward I; B. Neitzel,
Halle, on David and Bethsabe, all 1904; and M. Dannen-
berg, Konigsberg, on the " Verwendung" of biblical mate-
rial in this and other plays of this topic, 1905. The most
recent edition of The Arraignment of Paris is that of O.
Smeaton, Temple Dramatists, 1905. The Battle of Alcazar
has been reprinted for the Malone Society by F. Sidgwick,
1906. Thomas Nash was edited with an Introduction by
A. B. Grosart in the Huth Library, 5 vols., 1883-84; and

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 457

now by R. B. McKerrow, 1905-06, three volumes of the
text thus far. See, also, S. Lee's article on Nash in D. N.
B. xl, 1894.

IV. THE LONDON PLAYHOUSE

The earliest specific description of the playhouses of
Elizabeth's tune and James', and the practices of the stage,
are contained in the interesting pamphlet by James Wright,
Histona Histrtonica, an Account of the English Stage,
1699, reprinted in Hazlitt's Dodsley, vol. xv. Other older
works are B. Victor, History of the Theatre, 1761; and a
work of the same title by C. W. Oulton, 1796 and 1817.
In the third volume of Malone's Pariorum Shakspeare,
1821, will be found a collection of the antiquarian and his-
torical learning on this subject by various hands up to that
time. This was considerably added to by Collier, who
devoted the second part of his History of English Dra-
matic Literature, 1831 (new ed. in 1879), to the Annals of
the Stage up to the Restoration ; though here, as elsewhere,
Collier's deductions and even his printed evidences must
be followed by the wary with circumspection. A saner
use is made of old material by N. Drake in his excellent
book, Shakspeare and his Times, 1817; and by Halliwell-
Phillipps in the successive growths of his Outlines of the
Life of Shakespeare (from a slender volume in 1881 to two
portentous tomes in the gth ed. 1892) adding much ma-
terial to our knowledge of Shakespeare's traffic with the
stage. In 1890 F. G. Fleay published his Chronicle His-
tory of the London Stage, 1559-1642, and it remains, how-
ever discredited in some particulars, the best compendium
of the history of the London companies. A popular work
of more extended reach is H. B. Baker, History of the Lon-
don Stage and its Famous Players, 1904. Materials for the
biographies of the more important actors of old time were
gathered by J. P. Collier in his Memoirs of the Principal
Actors in the Plays of Shakespeare, Old Sh. Soc. PubL

458 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

1846. See, also, his Memoirs of Edward Alleyn, for the
same, 1841. Alleyn's life and that of Richard Burbage are
contributed to the D. N. B. by S. Lee, the editor; the lives
of Tarlton, Kemp, Hemming, Condell, and other actors of
the day will likewise be found therein. See, also, an older
paper of H. Kurz on "Shakespeare der Schauspieler,"
Jahrbuch, vi, 1871.

For the London of Elizabeth and King James the point
of departure must always be John Stow's monumental
Survey of London, first published in 1598, enlarged by A.
Munday and H. Dyson in 1633; edited in a fifth edition
by J. Strype in 1724, and often since. Stow is accessible in
many modern editions, among them that of Henry Morley
in the Carisbrooke Library, 1893. Amongst the many vol-
umes that deal with London more at large may be men-
tioned P. Cunningham's Handbook of London, 2 vols.,
1849; enlarged and rewritten by H. B. Wheatley under
title London Past and Present, 3 vols., 1891. London, by
Walter, later Sir Walter, Besant, 1892, contains a vivid his-
torical account of the metropolis from the earliest times,
and was the earnest of much material gathered by the late
novelist on this theme. Cf. the volumes on Westminster,
East and South London, and the four volumes, "London,
Mediaeval," "In the Times of the Tudors," "The Stuarts,"
and "In the Eighteenth Century," 1906. A scholarly
smaller work, more closely connected with the subject of
these volumes, is Shakespeare's London, a Study of London
in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, by T. F. Ordish, 1897.
An excellent recent book of the same general title is that
of H. T. Stephenson, 1905. G. W. Thornbury, Shake-
speare's England, 1856, and Mrs. F. S. Boas, In Shakspere's
England, 1904, are popular books of wider scope. Certain
interesting side lights on old London, and on the theaters
as well may be found in the excellent old work by W. B.
Rye, England as Seen by Foreigners, 1865. Later additions
to this are G. Binz, "Londoner Theater und Schauspiele
im Jahre 1599," Anglia, xxii, 456; and the notable dis-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 459

covery of Gaedertz, 1888, mentioned in the next para-
graph.

For the London theaters specifically, T. F. Ordish,
Early London Theatres (In the Fields), 1894, should be
consulted. His promised companion volume on the theaters
of the city has not appeared. The discovery, by K. T.
Gaedertz, in 1888, of the copy of an ancient pen drawing
of the Swan Theater in 1598, and his publication of the
sketch and the accompanying description of it by its au-
thor, one Johannes de Witt, in 1888, under title Zur Kennt-
nts der altenghschen Biihne, has led to much discussion,
more especially of late. This matter and those which led
out of it may be followed by reference to H. B. Wheatley,
"On a Contemporary Drawing of the Swan Theatre,"
New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1887-92; R. Genee, "Ueber die
scenischen Formen Shakespeare's in ihrem Verhaltniss zur
Biihne seiner Zeit," Jahrbuch,xxvi, 1891; H. Logemann,
in Anglia, xix, 1896; W. J. Laurence, "Some Character-
istics of the Elizabeth-Stuart Stage," Engl. Stud, xxxii,
1903; E. E. Hale, Jr., "The Influence of Theatrical Con-
ditions on Shakespeare," Mod. Phil, i, 1903; C. Brod-
meier, Die Shakespeare Biihne nach den alien Biihnenan-
weisungen, 1904; A. Brandl, "Eine neue Art Shakespeare
zu spielen," Deutsche Rundschau, April, 1905; and, above
all, the sane paper of G. F. Reynolds, "Some Principles
of Elizabethan Staging," Mod. Phil, ii and iii, 1904-05;
together with the numerous citations of earlier authorities
which these works contain. See, also, a popular resume
of the subject, "Elizabethan Stage Theories," The Times,
November 3, 1905. It cannot be said that the article of
Mrs. C. C. Stopes, "Elizabethan Stage Scenery," Fort-
nightly Review, June, 1907, adds much to the subject,
save for a contemporary allusion or two. On the larger
topic of the origin of modern scenery, see E. Flechsig,
Die Dekoration der modernen Biihne in Itahen . . . bis
zum Schluss des XVI JahrhunJerts, 1894; G. Ferrari, La
Scenografia, 1902, and the discussion of the transition from

460 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

medieval to modern stage-setting by Rigal, Lanson, and
Haraszti in La Revue d'Histoire litteraire de la France,
1904-05.

Many documents, acts, regulations, and proclamations
appertaining to the history of the stage have been collected
by W. C. Hazlitt, The English Drama and Stage, illus-
trated by a Series of Documents, Treaties, and Poems, 1869;
and by J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps in A Collection of Ancient
Documents respecting the Office of the Master of the Revels
and other papers relating to early English theaters, 1890.
Cunningham's Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels at
Court in the Reigns of Elizabeth and King 'James I, Old
Sh. Soc. 1842, though partially discredited, is a valuable
source for much of the earlier material of the drama at
court. A new edition of these records, by Mrs. C. C. Stopes,
is now promised, and some of its entries can be taxed and
verified by the reference to J. R. Dasent, Acts of the Privy
Council of England, 1890-95. (For the relation of these
entries, see W. W. Greg in The Modern Language Review,
ii, 1906.) Collier's edition of The Diary of Philip Henslowe,
for the Old Sh. Soc. 1845, n^s Memoirs of Edward Alleyn
and Alleyn Papers, a further collection of documents,
for the same society, 1841 and 1843, afford similar invalu-
able material for the popular stage. Unfortunately Collier
has nowhere been so discredited as in the first of these
three publications, concerning which see, especially, G. F.
Warner, Catalogue of the Manuscripts and Monuments of
Alleyn s College of God's Gift at Dulwich, 1 88 1, and the In-
troduction of the edition of Henslowe, mentioned next.
Happily this matter is now to be set at rest, so far as Hens-
lowe is concerned, by an accurate reprint of his Diary by
W. W. Greg, one volume of which has already appeared,
1905, another containing the commentary being promised
for the near future.

As to the wandering of the London companies in
the provinces, Halliwell-Phillipp's Visits of Shakespeare's
Company of Actors to Provincial Cities and Towns of

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 461

England, 1887, may be consulted. A first installment of a
wider study of English Dramatic Companies in the Towns
outside of London, 1550-1600, by J. T. Murray, has ap-
peared of late (1905) in Mod. Phil. ii. For the wanderings
of English actors beyond the confines of England, see A.
Cohn, Shakespeare in Germany, 1865; J. Tittmann, "Die
Schauspiele der englischen Komodianten in Deutschland,"
Deutsche Dichter des l6ten Jahrhunderts, xiii, 1880; J.
Meissner, Die englischen Comodianten zur Zeit Shake-
speares in Oesterreich, 1884; W. Creizenach, Schauspiele
der englischen Komodianten, 1889; and especially the ex-
cellent monograph of E. Herz, Englische Schauspieler und
enghsches Schauspiel zur Zeit Shakespeare's in Deutsch-
land, 1903; and the incidental bibliographies. Interesting
contemporary comment on the English companies in
Germany is that of Fynes Moryson in his Itinerary,
published under title Shakespeare's Europe, by C. Hughes,
1903; J. Stefanson treats in Contemporary Review,
January, 1896, of "Shakespeare at Elsinore;" Jusserand,
in the same, April, 1898, of "English Actors in France;"
A. Cargill, of "Shakespeare in Scotland," Chambers'
'Journal, December, 1904. The controversy concerning
the good or evil of the stage, especially that part of it
which arrayed the city as the attacking party against the
court as the defenders of the drama, is best summarized by
E. N. S. Thompson, " The Controversy between the Puri-
tans and the Stage," Tale Studies in English, xx, 1903. H.
C. Symmes, Les Debat de la Critique Dramatique en Angle-
terre jusqu'a la Mart de Shakespeare, 1903, admirably covers
earlier and wider ground. For the minor bibliography of
this controversy, the reader is referred to these works.
Several of the treatises, such as those of Northbrook,
Gosson,and Lodge, were reprinted for the Old Shakespeare
Society.

462 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

V. THE NEW ROMANTIC

On the earlier romantic influences at work on the drama,
see O. Ballman, "Chaucer's Einfluss auf das englische
Drama," Anglia, xxv, 1901; L. L. Schucking, Studien
uber die stofflichtn Beziehungen der englischen Komoedie
IUT italienischen bis Lilly, 1901, discredited at least as to
Lyly by Bond in his new edition of that dramatist, 1902;
and J. W. Cunliffe, "The Influence of Italian on early
Elizabethan Drama," Mod. Phil, iv, 1907. J. R. Murray,
The Influence of Italian upon English Literature during
the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, 1 886, is a work of
wider reach. Among the heroical plays, Sir Clyomon and
Sir Clamydes has been much discussed. See, especially,
L. Kellner in Engl. Stud, xiii, 1890; R. Fischer in the
next volume; and G. L. Kittredge in "Journal of Germanic
Philology, iii, 1901, where it is definitely assigned to Pres-
ton. Charlemagne, reprinted by Bullen (Old English Plays,
vol. iii, 1884.) as The Distracted Emperor, is surmised
Dekker's by Fleay. The source of " The Thracian Wonder
in Greene's Menaphon" is discussed all but simultane-
ously by J. Q. Adams, Jr., in Mod. Phil, iii, January, 1906,
and by J. LeG. Brereton in Engl. Stud .xxxvii, 1907. Brandl,
Quellen des iveltlichen Dramas, 1898, discusses Common
Conditions and Gismond of Salern. There is likewise a
Breslau Dissertation by C. Sherwood, 1892, on the latter
play; and it has been edited by I. Gollancz in the Tudor
Library, 1893. Cunliffe, in Mod. Lang. Publ. xxi, 1906,
makes clear the relations of Gismond to Dolce's Didone;
on the wider relations of the theme, see Klein, vol. v, and
Ward, vol. i. Peek's Old Wives1 Tale was first assigned in
its relation to this group by Gummere in Gayley. For The
Knight of the Burning Pestle and its inspiration, besides the
general authorities on Beaumont and Fletcher below, see,
especially, J. Fitzmaurice-Kelly in Introduction to Shel-
ton's Don Quixote, 1613, Tudor Translations, i, 1896; and
E. Koeppel," Don Quixote, Sancho Panza, und Dulcinea in

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 463

der englishen Litteratur," a study of wider scope, Archiv,
ci, 1898. The Knight was edited by B. Leonhardt in 1885.
(See, also, the same and M. Koch in Engl. Stud, ix and
xii, 1886-89.) The play has been edited more recently by
F. W. Moorman in the Temple Dramatists, 1898; a critical
ed. is now (1907) in press by H. S. Murch, Tale Studies;
and another is promised by R. M. Alden in Belles Lettres
Series.

Besides the general histories of the drama and the works
already mentioned as concerned (such as Symonds and
Boas) specifically with the predecessors of Shakespeare,
the earlier romantic dramatists have most of them re-
ceived separate treatment. The best account of George
Whetstone is that of S. Lee in D. N. B. ; older mention of
Whetstone is that of Collier in his Critical Account of the
Rarest Books, s. v., Park in Heliconia, ii, and Corser, Col-
lectanea Anglo-Poetica, xi, 382. For Peele and Nash see
the preceding section of this essay. The authoritative and
only collective edition of The Works of Thomas Kyd is that
of F. S. Boas, 1901; the last section of the Introduction
contains an excellent bibliography. Aside from the earlier
appreciations of Collier, Kreyssig in his Vorlesungen iiber
Shakespeare, 1874, and Ward, 1875, Markscheffel (in his
two dissertations on the tragedies of Kyd, in the Jahres-
bericht des Realgymnasiums zu Weimar, 1886 and 1887),
offered the earliest serious attempt to rehabilitate Kyd;
and he was followed by G. Sarrazin in his Thomas Kyd
und sein Kreis, 1892, the conclusion of a series of admirable
studies on Kyd in Anglia, xii-xiv and in Engl. Stud. xv.
The results of this and later work by Koeppel (in Engl.
Stud.} and Brandl (in Gottingische gelehrter Anzeiger,
1891) are gathered by S. Lee in D. N. B. xxxi, 1892. Kyd
was further treated, with others, in his relations espe-
cially to Seneca, by R. Fischer, Zur Kunstentwickelung der
englischen Tragodie, 1893. G. O. Fleischer, in Bemerkung
uber Kyds Spanish Tragedy, 1896, collated the quartos of
that play. Admirable contributions to the text and under-

464 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

standing of Kyd are those of J. Schick in the introductions
to his editions of The Spanish Tragedy, in the Temple
Dramatists, 1898, in the Archiv, xc; in Litterarhistorische
Forschungen, xix, 1901; and elsewhere. J. A. Worp, in
Jahrbuch, xxix and xxx, 1894, discusses Die Fabel der
Spanish Tragedy, especially in a later Dutch borrowing,
and R. Schonwerth in the same, xxxvi, 1903, determines
the relations of the German and Dutch plays on the same
topic. The moot questions of Kyd's relations to the earlier
Hamlet, and to the German version of the Hamlet story,
Der bestrafte Brudermord, are considered by Furness in his
Variorum Hamlet, 1877, vol. ii; and summarized by Boas,
who refers to the two Dissertations on Hamlet by R. G.
Latham, 1872; to W. H. Widgery's Harness Prize Essay,
1880 ; and to G. Tanger, "Der bestrafte Brudermord und
seinVerhaltniss zu Shakespeare's Hamlet," Jahrbuch, xx\i'\,
1888. G. Sarrazin had treated this topic in Anglia, xii
and xiii, 1890-91 also; J. Corbin, in "The German Hamlet
and Earlier English Versions," Harvard Studies, v, 1896;
J. Schick, "Die Entstehung des Hamlets," Jahrbuch,
xxxviii, 1902; and M. B. Evans, Der bestrafte Brudermord,
sein Ferhdltnis zu Shakespeare's Hamlet, 1902. K. Meier,
in Dresdner A nzeiger, March, 1904, denies that the "Ur-
hamlet" was Kyd's. A reconsideration of the latter prob-
lem by W. Creizenach will be found in Mod. Phil, ii, 1905;
further treated by the same author, in "Die vorshake-
speare'sche Hamlettragodie," Jahrbuch, xlii, 1906. For
unnecessary "historic doubts" as to Kyd's relations to the
"Ur-Hamlet," see A. S. Jack in Mod. Lang. Publ. xx,
1905; for the necessary quietus, J. W. Cunliffe in the next
volume of the same, 1906, under title, Nash and the Earlier
Hamlet. Among many other contributions on the subject
of Kyd and his dramas, Koeppel discusses the sources of
Sohman and Perseda in Engl. Stud, xvi, 1892; E. Sieper,
this story in modern literature, Zeitschrift fur vergleichende
Litteraturgeschichte, n. f., x, 1897; and J. E. Routh rejects
Kyd's authorship of leronimo in a comparison of the rime

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 465

schemes of this play with those of Soliman, Mod. Lang.
Notes, xx, 1905. H. Gassner reprinted Cornelia, 1894.
O. Michael, Der Stil in Thomas Kyd's Originaldramen,
Berlin Dissertation, 1905, 1 have not seen. F. G. Hubbard,
"Repetition and Parallelism in the Earlier Elizabethan
Drama," Mod. Lang. Publ. xx, 1905, especially concerns
Kyd. A Concordance of the Works of Kyd by C. Crawford
has recently appeared in Materialien zur Kunde, xv, 1906.
J. LeG. Brereton contributes notes to the text of Kyd in
Engl. Stud, xxxvii, 1907. For the alleged relation of Kyd
to the Parnassus plays, see below, section xiv.

On the moot questions which relate to the Shakespearean
and other plays on Titus, see the resume of Ward, vol. ii,
the preface of A. Symons to the facsimile of the quarto
of 1600, 1885, and the definitive papers of H. De W. Fuller
and G. P. Baker in Mod. Lang. Publ. xvi, 1901. A chorus
of critics from Theobald, Malone, and Coleridge to Fleay
and Grosart have questioned Shakespeare's authorship
of Titus Andronicus. H. Kurz, "Zu Titus Andronicus "
Jahrbuch, v, 1870, A. C. Swinburne in his Study of Shake-
speare, 1880, A. Schroer, Ueber Titus Andronicus, 1 88 1,
and D. H. Madden, The Diary of Master William Silence,
1897, have defended the great dramatist's claim. F. G.
Fleay (Chronicle, ii, 64, 299) inclines to ascribe Titus to
Marlowe; A. B. Grosart, Engl. Stud, xxii, 1896, asks
"Was Robert Greene substantially the Author of Titus
Andronicus?" S. Lee, Shakespeare, returns to Malone's
ascription of Titus to Kyd. The latest word on the topic
is that of J. M. Robertson, "Did Shakespeare write Titus
Andronicus?" Modern Language Review, i, 1905; and see,
also, W. W. Greg in the next number of the same. An ac-
count of the recently discovered quarto of Titus, 1594,
is given by D. C. Tovey in Notes and Queries, series x,
iii, 1905. Schreckhas writes Ueber Entstehungszeit und
Perfasser des Titus, Rostock Diss. 1906.

Among the many editions of Christopher Marlowe, from
that of E. G. Robinson, 1826, to F. Cunningham's, 1871,

466 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

and the Mermaid edition by H. Ellis, 1887, the most im-
portant are those of A. Dyce, 3 vols., 1850 (new eds., 1865
and 1876); of A. H. Bullen, 3 vols., 1884-85; and the
Historische-Kritische Ausgabey by H. Breymann and A.
Wagner, 1885-89. Other eds. are those of Bell, n. d., and
of P. E. Pinkerton, 1885. Besides the critical treatment
accorded Marlowe in every history of literature and of the
drama, the reader should consult the various memoirs pre-
fixed to the editions of Marlowe's works just mentioned;
the article of A. C. Swinburne in the Encyclopedia Britan-
nica, ninth ed. 1883; and S. Lee in Z>. N. B. xxxvi, 1890.
Many essays in periodical literature on Marlowe are worthy
of attention; see, especially, the five papers in The Gentle-
man's Magazine, 1840-41; the discussion of individual
plays in Blackwood's Magazine, vols. i and ii, 1816-17;
and W. L. Courtney in The Fortnightly Review, Septem-
ber, 1905. E. Faligan, De Marlovianis Fabulis, 1887, is
described as "a thesis exposing some of the fables con-
cerning Marlowe." The most recent contribution to the
biography of Marlowe is J. H. Ingram's Marlowe and his
Associates, 1904. This work includes a bibliography of
value. For the relations of Marlowe to Shakespeare, see
the earlier discussions of Tycho-Mommsen, 1854, under
that title; of F. M. von Bodenstedt, Marlowe und Greene als
Forldufer Shakespeare's, 1858; and H. Ulrici, " Christopher
Marlowe und Shakespeare's Verhaltniss zu ihm," Jahr-
buch, i, 1865. In 1876 Jane Lee contributed a suggestive
paper on this topic to the New Shakspere Society; and
A. W. Verity made this the subject of his Harness Prize
Essay, 1886; Mommsen discussing the matter anew in
his Marlowe und Shakespeare of the same year. A recent
contribution to the topic is that of H. Jung, Das Verhalt-
niss Marlowes zu Shakespeare, 1904. For Marlowe's re-
lations to the earlier chronicle plays and as to his Edward
II, see below. An elaborate study of Marlowe's diction is
O. Fischer's dissertation, Zur Character istik der Dramen
Marlowe's, 1889. C. Schau, Leipzig Diss. 1904, discusses

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 467

Marlowe's language and grammar. An early thesis of
J. Schipper is De Fersu Marlowii, 1867, which may well
have been the starting-point of the later admirable labors
of this notable authority on English versification, whose ex-
cellent Englische Metrik, 1888, should be consulted on the
whole subject. Two investigations into this subject prior
to Marlowe are A. Schroer, "Anfange des Blank verses in
England," Anglia, iv, 1881, and M. Wagner, The English
Dramatic Blank Verse before Marlowe, 1882. The blank
verse of Marlowe forms part of every text-book on English
verse and of every discussion of his services to English
poetry and drama. A. Marquardsen in Jahrbuch, xli, 1905,
discusses Marlowe's "Kosmologie" with a wider outlook
than the title implies. Specific treatment of individual
plays of Marlowe are C. H. Herford, "The Sources of
Marlowe's Tamburlaine," Academy, October 20, 1883;
L. Frankel, "Zum Stoffe von Marlowe's Tamburlaine"
Engl. Stud, xvi, 1892. E. Hiibener, Der Einfluss von Mar-
lowe's Tamburlaine auf die zeitgenossischen und folgenden
Dramatiker, 1901. T. Delius, Marlowe's Faustus und seine
Quelle, 1 88 1 (but see the fuller discussion in A. W. Ward,
ed. of Faustus, as below); L. Kellner, "Die Quelle von
Marlowe's Jew of Malta" Engl. Stud, x, 1887; and J.
Friedrich, Didodramen des Dolce, "Jodelle, und Marlowe,
1888. See, too, especially the prefatory matter to single
editions of the plays, notably those of Breymann and Wag-
ner. The fullest compendious treatment in English of
Faustus in its various interesting relations is that of A. W.
Ward in his ed. of that play, first published (with Greene's
Friar Bacon] in 1878, third ed. 1892. Therein is hived the
learning of the Germans on the topic, and to it and to its
full and valuable notes the reader must be referred for
specific information. None the less the following works may
be mentioned for guidance: K. Engel, Zusammenstellung
der Faustschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts, 1844, new ed. 1884;
E. Schmidt, "Marlowe's Faust und sein Verhaltnis zu
den deutschen und englischen Faustbiichern," Jahrbuch

468 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

fiir romanische Sprache, n. f. ii, 1875; J. H. Albers in the
succeeding volume of the same; H. Diintzer and W. Wag-
ner in Anglia, i and ii, 1878-79; W. Creizenach, Fersuch
einer Geschichte des Volksschauspiels von Doctor Faustus,
1878; C. Grant, "The Two Fausts," Contemporary Review,
1881; E. Schmidt, "Zur Vorgeschichte des Goetheschen
Faust," Goethe-Jahrbuch, iv, 1883 ; W. Heineman, "An Essay
towards a Bibliography of Faustus," reprinted from The
Bibliographer, 1884; F. Zarncke, "Das englische Volks-
buch vom Doctor Faustus," Anglia, ix, 1886; H. S. Ed-
wards, The Faust Legend, 1886. The Faustus Cycle in its
larger relations forms a valuable chapter in Herford's
Literary Relations of England and Germany, already men-
tioned. P. Machule, in Archiv, Ixxxvi, 1891, and W. Bang
in Jahrbuch, xxxix, 1903, add emendation to the much
emended text of Marlowe's tragedy. A later bibliographical
guide is The Catalogue of the Faust Exhibition in Frank-
fort, 1893. Among the several separate eds. of Faustus
may be mentioned that of I. Gollancz, Temple Dramatists,
1905.

With the exception of his translations, The Works of
Thomas Lodge have been collected by E. Gosse for the
Hunterian Club, 1878-82, with an Introduction since pub-
lished in his Seventeenth Century Studies, 1883. D. Laing,
"Introduction to Lodge's Defence of Poetry, Music, and
Stage Plays," Old Sh. Soc. Publ 1853, and S. Lee's article
in D. N. B. xxxiv, 1893, should also be consulted. See,
also, R. Carl, "Ueber Thomas Lodge's Leben undWerke,"
Anglia, x, and separately published, 1887; and a Leipzig
dissertation of the same year and title by E. C. Richard.
M. E. N. Fraser, Thomas Lodge as a Dramatist, unpublished
thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1898, is an attempt to
determine the doubtful limits of Lodge's converse with the
stage. On the question, Was Thomas Lodge an Actor, see
C. M. Ingleby's article of that title, 1868; his "General
Introduction to Shakspere Allusion-Books," Part I, New
Sh. Soc. Trans. 1874; and "Thomas Lodge and the Stage,"

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 469

Notes and Queries, sixth series, xi, 1885. For Lodge as
a source for Shakespeare, see N. Delias, "Lodge's Rosa-
lynde und As You Like It" Jahrbuch, vi, 1871; and W. G.
Stone in New Sh. Soc. PubL 1884. The questions arising
out of Mucedorus are well discussed in K. Warnke and
L. Proescholdt's ed. of that comedy, 1878. See, also,
R. Simpson, in New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1874, the contribu-
tions of W. Wagner and C. Elze in Jahrbuch, xi to xv,
1876-80; and R. Sach, Die Shakespeare zugeschriebenen
zweifelhaften Stiicke, ibid, xxvii, 1892. W. W. Greg treats
definitively the bibliography of the many quartos of the
Mucedorus, ibid, xl, 1904.

The Dramatic Works of Robert Greene were first col-
lected by A. Dyce in 2 vols., 1831, and later published with
those of Peele in 1861. The Complete Works of Greene by
A. B. Grosart, in 15 vols., appeared in 1881-86, and The
Plays and Poems of Robert Greene, edited by J. C. Collins,
2 vols., 1905. Accounts of Greene will be found prefixed
to each of these editions of his works, the translation of
N. Storojenko (in Grosart's Greene) being the most com-
plete. Other articles are those of W. Bernhardi, Robert
Greene's Leben und Schriften, 1874; J. M. Brown, An
Early Rival of Shakspere, Auckland, 1877; R. Simpson,
"Account of Robert Greene, his Prose Works, and his
Quarrel with S'hakspere," in vol. ii of The School of Shak-
spere, 1878; C. H. Herford, "On Greene's Romances and
Shakspere," New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1888; A. H. Bullen's
article in D. N. B. xxiii, 1890; K. Knauth, Ueber die
Metrik Greene's, Diss. 1890; H. Conrad, "Robert Greene
als Dramatiker," Jahrbuch, xxix, 1894; and the two es-
says by G. E. Woodberry and C. M. Gayley in the latter's
Representative English Comedies, 1903. K. Ehrke, Robert
Greene's Dramen, 1904; and a suggestive paper by S. L.
Wolff", "Robert Greene and the Italian Renaissance," in
Engl.Stud. xxxvii, 1907, are later contributions to the sub-
ject. On Pandosto and Winter's Tale, see N. Delius in Jahr-
buch, xv, 1880; on James IV, W. Creizenach in Anglia,\m,

470 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

1885; on George a Greene, O. Mertius, dissertation, 1885;
on Friar Bacon, A. W. Ward, Faustus, new ed. 1892; on
the ascription of Selimus to Greene, see A. B. Grosart's ed.
of that tragedy in Temple Dramatists, 1898; and G. Hugo,
Robert Greene's Selimus, Kiel Diss. 1899. A reprint of
Orlando Furioso, quarto of 1594, edited by R. B. Mac-
Kerrow, 1907, is one of the recent volumes of the new
Malone Society. Tht notorious Groatsworth of Wit, 1592,
has been repeatedly reprinted and is most conveniently
consulted in "Shakspere Allusion-Books," Part I, New
Sh. Soc. 1874, edited by C. M. Ingleby, or in G. Saints-
bury's Elizabethan and "Jacobean Pamphlets, 1902.

VI. THE NATIONAL HISTORICAL DRAMA

Aside from such incidental treatment as the subject re-
ceives from more general histories, for Elizabethan plays
based on the history of England the reader is referred to
F. E. Schelling, The English Chronicle Play, a Study in
the Popular Historical Literature environing Shakespeare,
1902, to which a list of plays on English historical subjects
is appended. As to the Robin Hood plays, see Chambers,
The Mediaeval Drama, where the bibliography of the sub-
ject is given, and F. J. Child, The English and Scottish
Popular Ballads, 1882-98, vol. v, where the extant rem-
nants of these plays -are reprinted. Chambers also treats
of the St. George's or Mummers' play and appends lists
of their occurrence. Examples of the St. George's play will
be found with other forerunners of the popular historical
drama in J. M. Manly, Specimens of Pre-Shakespearean
Drama, vol. i. See, also, A. Beatty in Transactions of the
Wisconsin Academy of Science, xv, 1906. T. Sharp's Dis-
sertations on Pageants, 1825, contains the best account of
the Hock Tuesday play, though R. Lenham's jocular
description, 1576, reprinted in Nichols, Elizabeth, 2d ed.
1823, vol. i, should likewise be consulted. On the quasi-
political moralities, King Johan and Albion Knight, see

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 471

Ward, The English Chronicle Plays, s. v., and the Intro-
ductions to the editions of these plays by Collier for the
Camden Society, 1 838 ; and in the Old Sh. Soc .'s Papers, 1844.
The True Tragedy of Richard III and Richardus Tertius
were both printed for the same in 1844. W. Thieme dis-
cusses the sources of Peele's Edward I, Halle Diss. 1903.
Locrine, assigned now definitely to Peele (W. S. Gaud
in Mod. Phil. i, 1904), is referred to its sources and lit-
erary relations by T. Erbe, "Die Locrinesage und die
Quellen des Pseudo-Shakespeare'schen Locrine," Studien
zur englischen Philologie, xvi, 1904; shown to be pla-
giarized by the author of Selimus, by E. Koeppel in Jahr-
buch, xli, 1905; and examined with other like plays as to
Repetition and Parallelism of style by F. G. Hubbard,
Mod. Lang. Publ. xx, 1905. H. Schiitt treats The Life
and Death of Jack Straw, Kiel Diss. 1901.

Quartos of several pre-Shakespearean chronicle plays
have been reproduced in facsimile or otherwise reprinted
with their later revisions or derivatives. The Famous
Victories of Henry V, the older King John, and the two
Contentions will be found among the photolithographic
Shakspere-Quarto Facsimiles, published under the superin-
tendence of F. G. Furnivall, 43 vols., 1885-90, and among
the volumes of the Bankside Shakespeare, 20 vols., 1888-92.
The prefaces of the former by various editors are often
especially valuable. The relations of The Famous Victo-
ries to Shakespeare's Henry V are discussed by W. G.
Stone in the New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1880. An account of
Tarlton, to whom the old play has been assigned, may be
found in Tarlton s Jests, ibid. 1844. The vexed questions of
the authorship and relations of the three parts of Henry VI
to the two older plays dealing with the subject find place
in every edition of Shakespeare. The chief authorities
on this topic are G. White, "Essay on the Authorship of
King Henry VI" vol. vii of his ed. of Shakespeare, 1859,
and Studies in Shakespeare, 1885; G. L. Rives, Harness
Prize, 1874; F. G. Fleay in Macmillans Magazine, Novem-

472 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

her, 1875; and J. Lee in New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1875-76.
See, also, the resume of Ward (ii, 58-74), and the note
prefatory to these plays in W. A. Neilsqn's ed. of Shake-
speare, 1906. K. Schmidt treats of "Margareta von An-
jou vor und bei Shakespeare, " Palastra, liv, 1906. On the
relations of Marlowe's Edward II to these plays, see
Halliwell-Phillipps, Old Sh. Soc. Papers, i, 1844; Fleay's
ed. of Marlowe's tragedy, 1877; and Bullen's Marlowe.
See, also, C. Tzschaschal, Marlowe's Edward II und seine
Quellen, 1902; and M. Dahmetz, Marlowe's Edward II
und Shakespeare's Richard II, em literansch-histonscher
Vergleich, 1904. The best consideration of the dramatic
art of this play is that of E. T. McLaughlin in his ed. 1894.
See, also, Verity's Introduction to the same play, Temple
Dramatists, 1904. For Shakespeare's alleged part in Ed-
ward III, see the editions by Warnke and Proescholdt,
1886, and of G. C. Moore Smith in the Temple Dramatists,
1897. See, also, G. Liebau, "Konig Edward III und die
Grafin von Salisbury," Litterarhistorische Forschungen,
xiii, 1900. A bibliography of this play by R. Sachs will
be found in Jahrbuch, xxvii.

This is not the place in which to air an extended bib-
liography of Shakespeare. One of the earliest is that of
J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, A Catalogue of the Early Edi-
tions of Shakespeare's Plays and the Commentaries and
Other Publications, 1841, a work followed by several others
of like nature by the same author up to 1883. Since the
earlier date German scholarship has become active in this
field from P. H. Sillig, Die Shakespeare-Litteratur, 1854,
and F. Thimm, Shakespeariana, 1865, to M. Koch in
the Supplement to his Shakespeare's dramatische Werke,
1886; and the excellent resume of each year's activity in
Shakespeare and kindred scholarship which forms so valu-
able a feature of the Shakes pear e-Jahrbuc h. See, also, the
decennial Indices of the same publication. Digesta Shake-
speareana, published by the Shakespeare Society of New
York, is "a topical index of printed matter other than lit-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 473

erary or esthetic commentary," 1885. Another older useful
bibliography is that of H. R. Tedder in Encyclopaedia
Britannica, xxi, 1 886. The Catalogue of the Barton Collec-
tion, 1888, Boston Public Library, contains an important
bibliography of Shakespeare. The part of The British
Museum Catalogue of Printed Books, 1897, devoted to
Shakespeare, is a valuable classified index of his works and
the commentaries which have grown out of them up to that
date. See, also, W. S. Brassington, Hand-list of Collective
Editions of Shakespeare's Works, 1898; W. J. Rolfe's valu-
able chapter on bibliography appended to his Life of Shake-
speare, 1904; and the excellent chapter on this subject in
S. Lee's Life of Shakespeare, fifth ed. 1905. A comprehen-
sive bibliography of Shakespeare (over 20,000 references
and the result of many years' labor) is announced by W.
Jaggard of Liverpool.

Among the innumerable biographies of Shakespeare
which the scholarship of every civilized country of the
world has produced, but a few can be here mentioned. Im-
portant is the work of J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, beginning
with his Lifet 1848, enlarged in 1853, n's Illustrations,
1874, and extending to his Outlines of the Life of Shake-
speare, repeatedly enlarged from 1881 to 1887. Other
valuable biographies are those of F. J. Furnivall, Intro-
duction to the Leopold Shakspere, 1877 and 1886; of F. G.
Fleay, 1886; E. Dowden, 1893; A. Brandl, 1894; G. M.
C. Brandes, 1896; and S. Lee, enlarged from his article
in D. N. B. in 1898 and now in a fifth edition, 1906; W. J.
Rolfe, 1904, and W. Raleigh, 1907. Works of a more
critical and historical nature are the well-known lectures
of Schlegel, Dramatische Vorlesungen, 1846; H. N. Hudson,
Lectures on Shakespeare, 2 vols., 1848; S. T. Coleridge,

ctures on Shakespeare, 18-49; G. C. Gervinus, Commen-
taries, 1849-50, transl. 1863; F. A. T. Kreyssig, Vorlesun-
•en iiber Shakespeare, 1858, and Shakespeare Fragen, 1871;
Ulrici, Shakespeares dramatische Kunst, 3d ed. 1 868-
transl. 1876; E. Dowden, Shakspere, his Mind and

474, BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

Art, 1876; A. C. Swinburne, A Study of Shakespeare,
1880; R. G. Moulton, Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist,
1885; H. Corson, Introduction to the Study of Shakespeare,
1889; B. Ten Brink, Funf Shakespeare-Vorlesungen, 1892;
B. Wendell, William Shakspere, a Study in Elizabethan
Literature, 1894; G. Sarrazin, Shakespeare's Lehrjahre,
1897; T. R. Lounsbury, Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist,
1901; S. Lanier, Shakspere and his Forerunners, 1902; T.
Seccombe and J. W. Allen, The Age of Shakespeare, 2 vols.,
the second on the drama, 1903. A convenient little volume
is that of D. H. Lambert, Shakespeare Documents, a Chro-
nological Catalogue of the Extant Evidence relating to the
Life and Works of Shakespeare, 1904. See, also, R. Genee,
William Shakespeare in seinem Werden und Wesen, 1905;
and F. W. Moorman, An Introduction to Shakespeare, 1906.
A few other works on Shakespeare, for which there does
not appear to be other place, are K. Simrock, Quellen des
Shakes peares, 1831, translated for the Old Sh. Soc. by
Halliwell-Phillipps, 1850; R. G. White, Shakespeare's
Scholar, 1854; Hazlitt's ed. of Collier's Shakespeare's
Library, 7 vols., 2d ed. 1875; and the recent excellent
work of H. R. D. Anders, Shakespeare's Books and the
Immediate Sources of his Works, 1904. On the order
of the plays, see H. R. Stokes, The Chronological Order
of Shakespeare's Plays, 2d ed. 1870 ; and J. W. Hales,
The Succession of Shakespeare's Plays, 1874. Two older
works on the Text of Shakespeare in general are G. L.
Craik, "The Text of Shakespeare," North British Re-
view, xxi, 1854; and W. S. Walker, Critical Examination
of the Text of Shakespeare, 1860. An ambitious modern
work is that of B. A. P. Van Dam and C. Stoffel, William
Shakespeare, Prosody and Text, 1901. On the grammar
and language of Shakespeare, among many books, see,
especially, G. L. Craik, The English of Shakespeare, 1865;
the excellent Shakespearian Grammar of E. A. Abbott,
1869, new ed. 1893; W. Franz, Shakespeare-Grammatih,
2 vols., 1898-1900; and the invaluable Shakespeare Lexi-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 475

con of A. Schmidt, first published in 1874, new ed. revised
by G. Sarrazin, 2 vols., 1902. The dramatic blank verse
of Shakespeare, inseparably connected as it is with the
history of early modern English meters, forms part
of the theme of all larger treatises on English verse. W. S.
Walker, Shakespeare's Versification, 1854, and C. Bath-
urst, Difference in Shakespeare's Versification, 1857, were
the first to call attention to the differences in the verse of
Shakespeare at various periods of his career. Abbott's
Shakespearian Grammar devotes an important section to
Shakespeare's verse. F. G. Fleay, "On Metrical Tests as
applied to Dramatic Poetry," New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1874,
with J. Spedding, J. K. Ingram, and others in the following
volumes of the same, extended the inquiry to other authors
and to minuter characteristics of dramatic blank verse.
See, also, W. Herzberg, "Metrisches, Grammatisches,
Chronologisches zu Shakespeares Dramen," Jahrbuch,
xiii, 1878; A. Schroer, "Die Anfange des Blankverses in
England, " Anglia, iv, 1881; M.Wagner, English Dramatic
Blank Verse before Marlowe, 1881; and the portions of such
works as F. B. Gummere's convenient Handbook of Poetics,
1885, and J. B. Mayor's Chapters on English Metre, 1886,
which are devoted to blank verse. The authoritative
work on modern English meters in general is that of J.
Schipper in his Englische Metrik, Part II, 1888, and in
his "Grundriss der Englischen Metrik," Wiener Eeitrage,
1895. See, also, the work of Van Dam and StofFel men-
tioned above. A few recent miscellaneous books are J.
Bartlett, Concordance to Shakespeare, 1895 (quite supersed-
ing the older work of C. C. and M. C. Clarke, 1867); E. J.
Dunning, Genesis of Shakespeare's Art, 1897; W. H. Flem-
ing, Shakespeare's Plots, 1902; R. Koppel, "Die unkritische
Behandlung dramatischer Ausgaben," Engl. Stud, xxxiv,
1904; C. W. Wallace, "New Shakespeare Documents,"
ibid, xxxvi, 1906; and E. Lathrop, Where Shakespeare
set his Scene, 1907. The Development of Shakespeare as a
Dramatist, by G. P. Baker, 1907, has just appeared.

476 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

For the most recent bibliographical account of the
Shakespeare First Folio, 1623, see S. Lee, preface to his
reproduction of that foundation stone of Shakespearean
text, 1902, and the chapter on " Bibliography" in the last
edition (1905) of his Life of Shakespeare. See, also, W. W.
Greg, " The Bibliographical History of the First Folio," The
Library, second series, iv, July, 1903. The second, third,
and fourth folios (1632, 1664, and 1685) have since been
similarly reproduced by Methuen and Company, 1903-06.
An inexact reprint of the first folio was made in 1807-08
by E. and J.Wright; an excellent type-reprint by L. Booth,
1861-64. The earliest photographic facsimile is that of
Staunton, 1864-65; followed by that of Halliwell-Phillipps,
1876; and the Dallastype Shakespeare, 1893. Aside from
the reprints of individual quartos of Shakespeare in the
Old Shakespeare Society, and the New, a complete set of
43 quartos has been reproduced by photolithography,
under the superintendence of F. J. Furnivall, 1880-89.
For an account of the critical editions of Shakespeare and
the host of comment, the reader is referred to the various
bibliographies mentioned in the last paragraph. The most
complete edition for the scholar is that of H. H. Furness,
A New Variorum Shakespeare, 15 vols., 1871 to date, and
still in progress. The last volume is Antony and Cleopatra,
1907.

The pseudo-Shakespearean plays, though of many va-
rieties, are best treated here. These are the more important
eds. of them : A Supplement to the Plays of William Shake-
speare, ed. W. S. Simons, N. Y., 1848; The Supplementary
Works of William Shakespeare, ed. W. Hazlitt, 1852;
Pseudo-Shakspere'sche Dramen, N. Delius, 1854-56; Doubt-
ful Plays of Shakespeare, M. Moltke, 1869; The Doubtful
Plays of William Shakespeare, W. Hazlitt, 1887; Shake-
speare's Doubtful Plays, A. F. Hopkinson, privately printed,
1890-95. An excellent resume of pseudo-Shakespeare is
that of R. Sachs, "Die Shakespeare zugeschriebenen zwei-
felhaften Stiicke," Jahrbuch, xxvii, 1892.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 477

Aside from their treatment in works of more extended
character, for the historical plays of Shakespeare see T. P.
Courtnay, Commentaries on the Historical Plays of Shake-
speare, 2 vols., 1840; T. MacKnight, Prize Essay on the
Historical Plays of Shakespeare, 1850; N. J. Merriman,
Shakespeare as Bearing on English History, 1858; V.
Knaur, Die Konige Shakespeares, 1863; A. Myer, Shake-
speare's Verletzung der historischen Wahrheit, 1863; R.
Simpson, "Politics in Shakspere's Historical Plays," New
Shakspere Society, i, 1873; A. S. G. Canning, Thoughts
on Shakespeare's Historical Plays, 1881; B. E. Warner,
English History in Shakespeare's Plays, 1894; E. W.
Sievers, Shakespeare's zweiter mtttelalterlicher Dramen
Cyclus, 1896; the admirable comparison of Shakespeare
with his historical sources by W. G. Boswell-Stone, Shak-
spere's Holinshed, 1896; C. S. Terry, Shakespeare the His-
torian, 1899; J. L. Etty, "Studies in Shakespeare's His-
tory," Macmillan's Magazine, 1900-04; S. Davey, "The
Relation of Poetry to History," with special reference to
Shakespeare's Historical Plays," Transactions of the
Royal Society of Literature, xxiv, 1903; and J. C. Collins,
"Shakespeare and Holinshed," in Studies in Shakespeare,
1904. A recent Harvard Thesis is that of W. D. Briggs, The
Chronicle History, a Study in Dramatic Development, 1906.
Later German work on the general topic is that of C. W.
Stern, Historische Uebersicht der Shakespeare' schen Konigs-
dramen, 1903; W. Buettner, Shakespeare's Stellung zum
House Lancaster, 1904; H. v. Hofmannsthal, Shakespeare's
Konige und grosse Herren, 1905. A convenient text of the
historical plays is that of C. H. Wordsworth, 1883. On
individual chronicle plays of Shakespeare, see Stiimcke,
Studien zu Shakespeares King 'John, 1889; G. Kopplow,
Shakespeares King John und seine Quelle, 1900; E. W. Sie-
vers, " Shakespeare und der Gang nach Canossa," Engl.
Stud, xx, 1895. W. Keller discusses, in the prefatory matter
to his reprint of an older play on Richard II, Jahrbuch,
xxxv, 1899, its remote relations to Shakespeare's #zV/zar</ II;

478 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

F. I. Carpenter contributes notes on this play to the Journal
of Germanic Philology, iii, 1901; M. S. Nesbitt, Notes and
Queries, series x, vol. iv, 1 905, finds points of contact between
this play and The Spanish Tragedy. For the controversy
on the relations of the quarto and folio editions of Richard
III, see the papers of J. H. Spedding, F. D. Matthew, E.
H. Pickersgill, and S. Brooke in New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1875-
86, and A. Schmidt in Jahrbuch, xv, 1880. On other topics,
see K. Fischer, Shakespeares Characterentwickelung Rich-
ard III, 1868; and H. Mueller, Grundlage und Entwickel-
ung des Characters Richard III, 1889; and especially the
excellent thesis of G. B. Churchill, Richard III bis Shake-
speare, 1897, and his enlargement of the theme in Pal&stra,
x, 1900. See, also, E. Rhys, "Study of Richard III," Har-
per's Magazine, January, 1904. On the trilogy of Henry
IF and V: M. Morgann, On the Dramatic Character of
Falstaff, 1777; G. A. Schmeding, Essay on Shakespeare's
Henry V, 1784; E. A. Struve, Studien zu Shakespeares Hein-
rich 17, 1851; B. Tschischwitz, Shakespeares Staat und
Kbnigthum, 1866; W. Beaumont, On Three Dramas of
Shakespeare, 1879. For the relation of Falstaff to the brag-
gart in general, see J. Thiimmel, "Der Miles Gloriosus bei
Shakespeare," Jahrbuch, xiii, 1878; and H. Graf, Der
Miles Gloriosus im enghschen Drama, 1891. On the Char-
acter of Falstaff as originally exhibited, see J. O. Halliwell-
Phillipps' essay of that title, 1841; also J. Gairdner, " The
Historical Element in Shakespeare's Falstaff," Fortnightly,
March, 1873. See, also, W. Baeske, "Oldcastle-Falstaff in
der englischen Literatur bis zur Shakespeare," Pal&stra,
1, 1905; "Henry V and Sir John Old Castle," Review of
Reviews, xxxii, 1905; and The First Part of Sir John
Oldcastle, edited by J. R. Macarthur, Chicago, 1907.

On Thomas Heywood as a writer of historical plays, see
The English Chronicle Play, s. v.; and the Introduction to
Edward IV, Old Sh. Soc. Publ. 1842. On the sources of
the pseudo-historical James IF of Scotland, see Athenceum,
October 8, 1881; and Creizenach in Anglia, viii, 1885; on

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 479

George a Greene, R. Sachs in Jahrbuch, xxvii, 1892. Fair
Em is elaborately discussed by Simpson in his School of
Shakspere, ii, 1878; the Introduction to the edition of this
play by Warnke and Proescholdt, 1883, should also be con-
sulted. For a word concerning Nobody and Somebody,
see Jahrbuch, xxix-xxx, 1894, where it is translated into
German by J. Bolte.

On Munday and Chettle's later plays on Robin Hood,
see A. Ruckdeschel, 1897. See, also, Collier's Introduction
to Five Old Plays, 1833, in which The Downfall of Robert
Earl of Huntingdon is reprinted and the same editor's edi-
tion of John a Kent and John a Cumber, Old Sh. Soc. Publ.
1851. The latest account of Anthony Munday is that of J.
Seccombe, D. N. B. xxxix, 1893. Bullen wrote the earlier
article on Henry Chettle, ibid, x, 1887. An account of
Chettle's dramatic activity is to be found in R. Ackermann's
ed. of Hoffman, 1894, itself taken largely from the earlier
edition of 'H. B. L.' 1852. Chettle and Day's Blind Beggar
of Bednal Green is reprinted by W. Bang, Materialien
zur Kunde, i, 1902. Chettle's Kindheart's Dream has been
reprinted in Percy Society's Publications, v, 1841. The no-
torious passage concerning Shakespeare is most easily
available in Ingleby's " Century of Praise," New Sh. Soc.
Publ. revised by L. Toulmin Smith, 1879. As to Jonson's
Sad Shepherd, see the paragraphs on the pastoral drama,
section xvi, below. As to the biographical chronicles : for
Sir Thomas More, see the Introduction to the edition by A.
Dyce, Old Sh. Soc. Publ. 1844; and R. Simpson in Notes
and Queries, series iv, vol. viii, 1871. Cromwell is dis-
cussed with other pseudo-Shakespearean plays by R. Sachs
in Jahrbuch, xxvii, 1892, as above. Stukeley (with its
source) is exhaustively treated by R. Simpson in his School
of Shakspere, vol. ii, 1878; and referred partly to the
authorship of Fletcher by E. H. C. Oliphant in Notes and
Queries, series x, vol. iii, 1905. On the Tudor group of
chronicle plays, see K. Elze,"Zu Heinrich VIII," Jahrbuch,
ix, 1874; J. Spedding, "The Several Shares of Shakspere

480 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

and Fletcher in Henry VIII" New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1874.
N. Delius, "Fletcher's angebliche Betheiligung an Shake-
speare's King Henry VIII" ibid, xiv, 1879; R. Boyle,
in the same, 1885, denies all but a scene of this play to
Shakespeare. On the relations of Henry VIII to other
plays of its class, see K. Elze's edition of Samuel Rowley's
When You See Me You Know Me, 1874. Dekker and Hey-
wood's Sir Thomas Wyatt and the latter's // You Know
Not Me were edited together by J. Blew, 1876. Among
the plays dealing with travel and adventure, see Bullen
in The Works of John Day, 1 88 1, vol. ii; A. E. H. Swaen,
Introduction to Daborne's Christian Turned Turk, Anglia,
xx, 1898; and Bullen's remarks preceding his reprint of
Dick of Devonshire, Old English Plays, 1 88 1, vol. ii.

For discussion and bibliographies of Shakespeare's
mythical histories, King Lear and Macbeth, see the wholly
admirable volumes of H. H. Furness, the former dating
1880, the latter, now revised by H. H. Furness, Jr., 1903.
The story employed by Shakespeare in these two tragedies
has recently attracted renewed attention: E. Bode, "Die
Learsage vor Shakespeare," Studien zur englischen Philolo-
gie, xvii; W. Perrett, " The Story of King Lear from
Geoffrey of Monmouth to Shakespeare," Pal&stra, xxxv;
E. Kroger, "Die Saga von Macbeth bis zu Shakespeare,"
the same, xxxix; all of 1904. A broader treatment of the
general sources of the legendary chronicle histories is that
of L. Oehninger, Die Verbreitung der Konigssagen der
Historia Regum Britannice von Geoffrey of Monmouth in
der poetischen Elizabethanischen Ltteratur, also 1904. A.
C. Bradley 's admirable Shakespearean Tragedy (third
impression, 1905) may be recommended for new light on
these and other overwritten heroes. A recent word on the
date of King Lear is that of A. R. Law, Mod. Lang. PubL
xxi, 1906. For Cymbeline, see below, the paragraphs on
Romance and Tragicomedy, section xvii.

For other mythical histories: on The Birth of Merlin
see the Introduction of Warnke and Proescholdt's edition,

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 481

1887; the play is discussed in every account of pseudo-
Shakespeare. The Authorship of Merlin is discussed by
F. A. Howe in Mod. Phil, iv, 1906. For The Mayor of
Queenborough, see the Introduction to Bullen's Works
of Middleton, 1885. Fatum Vortigerni is described in Jahr-
buch, xxxiv, 1898; Nobody and Somebody is reprinted in
Jahrbuch, xxix and xxx, 1893; Heywood's Royal King
and Loyal Subject appears edited by K. W. Tibbals in
Publications of the University of Pennsylvania, 1906. V.
Kreb edited The Valiant Welshman, Munchener Beitrage,
xxiii, 1902. The Valiant Scot will shortly appear, edited
by J. L. Carver; The Duchess of Suffolk, by M. A. Carpen-
ter, also theses of the University of Pennsylvania, 1904 and
1907. The source of Rowley's Shoemaker a Gentleman
appears in Palaestra, xviii, 1903, edited by A. F, Lange;
the play is promised with the other plays of Rowley edited
by C. W. Stork, University of Pennsylvania. Lastly, for
Fletcher's Bonduca, see B. Leonhardt, Engl. Stud, xiii,
1890; for King "John and Matilda, Retrospective Review,
1821, and Bullen's Introduction, Works of Robert Daven-
port, Old English Plays, vol. iii, 1890; for that play, V.
Gehler, Das Verhdltnis von Ford's Per kin Warbeck zu
Bacon's Henry VII, 1895, and the ed. of Per kin Warbeck
by J. P. Pickburn and J. LeG. Brereton, 1896.

VII. DOMESTIC DRAMA

The domestic drama as such has not received a specific
treatment, although parts of the subject, as will appear
below, have claimed the attention of various scholars. An
excellent discussion of earlier comedy, which was largely
realistic in its emergence from the miracle, morality, and
interlude, is that of C. M. Gayley, " An Historical View of
the Beginnings of English Comedy," prefixed to Represent-
ative English Comedies, 1903. On its tragic side, domestic
drama is treated in larger range by H. W. Singer, Das
biirgerliche Trauer spiel in England, Leipzig Diss. 1891.

48z BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

The best account of the document known as Henslowe's
Diary is that of W. W. Greg in the Introduction to his care-
ful reprint, 1904. A promised second volume of notes and
further comment has not yet appeared. This work quite
supersedes the ed. of J. P. Collier, published for the Shake-
speare Society in 1845, impaired as it is by aspersions on
the earlier honest extracts of Malone (see his ed. of Shak-
speare, 1823, vol. iii), by inaccuracy and by indubitable
instances of tampering with the text. On this topic and
the collections at Dulwich in general, see Greg, as above;
G. F. Warner, Catalogue of the Manuscripts, etc., at Dul-
wich, 1881; W. Young, History of Dulwich, 2 vols., 1889;
and F. B. Bickley, Catalogue of the same, 1903. For
popular accounts of Henslowe, see E. R. Buckley, "The
Elizabethan Playwright in his Workshop," Gentleman's
Magazine, 1903; and the present author's "Plays in the
Making," The Queen's Progress, 1904. Some interesting
particulars as to Henslowe's mart will be found, too, in L.
Whitaker, "Michael Drayton as a Dramatist," University
of Pennsylvania Thesis, Mod. Lang. Publ. 1903. For other
authorities concerning Elizabethan traffic with the stage,
see the foregoing paragraphs of this Essay, section iv, and
the many details industriously gathered into the Malone
Variorum Shakspeare, 1823, vol. iii. Halliwell-Phillipps'
Outlines and S. Lee's Life of Shakespeare should also be
consulted as to these and like matters.

Among comedies of simple domestic type, The Two
Angry Women of Abington and its author, Henry Porter, are
well discussed by Gayley in his Representative Comedies.
The Merry Devil of Edmonton was competently edited by
Warnke and Proescholdt, 1884; and more recently and
briefly by H. Walker, Temple Dramatists, 1897. Dekker's
alleged part in this comedy is treated, with his share in other
plays, by O. Elton, An Introduction to Michael Drayton,
for the Spenser Society, 1895; and by L. Whitaker, Michael
Drayton, as above. On Shakespeare's alleged part in The
Merry Devil, see H. von Friesen, Jahrbuch, i, 1865. A

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 483

convenient resume of the questions of source, date, and
other matters concerning The Merry Wives will be found in
Ward, ii. See, also, P. A. Daniel's discussion of the relation
of the quarto of The Merry Wives to the folio, the traditions
concerning the play and Sir Thomas Lucy, in his ed. of the
quarto of 1602, Shakspere Facsimilies as above. See, also,
the several tracts of Halliwell-Phillipps on this play, espe-
cially Observations on the Charlecote Traditions, 1887. For
Falstaff, see above, section vi of this Essay. The New
Inn is edited with apparatus, as the Yale Thesis of G. B.
Tennant, 1907.

The only complete ed. of The Dramatic Works of Thomas
Dekker is the unsatisfactory reprint by R. H. Shepherd,
4 vols., 1873. The Mermaid ed. by E. Rhys contains the
better known plays. Dekker's non-dramatic works were
edited by A. B. Grosart, 5 vols., 1884-86. Vol. v contains
a brief Memorial-Introduction. An interesting estimate of
Dekker is that of A. C. Swinburne, Nineteenth Century,
January, 1887; the fullest account of his work is that of
A. H. Bullen in D. N. B. xiv, 1888. The Gull's Hornbook,
1609, has been frequently reprinted, first by G. F. Nott
in 1812. Convenient later eds. are those of G. Saintsbury,
Elizabethan and Jacobean Pamphlets, 1892, and of R. B.
McKerrow, 1904. On the influence of Dedekind's Gro-
bianus on this book of Dekker's, see Herford, Literary
Relations. Patient Grissil was reprinted for the Old Sh.
Soc. by Collier, 1841; and with the non-dramatic works of
Dekker by Grosart, vol. v; a separate critical ed. is that
of G. Hiibsch, 1893. Two early black-letter tracts, Dek-
ker's and his collaborator's sources, were edited by Collier
for the Old Sh. Soc. 1842. For other versions of the story
see Ward, i. See, also, W. Bang in Archiv, cvii, 1900.
The Shoemakers' Holiday has not been separately edited.
Its source, Thomas Deloney's Gentle Craft, 1597, is re-
printed in full by F. Lange, Palastra, xviii, 1903. The
quarto of Old Fortunatus, 1600, has been carefully edited
with full apparatus by H. Scherer in Miinchener Beitrage,

484 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

xxi, 1901; the comedy* is also included in the Temple
Dramatists, 1904, edited by O. Smeaton. Dekker's play
early attracted the attention of German scholarship, as
appears from the translation of V. Schmidt, 1819; and
the notice by J. Zacher in Ersch and Griiber's Encyklo-
padie, and J. Tittmann in "Die Schauspiele der englischen
Komodianten in Deutschland," Deutsche Dichter des i6ten
Jahrhunderts, xiii, 1880. The relation of Dekker's comedy
to the old German Folksbuch, 1509, its ultimate source, is
succinctly set forth by Herford in his Literary Relations;
by B. Lazar, Ueber das Fortunatus Mdrchen, 1897; and by
Scherer as above. On the English prose versions of the
story, see J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, "Descriptive Notices
of Popular Histories," Percy Society's Publications, xxix,
1848. The Honest Whore is reprinted in eds. of Dekker.
See, especially, the Mermaid ed. of that poet by E. Rhys,
1887.

The faithful wife as a motive in the drama has not been
specifically treated; a brief account, however, of the group
of plays to which it belongs will be found in the ed. of The
Fair Maid of Bristow by A. H. Quinn, Publications of the
University of Pennsylvania, 1902; and a wider treatment
of the theme is that of O. Siefken, Das geduldige JVeib in
der englischen Literatur, 1903. The older vagary concerning
Shakespeare's possible hand in The London Prodigal is
sufficiently epitomized by Ward, vol. ii. For How a Man
may Choose a Good Wife and Wilkins' Miseries of Enforced
Marriage, see the prefatory remarks to the reprints of these
plays in Hazlitt's Dodsley, v and vi. Fleay, s. v., vol. ii,
especially discusses the relation of the latter play to The
Yorkshire Tragedy. E. Koeppel treats of the sources of The
Dutch Courtesan in his Quellen, i. The earlier dramas on
the prodigal son are discussed by Herford; while Simpson,
School of Shakspere, ii, prints a translation of a Comedy of
The Prodigal Son derived from the German collection of
English plays of 1620.

The only complete reprint of the dramatic works of

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 485

Thomas Heywood is that of Pearson, 6 vols., 1874. Several
of the plays were, however, reprinted earlier by B. Field and
J. P. Collier, Old Sh. Soc. Publ. 1842-54. As to Heywood
and his work, see the latter editor in his ed. of An Apology
for Actors, for the same society, 1841; J. A. Symonds'
Introduction to A. W. Verity's ed. of Select Plays by Hey-
wood, for Mermaid Series, 1 888; and the earlier essays in
the Retrospective Review, xi, 1825, and Edinburgh Review,
Ixxiii, 1841. The fullest notice of Heywood is that of A. W.
Ward in D. N. B. xxvi, 1891. See, also, the same editor's
Introduction to The Woman Killed with Kindness, Temple
Dramatists, 1897. This play was also edited with Intro-
duction by Collier in 1850; as The Fair Maid of the Ex-
change (probably not Heywood's) was edited by B. Field
in 1845. The Captives was discovered in manuscript and
printed by Bullen, Old English Plays, 1883, vol. iv. G. L.
Kittredge, in 'Journal of Germanic Philology, ii, 1900, finds
the underplot of this play in a French fabliau. O. Kaempfer,
in his Halle Diss. 1903, examines Das Verhaltnis von
Heywood's Royal King and Loyal Subject zu Painter's Pal-
ace of Pleasure; and K. W. Tibbals edits this play with
critical apparatus, Pennsylvania Thesis, 1906. W. Bang
reprints Pleasant Dialogues and Dramas in Materialien
zur Kunde, iii, 1903; and the same with H. de Vocht, in
Engl. Stud, xxxvi, 1906, discusses Heywood's contact with
"Klassiker und Humanisten" The other plays of Hey-
wood will be found mentioned in their respective classes.
A brief list of the plays into which the shrew enters as a
type will be found in the present author's ed. of Tom Tyler
and his Wife, Mod. Lang. Publ. xv, i, 1900. The ordering
of several of these plays is attempted by Boyle in Engl.
Stud, xv, 1891. On Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew,
see the resume of Ward, vol. ii. The most complete dis-
cussion of the relations of this play to the older Taming
of a Shrew aiyl to Gascoigne's Supposes is that of A. H.
Tolman, first broached in Mod. Lang. Publ. v, 1890, and
revised in The Views about Hamlet, 1906. In "What Has

486 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

Become of Love's Labour's Won?" Chicago Decennial
Publications, the same critic discusses the possible identity
of The Shrew with that title of Meres' mention. In the New
Sh. Soc. Trans. 1874, Fleay questioned Shakespeare's au-
thorship of The Shrew. On the sources see Ward as above;
R. Urbach, Das Ferhdltnis des The Taming of the Shrew
zu seinen Quellen, 1887; and the note of W. A. Neilson,
Works of Shakespeare, 1906. See, also, A. von Weilen, Shake-
speares For spiel zu der Widerspenstigen Zahmung, 1884.

The murder plays were first distinguished by Collier,
History of Dramatic Literature, vol. iii. For a wider dis-
cussion of the subject, see Singer, Das biirgerliche Trauer-
spiel, as above. Arden of Feversham has been reprinted by
E.Jacob, 1770; byH.Tyrell,DoH^/M/ Plays of Shakespeare,
1851; N. Delius, Pseudo-Shakspere'sche Dramen, 1855;
A. H. Bullen, 1887; K. Warnke and L. Proescholdt, 1888;
and lastly by R. Bayne, Temple Dramatists, 1897. The last
three eds. discuss the play, its source, and the question of its
authorship. On the last topic, see, especially, Swinburne,
A Study of Shakespeare, 1880, the summary of Bayne, and
C. Cushman in Jahrbuch, xxxix, 1903. A Warning for Fair
Women is reprinted with introductory remarks by R. Simp-
son, School of Shakspere, 1878, vol. ii. Bullen, Old English
Plays, vol. iv, reprints Two Tragedies in One. On all of
these plays the more general authorities, such as Ward and
Fleay, should be likewise consulted.

On the general topic of the supernatural as represented
in Elizabethan drama, see a paper of the present author
in Mod. Phil. i, 1903. The monumental contemporary
work is Reginald Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft, 1584, ed-
ited by B. Nicholson, 1886, with an excellent introduction.
See, also, T. A. Spalding, Elizabethan Demonology, 1880;
for the earlier lore and authorities on witchcraft in literature
and the drama, see Herford. The same authority discusses
the marriage of Belphegor in Elizabethan drama. See, also,
E. Hollstein, Ferhdltnis von Jonson's The Devil is an Ass
und Wilson s Belphegor zu Machiavelli's Novelle von Bel-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 487

fagor, 1901. The former play is exhaustively edited by W.
S. Johnson, Tale Studies, xxix, 1905. The topic of the rela-
tion of Middleton's ffitch to the witches of Macbeth is
thoroughly discussed with citation of the authorities by
H. H. Furness, Variorum ed. of the latter play, new ed. by
H. H. Furness, Jr., 1903. The earlier discussion of the mat-
ter, which began with Steevens, was crystallized by W. G.
Clark and W. A. Wright in their ed. of Macbeth, 1869; see
Fleay, in his various publications on the topic as well; and
T. A. Spalding's "attempt to rebut some of [Fleay's] argu-
ments," New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1877-79.

VIII. ROMANTIC COMEDY

Aside from the treatment of the important theme, the
influence of Italian literature upon that of England, in all
histories of the literature of the age, see J. R. Murray, "The
Influence of Italian upon English Literature during the
Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries " (Le B as Prize Essay},
1886; D. Hannay, The Later Renaissance, 1898; L.Frankel,
" Romanische insbesondere italienische Wechselbeziehun-
gen zur englischen Litteratur," Kritischer Jahresbericht
uber die Fortschritte der romanischen Phtlologie, 1900; and
L. Einstein, The Italian Renaissance in England, Colum-
bia Thesis, 1902.

On the Italian literature from which the influences
affecting English were chiefly drawn, see J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy, 1897-98, vols. iv and v, on Italian
literature; B. Weise and E. Percopo, Geschichte der itahen-
ischen Litteratur von den dltesten 7,eiten bis zur Gegenwart,
1899, is excellent, especially in its summaries of the latest
work on this subject; A. D'Ancona and O. Bacci, Manuele
della Litteratura Italiana,$ vols., 1 897-1 900, contains much
valuable biographical and bibliographical material. On
the Italian Novella, chief source of Elizabethan romantic
comedy and tragedy, see E. Koeppel, "Studien zur Ge-
schichte der italienischen Novelle in der englischen Litteratur

488 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts," Quellen und Forschungen,
Ixx, 1892. The application of these and other sources to
English drama is contained in the same author's excellent
"Quellen Studien," Munchener Beitrage, xi, and Quellen
und Forschungen, Ixxxii, together with his "Zur Quellen-
Kunde des Stuart-Dramas," Archiv, xcvii, 1895-97. A. Ott
endeavors a continuation of the first of these works in Die
italienische Novelle im englischen Drama von 1600 bis zur
Restauration, 1904. Of wider scope than these are the valu-
able extended lists (including both fiction and the drama)
of M. A. Scott in her " Elizabethan Translations from the
Italian," Mod. Lang. Publ. x to xiv, 1895-99. See, likewise,
the same author's The Elizabethan Drama, especially in its
Relations to the Italians of the Renaissance, Yale Thesis,
1894. Earlier source work in romantic and other drama is
that of M. Rapp, Studien uber das englische Theater, 1862,
though this contains much else; and K. Simrock, Quellen
des Shakespeare (2d ed.), 1870. See, also, L. L. Schiicking,
Studien uber die stofflichen Beziehungen der englischen Kom'6-
die zur italienischen bis Lilly, 1901, though discredited by
Bond.

The chief Elizabethan collections of stories translated
from the Italian which served as sources for romantic drama
are William Painter, The Palace of Pleasure, 1566-67, ed-
ited by J. Jacobs, 3 vols., 1890; Geffraie Fenton, Certain
Tragical Discourses of Bandello, 1567, edited by R. L.
Douglas, Tudor Translations, 2 vols., 1898; and Bartholo-
mew Riche, his Farewell to the Military Profession, 1581,
edited by J. P. Collier for the Old Sh. Soc. 1846. Other
like collections will be found described by Scott, as above.
Most of the sources of Shakespeare's comedies, as of his
other plays, will be found reprinted in W. C. Hazlitt's ed.
of Collier's Shakespeare's Library, J vols., 1875.

On the relations of Shakespeare's earlier comedies to
Chaucer, see O. Ballmann, "Chaucer's Einfluss auf das
englische Drama," Anglia, xxv, 1902; on the relations of
Shakespeare's comedies to Euphuism and to the plays of

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 489

Lyly, see W. L. Rushton, Shakespeare's Euphuisms, 1871;
F. Landmann, New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1880-82; J. Goodlet in
Engl. Stud, v, 1882; and the resume of the topic in Bond's
Lyly, 1902, vols. ii and iii. G. Sarrazin, Jahrbuch, xxix-
xxx, 1893-94, writes suggestively " Zur Chronologic von
Shakespeare Jugend-dramen." Fleay argues that Love's
Labour's Lost, as we have it, is a revision, in "Shakespeare
and Puritanism, " Anglia, vii, 1885 (see, also, the discussion
of this matter in \\isLife of Shakespeare, 1886); C. F. Mc-
Clumpha in Mod. Lang. Notes, June, 1900, discusses the
relations of this play to the Sonnets; while W. Keller in
Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 1898, sets forth the alleged influence of
Pedantius on the same comedy. The allusive and topical
side of Love's Labour's Lost was explained by S. Lee, "A
New Study of Love's Labour's Lost, "Gentleman's Magazine,
1880, and in New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1884 and 1887-90.
These and other matters are garnered in the Variorum ed.
of Love's Labour's Lost, by H. H. Furness, 1904- A resume
of the discussion concerning the date of The Two Gentle-
men of Verona and its relations to similar stories will be
found in Ward, vol. ii. The most important paper on this
comedy is that of J. Zupitza, "Ueber die Fabel in Shake-
speare's Beiden Veronesern," Jahrbuch, xxiii, 1888.

The Merchant of Venice, Much Ado, As You Like It,
and Twelfth Night are all happily included in Furness'
Variorum Shakespeare, and no study of any one of these
comedies can begin anywhere save in these monuments of
scholarly industry, self-abnegation, and research. The
mooted question of the relations of the two quartos of The
Merchant of Venice has been more recently set forth in the
Forewords to the facsimiles of these eds. by F. J. Furnivall,
1887. As to the influence of Marlowe's Jew of Malta,
see K. Elze, Jahrbuch, vi, and Ward, i; for Der Jud von
Venedig, J. Meissner, Die enghschen Comodianten in
Oesterreich, 1884. N. J. Halpin, The Dramatic Unities of
Shakespeare, 1849, applied to The Merchant of Venice
J. Wilson's theory of Shakespeare's use of two different

490 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

computations of time in the same play to effect dramatic
illusion. See, also, P. A. Daniel, Time Analysis of the Plots
of Shakespeare's Plays, New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1879, and
ibid. 1875-76 and 1877-79 ^or cer*ain reprints of older
work on the topic. On the Jews in England, see, especially,
S. Lee, "The Original Shylock," Gentleman s Magazine,
1880; and the same author's "Elizabethan England and
the Jews," New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1887-92. The various
conceptions of Shylock are sufficiently set forth by Furness,
as is the interminable discussion of the "law" in the trial
scene. See, however, W. Hazlitt on Shylock, as on other
Characters in Shakespeare's Plays, 1817; the interesting
papers of the poet, H. H. Home, Shylock, a Critical
Fancy, 1838, and Shylock, a Dramatic Review, 1850; H.
Graetz, Shylock in den Sagen, in den Dramen, und in der
Geschichte, 1880; and the notable book of R. von Ihring,
Der Kampf urn's Recht, 1886, and his critics. Specimens
of the "prophetic glorification" of the Jew are F. Haw-
kins in The Theatre, 1879, and M. Jastrow, Penn Monthly,
1880. F. F. Heard wrote of The Legal Acquirements of
Shakespeare, 1865; and Shakespeare as a Lawyer, 1885.
See, also, F. Freund, "Shakespeare als Rechtsphilosoph,"
Jahrbuch, xxviii, 1893.

The "staying" of the publication of Much Ado About
Nothing is sufficiently explained with reference to the requi-
site authorities in the preface of the Variorum ed. of that
comedy, 1899; there too will be found, as in all these cases,
the inevitable discussion of date and of source. The opin-
ion that Much Ado owes anything to Jacob Ayrer's Die
Schone Phoenicia (once stoutly maintained in Germany)
is now set at rest once and for all in the same volume. On
the relation of this comedy to Greene's "Lylian romances"
see C. H. Herford in New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1888. P. A.
Daniel contributes the Introduction to the facsimile re-
production of the quarto of 1600 of this play. The obvious
comparison of As You Like It with its source, Lodge's
Rosalynd, was made by W. G. Stone, New Sh. Soc. Trans.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 491

1882; N. Delius in Jahrbuch, vi, 1871, denied the older
opinion that As You Like It was in any wise based upon
"Chaucer's" Tale of Gamelyn; and J. Zupitza went over
the ground of both again in Jahrbuch, xxi, 1886. H. Smith,
Pastoral Influence in the English Drama, Pennsylvania
Thesis, 1897, treats of the relation of this play to the pas-
toral; and the same theme is further discussed by W. W.
Greg, English Pastoral Poetry and Drama, 1906. See, also,
A. H. Thorndike, "The Relation of As You Like It to the
Robin Hood Plays," Journal of Germanic Philology, iv,
1902. To the four plays and three novels discussed by the
older critics as among possible sources of Twelfth Night
may now be added the Latin comedy, Lcelia, described by
G. B. Churchill and W. Keller, Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 1898.
For a discussion of the character Malvolio, see Furness.
The best word on the topic remains that of Charles Lamb,
On Some of the Old Actors, written in 1823.

The mooted question of the date of All's Well and
whether it be capable of identification with Love's Labour's
Won or not is given in resume by Ward, vol. ii. See, also,
F. G. Fleay, "On Certain Plays of Shakespeare of which
Portions were written at Different Periods of his Life,"
New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1874, and hisLife of Shakespeare; R.G.
White, Studies in Shakespeare, 1885; and A. H. Tolman,
Decennial Publications, University of Chicago, 1903. An
early examination of Shakespeare's acknowledged source
for Measure for Measure is that of K. Foth, "Shakespeare's
Mass fur Mass und die Geschichte von Promos und Cas-
sandra," Jahrbuch, xiii, 1878. On the double title-page and
other matters concerning the quartos of Troilus and Cres-
sida, see H. P. Stokes, Introduction to Troilus, Shakspere-
Quarto Facsimiles, n. d.; and on its inclusion in the Shake-
speare Folio, Lee's reproduction, 1902, Introduction. On
the alleged earlier versions combined to form the present
text, see Fleay as above in the New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1874;
and the arguments in favor of its burlesque and allusive
character advanced by R. Simpson in the same, 1875-76,

492 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

and in his School of Shakspere, 1878, vol. ii. Die Troilus-
Fabel early engaged the attention of German scholars,
being treated at large by K. Eitner, Jahrbuch, iii, 1868, and
by H. Diintzer, Die Sage vom trojanischen Kriege, 1869;
W. Hertzberg, Jahrbuch, vi, 1871, discussing more par-
ticularly "Die Quellen der Troilus-Sage in ihrem Ver-
haltnisse zu Troilus und Cressida;" whilst H. Ulrici en-
deavors to determine, "1st Troilus und Cressida Comedy,
oder Tragedy, oder History," in the same, ix, 1874. See,
also, the discussion of this play by R. Boyle in Engl. Stud.
xxx, 1902.

On the title of A Midsummer-Night's Dream, much
argued and questioned in Germany (<?. g. K. Simrock,
Plots of Shakespeare's Plays, tr. 01 d Sh. Soc. 1840, and
H. Kurz, Jahrbuch, v, 1869), see the Preface to Furness'
Variorum ed. of that play. The arguments concerning the
date of this play from Capell and Steevens to Furnivall,
and the various sources, alleged and surmised, have been
similarly epitomized by the same indefatigable editor. G.
Massey, The Secret Drama of Shakespeare's Sonnets, 1 866,
3d ed. 1888, K. Elze and H. Kurz in Jahrbuch, iii and iv,
1868-69, anc^ F. G. Fleay, Shakespeare, 1886, and Chron-
icle, 1891, discuss the occasion of this comedy; and the
last, with Ten Brink, in Jahrbuch, xiii, 1878, and H. P.
Stokes, Chronological Order of Shakespeare's Plays, 1878,
discern allusions to Greene and contemporary caricature
in certain passages. Equally fertile has been the discussion
of the sources of A Midsummer-Night's Dream, for which,
with other matters, see N. J. Halpin, Oberon's Vision, Sh.
Soc. 1843; J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, Illustrations of the
Fairy Mythology of A Mid Summernight's Dream, ibid.
1845; W. Bell, Shakespeare's Puck and his Fairy Lore,
3 vols., 1852; P. A. Daniel, Time Analysis of the Plats of
Shakespeare's Plays, New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1877-79; T. S.
Baynes, "What Shakspeare learnt at School," Fraser's
Magazine, xxi, 1880; G. Hart, Die Pyramus und Thisbe-
Sage, 1889-91. Ward, in vol. ii of his 2d ed. 1899, dis-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 493

cusses the relation of Shakespeare's play to Greene's James
IV; the present author, " Some Features of the Super-
natural as represented in Plays of the Reign of Elizabeth
and James," Mod. Phil, i, 1903. T. F. T. Dyer, Folk-
Lore of Shakespeare, American ed. 1884, should also be
consulted.

Among other romantic comedies, Jonson's Case is
Altered is reprinted and discussed by Gifford, and in Cun-
ningham's note in their ed. of Jonson, vol. vi. For Blurt,
Master Constable, and The Old Law, the reader is referred
to Bullen's Middleton, vol. i, and Ward. The date of the
latter play is theme for E. C. Morris, Mod. Lang. Pull, xvii,
1902. Faustus, Friar Bacon, Fortunatus, and The Merry
Devil of Edmonton have already found treatment above.
John a Kent was reprinted for the Old Sh. Soc. in 1851,
by Collier; The Devil's Charter, edited by R. B. McKer-
row, appears in Materialien zur Kunde, vi, 1904. The
Works of John Day were first collected by A. H. Bul-
len, 2 vols., 1881; the same writer contributed a notice of
Day to D. N. B. xiv, 1888. An important essay on Day is
that of A. C. Swinburne, Nineteenth Century, 1897. Humor
out of Breath and The Parliament of Bees were competently
edited for the Mermaid Series, the vol. entitled Nero and
Other Plays, by A. Symons, 1888. In 1860 Halliwell-
Phillipps published a limited ed. (50 copies) of the former
play.

IX. HISTORICAL DRAMA ON FOREIGN THEMES

Foreign historical subjects as themes for the drama have
not been treated before as such. The chief contemporary
sources for Italian history are W. Thomas, The Historic
of Italy, 1549; and the translations of Guicciardini, by
G. Fenton, 1579 ; and of Macchiavelli's Florentine His-
tory, by T. Bedingfield, 1595. The drama on Italian sub-
jects drew more frequently from the novellieri (for whom
see the section above). Books on travel and anecdote af-

494 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

forded other material. For Italian books printed and trans-
lated in England during the period, see, especially, the full
lists of M. A. Scott in Mod. Lang. Publ. x to xiv, 1895-99;
and L. Einstein, The Italian Renaissance in England, as
above. For French history, the general later source seems
to have been E. Grimestone's General Inventory of the His-
tory of France, 1607, a compendium of de Serres, Matthieu,
Cayet, and others. Grimestone also translated a History of
the Netherlands, 1608, a History of Spaine, 1612, and sev-
eral other like works; but they appear little to have con-
cerned the drama. As to German sources in the drama of
the time, see, especially, the Introduction by K. Elze to his
ed. of Alphonsus of Germany, 1867; and Herford, Literary
Relations of England and Germany, 1 886.

Among the plays based on Italian history, the usual eds.
of Middleton and Webster discuss the sources of Women
Beware Women and Vittoria Corombona. The Devil's
Charter is well edited by R. B. McKerrow, Materialien zur
Kunde, \'\, 1904, who has likewise a note on this play in
Notes and Queries, series IO, vol. i, 1904. See, also, as
to Barnes, J. Knight, Athenaeum, 1904. On " Macchiavelli
and the Elizabethan Drama," see E. Meyer, Litterarhis-
torische Forschungen, i, 1897. On several plays of this
and other classes, see A. Dessoff, "Ueber englische, ital-
ienische und spanische Dramen in den Spielverzeichnissen
deutscher Wandertruppen," Studien fur vergleichende Lit-
teraturgeschichte i, 1901.

The Dramatic Works of George Chapman were first col-
lected and reprinted by Pearson in 1873 in 3 vols. R. H.
Shepherd edited Chapman complete, 1874-75, one volume
containing the plays, a second the translations, a third the
miscellaneous works. To this last A. C. Swinburne con-
tributed an interesting essay on the poet. The Best Plays of
Chapman, edited by W. L. Phelps, appear in one of the
volumes of the Mermaid Series, 1895. The two plays on
D'Ambois are edited by F. S. Boas for the Belles Lettres
Series, 1906; All Fools and The Gentleman Usher, by T.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 495

M. Parrott, 1907, for the same. A. H. Bullen contributed
the notice of Chapman in D. N. B. x, 1887; and B. Dobell
in Athenceum, March 30, 1901, adds some interesting par-
ticulars. Chapman's sources are well discussed by E. Koep-
pel, Quellen Studien zu den Dramen Chapman's, etc., 1897.
But see, also, on this topic, F. S. Boas, "The Sources of
Chapman's The Conspiracy and Tragedy of Charles, Duke
of Byron, and The Revenge of Bussy D'Ambois," Athe-
naeum, January 10, 1903; and his "Edward Grimestone,
Translator and Sargeant at Arms," Mod. PhiL iii, 1906. A
valuable earlier essay is that of F. Bodenstedt, "Chapman
in seinem Verhaltniss zu Shakespeare," Jahrbuch, i, 1865.
Chapman's historical dramas are examined by E. Lehmann
in his ed. of Chabot, Admiral of France, Pennsylvania
Thesis, 1906; "On the Dates of Some of Chapman's Plays,"
see E. E. Stoll, Mod. Lang. Notes, xx, 1905.

On the historical significance of several plays based on
French history, Rowley's Noble Spanish Soldier, Fletcher's
Thierry and Theodoret, and Massinger's Believe as You
List, Fleay, Chronicle, should be consulted. On the sources
of the latter and of Rollo,the Bloody Brother, see the Quellen
Studien of Koeppel, i, 1895; on their authorship, Oliphant
in Engl. Stud, xv, 1891.

William Rowley has been well considered, especially in
his relation to his chief collaborator, by P. G. Wiggin in
her The Middleton-Rowley Plays, 1897. T. Seccombe
writes the article on Rowley in D. N. B. xlix, of the same
year. No collection of Rowley's plays has ever been made;
but a critical ed. of his All's Lost by Lust with The Spanish
Gypsy, by E. P. Morris, 1907, has just appeared in the
Belles Lettres Series; and the former play, edited by C. W.
Stork, Pennsylvania Thesis, is now in press. A. H. Bullen
has long had in project a complete ed. of Rowley. An article
on Shakespeare and Rowley, by W. Zeittin, will be found in
Anglia, iv, 1881.' The Birth of Merlin was edited by Warnke
and Proescholdt, 1887. For the relation of Peele's Battle
of Alcazar and The Spanish Moor's Tragedy to certain his-

496 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

torical pamphlets, see Bullen's Peele, and Dodsley, Old
Plays, ed. 1825. The Spanish historical sources of Fletch-
er's Island Princess, Wife for a Month, and other plays are
also treated by Koeppel, i.

Among dramas of an historical cast, the scene of which
is laid in Germany and adjacent northern countries, the
following have been critically edited: Alphonsus of Ger-
many, by K. Elze, with an excellent Introduction, 1867;
A Larum for London, by R. Simpson, 1872 (for a further
account of this play and a denial of its ascription to Gas-
coigne, see the present author's monograph on that poet,
Publications of the University of Pennsylvania, 1892);
and The Hector of Germany, by L. W. Payne, Jr., Penn-
sylvania Thesis, 1906. The Weakest Goeth to the Wall, The
Costly Whore, and Barnavelt are contained in Bullen's Old
English Plays, 1888, and each is preceded by a sufficient
account. The sources of all are discussed by Koeppel, ii.
Bullen has also given especial attention in his ed. of Mid-
dleton, vol. vii, to the sources as well as to the historical
and personal allusions of The Game at Chess; and he may
be supplemented by reference to Ward and Fleay. An
earlier contribution on the subject is that of J. Hornby,
Old Sh. Soc. 1845; a very recent one, E. C. Morris, " An Alle-
gory in Middleton's Game at Chess," Engl. Stud, xxxviii,
1907.

The general source for English dramatists dealing with
the history of the Ottoman empire is Knolles' General His-
tory of the Turks, 1603. As to Sohman and Perseda and
Selimus, see above, respectively, the paragraphs on Kyd
and Greene, section v of this Essay. The Latin Solyman-
nidee and Tomumbeius are both described in Jahrbuch,
xxxiv. The most recent account of the tragedies Alaham
and Mustapha will be found in The Works of Fulke Gre-
ville, Pennsylvania Thesis, 1903, by M. W. Croll. Koeppel,
ii, discusses the sources of Revenge for Honor; Osmond is
incidentally considered by C. H. Gray, Lodowick Carliell,
Chicago Thesis, 1905.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 497

X. THE COMEDY OF HUMORS AND THE WAR
OF THE THEATERS

On the history of Plautus in medieval and later drama,
see K. von Reinhardstottner, Plautus, Spdtere Bearbeitungen
plautinischer Lustspiele, 1886. Aside from the inciden-
tal treatment of these subjects in the larger histories,
M. W. Wallace discusses the Influence of Plautus and Ter-
ence on earlier English drama in the Introduction to his
edition of The Birthe of Hercules, 1903; H. Graf, Der
Miles Glonosus im englischen Drama, 1891; W. Claus,
Ueber die Mendchmen des Plautus und ihre Nachbildung,
1 86 1, and A. Roeder the still narrower Menechmi and
Amphitruo tm englischen Drama, 1904. For the univer-
sity plays the reader is referred to section xiv of this Essay
below. Several examples' of Plautine Latin comedies by
English writers are described in Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 1898.

The sources of Chapman in comedy, as in serious drama,
are fully discussed by Koeppel, "Quellen Studien zu den
Dramen Chapman's," Quellen und Forschungen, Ixxxii,
1897; see, also, E. Woodbridge in Journal of Germanic
Philology, i, 1899, on "An Unnoted Source of Chapman's
All Fools;" and M. Stier, who, in his Halle Diss. 1901,
investigates the "Quellen" of the same. The influence of
Italian comedy on the comedies of Chapman is the theme
of A. L. Stiefel in Jahrbuch, xxxv, 1899. T. M. Parrott,
Mod. Phil, iv, 1906, assigns Sir Giles Goosecap to the au-
thorship of Chapman; see, also, the recent ed. by the same,
of All Fools and The Gentleman Usher, 1907, as above.
For eds. of Chapman's work, see the preceding paragraph
of this essay. Among other comedies of this type, Two
Plays by William Percy were printed from manuscript by
J. Haslewood for the Percy Society, 1824.

Aside from the lives and memoirs contained in general
histories of literature prefixed to eds. of his works and to
single plays, the best biographies of Ben Jonson are J. A.
Symonds in English Worthies, 1886; F. G. Fleay's full

498 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

accountings Biographical Chronicle, 1891, and the article
of C. H. Herford in D. N. B. xxx, 1892. The basis of much
of our knowledge of Jonson is contained in his Conversa-
tions with Drummond, first published by D. Laing for the
Old Sh. Soc. 1842. The older essays of O. Gilchrist on the
Charges of Ben yonson's Enmity towards Shakespeare, 1808,
and a Letter to Gifford, 1811, should also be consulted; and
especially the latter's famous essay, The Proofs of Ben
yonson's Malignity from the Commentators of Shakespeare,
prefixed to his ed. of Jonson as below. There is likewise A.
C. Swinburne's brilliant Study of Ben Jonson, 1889. The
exhaustive study, Ben Jonson, VHomme et I'CEuvre, by M.
Castelain, 1907, already favorably known for his admirable
ed. of the Discoveries, 1906, reaches me too late for more
than mention. A Life of Jonson in English Men of Letters
is promised by Gregory Smith.'

The first folio of Jonson's Works appeared in 1616 under
the supervision of the author; from 1631 to 1641 install-
ments of a second volume were printed (perhaps without
the author's sanction); and in 1640-41 a second complete
volume was published. On the folio eds. see the note of B.
Nicholson, Notes and Queries, series iv, vol. v, 1870; W.
W. Greg, Essay Introductory, A List of Masques, 1902; and,
on the authority of the folio of 1616, A. P. Van Dam and
C. Stoffel in Anglia, xxvi, 1903. The complete works were
gathered into one volume in 1692, and reprinted in 6 vols.
in 1715. The first attempt at a critical ed. was that of P.
Whalley, 7 vols., 1756; a projected reprint by F. G. Wal-
dron,in 1792, proceeded no farther than a first vol.; in 1811
G. Coleman reprinted Whalley, with the plays of other
dramatists. In 1816 appeared The Works of Ben Jonson,
edited by W. Giffbrd, 9 vols., with an excellent memoir. A
revision of Giffbrd by F. Cunningham, 1871 and 1875, also
9 vols., remains the best ed. of the dramatist. W. Bang has
in process Ben Jonson's Dramen in Neudruck herausge-
geben nach der folio 1616, to be completed in 4 vols. of Ma-
terialien zur Kunde. Another ed. is that of " Barry Corn-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 499

wall" (B. W. Procter), 1838. The Best Plays of Jonson
were edited by B. Nicholson, Mermaid Series, 3 vols.
(1893-94), with an excellent Introduction by C. H. Herford.
A new ed. of Jonson, edited by Herford and P. Simpson, is
issuing, 2 vols. having already appeared. Among many
eds. of single plays may be mentioned: Every Man in
His Humor, by H. B. Wheatley, 1877; by H. Maass, Ros-
tock Diss. 1901; and recently by W. M. Dixon in Temple
Dramatists, 1905. The earlier version of 1601 has been
reprinted by C. Grabau in Jahrbuch, xxxviii, 1903, and by
Bang and Greg in Materialien zur Kunde, xi, 1905. The
Alchemist with Eastward Hoe, by F. E. Schelling (not else-
where separately edited), appears in the Belles Lettres Se-
ries, 1903, and Poetaster with Dekker's Satiromastix, by
J. H. Penniman, is promised in the same. Notable has
been the activity of Yale University in the study of Jonson,
beginning with the admirable Studies in Jonson' s Comedies,
by E. Woodbridge, 1898, and A. L. Wright's unpublished
study of the Sources of Catiline, 1901, and extending from
the exhaustive eds. of the Alchemist, by C. H. Hathaway,
Jr.; Every Man Out of his Humor, by A. H. Bartlett;
Bartholomew Fair, by C. S. Alden, in 1903; to Poetaster, by
H. S. Mallory, 1904; The Staple of News, by De Winter;
Volpone, by L. H. Holt; and The Devil is an Ass, by W. S.
Johnson; all 1905; and Epiccene, by A. Henry, 1906. G.
B. Tennant has in press New Inn for the same series. The
bibliographies of these theses should be consulted.

Critical interest in Jonson began with Dryden, particu-
larly in his Essay of Dramatic Poesy, 1667-68. Langbaine,
1691, notices him; and later T. Da vies in his Dramatic
Miscellanies, 2d ed. 1785. Other earlier considerations of
Jonson are the notes of C. Lamb in his Specimens of Eng-
lish Dramatic Poets, 1808; L. Tieck in Das altenglische
Theater, 1811; A. W. Schlegel, Dramaturgische Vorles-
ungen, xxxiii, 1817; and Coleridge in Table Talk', 1835,
and in Literary Remains, 1836-37. Further early German
attention to Jonson is disclosed in W. H. T. Baudissin, Ben

5oo BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

Jonson und seine Schule, 2 vols., 1836; in the Program,
Danzig, of A. Schmidt, 1847; the article by L. Herrig in the
Archiv, x, 1852; H. von Friesen, " Ben Jonson, eineStudie,"
Jahrbuch, x, 1875; and in O. Ulbrich, "Ben Jonson als
Lustspieldichter," Archiv, xlvi, 1870. Later contributions
to individual features of Jonson's dramatic activity are T.
Vatke, "Jonson in seinem Anfangen," Archiv, Ixxi, 1884;
W. Wilke, Metrische Untersuchungen zu Jonson, 1884;
pursued further by the same in Anglia, x, 1888; F. Holt-
hausen, "Die Quelle von Folpone," Anglia, xii, 1890; E.
Leser, "On the Relations of Epicane to Moliere's Medicin
malgre lui and Femmes savantes," Mod. Lang. Notes, vii,
1892; H. Hoffschulte, Ueber Jonson's altere Lustspiele,
1894; P. Aronstein, "Jonson's Theorie des Lustspiels,"
Anglia, xvii, 1895; E. Koeppel's valuable Quellen Studien
zu den Dramen Jonson's, both 1895; and W. Woodbridge's
suggestive Studies in Jonson's Comedies, 1898; both of these
already mentioned. (F. E. Schelling, "Jonson and the
Classical School, "Mod. Lang. Publ. 1898, and H. Reinsch,
'Jonson's Poetik und seine Beziehungen zu Horaz, 1899,
deal in the poet's more general theory and influence.) E. P.
Lumley, The Influence of Plautus on the Comedies of Jon-
son, N. Y. University Thesis, 1901, is negligible. Notes
and Queries, series ix and x, 1903-04, contain an interest-
ing series of notes by C. Crawford and H. C. Hart; C. G.
Child discovers the relations of Jonson to Bruno in The
Nation, Ixxix, 1904 ; L. H. Holt contributes a note on
Folpone, Mod. Lang. Notes, 1905; W. H. Browne writes
on Lucian and Jonson in the same, 1906, and H. D. Cur-
tis on "The Source of the Petronel-Winnifred Plot in
Eastward Hoe," Mod. Phil. 1907. See, also, the impor-
tant papers of P. Aronstein, "Jonson und seine Zeitge-
nossen," Engl. Stud, xxxiv, 1906; and E. Koeppel, "Ben
Jonson's Wirkung auf zeitgenossische Dramatiker,"^ng7/-
stische Forschungen, xx, 1906.

The Martin Marprelate Controversy, the main current of
which is wholly outside of the drama, finds its place in

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 501

every history of the time. See, more particularly, E. Arber's
resume of the topic, in his Introductory Sketch of the Mar-
prelate Controversy, 1879; and as to Martin on the stage,
E. N. S. Thompson, The Controversy between the Puritans
and the Stage, Yale Thesis, 1903, especially Part II and
Bond's Lyly, as above. For other alleged allegory and
satire in the earlier drama, see R. Simpson, School of Shak-
spere, 1878; S. Lee in New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1880-82; and
Fleay, Life of Shakespeare, 1886.

The tragedies and comedies of John Marston were col-
lected and printed in 1633; his complete works, first by
J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps with Some Account of his Life
and Writings, 3 vols., 1856; and again by A. H. Bullen with
Introduction, also 3 vols., 1887. There is an interesting
essay by A. C. Swinburne, Nineteenth Century, xxiv, 1888,
and A. H. Bullen contributed the article on Marston to the
D. N. B. xxxvi, 1893. See, too, the valuable paper of W.
von Wurzbach mjahrbuch, xxxiii, 1897. For the sources
of Marston's plays, see Koeppel, i, 1895. See, also, R. A.
Small on the "Authorship and Date of The Insatiate
Countess," Harvard Studies, v, 1896; C. Winckler, "John
Marston's literarische Anfange," Breslau Diss. 1903; the
same author's "Marstons Erstlingswerke und ihre Bezieh-
ungen zu Shakespeare," Engl. Stud, xxxiii, 1904; P.
Becker, Das Verhdltnis von Marstons What You Will
zu Plautus, 1904; F. Holthausen, "Die Quelle von Mar-
ston's What You Will," Jahrbuch, xli, 1905; and E. E.
Stoll, " Shakspere, Marston, and the Malcontent Type,"
Mod. Phil, iii, 1906.

The war of the theaters finds completest and most con-
servative treatment in the monograph of that title by J. H.
Penniman, Pennsylvania Thesis, 1897. Divergent views
will be found in "The Stage Quarrel between Ben Jonson
and the So-called Poetasters," by R. A. Small, Forsch-
ungen zur englischen Sprache und Literatur, i, 1899. For the
earlier bibliography of this mooted subject, see the inciden-
tal references of these two works, chief among which may

502 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

be named R. Cartwright, Shakespeare and Jonson, Dramatic
versus Wit Combats, 1864; the anonymous article, " Ben
Jonson's Quarrel with Shakespeare," North British Rev.
July, 1870; R. Simpson in New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1875-76,
and his School of Shakspere, where the play Histriomas-
tix will be found reprinted. The series of recent articles by
H. C. Hart, in Notes and Queries, series ix, vols. xi and
xii, 1903, which connect the Nash-Harvey controversy
with that of Jonson and Marston, are to be reckoned with.
See, also, the subsequent paper on Carlo Buffone, ibid, se-
ries x, vol. i, 1904. As to the plays involved in the "war,"
the plays of Jonson, Marston, and Dekker are referred to
their respective eds. in the paragraphs above of this section;
Histriomastix and "Jack Drum were reprinted with a suf-
ficient introduction by Simpson in his School of Shakspere,
1878; and The Return from Parnassus may be consulted in
the ed. of the trilogy to which it belongs, by W. D. Macray,
1886; in E. Arber's ed. of The Return from Parnassus,
1879; or in the ed. by O. Smeaton, Temple Dramatists,
1905. As to Troilus and Cressida, see above, section viii
of this Essay.

XI. LONDON LIFE AND THE COMEDY OF
MANNERS

The comedy of manners, more or less indefinitely distin-
guished, finds place in all books treating of Elizabethan
drama. It seems nowhere to have been specifically dis-
cussed. On the order of the comedies, Westward, Eastward,
and Northward Hoe, see E. E. Stoll, John Webster, 1905.
As to a relation between certain characters of Jonson and
Dekker, see the same writer, Mod. Lang. Notes, xx, 1906.
The second of these plays has been edited with the
Alchemist by the present writer, Belles Lettres Series,
1903.

The Works of Thomas Middleton were first collected by
A. Dyce, 5 vols., 1840. The standard ed. is now that of

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 503

A. H. Bullen, 8 vols., 1885. It has an excellent Introduc-
tion. The Best Plays of Middleton were edited in 2 vols. for
the Mermaid Series, by H. Ellis, with an Introduction by
A. C. Swinburne, 1887, who also contributed in the previ-
ous year an essay on the same topic to the Nineteenth Cen-
tury Review, xix. C. H. Herford contributes the article on
Middleton to the D. N. B. xxxvii, 1894; and Fleay treats
Middleton in conjunction with William Rowley in his Bio-
graphical Chronicle, 1891. The best paper on the relations
of The Middleton-Roivley Plays is the "Inquiry" of P. G.
Wiggin, Radcliffe College Monographs, xx, 1897. There is
also a paper on Middletorl by J. Arnheim in Archiv, Ixxviii,
1887. E. C. Morris writes "On The Old Law," Mod. Lang.
Publ. xvii, 1902; E. Baxmann on The Widow and Boccaccio,
Halle Diss. 1904; H. Jung, on "Das Verhaltnis T. Mid-
dletons zu Shakespeare," Beitrage zur romanischen und
englischen Philologie, xxix, 1904. For Middleton's Game
at Chess, see above, section ix of this Essay; for the rela-
tions of his Witch to Macbeth, section vii. Some of Mid-
dleton's civic pageants appear in the Percy Society's Publ.
x, 1843; a^ are reprinted by Bullen.

The best account of Nathaniel Field is that of J. Knight
in D. N. B. xviii, 1889. Collier reprinted Field's Woman
is a Weathercock and Amends for Ladies, Dodsley, ed. Haz-
litt, xi; and both appear in the volume of the Mermaid
Series entitled Nero and Other Plays, edited by A. W.
Verity, 1888. See, also, F. G. Fleay, Engl. Stud, xiii, 1889,
for some further matter as to Field.

The first collective ed. of Beaumont and Fletcher is the
folio of 1647; a second folio followed in 1679; an anony-
mous reprint in 1711. In 1750 appeared the earliest criti-
cal ed., by Seward and Sympson, working on earlier ma-
terial of Theobald. Other eds. are those of Weber, 1812;
Darley, 1839; and the authoritative work of A. Dyce, n
vols., 1843-46, new eds. 1854 and 1876. The Best Plays of
Beaumont and Fletcher appear in the Mermaid Series,
edited by J. St. L. Strachey, 2 vols., 1887. A Variorum ed.

504 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

of Beaumont and Fletcher, under the general editorship of
A. H. Bullen, to be complete in 12 vols., was begun in 1903
and is now in progress; the text, edited by A. Glover, and
later by A. R. Waller, to be complete in 1 1 vols., was begun
in 1905, and is also in progress. Aside from their place in
works of more general range, for the bibliography of Beau-
mont and Fletcher see that of A. C. Potter, 1890, C. W.
Moulton in the Library of Criticism, 1901, and A. H.
Thorndike in his ed. of " The Maid's Tragedy and Phi-
latter," Belles Lettres Series, 1906.

In addition to the authorities of wider range, the biogra-
phy of Beaumont is treated in the important monograph
of G. C. Macaulay, Francis Beaumont, a Critical Study;
and A. B. Grosart contributes the article on that poet to
D. N. B. iv, 1885. The biographical notice of Fletcher in
D. N. B. xix, 1889, is by A. H. Bullen. A. C. Swinburne's
article on both poets in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1887,
reprinted in his Studies in Prose and Poetry, 1894, should
also be consulted. Earlier criticism of Beaumont and
Fletcher begins with Dryden. See, especially, The Grounds
of Criticism in Tragedy, 1679; J. M. Mason, Comments on
the Plays of both poets, 1797; Coleridge in vol. ii of his
Literary Remains; and Schlegel and Hazlitt in their lec-
tures, as above. More extensive criticism is contained in
the article by W. Spalding, " Beaumont and Fletcher and
their Contemporaries," Edinburgh Review, Ixxiii, 1841; the
admirable essay of W. B. Donne, reprinted from Eraser's
Magazine, 1850, in his Essays on the Drama, 1858; and
C. C. Clarke in The Gentleman's Magazine, n. s. viii, 1871.
See, also, the extensive studies of B. Leonhardt, Die Text-
varianten von Philaster, The Maid's Tragedy, etc., Anglia,
xix and xxvi, 1896 and 1903, and the same author on
Bonduca, Engl. Stud, xiii, 1889; the exhaustive study of
A. H. Thorndike, The Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher
on Shakspere, 1901; and O. L. Hatcher's excellent John
Fletcher, a Study in Dramatic Method, Chicago Thesis,
1905. For the question of the authorship of the Beaumont-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 505

Fletcher-Massinger group of plays, see below, section xvii
of this Essay.

Among Fletcherian comedies of manners the following
have received specific treatment: L. Bahlsen, Eine Coma-
die Fletchers (Rule a Wife and Have a Wife), ihre spanische
Quelle, 1894; A. S. W. Rosenbach, "The Curious Imper-
tinent in English Dramatic Literature," Mod. Lang. Notes,
xvii, 1902 (part of a larger study, Spanish Sources of Plays
of Beaumont and Fletcher, as yet unpublished). The
sources of The Spanish Curate (E. Klein); of The Honest
Man's Fortune (K. Richter); M. Thomas (H. Guskar) and
Women Pleased (W. Kiepert, Jahrbuch, xli) have formed
matter of late (1905 and 1906) for German dissertations.
As to M. Thomas, see, also, Stiefel in Engl. Stud, xxxvi,
1906, and O. L. Hatcher in Anglia, February, 1907, an
excellent paper raising the whole question of the pursuit of
"Quellen." For the monographs on Fletcherian tragedies
and tragicomedies, as well as the more extended discussions
of Spanish sources in the Stuart drama, see section xvii of
this Essay below.

XII. ROMANTIC TRAGEDY

General works on the aesthetics and technique of tragedy
hardly concern us here. However, aside from the general
authorities already named (such as Coleridge, Lamb, Haz-
litt, Schlegel, Lessing, and many more), the following may
be specified: G. Freytag, Die Technik des Dramas, 1863,
translation, 1895; P. Fitzgerald, Principles of Comedy and
Dramatic Effect, 1870; H. Ulrici, Shakespeare's Dramatic
Art, tr. 1876; R. Prolss, Katechismus der Dramaturgic,
1877; M. Souriau, De la Convention dans la Tragedie
Classique et dans le Drame Romantique, 1885; J. R.
Colby, Some Ethical Aspects of Later Elizabethan Tragedy,
Michigan Thesis, 1886; R. Moulton, Shakespeare as a
Dramatic Artist, 1889; A. Hennequin, The Art of Play-
writing, 1891; G. Meredith, An Essay on Comedy, 1897;

506 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

E. Woodbridge, The Drama, its Laws and Technique, 1898;
Wm. Cloetta, "Die Anfange der Renaissance Tragodie,"
Beitrdge zur Litter aturgesc hie hte des Mittelalters, ii, 1902;
W. L. Courtney, "Shakespeare's Tragic Sense," National
Review, 1904; A. C. Bradley, "Hegel's Theory of Tra-
gedy," Hibbert 'Journal, 1904; and his Shakespearean Tra-
gedy, 1904. A. H. Thorndike has in preparation a mono-
graph on " The Tragedy " in Types of English Literature.
On the tragedies of revenge, see in particular the ex-
cellent work of A. H. Thorndike, "The Relations of Ham-
let to Contemporary Revenge Plays," Mod. Lang. Pull.
xvii, 1902. (The Spanish Tragedy and the relations of
Shakespeare's Hamlet to the earlier play of Kyd are dis-
cussed above, section v of this Essay.) The mooted ques-
tion of the relations of the two quartos of Hamlet is well
epitomized in Ward and treated more at length in the New
Variorum Hamlet of Furness. See, also, the Clarendon Press
Hamlet of Clark and Wright, Introduction, 1872; and
the Introductions to the facsimile eds. of the Quartos,
n. d., by F. J. Furnivall, which ought sufficiently to have
settled the question of the priority of Quarto A. See, how-
ever, the "questionings" of F. P. von Westenholz, Engl.
Stud, xxxiv, 1904. On the sources of Hamlet, see R. G.
Latham, Two Dissertations on the Hamlet of Saxo-Gram-
maticus and of Shakespeare, 1872; R. Prolss in Jahrbuch,
xiv, 1879; R. Gericke and M. Moltke, Shakespeare's Ham-
let-Quellen, 1881. The Historie of Hamblet has been several
times reprinted in translation: by Collier in his Shake-
speare's Library, by Furness, and by O. Elton, The First
Nine Books of the Danish History of Saxo-Grammaticus,
1894. Into the abounding literature on Hamlet it is impossi-
ble here to enter. A few more recent books are R. Loening,
Die Hamlet-Tragodie Shakespeares, 1893; A. H. Tolman,
"A View of the Views about Hamlet," Mod. Lang. Publ.
xiii, 1898, reprinted in his collected essays of that title,
1903, where will be found mention of many works on this
tragedy; A. C. Bradley in Shakespearean Tragedy, 1904;

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 507

J. C. Collins, "New and Old Lights on Hamlet's Charac-
ter," Contemporary Review, 1905; G. P. Baker, "Hamlet
on an Elizabethan Stage," Jahrbuch, xli, 1905. There is,
too, an excellent paper on "The Comic Aspects of Madness
in Shakespeare and other Elizabethan Dramatists," by
C. A. Weatherby, Harvard Monthly, 1897.

As to Henry Chettle, see the Introduction to his Kind-
heart's Dream, by C. M. Ingleby, reprint for the New Sh.
Soc. 1874; this famous pamphlet was earlier reprinted for
the Percy Society by E. F. Rimbault, 1841. A. H. Bullen
contributes the article on Chettle to the D. N. B. x, 1887;
a complete list of Chettle's plays will be found in the In-
troduction to the reprint of Hoffman, by "H. B. L.," 1852,
little changed by R. Ackermann's later ed., 1894. An older
essay on Hoffman and Hamlet is that of N. Delius, Jahr-
buch, ix, 1874; on the device of a burning crown used in
Hoffman, see E. Koeppel in Archiv, cix, 1898. The only
collected ed. of Cyril Tourneur is that of J. C. Collins, 2 vols.,
1878. The Revenger's Tragedy and The Atheist's Tragedy
have been reprinted in collections of the drama; most lately
in a volume with the two tragedies of Webster, by J. A.
Symonds, 1888. G. Goodwin communicated to the Acad-
emy, May 9, 1891, the little that is known of the life of
Tourneur; see, also, ibid. March 31, 1894. T. Seccombe
contributes the article on Tourneur to the D. N. B. Ivii,
1899. A discussion of the sources of Tourneur's two trage-
dies will be found in Koeppel's Quellen Studien, i, 1895,
"Anhang." The other tragedies of revenge, Kyd's, Chap-
man's, Webster's, will be found under their authors else-
where in this essay.

The date of Romeo and "Juliet, with other plays, is dis-
cussed by G. Sarrazin, "Zur Chronologic von Shake-
speares Jugend-dramen," Jahrbuch, xxix and xxx, 1894.
The question of the relations of the two quartos was early
discussed by C. J. T. Mommsen in his notable Romeo and
Juliet, eine Kritische Ausgabe des uberlieferten Doppeltextes,
1859; by P. A. Daniel, New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1874-75; and

5o8 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

by R. Gericke, Jahrbuch, xiv, 1879. See, also, the prefatory
matter of H. A. Evans, comparing the quartos reproduced
in the facsimile ed. of the quartos of Shakespeare, Romeo
and Juliet^ 1886. The sources and parallels of Romeo and
Juliet have been incessantly considered. P. A. Daniel
reprints two of them in New Sh. Soc. Publ. 1875; see K.
P. Schulze, N. Delius, A. Cohn, and L. H. Fischer in Jahr-
buch, xi, xiii, xvi, xxiv, xxv, 1876 to 1890. Earlier biblio-
graphy of this tragedy will be found in Furness' Variorum
ed. up to its date, 1871. InEngl. Stud, xix, 1894, L. Frankel
attempted "Neue Beitrage zur Geschichte des Stoffes von
Romeo and Juliet;" W. E. A. Axon discusses the play
"before Shakespeare's time," Trans, of the Royal Society of
Literature, 1905; and H. de W. Fuller, Mod. Phil, iv, 1906,
treats of the pre-Shakespearean play on this subject in its
relations to early German and Dutch versions.

For Antony and Cleopatra, see the next section of this
Essay; for Macbeth and Lear, see above, section vii. Othello,
for its celebrity, has attracted less comment than others of
Shakespeare's plays. The date of this tragedy, its source,
and other matters, especially the color of the Moor, are
sufficiently elucidated with citation of the authorities in
the Furness Variorum ed. 1886. No student of the play,
however, should neglect the delightful passages in the
Noctes Ambrosiante ("Christopher under Canvas," 1850)
of J. Wilson on Othello. Some monographs not mentioned
in the Variorum are: E. W. Sievers, Ueber dieGrundidee des
Shakspearischen Dramas Othello, 1851; F. Liiders, Bei-
trage zur Erklarung von Shakespeares Othello, 1863; C.
Kohlschein, A Commentary on Shakespeare's Othello, 1879;
E. Hano, Some Hints About Shakespeare's Othello, 1 880;
T. R. Price, The Construction of Verse in Othello, 1888;
W. R. Turnbull, Othello, a Critical Study, 1892. Above all
see A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, as above, for
much illuminating appreciation of Othello.

As to the general Elizabethan treatment of the super-
natural, see section vii above. The ghost in Elizabethan

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 509

drama has recently attracted renewed attention. See H.
Ankenbrand, "Die Figur des Geistes im Drama der en-
glischen Renaissance," Munchener Beitrdge, xxxv, 1906;
the two excellent papers of F. W. Moorman, "The Pre-
Shakespearean Ghost," and "Shakespeare's Ghosts," both
in the Modern Language Review, also 1906; and E. E.
Stoll, who maintains with zeal "The Objectivity of the
Ghosts in Shakspere," Mod. Lang. Publ. xxii, 1907. Earlier
contributions to the subjects are E. Roffe, Ghost Belief in
Shakespeare, 1851; and J. H. Hudson, "Shakespeare's
Ghosts," Westminster Review, cliii, 1900; M. F. Egan con-
tributes a paper on "The Ghost in Hamlet" to The Catho-
lic University Bulletin, 1901. Bradley should be consulted,
too, on this topic. Titus Andromc us, Lust's Dominion, and
Women Beware Women have been treated above, sections
v and ix of this Essay; the "Authorship and Date of The
Insatiate Countess" are discussed by R. A. Small, Harvard
Studies, v, 1896.

The Dramatic Works of John Webster were first col-
lected by A. Dyce, 4 vols., 1830; another complete ed. is
that of W. Hazlitt, also 4 vols., 1857. Aside from the earlier
anonymous paper on Webster in the Retrospective Review,
x, 1823, E. Gosse devotes an essay to that dramatist in his
Seventeenth Century Essays, 1883, new ed. 1897; A. C.
Swinburne writes with his usual brilliancy of Webster in
the Nineteenth Century, xix, 1 886, reprinted in Studies in
Prose and Poetry, 1894; and W. Archer writes on "Web-
ster, Lamb, and Swinburne," New Review, vii, 1893. C.
Kingsley also paid his respects to Webster in Plays and
Puritans, 1859. The article on Webster in D. N. B. Ix,
1899, is by S. Lee, the editor. There are likewise a Diss.
by C. Volpel on Webster (Bremen), 1888; "Metrische Un-
tersuchungen iiber den Dramatiker, John Webster," by
A. F. von Schack in his Die englischen Dramatiker vor,
neben und nach Shakespeare, 1893; and the article of W.
von Wurzbach in Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 1898.

The two great tragedies of Webster have been frequently

5io BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

reprinted, most recently in the Mermaid Series, with Tour-
neur, by J. A. Symonds, 1888; and in the Belles Lettres
Series, 1904, by M. W. Sampson. The latter contains an
excellent bibliography. The White Devil has apparently
not been separately reprinted. The Duchess of Malfi ap-
pears in the Temple Dramatists, 1896, edited byC. Vaughan,
and is promised as a Yale Thesis by E. W. Manwaring. Ger-
man considerations of these tragedies are those of F. von
Bodenstedt in his Shakespeares Zeitgenossen und ihre Werke,
1858-60, where The Duchess of Malfi is translated; and
R. Prolss, Altenglisches Theater, n. d., where The White
Devil appears. See, also, W. W. Greg, "Webster's White
Devil," Modern Language Quarterly, iii, 1900; and C.
Crawford, "Webster and Sir Philip Sidney," and "Web-
ster's relations to Montaigne, Marston, and others," Notes
and Queries, series x, vols. ii, and iv, 1904. The wider rela-
tions of the two stories are considered by K. Kiesow, " Die
verschiedenen Bearbeitungen der Novelle von der Herzogin
von Amalfi," Anglia, xvii, 1895; and M. Landau, "Vittoria
Accorambona inderDichtungimVerhaltnis zu ihrerwahren
Geschichte," Euphorion, ix, 1902. See, also, a study of Vit-
toria by E. M. Cesaresco, Lombard Studies, the same year.
For Appius and Virginia, see the next section of this
Essay. The serious plot of A Cure for a Cuckold was ab-
stracted from its baser contact by S. Spring-Rice in 1885,
and published, with an Introduction by E. Gosse, under
the innocuous title "Love's Graduate" The most recent
considerable contribution to the study of Webster is the
exhaustive and painstaking Munich Thesis of E. E. Stoll
expanded, John Webster, the Periods of his Work as deter-
mined by his Relations to the Drama of his Day, 1905. See,
also, an essay on Webster, by J. Morris, Fortnightly Review^
Ixxi, 1902; and L. J. Sturge, "Webster and the Law,"
Jahrbuch, xlii, 1906.

Among the more important tragedies not already men-
tioned in this section, the divided authorship of The Change-
ling is best considered by Miss Wiggin in The Middleton-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 511

Rowley Plays, 1897; The Second Maiden s Tragedy is pre-
ceded by a sufficient note in Dodsley, x, where it is re-
printed; on the underplot, see A. S. W. Rosenbach on " The
Curious Impertinent," in Mod, Lang. Notes, xvii, 1902. For
the latest word on The Maid's Tragedy, see the ed. of A. H.
Thorndike, Belles Lettres Series, 1907, which is furnished
with an excellent bibliography. The Unnatural Combat
of Massinger, edited from the early eds. with an Introduc-
tion on the Cenci story in English literature, the work of
C. Stratton, is an unpublished Pennsylvania Thesis, 1904.

XIII. HISTORY AND TRAGEDY ON CLASSICAL
MYTH AND STORY

On the early influence of Euripides in the dramas of
Western Europe, see the general histories of literature and
the drama; on this influence and other early classical influ-
ences, see, also, Herford, as above, and A. Brandl, Quellen
des Weltlichen Dramas, 1898, passim, and the authorities
cited in section v of this Essay above. See, also, W. Bang
and H. de Vocht, " Klassiker und Humanisten als Quellen
alterer Dramatiker," Engl. Stud, xxxvi, 1906; and the
several authorities on the classical drama in Italy cited by
Cunliffe in his ed. of Gascoigne's plays, Belles Lettres
Series, 1906.

The important influence of Seneca is specifically treated
by J. W. Cunliffe, The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan
Tragedy, Manchester Diss.; and by R.Fischer, Zur Kunst-
entwicklung der enghschen Tragodie von ihren ersten An-
fdngen bis zu Shakespeare. Both of these works appeared
in 1893. On this and kindred subjects, see, too, D. Hannay,
" The Later Renaissance," 1898. The titles of many plays
on classical subjects will be found in the Revels' Accounts,
Old Sh. Soc. 1842. The Ten Tragedies of Seneca, trans-
lated by various hands and collected by Thomas Newton
in 1581, are reprinted by the Spenser Society, 2 vols., 1887.
Queen Elizabeth's Englishings, which include a fragment

5i2 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

of the Hercules (Etceus, are reprinted by E. Fliigel in Anglic ,
x, 1888.

On the influence of Seneca in French dilution, see the
valuable unpublished thesis of J. A. Lester, Connections
between the Drama of France and Great Britain, particularly
in the Elizabethan Period, Harvard Library, 1902. Much
of the material therein which is applicable to the discussions
of this book is excerpted by M. W. Croll, The Works of
Fulke Greville, Pennsylvania Thesis, 1903. See, also, the
suggestive note of G. Saintsbury prefixed to vol. iii of A.
B. Grosart's ed. of Samuel Daniel, 1883-96; and for the
wider relations of the topic, J. W. Cunliffe, " Early French
Tragedy in the Light of Recent Scholarship," Journal of
Comparative Literature, i, 1903, and the incidental refer-
ences. The kindred work of the same writer should also
be consulted, The Influence of Seneca, 1893, as above; and
"The Influence of Italian on Early Elizabethan Drama,"
Mod. Phil, iv, 1906. Among Elizabethan English plays
influenced by French Seneca, Kyd's Cornelia has been
specifically edited by H. Gassner, 1894, the Countess of
Pembroke's Antonie has been reprinted by A. Luce, Lit-
terarhistorische Fcrschungen, iii, 1897; Lady Carew's
Mariam and the later Herod and Antipater have not been
reprinted. The authoritative ed. of Samuel Daniel is that
of A. B. Grosart, Huth Library, 5 vols., 1883-96. The
article on Daniel in D. N. B. xiv, 1886, is by the editor,
S. Lee. See the series of notes on Daniel and Florio, by B.
Corney, in Notes and Queries, series iii, vol. viii, 1865, and
a contribution by Fleay in Anglia, xi, 1889. Grosart has
likewise edited the Works of Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke,
in The Fuller Worthies' Library, 4 vols., 1870. The first
collective ed. of Greville was printed after his death, in
1633, and contains both his extant tragedies. The most
recent consideration of this poet is that of M. W. Croll in
his excellent monograph, The Works of Fulke Greville ,
Pennsylvania Thesis, 1903. S. Lee likewise contributes an
article on Greville to the D. N. B. xxiii, 1890. The Poeti-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 513

cal Works of William Alexander, Earl of Stirling, com-
prising the Monarchic Tragedies, were reprinted anony-
mously, Glasgow, 3 vols., 1870. C. Rogers, Memorials of
the Earl of Stirling, 2 vols., 1877, forms the basis of the
study, Sir William Alexander, Graf von Stirling als Dra-
matiker, by H. Beumelberg, 1880, as of A. B. Grosart's
article in D. N. B. i, 1885. J. Engel writes "Ueber die
Spuren Senecas in Shakespeares Dramen," in Preussische
Jahrbiicher, April, 1903.

Of the early Elizabethan dramas on classical subjects,
Horestes and Darius have been reprinted by A. Brandl
in his Quellen des Weltlichen Dramas, 1898; The Wars of
Cyrus appears, with prefatory matter by W. Keller, in
Jahrbuch, xxxvii, 1901; Die Geschichte von Appius und
Virginia was considered by O. Rumbaur, Breslau Diss.
1890; and Webster's tragedy on that theme by J. Lauschke,
Leipzig Diss. 1899. Lodge's Wounds of Civil Wars is re-
printed in Dodsley, vii. For a separate discussion of
Marlowe's Dido, see above, section v of this Essay. On
the Dido plays in general literature, see J. Friedrich, Dido-
Dramen, 1888, as above. For Lodge and Marlowe and their
other work, see section v of this Essay above. The Golden,
Silver, Brazen, and Iron Ages of Heywood with his Lucrece
are discussed by Fleay, i, 1891.

The general source of Shakespeare's dramas on classical
subjects, Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Grecians and Ro-
mans, 1579, Englished by Sir Thomas North, is best
studied in the ed. of G. Wyndham, Tudor Translations,
6 vols., 1895-96. See, also, R. C. Trench, Plutarch, Five
Lectures, 2d ed. 1874; W. W. Skeat's convenient little
volume, Shakespeare's Plutarch, 1875; and F. L. Leo, Four
Chapters of North's Plutarch, 1878, both of which latter
contain excellent introductions on the poet's use of his
sources. R. Sigismund, "Uebereinstimmendes in Shake-
speare und Plutarch," Jahrbuch, xviii, 1883, should also be
consulted.

On the general subject of the classical learning of

5 14 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

Shakespeare, see the famous essay of R. Farmer, 1767; A.
Biichler, Shakes peares Dramen in ihrem Verhaltmsse zur
griechischen Tragbdie, 1856; F. W. Farrar, The Influ-
ence of the Revival of Classical Studies on English Litera-
ture during the Reigns of Elizabeth and "James I (Le Bas
Prize), 1856; G. Stapfer, Shakespeare et I'Antiquite, 1879;
T. S. Baynes, "What Shakespeare learnt at School,"
Frazer's Magazine, xx and xxi, 1879-80; reprinted in
Shakespeare Studies, 1894; N. Delius, "Klassische Re-
miniscenzen in Shakespeare's Dramen," Jahrbuch, xviii,
1883; F. Brincker, Poetik Shakes peares in den Romer
Dramen, 1884; R. Genee, Klassische Frauenbilder aus
dramatischen Dichtungen von Shakespeare, 1884. The
whole controversy is well summed up, and a conclusion
the reverse of Farmer's substantiated, by J. C. Collins,
"Shakespeare as a Classical Scholar," Studies in Shake-
speare, 1904.

The only one of the non-Shakespearean plays on Julius
Caesar which has attracted specific attention is Chapman's
Ccesar and Pompey, the inevitable study of the sources of
which is made by A. Kern, Halle Diss. 1901. The anony-
mous C tsar's Revenge remains unedited; the two Latin
manuscript plays, unpublished. One of the earliest works
to give special attention to Shakespeare's Julius Ccesar is
G. L. Craik's The English of Shakespeare illustrated in his
Julius Ccesar, 1856; 4th ed. 1869. N. Delius considers
the sources in Plutarch, Jahrbuch, xvii, 1882; Fleay as-
sumes that the tragedy is a compound of what once formed
two plays, see his Life of Shakespeare, 1886; and A. W.
Verity in the Pitt Press ed. of Julius Ccesar, 1895, Intro-
duction, fixes the date by the allusions to Hamlet. But
see G. Sarrazin, "Die Abfassungszeit von Julius Ccesar"
in Anglia, Beiblatt, xiv, 1892. See, also, R. Prolss, Julius
Ccesar erlautert, 1875; P. Kreutzberg, Brutus in Shake-
speare's Julius Ccesar, 1894. P. Trabaud is one of many
foreign writers on the topic, Etude comparative sur le Julius
Ccesar de Shakespeare et le m€me sujet par Voltaire, 1889.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 515

A sufficient resume of the whole topic, as of the other
"classical" plays of Shakespeare, will be found in Ward.
T. Vatke long since definitively considered "Shakespeares
Antonius und Kleopatra und Plutarch's Biographic des
Antonius," Jahrbuch, iii, 1868; F. Adler treats the same
topic in the same, xxxi, 1895. On the larger relations of the
story of Cleopatra, see G. H. Moeller, Die Auffassung der
Kleopatra in der Tragodienlitteratur, 1888. See, also, J. L.
Etty, "Studies in Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra"
Macmillan's Magazine, 1904. For further bibliography and
the aesthetic criticism of this play the reader is referred
to the admirable Variorum ed. of H. H. Furness, 1907.
Coriolanus was enthusiastically appraised by H. Viehoff,
"Shakespeare's Coriolan," Jahrbuch, iv, 1869. See, also,
the admirable essay of N. Delius, "Shakespeare's Corio-
lanus in seinem Verhaltniss zum Coriolanus des Plutarchs,"
the same, xi, 1876. On the date, see Halliwell-Phillipps,
Selected Notes upon Shakespeare's Coriolanus, etc., 1868;
and F. J. Furnivall's reply in New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1874.
There is likewise F. A. Leo, Shakespeares Coriolanus
beleuchtet, 1 86 1, and F. von Westenholz, Die Tragik in
Shakespeares Coriolanus, 1895. See, also, E. Crosby, Shake-
speare's Attitude towards the forking Classes, 1904, and R.
Biittner, "Zu Coriolan und seinen Quellen," Jahrbuch, xli,
1906. The authorship of Timon of Athens and the degree
of Shakespeare's part in it has ,attracted much attention.
See, especially, articles of N. Delius, of B. Tschischwitz, of
W. Wendlandt, and H. Conrad in Jahrbuch, ii, iv, xxiii,
and xxix, 1867-94, maintaining various views; and the
paper of Fleay, "On the Authorship of Timon" New Sh.
Soc. Trans. 1874. The bibliographical relations of Timon,
as of Pericles, are well considered in S. Lee's Introduction
to the facsimile reproductions of the first Shakespeare folio,
1902. The academic Timon of 1600 was reprinted by A.
Dyce for the Old Sh. Soc. 1842. A. Miiller conducts the
inquiry into the Quellen aus denen Shakespeare den Timon
entnommen hat, 1873. The older idea that this play is un-

5i6 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

related to Shakespeare's is combated by W. H. demons
in Princeton University Bulletin, xv, 1904. See, also, A.
Fresenius, Timon auf der Euhne, 1895. The starting-point
of a study of Pericles is the able essay of N. Delius in Jahr-
buch, iii, 1868; in New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1874, Fleay ap-
plied the new verse tests with success to the problem of the
authorship of this play; while R. Boyle, in the same, 1882,
inquired into Wilkins' share in the drama. An exhaustive
inquiry into Shakespeare's Pericles and Apollonius of Tyre
in its various versions is that of the late A. H. Smyth, 1898.
For the bibliography of Cymbehne and Troilus and Cres-
sida, see, respectively, sections viii and xvii of this Essay.

Aside from the discussion which the Roman plays of
Jonson receive in all complete editions of the dramatist,
see H. Saegelken, Ben Jonson's Romer-Dramen, 1880.
Sejanus has been separately edited by C. Sachs, Leipzig,
1862. On various versions of this subject and other mat-
ters, see J. Bolte, "Ben Jonson's Sejanus am Heidelberger
Hofe," Jahrbuch, xxiv, 1889. Catiline was separately
edited with special reference to its sources by A. L. Wright,
Yale Thesis, 1901; a consideration of the same tragedy in
the same respect characterizes the Halle Diss. of A. Vogt,
1903. Both of Jonson's tragedies are promised, edited by
W. D. Briggs, in the Belles Lettres Series. The fine anony-
mous play of Nero, 1624, was reprinted by Bullen in his
Old English Plays, 1882; it was edited again by H. P.
Home for the Mermaid Dramatists, 1888. Heywood's
Rape of Lucrece was anonymously edited in 1824.

On the story of Marston's The Wonder of Women, in its
wider relations, see A. Andrae, Sophonisbe in der franzo-
sischen Tragodze mit Berucksichtigung der Sophonisbebear-
beitungen in anderen Litteraturen, 1891; on the relations
of Fletcher's False One, G. H. Moeller, Die Auffassung der
Kleopatra in der Tragbdienliteratur, 1 888; on those of
Markham's Herod and Antipater, M. Landau, " Die Dra-
men von Herod und Mariamne," Zeitschrift fur vergleich-
ende Litteraturgeschichte, viii and ix, 1895-96. M. Oefte-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 517

rung considers "Heliodor und seine Bedeutung fur die
Litteraturgeschichte," Litterarhistorische Forschungen, xviii,
1901; The Roman Actor of Massinger, edited by F. P.
Emery, is promised in the Belles Lettres Series.

The Roman plays of Thomas May and Nathaniel Rich-
ards have not been reprinted; for May, see the notice of
him in D. N. B. xxxvii, 1894, by C. H. Firth, and the au-
thorities therein cited. T. Seccombe supplies to the same,
xlviii, the notice of Nathaniel Richards, whose Messalina,
described by Genest, vol. x, has not been reprinted.

XIV. COLLEGE DRAMA

The college drama as such seems not to have been treated
in its completeness. The material for a reconstruction of
this chapter of the academic past is scattered among records
which are happily becoming more and more accessible to
the general reader. Among the many works on the English
universities the following may be here mentioned : H. C. M.
Lyte, A History of the University of Oxford to the year 1530,
1886; C. Plummer, Elizabethan Oxford, 1887; C. W.
Boase, Register of the University of Oxford, 1885; F. Ful-
ler, The History of the University of Cambridge to the year
1634, ed. M. Prickett and F. Wright, 1840; J. B. Mullinger,
A History of Cambridge, Epochs of Church History, 1 886.
Other works are R. Masters, The History of Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge, 1753; and H. C. M. Lyte, A History
of Eton College, new ed. 1889. Both of J. Nichols' works,
The Progresses of Queen Elizabeth, 3 vols., new ed. 1823,
and The Progresses of King James, 4 vols., 1828, contain
much valuable material concerning the royal visits to the
universities. For other matter, see Plummer, Elizabethan
Oxford, as above; the interesting paper in Miscellanea
Antiqua Anglicana, t, 1816; a popular account of the same,
"Thalia in Oxford," by the present author, The Queen s
Progress, 1904.

An excellent account of the Latin plays acted before the

5i8 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

University of Cambridge is that of an anonymous writer
in The Retrospective Review, xii, 1825; a less complete
though meritorious account of academic plays at Oxford
is contained in the Introduction to Narcissus, a Twelfth
Night Merriment, 1602, edited by M. L. Lee, 1893. A
valuable descriptive list of Latin university plays is that
of G. W. Churchill and W. Keller, "Die lateinischen Uni-
versitats-Dramen Englands," Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 1898. For
the earlier school drama at the universities, see Herford,
Literary Relations, as above; M. W. Wallace, in the Intro-
duction to his reprint of The Birthe of Hercules, 1903,
discusses Plautus and Terence in earlier English drama.
For other works on this topic, see section x of this Essay,
above; for a list of pre-Elizabethan academic plays, see
Chambers' Mediaeval Stage, 2 vols., 1903, Appendix E.
For the later controversy of Gager and Rainholds, see the
notices of these two men by S. Lee, D. N. B. vols. xx and
xlvii; and E. N. S. Thompson, The Controversy between
the Puritans and the Stage, Yale Thesis, 1903. An excel-
lent account of the performance of several plays before
the queen, 1566, is abstracted from a contemporary recital
by W. Y. Durand in Mod. Lang. Publ. xx, 1905.

Aside from the discussion of the Parnassus plays that
belongs to works of wider scope and those concerned in a
consideration of "the wars of the theaters," the three plays
were well edited by W. D. Macray, 1886. The Return from
Parnassus, besides publication in Hawkins and Dodsley,
was reprinted by E. Arber in his Scholar's Library, 1878;
and recently by O. Smeaton, Temple Dramatists, 1905, with
an excellent Introduction. An older contribution to the
question of the authorship of this play is that of B. Corney
in Notes and Queries, series iii, vol. ix, 1866. See, also, I.
Gollancz, in his communication to Ward on the subject
(vol. ii, p. 641 of the latter's History of Dramatic Literature,
1899); and W. Liihr, Die drei Cambridger Spiele vom
Parnassus in thren litterarischen Beziehungen, Diss. Kiel,
1900.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 519

For the biographical particulars of the academic dra-
matists, see, in general, A. a Wood, Athena Oxonienses, ed.
Bliss, 4 vols., 1813-20, and C. H. and F. Cooper, Athence
Cantabrigienses, 1858. T. Fuller, Worthies of England,
ed. 1840, 3 vols., contains scattered information, and works
such as John Aubrey's Brief Lives, ed. A. Clark, 2 vols.,
1898; and Langbaine, with the later dictionaries, and J.
Genest, Some Account of the English Stage, 10 vols., 1832,
should be consulted. Nearly all the authors of academic
plays, usually from their importance in other walks of life,
find their place in the D. N. B., where further authorities
are cited under each notice. On Wingfield and Forsett, see
the Introduction to G. C. Moore Smith's ed. of Pedantius,
1905; on George Ruggle, the elaborate memoir prefixed
to the ed. of his Ignoramus by J. S. Hawkins, 1787; the
notice in D. N. B. vol. xlix, 1897, by S. Lee; and likewise
the Diss. of J. L. Van Gundy on this play, 1905. As to
Lingua, see Fleay, ii; and his article in Shakes peariana,
March, 1885. B. Dobell adds some interesting particulars
as to Alabaster in Athenaum, December 26, 1903; J.
Hackett is treated by J. Ware in his Writers of Ireland, 1746;
S. Brooke and Matthew Gwinne are subjects of J. Ward
in his Lives of the Professors of Gresham College, 1740; and
an account of the Jesuit William Drury is to be found in
C. Dodd's Church History of England, 1737, vol. ii.

The Poetical and Dramatic Works of Thomas Randolph
were carelessly edited by W. C. Hazlitt, 2 vols., 1875, with a
perfunctory introduction. The most recent biography of
Randolph is that of S. Lee, D. N. B. xlvii, 1896. See, also,
the extravagant article on Randolph and his poetry in the
Retrospective Review, vi, 1822. The best word on Amyntas
is that of W. W. Greg in his recent Pastoral Poetry and
Pastoral Drama, 1906, for which see below, section xvi.

Among academic plays, Latin and English, not already
mentioned, which have been specifically edited, the follow-
ing may be named: Acolastus, by J. Bolte, Lateinische
Litteraturdenkmaler, 1891; see the same editor's note on

520

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

"Die Oxforder Tragodie Thibaldus," Jahrbuch, xxxvii,
1901; Pedantius and Victoria, both by G. C. Moore Smith,
Materialien zur Kunde, 1905 and 1906. The Poetical Works
of William Strode have recently been collected, including
The Floating Island, 1907. An interesting Introduction
precedes the text. There is also an unpublished Pennsyl-
vania Thesis on this play by E. Hoffsten, 1903. T. Odinga
describes Vincent's Paria in Engl. Stud, xvi, 1892.

XV. THE ENGLISH MASQUE

The completest monograph on the English masque is
"Die englischen Maskenspiele," by R. Brotanek, Wiener
Beitrage, 1902, which contains a reprint of some of the
early work of Lydgate and a masque given at Coleoverton,
possibly Jonson's. But the earlier monograph of the same
title, a Halle Diss., 1882, by A. Soergel, is by no means a
bad piece of work, and contains a rough list of masques,
the basis of the work of both Evans and Brotanek. Eng-
lish Masques, by H. A. Evans, 1897, is a popular reprint
of sixteen conspicuous masques prefaced by an essay on the
subject, largely based on Soergel. A collection of specimens
of the masque, edited by J. C. Adams, is promised among
the forthcoming volumes of the Belles Lettres Series. J. W.
Cunliffe is said, too, to have in preparation a monograph
on the masque as a genre in Types of English Literature.
Nichols, in his two great works, The Progresses of Queen
Elizabeth, 2d ed. 1823, an(^ his Progresses of King James,
1828, reprints many rare masques, besides much other
valuable contemporary material. Besides the general works
of the various writers of masques mentioned in this chapter,
the volume of the Old Sh. Soc. Publ. containing the Life
of Inigo Jones, 1848, should be consulted for several repro-
ductions of sketches by Jones (all relating to masques,
and none of them to Shakespeare, as once erroneously sup-
posed), and also for reprints of several anonymous masques.
The latest bibliography of The English masque is that of

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 521

W. W. Greg, A List of Masques, Pageants, etc., Bibliogra-
phical Society, London, 1902; Mr. Fleay's List, Biographical
Chronicle, 1891, contains only anonymous productions of
which only a small number are true masques; those by
known authors must be sought in that volume under their
authors' names. Lastly, F. W. Fairholt, in his Lord Mayors'
Pageants (Percy's Society's Publ. 1843), giyes a list (not
quite complete) of these productions with an account of
them, and reprints several specimens.

For the earlier history of the forerunners of the masque
many notices will be found scattered through the Chroni-
cles of Hall and Holinshed, and in that mine of contem-
porary information, social as well as historical, The Cal-
endar of State Papers. See, also, Archceologica, xxxi, 1858,
for earlier material, and E. P. Hammond, " Lydgate's Mum-
ming at Hertford," Anglia, xxii, 1899. W. Dugdale's Ori-
gines Juridiciales, 2d ed. 1671; A. J. Kempe's Loseley
Manuscripts, 1836; and especially P. Cunningham's " Ex-
tracts from the Revels' Accounts," Old Sh. Soc. Publ. 1842,
likewise afford much valuable material. Collier's work, here
as elsewhere, is to be followed with circumspection ; though
many interesting details have been gleaned by him and
garnered in his History of the Stage, 3 vols., 1838, new ed.
also 3 vols., 1879. An unpublished Yale Thesis, 1904, that
of J. C. Adams, The Predecessors of the Seventeenth Cen-
tury Court Masque in England, is quoted with approval
by J. W. Cunliffe, whose own "Italian Prototypes of the
Masque and Dumb Show," Mod. Lang. Publ. xxii, 1907,
should also be consulted.

As to texts of the masques, aside from Evans and the
forthcoming collection of Adams, the Gesta Grayorum will
be found in Nichols' Elizabeth; Daniel's masques in Gro-
sart's ed. of that poet, Huth Library, 5 vols., 1883-96;
The Works of Doctor Thomas Campion, including his
masques, are edited by A. H. Bullen, 1889; the Lords'
Masque of Chapman, and Beaumont's and Campion's,
written for the same occasion, are reprinted in Nichols,

522 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

James. (See, besides his information on these events, a note
of F. Marx, "Bericht eines zeitgenossischen Deutschen
iiber die Auffuhrung von Chapman's Mask," etc., Jahrbuch,
xxix-xxx, 1894. The masques of Middleton, and his City
Pageants as well, are contained in Bullen's ed. of that
dramatist, 8 vols., 1885. The masque of William Browne
appears in W. C. Hazlitt's ed. of The Poetry of Browne,
1868; as in that of G. Goodwin, The Muses Library, 1893.
Jonson's masques are reprinted in the collective eds. of his
works; see, especially, Cunningham-Gifford, Works of Jon-
son, 9 vols., 1871 and 1875, where a sufficient account of
each is prefixed. (For certain corrections, see, however,
the list of Brotanek, as above.) See, also, I. Schmidt,
"Ueber Ben Jonson's Maskenspiele," Archiv, xxvii, 1860;
and J. Hofmiller, Die ersten seeks Masken Ben Jonsons in
ihrem Ferhaltniss zur anttken Literatur, 1902.

On the "Influence of Court Masques on the Drama,"
see A. H. Thorndike in Mod. Lang. Publ. n. s. viii, 1900.
On the wider related topic, H. Schwab, Das Schauspiel
im Schauspiel, 1896, and W. J. Lawrence, "Plays within
Plays," Engl. Stud, xxxiii, 1904. See, also, Littledale, ed.
of The Two Noble Kinsmen, New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1876,
for some remarks on the masque contained in that
play.

Among later Stuart masques, that of Thomas Carew is
reprinted by J. W. Ebsworth in his ed. of Carew's Poetry,
1893; the masques of Sir William Davenant form part of
the collective ed. of his works by Logan and Maidment,
5 vols., 1872-74. Brotanek assigns to Davenant a masque
entitled Luminalia (reprinted by A. B. Grosart in his
Fuller Worthies' Library, 1872-73, vol. iv): "Ein un-
erkanntes Werk Sir William Davenants," Anglia, Beiblatt,
xi, 1900; and reprints with W. Bang, in Materialien zur
Kunde, 1903, The King's and Queen's Entertainment at
Richmond. On "The Temple of Love," see W. Ebert in
Jahrbuch, xli, 1905. The masques and like productions of
James Shirley will be found in the collective ed. of his works

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 523

by A. Dyce, 6 vols., 1833. See, also, a paper by O. Ritter
on Shirley's "Amor und Tod," Engl. Stud, xxxii, 1903.

Milton and the masque with his Arcades and Comus
are best discussed in all their possible relations in D. Mas-
son's monumental Life of Milton, 6 vols., 1859-80; new
ed. 1881. The article on Milton in D. N. B. xxxviii, 1894,
is by S. Lee, the editor, and the added note contains an
excellent brief bibliography. The standard biography of
Milton, prior to Masson, was that of J. Mitford, prefixed
to his ed. of the Works of Milton, 1851. See, also, A. Stern,
Milton und seine Zeit, 1877-79; excellent short biographies
are those of M. Pattison in English Men of Letters, 1879;
and R. Garnett in Great Writers, 1890. To the latter is
appended an admirable bibliography. Editions and critical
articles are too numerous to cite here. An excellent ed. of
Comus, the introduction of which contains much valuable
critical material, is that of A. W. Verity, 1891. A valuable
recent ed. of The Lyric and Dramatic Poems is that of M.
W. Sampson, 1901.

XVI. THE PASTORAL DRAMA

The authoritative work on the English pastoral is now
that of W. W. Greg, Pastoral Poetry and Pastoral Drama,
a Literary Inquiry with Special Reference to the Pre-Resto-
ration Stage in England, 1906. Appended will be found an
excellent bibliography. An earlier essay by the same au-
thor, " The Pastoral Drama on the Elizabethan Stage," was
contributed to the Cornhill Magazine, n. s. vii, 1899. On
the general topic, see E. W. Gosse, An Essay on English
Pastoral Poejry, and A. B. Grosart, Rider on Mr. Gosse's
Essay, the latter's ed. of Spenser, vol. iii, 1882. H. O. Som-
mer, Erster Versuch uber die englische Hirtendichtung,
1888, is concerned with the eclogue, little with the drama.
Of similar limitations is Die englische Hirtendichtung von
1579-1625, by K. Windscheid, 1895. E. K. Chambers,
English Pastorals, 1895, and C. H. Herford's ed. of The

524 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

Shepherds' Calendar are both furnished with excellent In-
troductions on the general theme. "Pastoral Influence in
the English Drama" seems first to have been investigated
as such by Homer Smith, Pennsylvania Thesis, Mod. Lang.
Publ. 1897. A. H. Thorndike discusses "The Pastoral
Element in the English Drama before 1605" in Mod. Lang.
Notes, xiv, 1900; and J. Laidler writes "A History of
Pastoral Drama in England," Engl. Stud, xxxv, 1905, in
peculiar unacquaintance with previous work on the sub-
ject, though none the less describing several out-of-the-way
pastoral dramas.

The pastoral idea and "the feeling for Nature" has been
the theme of innumerable essays; among them may be
mentioned: A. Lang, Theocritus, Bion, and Moschus ren-
dered into English Prose, 1889; the Introduction contains
an excellent account of Alexandrine poetry. The mono-
graph of F. W. Moorman, on "William Browne and the
Pastoral Poetry of the Elizabethan Age," in Quellen und
Forschungen, Ixxxi, 1897, contains a valuable " Essay on
the Interpretation of Nature from Chaucer to Bacon."
Two recent unpublished contributions to the topic are
H. A. Eaton, The Pastoral Idea in English Poetry in the
Sixteenth Century, Harvard Thesis; and The Feeling for
Nature in English Pastoral Poetry, by J. I. Bryan, Penn-
sylvania Thesis, both 1907.

For the authorities on the Italian pastoral the reader must
be referred to Greg's Pastoral Poetry, as above. The earlier
chapters contain an admirable account of the subject.
See, also, J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy, 1897-98;
the histories of Italian literature of Weise and Percopo,
1899; and of D'Ancona and Bacci, 1897-1900, noted above;
and A. D'Ancona, Origini del Teatro Itahano, 2 vols.,
1877, new ed. 1891; for a briefer resume, see R. Garnett,
A History of Italian Literature, 1898. The authoritative
work on the Arcadia of Sannazaro is that of M. Scherillo,
1888; on his younger rival, see V. Rossi, Battista Guarini
ed II Pastor Fido, 1886; on Tasso, G. Carducci, Su I' Aminta

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 525

di T. Tasso, 1899. On the translation of Tasso into Eng-
lish, including the Aminta, see E. Koeppel in Anglia, xi,
1889. A Latin version of // Pastor Fido is described in
Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 1898. As to Spanish influences, see J.
Fitzmaurice-Kelly, A History of Spanish Literature, 1898;
on "The Spanish Pastoral Romance," H. A. Rennert
in Mod. Lang. Publ. vii, 1892.

Texts and descriptions of pastoral entertainments,
among them Sidney's Lady of May, are to be found in
Nichols' Elizabeth; the pastorals, like the dramas of Peele
and Lyly, are included in all eds. of their works. The
attempt of L. L. Schiicking, Die stofflichen Beziehungen
der enghschen Komodie zur italientschen bis Lilly, 1901,
has been discredited as to pastoral as well as most other
influences, by Bond, in his ed. of the latter poet, 1902. For
Mucedorus, Munday's two chronicle histories on the Earl
of Huntington (Robin Hood), and As You Like It, see
sections vi and viii above, of this Essay. A. H. Thorndike
discusses the relation of the last play named to the Robin
Hood plays in the Journal of Germanic Philology, iv, 1902.
The two pastoral plays of Samuel Daniel are included in
the collective ed. of his works, by A. B. Grosart, Huth
Library, 5 vols., 1883-96. See, as to Hymen 's Triumph,
•W. W. Greg, Mod. Lang. Quarterly, vi, 1903. The two
plays of Day, containing pastoral elements, are reprinted
by A. H. Bullen in his ed. of that dramatist, 1881. Further
references to each of these authors have been made above,
sections viii and xiii. Aside from the mention of John
Fletcher's pastoral, The Faithful Shepherdess, which be-
longs to every discussion of Fletcher and his plays and
especially to the writers on the pastoral noted above, the
Introduction to the ed. of The Faithful Shepherdess, by
F. W. Moorman, Temple Dramatists, 1897, should like-
wise be consulted. Sicelides, the piscatory of Phineas
Fletcher, is reprinted by A. B. Grosart in his ed. of that
poet, Fuller Worthies' Library, 4 vols., 1869. Ben Jonson's
pastoral fragment, The Sad Shepherd, is reprinted in all

526 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

complete eds. of Jonson. See, also, Greg, "On the Date
of The Sad Shepherd," Mod. Lang. Quarterly, v, 1902;
and especially his excellent ed. of Jonson's pastoral, Ma-
terialien zur Kunde, xi, 1905. A new ed. of The Queen's
Arcadia, The Faithful Shepherdess, and The Sad Shepherd,
with an introduction by J. B. Fletcher, is promised in the
Belles Lettres Series.

The best account of Randolph's pastoral drama, Amyn-
tas, is that of Greg in his Pastoral Poetry, as above. On the
plays which follow the Arcadia, see K. Brunhuber, Sid-
ney's Arcadia und ihre Nachlaufer, 1903; there is likewise
an unpublished thesis by H. W. Hill, Chicago, 1904, on
the same topic.

XVII. TRAGICOMEDY AND "ROMANCE"

The starting-point of the English conception of tragi-
comedy is the passage from the preface to the Reader pre-
fixed by Fletcher to his Faithful Shepherdess. On the
growth of tragicomedy, see Ward in general; A. H. Thorn-
dike, The Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shak-
spere, 1901; A. F. von Schack, Die englischen Dramatiker
vor, neben und nach Shakespeare, 1893; B. Wendell, Wil-
liam Shakspere, a Study in Elizabethan Literature, 1894;
and W. G. Courthope, A History of English Poetry, 1895-
1903, especially vol. iv. E. E. Stoll, John Webster, 1905,
adds much interesting research to this as to other kindred
topics.

The problem of the authorship of the Beaumont-
Fletcher-Massinger plays (suggested by Coleridge in 1818,
and in the Introduction to Darley's ed. of Beaumont and
Fletcher, 1839) was fifst formally broached by F. G. Fleay,
"On Metrical Tests as Applied to Dramatic Poetry," New
Sh. Soc. Trans. 1874. R. Boyle followed, in the same,
1880-86, and in Engl. Stud, v-x, 1881-87, pressing the
claims of Massinger. E. H. Oliphant, in three excellent
papers, reviewed the problem in the same, xiv-xvi, 1890-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 527

92, emphasizing the work of Beaumont; and Boyle re-
plied, not without acrimony, ibid, xvii-xviii. Meanwhile,
the valuable monograph of C. G. Macaulay, noted above,
had appeared, 1882; and Fleay restated the whole ques-
tion with fertile surmise in his Biographical Chronicle,
1891. See, also, R. Boyle's inquiry into "Daborne's Share
in Beaumont and Fletcher's Plays," Engl. Stud, xxvi,
1899; and A. E. H. Swaen, "Daborne's Plays," Anglia,
xx and xxi, 1897 and 1898. This problem of divided
authorship enters more or less into most later discus-
sions of these poets, among which may be especially
named the study of A. H. Thorndike, The Influence of
Beaumont and Fletcher on Shakspere, 1901; and O. L.
Hatcher's excellent John Fletcher, a Study in Dramatic
Method, Chicago Thesis, 1905.

On the relations of Fletcher and Shakespeare hi the
drama, see once more especially the scholarly and exhaust-
ive monograph of A. H. Thorndike, already several times
mentioned. The relations of these two authors to Henry
VIII have already received our attention (see section vii
of this Essay above), and form part of every discussion of
Fletcher. On The Two Noble Kinsmen, see the, "Letter"
of W. Spaulding on the authorship of this play, 1833, re-
printed in the New Sh. Soc. Publ. 1876, together with
the contributions of Littledale, Furnivall, Ingram, and
Fleay in the same publication. Another earlier communi-
cation on "The Shares of Shakespeare and Fletcher in The
Two Noble Kinsmen," by S. Hickson, 1847, is reprinted
in the same, 1874. See, also, N. Delius, "Die angebliche
Shakespeare-Fletcher'sche Autorschaft des Dramas The
Two Noble Kinsmen," Jahrbuch, xiii, 1878, and R. Boyle
on Massinger and the same play both in New Sh. Soc.
Trans. 1880-85. An excellent short resume of the whole
question is that of C. H. Herford in his ed. of the play,
Temple Dramatists, 1897. See, also, the earlier reprint by
H. Littledale for the New Sh. Soc. 1876; and P. Mackay,
The Two Noble Kinsmen, 1902. On the lost Cardenio, see

528 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

the note of Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, ed. 1898, vol. ii;
and New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1895-96; and especially J.
Fitzmaurice-Kelly's corrective, in his ed. of Shelton's Don
Quixote, Tudor Translations, 1896, vol. i, of the incon-
sistencies of Fleay (Chronicle, 1891, passim}.

Of the romances of Shakespeare, Timon and Pericles
have already found mention in section xiii above. For
a resume of the questions involved in the source of Cym-
beline and other like matters, see Ward, vol. ii. See, also,
B. Leonhardt, "Ueber die Quellen Cymbeline," Anglia,
vi, 1883; H. H. Vaughan, New Readings and Renderings
of Shakespeare's Tragedies, 1 886; R. W. Boodle, Notes
and Queries, November 19, 1887; and the discussion of
Cymbeline, by W. J. Craig, Oxford Shakespeare, 1894.
The folio text is reprinted for the New Sh. Soc. 1883;
for the "time analysis," see P. A. Daniel in the same, 1879.
The excellent Introduction of E. Dowden to his American
ed. of Cymbeline, 1907, should also be consulted. For the
questions which have arisen concerning The Winter's Tale,
see Furness, Variorum ed. of that play, 1898. The obvious
source (recognized by Gildon and Rowe) is discussed by
N. Delius, "Greene's Pandosto and Shakespeare's Winter
Tale," Jahrbuch, xv, 1880; and further contributed to by
E. Koeppel in "Zur Quellenkunde der Stuarts-Dramen,"
Archiv, xcvii, 1896. The Winter's Tale has attracted much
attention, like other late plays of Shakespeare, on the score
of its versification. On the topic, see in general, C. Bathurst,
Remarks on the Difference in Shakespeare's Versification,
1857; and J. K. Ingram, "History of Verse Tests in Gen-
eral," New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1874. On both these plays,
see F. Boas, Der Sturm und Das Wintermarchen in ihrer
symbolischen Bedeutung, 1882; and R. Boyle, Shakes peares
Wintermdrchen und Sturm, 1885. Conjecture as to the date
of The Tempest began with J. Holt in 1749, and, being a
matter quite indeterminable, is likely to continue. The
source of The Tempest has proved equally fertile and par-
ticularly attractive to German scholars because of a simi-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 529

larity discerned between Shakespeare's play and the Come-
dia von der schonen Sidea, by Jacob Ayrer. On both topics,
see Furness, Fariorum Tempest, 1892. A few contributions
to these topics are E. Malone, An Account of the Incidents
from which The Tempest was derived, 1808; J. Hunter,
Disquisition on the Scene, Origin, and Date of The Tem-
pest, 1839; K. J. Clement, Shakes peares Sturm, historisch
beleuchtet, 1846; J. Meissner, Untersuchungen iiber Shake-
speares Sturm, 1872, an important paper; F. Brockehoff,
Ueber Shakespeares Sturm, 1880; C. C. Hense, "Das Antike
in Shakespeare's Drama, der Sturm," Jahrbuch, xv, 1880;
J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, Memoranda on Shakespeares
Tempest, 1880. Later articles are P. Roden, Shakespeares
Sturm, ein Kulturbild, 1893; the notable one by R. Garnett
in the Universal Review, 1889; the Introduction and Ap-
pendix to A. W. Verity's Pitt Press ed. of The Tempest,
1896; J. de Perott discovers Spanish sources for The Tem-
pest, in Publications of Clarke University Library, i, 1906.

The typical Fletcherian tragicomedy is best studied in
Philaster. The only separate modern ed. is that of F. S.
Boas, Temple Dramatists, 1898. Philaster appears with
The Maid's Tragedy, in the recent ed. of A. H. Thorndike,
Belles Lettres Series, 1906; prefixed is an excellent Intro-
duction and appended an equally valuable bibliography.
An elaborate article is that of B. Leonhardt, "Ueber Be-
ziehungen von Philaster zu Hamlet und Cymbeline," An-
glia, viii, 1885; the same writer examines the chief tex-
tual variations in Anglia, xix, 1896. A recent article by
J. de Perott, in Mod. Lang. Notes, xxii, 1907, treats of
the relations of Philaster and other plays of Beaumont and
Fletcher to The Mirror of Knighthood.

For Spanish literature in general, see the older authority,
G. Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature, 3 vols., 1849.
An excellent modern history is that of J. Fitzmaurice-
Kelly, 1898. See, also, J. G. Underbill, Spanish Literature
in the England of the Tudors, Columbia Thesis, 1899, to
which is appended a list of such books and a bibliography.

530 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

Spanish sources in Elizabethan drama (especially in the
plays of Fletcher and several of them long since noticed
by Langbaine, Weber, Dyce, and others) have of late at-
tracted the attention of several scholars. Some of these
researches are A. L. Stiefel, "Die Nachahmung spanischer
Komb'dien in England unter den ersten Stuarts," Roman-
is che For schun gen, v, 1890; L. Bahlsen, "Spanische Quellen
der dramatischen Litteratur besonders Englands zu Shake-
speares Zeit," Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Litteratur-
geschichte, n. f. vi, 1893; and "Eine Comodie Fletchers
ihre spanische Quelle," Wissenschajtliche Beilage zum
yahresbericht der sechsten stadtischen Realschule zu Berlin,

1894, by the same; A. L. Stiefel, "Die Nachahmung span-
ischer Komodien in England," Archiv, xcix, 1897; "Ueber
die Quelle von Fletchers Island Princess" by the same,
in the same, ciii, 1899; A. S. W. Rosenbach, "The Curi-
ous Impertinent in English Drama," Mod. Lang. Notes,
xvii, 1902: part of a larger unpublished study, Spanish
Sources of Plays of Beaumont and Fletcher. The Spanish
sources of these plays, like others, are well collected by
Koeppel in his "Quellen Studien," Munchener Beitrage, xi,

1895. The Spanish and other sources of Fletcher afford a
favorite theme, too, in the process of reaching the German
doctorate: The Knight of Malta (E. Bliihn, Halle); The
Spanish Curate (E. Klein, Berlin); The Honest Man's
Fortune (K. Richter, Halle), each "und seine Quellen"
appearing in 1903-05. More important is the excellent
Introduction of J. Fitzmaurice-Kelly to his translation of
Cervantes' Exemplary Novels, 1902, in its discussions of
the influence of that famous work on English drama. On
the Spanish Pastoral Romances, see, also, H. A. Rennert,
in Mod. Lang. Publ. vii, 1892, as above. Similarities to
various Spanish prose romances have been discovered in
Twelfth Night, by Klein, Geschichte des Dramas, 1865-
79, vol. ix, and by L. Bahlsen in Zeitschrift fur vergleich-
ende Litter aturgeschichte, vi, 1893.

For the French and other romances as sources, also

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 531

drawn upon for Fletcherian plays, see H. Korting, Ge-
schichte des franzosischen Romans, 1891; for Early English
Metrical Romances, see the collection of G. Ellis, 1868; see,
also, J. Thorns, Early English Prose Romances, 3 vols.,
1858. Heywood's Royal King and Loyal Subject has been
edited, with an inquiry into its sources in Painter and its
relations to Fletcher's Loyal Subject, by K. W. Tibbals,
Pennsylvania Thesis, 1906; see, also, E. Koeppel, Quellen
Studien, i, 1895, "Anhang," and O. Kempfer, Halle Diss.
1903, on this subject.

The standard ed. of Philip Massinger is that of W. Gif-
ford, 4 vols., 1805, 2d ed. 1813. It is preceded by an ex-
cellent Memoir by J. Ferrier. Other eds. are those of T.
Coxeter, 1761; of J. M. Mason, 4 vols., 1779; W. Harness,
1830-31; H. Coleridge (with Ford, one vol.), 1840; and
F. Cunningham, which adds the play Believe as You List,
1870. Five of the better known plays of Massinger were
included in the volume of the Mermaid Series edited by A.
Symons, 1887. Aside from earlier mention by H. Hallam
in his Literature of Europe, American ed. 1872, vol. iii,
and W. Hazlitt in his Lectures on the Age of Elizabeth, 1821,
ed. 1902, vol. v, S. R. Gardiner contributed an excellent
paper on "The Political Element in Massinger" to the
Contemporary Review, xxviii, 1876, reprinted for the New
Sh. Soc. Trans, of the same year. Of equal value, though
of more general content, is the essay on "Massinger" by
L. Stephen, Cornhill Magazine, 1877, later republished in
his Hours in a Library, 1879, third series. There is like-
wise a painstaking paper by J. Phelan in Angha, ii, 1879.
The brilliant essay of A. C. Swinburne, Fortnightly Review,
Iii, 1889, should also be consulted. For Massinger's rela-
tions to Fletcher, R. Boyle's three papers on "Beaumont,
Fletcher, and Massinger," Engl. Stud, v-x, 1882-87, and
the same author in New Sh. Soc. Trans. 1880-86, should
be especially consulted. Boyle is likewise the author of
the notice of Massinger in D. N. B. xxxvii, 1894; diverse
results on many points will be found in Fleay's Chronicle,

532

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

1891. The sources of Massinger in general are well treated
by E. Koeppel, "Quellen Studien zu den Dramen Mas-
singers," Quellen und Forschungen, Ixxxii, 1897; see.
also, the earlier paragraphs by the same on "Massinger
and Painter's Palace of Pleasure," and on the relations
of Heywood and Massinger in A Challenge for Beauty in
the "Anhang" of his "Quellen Studien" in Munchener
Beitrage, xi, 1895.

Among single dramas of Massinger which have at-
tracted the attention of individual students may be men-
tioned: Believe as You List, first printed for the Percy
Society in 1848 by C. Croker (see, also, the remarks on
the text in Old Sh. Soc. Papers, iv, 1849); The Maid of
Honor (K. Raebel), The Great Duke of Florence (H. A.
Shunds), both 1901; The Picture (A. Merle), 1905; The
Renegado (T. Heckmann), 1905, all of Halle; and The
Fatal Dowry (C. Beck, Erlangen), 1906. The Pennsyl-
vania Thesis on the Unnatural Combat and its relations
to the story of the Cenci, by C. Stratton, 1904, has already
been mentioned. Single eds. of other plays discussed in the
chapter on Tragicomedy and "Romance" are The Female
Rebellion, reprinted by A. Smith, Glasgow, 1872 ; and Swet-
nam, the Woman Hater, Grosart's Occasional Issues, 1875-
8 1, vol. xiv.

XVIII. LATER COMEDY OF MANNERS

For the history of the Stuart stage, the play lists of Sir
Henry Herbert are especially valuable. They will be found
abstracted and with comment both in the Malone Vario-
rum Shakspeare, vol. iii, and in Collier, History of English
Dramatic Poetry and Annals of the Stage, new ed. 1879.
Fleay has also made free use of them in his Chronicle and
in his History of the London Stage, which despite many
faults and inconsistencies must still continue our main
guide. On the Stuart, as on the earlier, actors, see J. P.
Collier's Memoirs of Actors, Old Sh. Soc. Publ 1846. The

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 533

Memoirs of Alleyn and The Alleyn Papers, in the same,
1841 and 1843, still afford valuable material. Our infor-
mation concerning the hack writer Robert Daborne is
derived chiefly from the last mentioned source. A. E. H.
Swaen discusses "Daborne's Plays" in Anglia, xx and xxi,
1897 and 1898. For his alleged part in the Fletcherian
plays, see R. Boyle, Engl. Stud, xxvi, 1899. The comedies
of Fletcher for convenience have been treated together
above in section xi of this Essay. As to Massinger's com-
edies of manners, A New Way to Pay Old Debts has been
frequently reedited: by K. Deighton, for example, in 1893;
and by G. Stronach in The Temple Dramatists, 1904. A
new ed. (with The Roman Actor} is promised, edited by
F. P. Emery for The Belles Lettres Series. The City Madam
has been neglected by editor and monographist alike.

Thomas May has already received notice above in sec-
tion xiii of this Essay. Robert Davenport is sufficiently
noticed by A. H. Bullen in the Introduction to his ed. of
Davenport's Plays, Old English Plays, New Series, 1890,
vol. iii. There is also an essay on King John and Matilda
in Retrospective Review, iv, 1821. The Plays of Richard
Brome have been reprinted by Pearson in 3 vols., 1873. A
review of this ed. by J. A. Symonds, Academy, March,
1874, contains an excellent appraisement of that play-
wright. A. W. Ward contributes the notice of Brome to
the D. N. B. vi, 1886; and there is likewise a meritorious
dissertation on him by E. K. R. Faust, Archiv, Ixxxii, 1887.
See, also, A. C. Swinburne, in Fortnightly Review, Ivii,
1892. The Dramatic Works of Sir Aston Cockayne and
those of Shakerley Marmion were edited by J. Maidment
and W. H. Logan in 1874 and in 1875; The Comedies,
Tragicomedies, with other Poems, 1651, of William Cart-
wright remain unedited. Cartwright's borrowings from
Jonson will be found duly recorded by Miss A. Henry in
her ed. of Epiccene, Tale Studies in English, xxx'i, 1906. The
Plays and Poems of Henry Glapthorne were also reprinted
by Pearson, 2 vols., 1874; and The Lady Mother by

534 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

A. H. Bullen in his Old English Plays, 1883, vol. ii. There
is an essay on Glapthorne in Retrospective Review, x, 1824.
Bullen also reprinted the Duke of Newcastle's Country Cap-
tain, under title Captain Underwit, in his Old English Plays ;
and Thomas Nabbes entire, in the new series of the same,
2 vols., 1887, with a justly appreciative prefatory essay. All
of the playwrights named in this paragraph find place in
the D. N. B., where further authorities concerning them
are likewise mentioned. The Duke of Newcastle, from his
station and wider political interests, is theme for several
biographies; of these the best is that of C. H. Firth, 1886.
The authoritative ed. of the Works of James Shirley is
that of A. Dyce, 6 vols., 1833. A few of "the Best Plays"
were edited for the Mermaid Series by E. Gosse, 1888.
A valuable anonymous essay on Shirley is that contributed
to The Quarterly Review, xlix, 1833; see, also, the admir-
able essay of A. C. Swinburne in Fortnightly Review, n. s.
xlvii, 1890. The article on Shirley in the D. AT. B. Hi, 1897,
was contributed by A. W. Ward. Charles Kingsley's stric-
tures on The Gamester will be found in his Plays and
Puritans, 1873; see, on the same topic, S. R. Gardiner in
his History of England, new ed. 1904-05, vol. vii. P. Nissen
writes on "James Shirley, em Beitrag zur enghschen Litera-
turgeschichte, 1901; O. Gartner, on Shirley, sein Leben
und Werken, Halle Diss. 1904.

XIX. DECADENT ROMANCE

On the Spanish sources of plays of Shirley, see A. L.
Stiefel, "Die Nachahmung spanischer Komb'dien in Eng-
land unter den ersten Stuarts," Romanische Forschungen,
v, 1890; and A. Dessoff, "Ueber englische, italienische und
spanische Dramen," Studien fur vergleichende Litteratur-
geschichte, \, 1901. On the romantic plays, as on the come-
dies, see the authorities on Shirley cited in the last section.

The work of John Ford was first collected by H. Weber,
2 vols., 1811; again by W. Gifford, 2 vols., 1827. The revi-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 535

sion of this ed. by A. Dyce, 3 vols., 1869, remains the best.
H. Coleridge edited Ford, with Massinger, in 1840-48;
an ed., nearly complete, of the plays of Ford, is that of H.
Ellis, Mermaid Series, 1888. Besides the earlier general
critics, Coleridge, Schlegel, Lamb, Hazlitt, and the like,
F. M. von Bodenstedt treats sympathetically of Ford in
his Shakespeares Zettgenossen, 1858-60. The Fortnightly
Review, xvi, 1871, contains a fine criticism of Ford by
A. C. Swinburne; and A. W. Ward contributes the notice
of that poet to the Encyclopedia Britannica, ed. 1879. M.
Wolff devotes a Diss. (Heidelberg) to Ford, ein Nachah-
mer Shakespeare's, 1880; and A. H. Bullen contributes the
notice of Ford to D. N. B. xix, 1899. The sources of Ford
have been thoroughly treated by Koeppel in Quellen und
Forschungen, Ixxxii, 1897. See, also, the unpublished
Harvard Thesis of S. P. Sherman, Ford's Debt to his Prede-
cessors and Contemporaries, and his Contribution to the
Decadence of the Drama, 1906, and Metrische Untersuch-
ungen zu "John Ford, by Hannemann, Halle, 1888. V.
Gehler, Das Verhdliniss von Fords Perkin Warbeck zu
Bacons Henry VII, Halle Diss. 1895, has already been
noted. A parallel between "Tis Pity and Parthenius of
Nicaea is suggested by W. Bang in Engl. Stud, xxxvi, 1906.
The Broken Heart has been separately edited by C. Scol-
lard, 1895, and recently by O. Smeaton, for the Temple
Dramatists, 1906. Apparently none of Ford's other plays
has received a like attention, save Perkin Warbeck, which,
as noted above, was edited by J. P. Pickburn and J.
LeG. Brereton, 1896.

The bibliography of Richard Brome has been noted
in section xviii above. The source of Queen and Concubine
is discussed by E. Koeppel, in the Appendix to his "Quel-
len Studien," Quellen und Forschungen, Ixxxii, 1897. Ar-
thur Wilson has received attention disproportionate to his
merit: The Inconstant Lady was edited by P. Bliss, 1814;
The Swizzer, by A. Feuillerat, 1904. Both contain full
discussions of Wilson and his work. The Works of Sir

536 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

William Davenant were collected in a pretentious folio,
1673; the only modern ed. is that of J. Maidment and W.
H. Logan, 5 vols., 1872. An essay on Davenant by K. Elze
will be found in Jahrbuch, iv, 1869; the notice in D.N. B.
xiv,i888,is by the late J. Knight. A paper on "The Source
of Albovine " is contributed by A. Campbell to the Journal
of Germanic Philology, iv, 1902. An account of Sir Wil-
liam Lower, by W. T. Seccombe, will be found in D. N. B.
xxxiv, 1893. Lower's plays have not been reprinted; nor
have the other specimens of recrudescent romance. The
Poems and Plays of Sir John Suckling were first collected
in his Fragmenta A urea, 1646, and have been often re-
printed; a later ed. is that of W. C. Hazlitt, 2 vols., 1874,
newed. 1892. The notice of Suckling in D.N. B. Iv, 1898,
is by T. Seccombe. There is also a Diss. by H. Schwartz
on Suckling, 1 88 1.

The more general works on Spanish influences named
in the last section of this Essay need not be repeated here.
Older French works particularly valuable here are S. M.
Giradin, Cours de Litter ature Dramatique, 1855; V. Cousin,
La Societe Francaise au xviti* Siecle, 1873. H. Korting,
Geschichte des franzbsischen Romans, 1891, is helpful in
tracing incidents.

The point of departure for the Heroic Play is Dryden's
Of Heroic Plays. Scott-Saintsbury ed. of Dryden, 1882-
93, vol. iv. The concern of this book is merely with the
forerunners of the heroic play, on which, besides such
treatment as the subject receives in the larger histories of
literature and the drama (of which enough has been said),
the following, presenting different phases of the matter,
may be consulted: W. A. Neilson, "The Origins and
Sources of the Court of Love," Harvard Studies, vi, 1899;
J. B. Fletcher, "Precieuses at the Court of Charles I," an
admirable study, "Journal of Comparative Literature, i,
1903; L. N. Chase, The English Heroic Play, a somewhat
unsatisfactory work; J. S. Harrison, Platonism in English
Poetry of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, both

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 537

Columbia Theses, 1903; the excellent paper, "The Rise of
the Heroic Play," by C. G. Child, Mod. Lang. Notes, xix,
1904; and J. W. Tupper, "The Relation of the Heroic
Play to the Romances of Beaumont and Fletcher," in the
same, xx, 1905.

Lodowick Carlell, long neglected, has been recently con-
sidered in an excellent Thesis (Chicago), 1905, by C. H.
Gray, prefixed to a reprint of The Deserving Favorite;
CarlelPs other plays remain unedited. Most of them are
described by Genest, vol. x. The Comedies and Tragedies
of Thomas Killigrew were collected in a sumptuous folio,
1664. Since then, The Parson's Wedding alone appears
to have been reprinted, in Dodsley, xiv, and little ap-
praisement has been made of Killigrew's contributions to
the "romance." The notices of ^Carlell and Killigrew in
D. N. B. are by J. Knight. Ralph Freeman's Imperiale,
edited by C. C. Gumm, with an Introduction setting forth
its relations to later Senecan drama, is among the un-
published Theses of the University of Pennsylvania, 1907.
Nabbes' Unfortunate Mother appears with his other plays
in A. H. Bullen's ed. Old English Plays, n. s. 2 vols., 1887.
The Marriage Night, The Rebellion, Andromana, The
Queen of Aragon, and The Lost Lady, all are contained in
the last four vols. of Dodsley's Old Plays; Quarles' Virgin
Widow, in Grosart's ed. of Francis Quarles, Chertsey
Worthies' Library, 1880, vol. iii; The Queen or The Excel-
lency of her Sex has recently been edited by W. Bang in
Matenalien zur Kunde, xiii, 1903, and ascribed to Ford.

As the last chapter of this book on The Drama in Retro-
spect has to do with summaries, no further bibliography
is necessary. The few authorities therein cited have
already found their place in the previous pages.

Tides of extant plays are printed in Roman; non-extant plays in Italics. The first
date following a title is that of probable composition or acting, and is usually only
approximate; the second date is that of earliest publication. Where but one date
follows a title, the year of acting and publication coincide. Where no name of author
is given, authorship is unascertained. Plays reprinted only in collections or in
separate modern editions are so noted; for modern editions of other plays, see the
editions of their respective authors in the Bibliographical Essay.

S. R. stands for the Register of the Stationers' Company; Revels, for Extracts
from the Accounts of the Revels at Court ; H. for Henslowe^s Diary, the recent edition
by W. W. Greg, 1904. Short titles, such as^ Collier, Fleay, or Hazlitt, will be found
explained at the beginning of the Bibliographical Essay. Other abbreviations, such
as Com. for comedy, Lie. for licensed, Tr. for translation, or T. C. for tragicomedy,
should be clear without further comment.

Abraham and Lot, Bible Play. 1594. H. 16.

Abraham's Sacrifice, The Tragedy of, Tr. Beza. Golding, A.

1575, 1577. Ed. M. W. Wallace, 1907.
Absalon. Watson, J. Described by Ascham, 1563. See

Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 229.
Absolom. 1602. H. 182.
Abuses, Sat'l. Com. 1606. One with Sir Thomas More.

Fleay, ii, 312.
Action and Diana, Com. 1640, n. d. Hazlitt, 2; Greg, ii,

xlvii.

Adelphe, Lat. Tr. Terence. 1613. MS. Trinity Coll. Cam-
bridge, 1662. Retros. Rev. xii.
Adelphi, Tr. Bernard, R. Terence in English, 1598. Retros.

Rev. xii.
Adrasta, or the Woman's Spleen and Love's Conquest, T. C.

Jones, J. 1635.
Adrasta Parentans sive Vindicta, Lat. Tr. Mease, P. 1618-

27. Brit. Mus. MS. Addit. 10417. Hazlitt, 3.
Adsons Masque. N. d. (i7th century.) Mentioned in a

A LIST OF PLAYS 539

Book of Tunes, Brit. Mus. MS. Addit. 10444. See Halli-
well, 4.

ALmilia, Lat. Com. Cecil, E. Cambridge, 1615. Miscel-
laneous State Papers, i, 394.

JEneas and Queen Dido, The History of. Acted at Chester,
1563. Chambers, ii, 356.

ALsop's Crow, Court Play. 1561. Mentioned in G. Bald-
win's Beware the Cat, 1561. See Collier, i, 152.

Agamemnon, Tr. Studley, J. 1566. Seneca his Ten Tra-
gedies, 1581. Repr. Spenser Soc. 1887.

Agamemnon, Trag. Dekker, Chettle. 1599. H. 109.

Agamemnon and Ulysses. 1584. Revels, 1 88.

Aglaura, Trag. and T. C. Suckling, J. 1637, 1638. Col-
lected ed. W. C. Hazlitt, 1892.

Agrippina. See Julia Agrippina.

Ajax and Ulysses. 1572. Revels, 13.

Ajax Flagellifer, Lat. Tr. Sophocles. Cambridge, 1564.
Nichols, Elizabeth, i, 179.

Alaham, Senecan Trag. Greville, F. C. 1600. Folio, 1633.
Works, ed. Grosart, 1870.

Alarum for London. See A Larum for London.

Alba, sive Annus Recurrens (also called Vertumnus), Past.
Oxford, 1605. Nichols, James, i, 547.

((Albe[t]reGalles" Heywood, Smith. 1602. H. 180. Fleay,
i, 290, queries Nobody and Somebody.

Albertus Wallenstein. See Wallenstein.

Albion Knight, Moral. Lie. 1566. Fragment printed, Sh.
Soc. Pub. i, 1844.

Albion's Triumph, Masque. Townsend, A. 1632. See
Brotanek, 362.

Albovine, King of Lombards, Trag. Davenant, W. 1626,
1629.

Albumazar, Com. Tomkins, J. 1614, 1615. Dodsley, xi.
See Greg, ii, p. xlvii.

Alchemist, The, Com. Jonson, B. 1610,1612. Belles Lettres
Series, 1903.

Alcmceon. 1573. Revels, 51.

540 A LIST OF PLAYS

Alexander and Lodowick, "Romance." Slater, M. 1597.

H. 50. Cf. A. H. Smyth, Sh.'s Pericles, p. 57.
Alexander, Campaspe, and Diogenes. See Campaspe.
Alexander VI, The Tragedy of Pope. See The Devil's

Charter.
Alexandraean Tragedy, The. Alexander, W. 1604, 1605.

Works, ed. 1872.
Alexias or the Chaste Gallant, Trag. Massinger, P. Lie.

1639. Warburton.
Alexius Imperator sive Andronicus Comnenus, Lat. Trag.

Before 1642? Brit. Mus. MS. Sloane, 1767. Seejahr-

buch, xxxiv, 256.
Alfredus. See Aluredus.
Alice Pierce, Hist. ? 1597. H. 70.
All Fools, Com. Chapman, G. 1599, 1605.
All for Money, Moral Sat. Lupton, T. 1577, 1578. Ed.

Vogel, Jahrbuch, xl, 1904.
All is not Gold thatGlisters, Com. ? Chettle, Rowley, S. 1601.

H. 135-

All is True. See Henry VIII.
All's Lost by Lust, Trag. Rowley, W. 1619, 1633. Ed.

C. W. Stork, 1907.

All's One, or One of the Four Plays in One called A York-
shire Tragedy. See A Yorkshire Tragedy.
All's Well that Ends Well, Com. Shakespeare, W. 1598-

1602. Folio, 1623.
Almanac, The. 1612. Revels, 211.
Alphonsus, Emperor of Germany. "Peele, G." (Kirkman,

1661); "Chapman, G. ?" (Langbaine, 1691). 1590? 1654.

Ed. Elze, 1867.

Alphonsus, King of Aragon. Greene, R. 1589, 1599.
Althorpe, Entertainment of the Queen and Prince at.

Jonson, B. 1603, 1604.

Alucius, The History of. 1579. Revels, 154.
Aluredus sive Alfredus Tragicocommoedia. Drury, W.

1620. Dramatica Poemata, 1628.
Amazons, Masque of. 1579. Revels, 125.

A LIST OF PLAYS 541

Amazonians' Masque, The. 1618. Brit. Mus. MS. Addit.
10444. Nichols, James, iii, 453.

Ambitious Politic, The. See The Lovesick Court.

Amends for Ladies, Com. Field, N. 1611, 1618. Nero and
Other Plays, Mermaid ed. 1888.

[Aminta], Tr. Tasso. Fraunce, A. The Countess of Pem-
broke's Ivychurch, 1591.

Aminta, Tr. Tasso. Reynolds, H. 1628. See Greg, Pas-
toral, 238.

Amoribus Perinthi et Tyanthes, Com. Burton, W. 1596.
Athen. Oxon. viii, 155.

Amorous War, The, Com. Mayne, J. 1639, 1648.

Amphrissa, or the Forsaken Shepherdess, Past. Dialog.
Heywood, T. Perhaps 1597. Pleasant Dialogues, 1637.

Amyntas, or the Impossible Dowry, Past. Randolph, T.
Before 1635. Poems . . . and Amyntas, 1638.

Amyntas, The Lamentations of, for the Death of Phillis,
Tr. Tasso. Fraunce, A. 1587. The Countess of Pem-
broke's Ivychurch, 1591.

Andria, Tr. Terence. Terens in Englysh, n. d.

Andria, Tr. Bernard, R. Terence in English, 1598.

Andria, Tr. Terence. Newman, T. The Two First Come-
dies of Terence, 1627.

Andria, the first Comedy of Terence in English, Tr. Kyf-
fin, M. 1588.

Andromana, the Merchant's Wife, Trag. S., J. 1660.
Dodsley, xiv.

Andronicus Comnenus. See Alexius Imperator.

Angel King, The. Lie. Oct. 1624. Herbert's List. Collier,
i, 448.

Antic Play and a Comedy, An. 1585. Revels, 189.

Antigone, Lat. Tr. Sophocles. Watson, T. 1581.

Antigone, The Tragedy of, the Theban Princess. May, T.
1630, 1631.

Antipo, Trag. Verney, F. 1622. MS. 4°, Lee Warly Col-
lection, near Canterbury. Hazlitt, 14.

Antipodes, The, Com. Brome, R.- 1638, 1640.

542 A LIST OF PLAYS

Antiquary, The, Com. Marmion, S. 1636, 1641. Dodsley,
xiii.

• I, Antonio and Mellida, T. C. Marston, J. 1599,1602.
^ 2, Antonio and Mellida. See Antonio's Revenge.

Antonio and Pallia. .See Pallia and Antony.

Antonio and Pallia, Com. Massinger, P. S. R. June, 1660.

Warburton.
"Antonio of Ragusa," Hist.? Bodleian MS. Rawl. Poet.

93. Hazlitt, 15.

• Antonio's Revenge, Trag. Marston, J. 1599, 1602.
Antonius, Tr. Trag. Gamier. Sidney, M., Countess of

Pembroke. 1590, 1592. Ed. A. Luce, Litter ar-historische

Forschungen, iii, 1897.

Antonius Bassianus Caracalla. See Caracalla.
Antony and Cleopatra, Trag. Greville, F., Lord Brooke.

Destroyed, 1601. The author's Life of Sidney, Grosart,

Greville, iv, 1^5.

• Antony and Cleopatra, Trag. Shakespeare, W. 1607-08.

Folio, 1623.

Antony and Pallia. 1595. H. 24.

Anything for a Quiet Life, Com. Middleton, T. 1619-23,
1662.

Aphrodisial or Sea Feast, qy. Piscatory ? Percy, W. 1602.
Percy MS. No. I. Duke of Devonshire's Library.

Apollo and Daphne, Dialogue, Tr. Ovid. Heywood, T.
Pleasant Dialogues, 1637.

Apollo and the Nine Muses, Masque. 1572. Revels, 19.

Apollo Shroving, Sat'l. Com. Hawkins, W. Hadleigh, Suf-
folk, 1626, n. d.

Appius and Virginia, Hist. Moral. B[ower], R. C. 1563,
1575. Dodsley, iv.

Appius and Virginia, Trag. Webster, J. Before 1624, 1654.

Apprentice's Prize, The, Com. ? Heywood, Brome. Before
1642. S. R. 1654.

Arabia Sitiens, or a Dream of a Dry Year, Sat'l. Com. ?
Percy, W. 1601. Percy MS. No. 2. Duke of Devon-
shire's Library.

A LIST OF PLAYS 543

Ara Fortune, device of The Christmas Prince, 1607.
Arcades, "Masque." Milton, J. 1633. Poems both English

and Latin, 1645.

Arcadia, A Pastoral called the. Shirley, J. 1632, 1640.
Arcadia Reformed. See The Queen's Arcadia. Cf. Greg,

Pastoral, 2$2 n.
Arcadian Lovers, The, or the Metamorphosis of Princes,

Past. Moore, T. ? Before 1642 ? Bodleian MS. Rawl.

Poet. 3. Hazlitt, 17.

Arcadian Virgin, The. Chettle, Haughton. 1599. H. 116.
Arden of Feversham, Dom. Trag. 1586-92, 1592. Ed.

Bayne, Temple Dramatists, 1897.
Argalus and Parthenia, T. C. Glapthorne, H. 1638, 1639.

Bullen, Old English Plays, 1882, ii.
Ariodante and Genevora. 1582. Revels, 177.
Ariosto, Com. Gascoigne, G. Oxford, 1566. Probably

Supposes. See M. L. Lee, Narcissus, xv.
Aristippus, or the Jovial Philosopher, Monologue. Ran-
dolph, T. 1629, 1630. Works, ed. Hazlitt, 1875.
Arraignment, The. See Poetaster.
Arraignment of London, The, Sat'l. Com. ? Daborne, Tour-

neur. 1613. Alleyn Papers, 58.
Arraignment of Love, The. "A probable third title" for

Glapthorne's Lady Mother or the Noble Trial. Fleay, i,

244.

Arraignment of Paris, The, Court. Peele, G. 1581, 1584.
Arthur. See The Misfortunes of Arthur.
Arthur, King of England. Hathway, R. 1598. H. 86.
Arthur's Show. Cf. 2 Henry IV, in, ii, 97. Hathway 's Life

of King Arthur, 1598.

i, 2, Arviragus and Philicia, T. C. Carlell, L. 1636, 1639.
Ashby, Masque of the Countess of Darby at. Marston, J.

1607. Grosart, Occasional Issues, xi, 1879.
As Plain as Can Be, Com. ? 1567-68. Mentioned, Brit.

Mus. MS. Harl. 146. Collier, i, 194.
A ston's Masque, Hugh. 1581 ? MS. Ch. Ch. Oxford; only

music extant. See Davey, History of Music, 135.

544 A LIST OF PLAYS

Astraea, Dialogue between Two Shepherds in Praise of, the

Countess of Pembroke. 1601. See Nichols, Eliz. iii, 529.
Astraea, or True Love's Mirror, Past. Willan, L. Before

1642? 1651.
' As You Like It, Com. Shakespeare, W. 1599-1600. Folio,

1623.
Atalanta, Lat. Past. Parsons, P. 1611-1615. Brit. Mus.

MS. Harl. 6924. See Greg, Pastoral, 235 n.
Atheist's Tragedy, The. Tourneur, C. 1603,1611.
Augurs, The Masque of, Antimasque. Jonson, B. 1622,

n. d.

Bad May Amend, The. See Hannibal and Hermes.
Batting of the Jealous Knight, The. See The Fair Foul One.
Ball, The, Com. Chapman, Shirley. 1632, 1639.
Band, Cuff, and Ruff, Sat'l. Dialog. 1615. Halliwell-

Phillipps, Contributions to Early English Literature, 1849.
Barkham, An Invention for Lord Mayor, Civic Pageant.

Middleton, T. See Fleay, ii, 371.
Barnavelt, The Tragedy of Sir John van Olden. Fletcher,

Massinger. 1620, 1883 in Bullen's Old English Plays, ii.
Bartholomew Fair, Com. Jonson, B. 1614. Folio II, 1630-

42.
Bashful Lover, The, T. C. Massinger, P. Lie. 1635. Three

New Plays, 1655.
Batemans Masque, (i/th century.) Brit. Mus. MS. Addit.

10444. See Ad son's Masque.
Battle of Affliction, Trag. Perhaps Battle of Affections. Cf.

Pathomachia. Reg. 1656. Greg, ii, p. Iii.
Battle of Agincourt, The. See Henry V, The Famous Vic-
tories of.

Battle of Alcazar, The. Peele, G. 1591, 1594-
Battle of Hex ham, The, Hist.? Barnes, B. 1606? MS. sold

in 1807 among Isaac Reed's books; since untraced.
Battle of the Vices against the Virtues, Moral. Temp.

Charles I. Thorpe, Cat. 1835. Fleay, ii, 337.
Baxter's [Barkstead's] Tragedy. See The Insatiate Countess.

A LIST OF PLAYS 545

Bays. Mentioned 1656. Greg, ii, p. Hi.

Bear a Brain. See Better Late than Never.

Bearing Down the Inn. See The Cuckqueans* Errants.

Beauties, The. See The Bird in a Cage.

Beauty, The Masque of. Jonson, B. 1608. The Characters

of Two Royal Masques, n. d.

Beauty and Houswifry, Comedy of. 1582. Revels, 176.
Beauty in a Trance, Com. Ford, J. Before 1640. S. R. Sept.

1653. Warburton.

Beech's Tragedy. Haughton, Day. 1600. H. 117. Per-
haps Two Lamentable Tragedies.
Beggar's Bush, Rom. Com. Beaumont and Fletcher [and

Massinger]. 1622. Folio, 1647.
Believe as You List, Hist. Trag. Massinger, P. 1630.

Percy Society, 1849, e^- C. Croker.
Bellendon, or Belenden [Belin Dun]. 1594. H. 17.
Bellman of London, The," a play." Daborne, R. 1613. See

Alleyn Papers. 66.
Bellman of Pans, The, a French Tragedy. Dekker, Day.

Lie. July, 1623.
Bellum Grammaticale sive Nominum Verborumque Dis-

cordia Civilis, College Play, Tr. Guarna. 1581 or before,

1635. See Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 271.
Bendict and Betteris, probably Much Ado About Nothing,

but see H. H. Furness, Variorum of the latter, p. xxi.
Bendo, or Byndo, and Richardo, Com. 1591. H. 13. See

A. Dessoff, Studien fur vergleich. Lift. i.
Benefice, The, Sat'l. Com. Wilde, G. Cambridge, 1635-38,

1689. Retros. Rev. xii, 30.
Benjamin's Plot, Tragedy of. 1598. H. 98.
Bernardo and Fiametta, Rom. 1595. H. 25.
Berowne, or Burbon. 1602. H. 182.

Best Words wear the Garland. See Two Merry Milkmaids.
Bestrafte Brudermord, Der, oder Prinz Hamlet airs Danne-

mark. Kyd, Shakespeare, or anon. ? Acted in Germany,

c. 1603, pr. Reichard, 1778. Tr. Cohn, Sh. in Germany,

236.

546 A LIST OF PLAYS

Better Late than Never. Dekker, T. 1599. H. no.
Bilboes the Best Blade. See Hard Shift for Husbands.
Bird in a Cage, The, Rom. Com. Shirley, J. 1633.
Birth of Hercules, The, Tr. Plautus Amphitruo. 1610. Ed.

M. W. Wallace, 1903.
Birth of Merlin, The, or the Child hath found his Father.

Rowley W. 1597-1607, 1662.
Bisham, Pastoral Entertainment to the Queen at. 1592.

Nichols, Elizabeth, iii, 130.

1, Black Batman of the North, Bourgeois Drama ? Chettle,
Wilson, Drayton, Dekker. 1598. H. 86.

2, Black Batman of the North, Murder Play? Chettle,
Wilson. 1598. H. 89. Perhaps the same subject as The
Vow Breaker.

1, Black Dog of Newgate, Bourgeois Drama? Hathway,
Day, Smith. 1602. H. 185.

2, Black Dog of Newgate. Hathway, Day, Smith. 1603.
H. 188.

Black Joan. Henslowe\s Inventory. 1598. Collier's Hens-
lowe, 276.

Black Lady, The. Lie. 1623. Fleay, ii, 325.

Black Wedding, The, Trag. ? S. R. 1654.

Blackfriar's Masque. See Entertainment at the Earl of New-
castle's. Jonson.

Blackness, The Masque of. Jonson, B. 1605. The Charac-
ters of Two Royal Masques, n. d.

Blacksmith's Daughter, The, Com. of Travel. 1579. See
Gosson, School of Abuse, Sh. Soc. p. 30.

Blind Beggar of Alexandria, The. Chapman, G. 1596,1598.

1, Blind Beggar of Bednal Green, The, Com. Day, Chettle.

1600, 1659. Ed. W. Bang, Materialien zur Kunde, i, 1902.

2, Blind Beggar of Bednal Green, Com. Haughton, Day.

1601. H. 134.

3, Blind Beggar of Bednal Green, Com. Haughton, Day.
1601. H. 137.

Blind eats many a Fly, The, Com. Heywood, T. 1602.
H. 185.

A LIST OF PLAYS 547

Bloody Banquet, The, Trag. "T. D." 1620. Greg, i. 136.
Bloody Brother, The, or Rollo, Duke of Normandy, Pseudo-

Hist. Trag. (Beaumont and) Fletcher. 1616-24, l^39-
Blurt, Master Constable, or the Spaniard's Night-walk. Mid-

dleton, T. 1 60 1, 1602.
Boast [i. e. Boss] of Billingsgate, Dom. Com. ? Day, Hath-

way. 1603. H. 173.
Bold Beachams, The, Hist. ? Heywood, T. 1600. Alluded

to in The Knight of the Burning Pestle, Prologue and else-
where.

Bondman, The, T. C. Massinger, P. 1623, 1624.
Bonduca, The Tragedy of. (Beaumont and) Fletcher [and

Field?]. 1616. Folio, 1647.
Bondwoman, The. . S. R. 1653.
Bonos Nochios, Intl. S. R. 1609.
Boys, Masque of. 1577. Fleay, ii, 341.
Brandymer. 1591. H. 13. Perhaps Brandimart and one

with Greene's Orlando Furioso. Hazlitt, 30.
Branhowlte (Brunhild), Hist. Trag. ? 1597. H. 82. Cf.

Thierry and Theodoret.
Brazen Age, The. Heywood, T. 1595, 1613.
Brennoralt, or the Discontented Colonel, T. C. Suckling,

Sir J. 1639, n. d.
Bretbie, A Masque presented at. Cockayne, A. 1639. A

Chain of Golden Poems, 1658.
Bride, The, Com. Nabbes, T. 1638, 1640. Bullen, Old

Plays, 1887.
Bristol, The Queen's Entertainment at. 1574. Nichols,

Elizabeth, i, 407.

Bristol Merchant, The. Ford, Dekker. Lie. 1624.
Bristol Tragedy, The, Murder Play. Day, J., Rowley, S.

1602. H. 165.

Britannia Triumphans, Masque. Davenant, W. 1638.
Britannia's Honor. Dekker, T. 1628.
Broken Heart, The, Trag. Ford, J. 1629, 1633.
Brothers, The, Com. Shirley, J. Lie. 1626. Six New

Plays, 1653.

548 A LIST OF PLAYS

Brougham Castle, Entertainment at. 1618. Airs alone ex-
tant. S. Smith, Musica Antiqua, 150. Nichols, James,
iii, 392.

Brox[burn]bury Masque, The. (ijth century.) Brit. Mus.
MS. Add it. 10444. See Ad son's Masque.

Brute, The Conquest of, Chron. Day, Chettle. 1598. H. 93.

Brute Greens hield, Chron. 1599. H. 103.

Buck is a Thief, The, Com. Lie. 1623. Queried by Fleay, ii,
328, as Wit at Several Weapons.

Buckingham, Chron. 1593. H. 16.

Bugbears, The, Com., Tr. Grazzini. 1561. Printed, Arc h iv,
xcviii-c.

Bull Masque, The. (i;th century.) Brit. Mus. MS. Addit.
10444. See Ad son's Masque.

Burbon, Hist. ? 1597. H. 54.

Burone,orBurbon? Hist.? 1602. H. 181. Qy. Chapman's
Charles, Duke of Byron ?

1, Bussy D'Ambois, Hist. Trag. Chapman, G. 1595-1600,
1607.

2, Bussy D'Ambois. See The Revenge of Bussy D'Ambois.
Byron, Masque of. Brit. Mus. MS. Egerton, 1994. Cf.

Fleay, i, 64.

1, 2, Byron, Charles, Duke of, Hist. Trag. Chapman, G.
Conspiracy and Tragedy of Charles, Duke of Byron.

1608.

Byrsa Basilica seu Regale Excambium, Lat. Com. Rickets,
J. 1570. Bodleian MS. Tanner, 207. Described, Jahr-
buch, xxxiv.

2, Ctzsar. 1595. H. 24. No first part mentioned.
Ceesar and Pompey. 1594. H. 20.

Caesar and Pompey. Chapman, G. 1631. See The Wars of

Pompey and Caesar.
Ccesar and Pompey, The History of. Mentioned in A Second

Blast, 1580. Cf. Revels, 167.
Caesar and Pompey, The Tragedy of, or Caesar's Revenge.

1594, 1607. See Craik's English of Shakespeare, 49.

A LIST OF PLAYS 549

Casar's Fall. "Munday, Drayton, Webster, and the rest."

1602. H. 1 66.

Caesar's Revenge. See Caesar and Pompey, The Tra-
gedy of.

Calisto and Meliboea. See The Spanish Bawd.
Calistus. Mentioned in Second and Third Retreat, 1580.

Qy. Calisto and Meliboea.
'Cambises, A Lamentable Tragedy of. Preston, T. Reg.

1569-70, n. d. [1570]. Dodsley, iv.
Campaspe, Court Com. Lyly, J. 1580, 1584.
Campbell, or the Ironmongers' Fair Field, Civic Pageant.

Munday, A. 1618, n. d.
Cancer, Lat. Com. Cambridge, pr. 1648.
Canterbury his Change of Diet, A New Play called, Sat'l.

Dialog. Pr. 1641.

Canute, or Hardi Canute. See Hardiknuie.
Captain, The, Com. (Beaumont and) Fletcher. 1613.

Folio, 1647.

Captain Mario, Com. Gosson, S. 1579. See Fleay, i, 248.
Captain Thomas Stukeley. See Stukeley.
Captain Underwit. See The Country Captain.
Captives, The, or the Lost Recovered, T. C. Heywood, T.

1624. Bullen's Old Plays, iv, 1883.
Capture of Stuhlweissenburg, A Comedy on the. 1602. See

"The Diary of the Duke of Stettin." Trans. Royal Hist.

Soc. vi, 1892.
Caracalla, Antonius Bassianus, Senecan Lat. Trag. (i7th

century.) Bodleian MS. Rawl. C. 590. Described in Jahr-

buch, xxxiv.

Caradoc the Great. See The Valiant Welshman.
Cardenio, The History of, T. C. ? Mentioned as acted June,

1613, Harrington's Accounts; S. R. as "by Shakespeare

and Fletcher," Sept. 1653. See Introduction, Shelton's

Don Quixote, Tudor Tr. i, p. xlvii.
Cardinal, The, Trag. Shirley, J. Lie. Nov. 1641. Six New

Plays, 1653.
Cardinal Wolsey. See Wolsey.

5so A LIST OF PLAYS

Cards, The Play of. Mentioned in Harington's Apology for

Poetry, 1591.

Careless Shepherdess, The, T. C. Goffe, T. 1623-29, 1656.
Cariclea. See Theagenes and Chariclea.
Cartwright, Murder Play. Haughton, W. 1602. H. 170.
Case is Altered, The, Com. Jonson, B. 1598, 1609.
Castara or Cruelty without Lust. S. R. 1654.
Catilina Triumphans, Com. (iyth century.) MS. in Trinity

College Library, Cambridge. Fleay, ii, 365.
Catiline, Trag. Wilson, R., the Elder. Mentioned by Lodge,

Defense of Stage Plays, 1579, ed. Hunterian Club, p. 43.

H. 94.

Catiline his Conspiracy, Trag. Jonson, B. 1611.
Catiline's Conspiracies, Trag. Gosson, S. Mentioned by

Gosson, School of Abuse, 1579.
Catiline's Conspiracy. Wilson, Chettle. 1598. H. 132,

*33-

Cawsome-House, Entertainment at. Campion, T. 1613.

Celestina. S. R. 1598. See The Spanish Bawd.
Cenocephals \Cenof alls\. See Cynocephah.
Censure of the Judges. See Mercurius Britannicus.
Certain Devices presented at Greenwich. See The Misfor-

tunes of Arthur.
Chabot, Admiral of France, The Tragedy of. Chapman,

Shirley. Revised 1635, 1639.
Challenge at Tilt, A., Barriers. Jonson, B. 1613. Folio,

1616.
Challenge for Beauty, A, T. C. Heywood, T. 1635,

1636.
Chance Medley, Com. Wilson, Munday, Dekker. 1598.

H.93-
Chances, The, Com. (Beaumont and) Fletcher. 1609-15.

Folio, 1647.
•Changeling, The, Trag. Middleton, Rowley, W. 1632,

Changes, or Love in a Maze, Com. Shirley, J. 1632.
Character of a Mountebank. See News out of the West.

A LIST OF PLAYS 551

Charlemagne, T. C. 1589 ? Printed as The Distracted Em-
peror, by Bullen, Old English Plays, 1884, iii.
[Charles], Prince, Presentation for, on his Birthday, 1638,

Entertainment. Nabbes, T. 1638. Bullen, Old Plays,

n. s. ii.

Chaste Lady, The. See A Toy to please Chaste Ladies.
Chaste Lover, The. See Alexias.
Chaste Maid in Cheapside, A, Com. Middleton,T. 1612-13,

1630.

Chester, Tragedy of. See Randall, Earl of Chester.
Chester's Triumph, Entertainment. Amerie, R. 1610.

See Nichols, James, ii, 291.

Chief Promises of God, The, Intl. Bale, J. 1538,1577.
Child hath lost (found) his Father. See The Birth of Merlin.
Chinon of England, Heroical Play. 1596. H. 27. Listed,

1656. Greg, ii, p. Ivi.
Chloridia, Rites of Chloris and her Nymphs. Jonson, B.

1631, n. d.
Christ Jesus Triumphant, Antichrist Play, Tr. Foxe. Day,

R. 1579. Herford, 138. See Greg, ii, p. cxxiii.
Christian Turned Turk, A, or the Tragical Lives of Two

Famous Pirates, Ward and Dansiker. Daborne, R. 1610,

1612.

Christianetta, Com. ? Brome, R. S. R. 1640.
Christmas comes but once a year, Com. Heywood, Dekker,

Webster, Chettle. 1602. H. 184.
Christmas his Masque, Antimasque. Jonson, B. 1616.

Folio II, 1632-40.
Christmas Prince, The. Series of dramatic performances at

Oxford, 1607. See Miscellanea Antiqua Anglorum, i,

1816.
Christ's Passion. 1624. Mentioned in Histriomastix, 1633,

p. 117 n.
Christ's Passion, a Tragedy, Tr. de Groot. Sandys, G.

1640. Works of Sandys, ed. Hooper, 1872, ii.
Christus Triumphans, Comoedia Apocalyptica. Foxe, J.

1550, 1551. See Herford, 138.

55z A LIST OF PLAYS

Chruso-thriambos, Civic Pageant. Munday, A. 1611.

Chrysanaleia, Civic Pageant. Munday, A. 1616.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius, that Famous Roman Orator, his

Tragedy. Listed, 1651. Greg, ii, p. Ivi.
i, 2, Cid, The, T. C., Tr. Corneille. Rutter, J. 1637 and

1640.

City Gallant, The. See Greene's Tu Quoque.
City Madam, The, Com. Massinger, P. 1619, 1658.
City Match, The, Com. Mayne, J. 1639. Dodsley, xiii.
City Nightcap, The, Com. Davenport, R. 1624, 1661.

Dodsley, xiii.

City Pageant to the King of Denmark. Marston, J. 1606.
City Shuffler, The, Com. 1633. Warburton. See Collier, ii, 54.
City Wit, The, or the Woman wears the Breeches. Brome,

R. . 1629. Five New Plays, 1653.
I, Civil Wars of France. Dekker, T. 1598. H. 96.
2,3, Civil Wars of France. Drayton, Dekker. 1598. H. 98,

99;
4, Civil Wars of France, First Introduction of the. Dekker,

T. 1599. H. 100.
Civitatis Amor, Civic Pageant. Middleton, T. 1616.

Nichols, James, iii, 208.
Claracilla, T. C. Killigrew, T. 1636. The Prisoners and

Claracilla, 1641.
Claudius Tiberius Nero, Rome's Greatest Tyrant, The

Tragedy of. 1607.
Cleander, The Tragedy of. Lie. 1634. Malone's Shakspeare,

iii, 230.

Cleodora. See The Queen of Aragon.
Cleopatra, The Tragedy of. Daniel, S. 1593. Delia and

Rosamund Augmented, 1594.
Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, The Tragedy of. May, T.

1626, 1639.

Clitophon. (i 7th century.) MS. Emmanuel College, Cam-
bridge. See Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 317.
Cloridon and Radiamanta. 1572. Revels, 13.
Clorys and Orgasto. 1592. H. 13.

A LIST OF PLAYS 553

Cloth Breeches and Velvet Hose, Sat'l. Com. ? S. R. 1600.

Fleay, ii, 310.
Club Law, Sat'l. Com. Cambridge. Ruggle, G. 1597.

See Retros. Rev. xii, 23.
'Clyomon and Sir Clamydes, Sir, Heroical "romance."

Preston, T. ? 1570-84, 1599.

Cobbler [of Queenheath], The, Com. 1597. H. 69, 82.
Cobbler's Prophecy, The, Com. Wilson, R. Before 1593,

1594. Repr. Jahrbuch, xxxiii, 1897.
Cockle de Moy. See The Dutch Courtesan.

Coelo and Olympo, Mythological Drama. Heywood, T.

1595. H. 22. Original title of The Golden Age. Fleay,
i, 283.

Ccelum Britannicum, Masque. Carew, T. 1633 [4], 1634.

Hazlitt, Carew.
Cola's Fury or Lyrenda's Misery, Hist. Trag. Birkhead,

H. 1645, 1646.
Coleoverton, A Masque Presented at. Jonson, B. ? (Bro-

tanek). 1618. Repr. Brotanek, 328.
College of Canonical Clerks, The. S. R. 1567.
Collier, The History of the. 1576. Revels, IO2.
Colonel, The. See The Siege. Davenant.
Colthorpe, The Device of a Pageant for Martin, Mayor.

Peele, G. S. R. 1588.
Columbus, Hist. Marston, J. 1602. See Halliwell, 53 ; Fleay,

ii, 381.
Combat of Love and Friendship, The, T. C. Mead, R.

Oxford, 1636, 1654. See Fleay, ii, 85.
Come See a Wonder, Com. Day, J. Lie. 1623. Probably

one with The Wonder of a Kingdom. See Fleay, Stage,

302.

Come to my Country House. See The Crafty Merchant.
Comedy of Errors, The. Shakespeare, W. 1589-91. Folio,

1623.
Common Conditions, Moral, of heroical type. 1570, n. d.

[1576], Repr. Brandl, Quellen und Forschungen, Ixxx,

1898. .

554 A LIST OF PLAYS

Complaint of the Satyrs. See Althorpe, Entertainment at.
[Comus.] Ludlow Castle, Masque at. Milton, J. 1634,

1637.
Concealed Fancies, The, Com. ? Lady Jane Cavendish and

Lady Elizabeth Brackley. Before 1642. Bodleian MS.

Rawl Poet. 1 6.
Conceited Duke, The. 1639. Mentioned in Beeston's List.

See Collier, ii, 92. Perhaps Shirley's The Duke. Fleay,

"> 337-
Conceited Pedlar, The, Monologue. Cambridge. Randolph,

T. 1629, 1630.

Conceits, The, Com. ? S. R. 1654.
Conference between a Gentleman Huisher and a Post,

Dialog. Davies, Sir J. 1591. Nichols, Elizabeth, iii, 76.
Conflict of Conscience, The, Moral. Woodes, N. 1560, 158 1 .

Dodsley, vi.
Connan, Prince of Cornwall, Chron. Drayton, Dekker.

1598. H. 97.

Conquest of Brute. See Brute, The Conquest of.
Conquest of Spain by John a Gaunt, The. Hathway, Ran-

kins. 1601. H. 135. Alleyn Papers, 25.
Conquest of the West Indies. Haughton, Day, Smith. 1601.

H. 135. Alleyn Papers, 23.
Conspiracy, The, or Palantus and Eudora, Trag. Killi-

grew, H. 1634, 1638.
Conspiracy and Tragedy of Charles, Duke of Byron, The.

See Byron.
Constant Maid, The, or Love will Find out the Way, Com.

Shirley, J. 1637-38, 1640.
Constantine, Hist. 1592. H. 13.
Contention between Liberality and Prodigality, The, Moral.

1565; revised 1601, 1602. Dodsley, viii.
I, 2, Contention betwixt the Two Famous Houses of York

and Lancaster, The First Part of the, Chron. 1590;

1594, 1595-

Contention for Honor and Riches, A, Moral Masque.
Shirley, J. 1631, 1633.

A LIST OF PLAYS 555

Contention of Ajax and Ulysses, The, Dialog. Shirley, J.

1640. With Honoria and Mammon, 1659.
Contract Broken, A, Justly Revenged. See The Noble

Soldier.

Converted Conjurer, The. See The Two Noble Ladies.
Converted Robber, The, Past. Wilde, G. Oxford, 1637.

Brit. Mus. MS. Addit. 14047. Described, Engl. Stud.

xxxv, 1905.
Condon and Phyllida, Past. Dialog. Breton, N. Part of

the Queen's Entertainment at Elvetham, 1591.
Coriolanus, The Tragedy of. Shakespeare, W. 1609.

Folio, 1623.
Cornelia, Trag., Tr. Gamier. Kyd, T. 1592, 1594. Ed.

H. Gassner, 1894.
Cornelianum Dolium, Lat. Com. Riley, T. Trinity,

Cambridge, 1638. See European Magazine, xxxvii, 344,

439-
Cornwall, Harry of, Chron. 1592. H. 13.

Corona Minervae, Masque. 1635.

Coronation, The, Com. "Fletcher." Shirley, J. Lie. 1635,
1640. See Shirley's list of his plays appended to The
Cardinal, Six New Plays, 1653.

Corporal, The, Com. Wilson, A. 1630. S. R. Sept. 1646.
See dramatis persona; printed by Feuillerat, The Swisser,
1904.

Cosmo, The Comedy of. 1593. H. 15.

Costly Whore, The, Pseudo-Hist. 1633. Bullen's Old Eng-
lish Plays, iv.

Country Captain, The, Com. Cavendish, W., Earl of New-
castle. 1639. Pr. with The Variety, 1649. Repr. as Cap-
tain Underwit, Bullen, Old English Plays, ii.

Country Girl, The, Com. "T. B." Before 1642, 1647. See
Retrds. Rev. xvi.

Country Tragedy in Vacuniam, A, or Cupid's Sacrifice.
Percy, W. 1602. Percy MS. No. 4. See Aphrodisial.

Countryman, The. S. R. 1653.

Courage of Love, The. See Love and Honor.

556

A LIST OF PLAYS

Courageous Turk, The, or Amurath I, Trag. Goffe, T.

Before 1627, 1632.
Coursing of the Hare, The, or The Madcap, Com. Heming,

W. 1633. See Collier, Memoirs of Actors, 72.
Court Beggar, The, Com. Brome, R. 1640. Five New

Plays, 1653.

Court of Comfort, The. 1578. Notes and Queries, IX, ii, 444.
Court Secret, The, T. C. Shirley, J. Before 1642. Six New

Plays, 1653.

Covent Garden, Com. Nabbes, T. 1632, 1638.
Cowdrey, Speeches and Entertainment of the Queen at.

1591.
Cox, John, of Collumpton, Murder Play. Haughton, Day.

1599. H. 59.
Coxcomb, The, Com. (Beaumont and) Fletcher. 1609-10.

Folio, 1647.

Crack me this Nut, Com. 1595. H. 24.
Cradle of Security, The, Moral. C. 1570. Described by R.

Willis, Mount Tabor, 1639. See Malone, iii, 28.
Craft upon Subtiltys Back, Intl. 1570. S. R. 1609.
Crafty Merchant, The, or the Soldiered Citizen, Com.

Bonen, W. Lie. 1623. See Fleay, i, 32.
Creation of Prince Henry, The, Entertainment. Daniel, S.

1610.

Crede Quod Habes et Habes. See The City Nightcap.
Cripple of Fenchurch, The. See The Fair Maid of the

Exchange.
Croesus, Trag. Alexander, W., Earl of Stirling. Monarchic

Tragedies, 1604.
Cromwell, Thomas, Lord, Chron. "W. S." 1592, 1602.

Repr. as Shakespeare's, Third Folio, 1664.
Cruel Brother, The, Trag. Davenant, W. 1627, 1630.
Cruel Debtor, The, Com. "Wager, W." Extant in frag-
ments. 1566, n. d. New Sh. Soc. i, 2. See Academy,

March, 1878.

Cruel War, The, Trag. Pr. 1647. Halliwell, 65.
Cruelty of a Stepmother, The. 1578. Revels, 125.

A LIST OF PLAYS 557

Cruelty without Lust. See Castara.

Cuckolds' Masque, The. "Temp. Car. I." Halliwell,

66.
Cuckqueans' and Cuckolds' Errants, The, or the Bearing

Down the Inn, Com. Percy, W. 1601. Roxburghe Club,

1824.

Cunning Lovers, The, Com. Brome, A. 1639, 1654.
Cupid, Triumph of, Masque. Howard, Sir. G. Before 1642 ?

Halliwell, 251.
Cupid and Psyche. Acted 1579. "Mentioned by Gosson,

School of Abuse." Fleay, ii, 291.
Cupid and Psyche. See Love's Mistress.
Cupid and Psyche. See The Golden Ass.
Cupids, Masque of. Middleton, T. 1614.
Cupid's Banishment, Masque. White, R. 1617. Pr. Nichols,

James, iii, 283.

Cupid's Mistress. See Love's Mistress.
Cupid's Revenge, Trag. Fletcher, J. 1608-13, l&l$.
Cupid's Sacrifice. See A Country Tragedy.
Cupid's Vagaries. See Hymen's Holiday.
Cupid's Whirligig, Com. Sharpham, E. 1606, 1607.
Cure for a Cuckold, A, Com. "Webster, Rowley, W." 1617.

Two New Plays, 1 66 1.
Custom of the Country, The, Com. (Beaumont and)

Fletcher, Massinger. 1619-22. Folio, 1647.
Cutlack, Trag. ? 1594. H. 17.
Cutter of Coleman Street, Com. Cowley, A. 1641. Pr. as

The Guardian, 1650. Grosart, Cowley, i.
Cutting Dick. 1602. H. 1 8 1.
Cutwell. 1576. Revels, 120.

•Cymbeline, "Romance." Shakespeare, W. 1607. Folio,
'• 1623.

Cynocephali. 1577. Revels, 102.
Cynocephali, The History of. 1577. Revels, 103.
Cynthia's Revels. Sat'l. Com. Jonson, B. 1600, 1601.
Cynthia's Revenge, or Maenander's Ecstasy, Trag. Stephens,

J. Not acted, 1613.

558 A LIST OF PLAYS

Cyprian Conqueror, The, or the Faithless Relict, T. C. ?

Temp. Charles I. Brit. Mus. MS. Sloane, 3709.
Cyrus. See The Wars of Cyrus.

Damoiselle, The, or the New Ordinary, Com. Brome, R.

1637-38. Five New Plays, 1653.
Damon and Pithias, Chettle, H. 1600. H. 1 1 8.
Damon and Pithias, Two the most faithfullest Friends,

Com. Edwards, R. 1564, 1571. Dodsley, iv.
Danish Tragedy, A. Chettle, H. 1602. H. 169. Perhaps

Hoffman.
Darius, King, Protestant Play. Revised 1563 or 1564,

1565. Brandl, Quellen und Forschungen, Ixxx, 1898.
Darius, The Tragedy of. Alexander, W., Earl of Stirling.

Not acted, 1603.
David and Absalom, Bible Play. Bale, J. Declared extant

in MS. by Fleay, ii, 293 and identified with the Two Sins

of David. S. R. 1562.
David and Bethsabe, Biblical Chron. Peele, G. 1589,

1599-
Dead Man's Fortune, The, Rom. Com. Plan extant. See

Malone, iii, 356.

Death of Dido, Masque. "R. C." 1621. Halliwell, 71.
Death, The Triumph of. See The Triumph of Death.
Defiance of Fortune, A. 1590. See Herford, 173.
Delight, A Comedy called. 1580. Revels, 167.
Delphrygus. Mentioned by Nash in Greene's Menaphon,

1589, and by Greene in A Groatsivorth of Wit, 1592.
Demetrius and Euanthe. See The Humorous Lieutenant.
Demetrius and Marsina (Fleay), or Marina (Bates), or

The Imperial Impostor and the Unhappy Heroine, Trag.

"One of Warburton's MSS. not destroyed," Fleay, ii, 337.

Apparently a mistake.
Deorum Judicium, Dialog. Heywood, T. Qy. one of Five

Plays in One, 1597. Pleasant Dialogues, 1637.
Deposing of Richard II, The. See Richard II. Shakespeare.
Descensus Astraeae, Pageant. Peele, G. 1591, n. d.

A LIST OF PLAYS 559

Deserving Favourite, The, T. C. Carlell, L. 1629. Repr.

Lodowick Carliell, C. H. Gray, 1905.
Destruction of Jerusalem, The, Trag. Legge, T. Acted,

Coventry, 1577. Listed, 1656. Greg, ii, p. Ixii.
Devices at the Tilt Yard. 1581. See Nichols, Elizabeth, ii,

Devil and his Dame, The. See Grim the Collier.

Devil is an Ass, The, Com. Jonson, B. 1616. Folio II,

1631-40.
Devil of Dowgate, The, or Usury Put to Use, Com. Lie.

Oct. 1623. Identified by Fleay with Wit at Several

Weapons and also with Buck is a Thief.
Devil's Charter, The, or the Tragedy of Pope Alexander VI.

Barnes, B. 1606, 1607. Ed. R. B. McKerrow, Materialien

zur Kunde, vi, 1904.

Devil's Law Case, The, Com. Webster, J. 1619, 1623.
Diana's Grove or the Faithful Genius. Before 1603. MS.

extant "in private hands." Fleay, ii, 337.
Diccon of Bedlam. See Gammer Gurton's Needle.
Dick of Devonshire, T. C. Variously attributed to Hey-

wood and to Shirley. 1625. Bullen, Old English Plays,

ii, 188.
Dido, Lat. Trag. Halliwell, E. Acted, Cambridge, 1564.

See Nichols, Elizabeth, i, 245.
Dido, Lat. Trag. Gager, W. Oxford, 1583, 1592. Repr.

Dyce's Marlowe, Appendix.
Dido and Mneas. 1598. H. 83.
Dido, Queen of Carthage, The Tragedy of. Marlowe,

Nash. 1591, 1594.
Diocletian. 1594. H. 20.
Discontented Colonel, The. (Brennoralt in later collected

editions.) See Brennoralt.

Discreet Lover, The. See The Fool would be Favorite.
Disguises, Com. ? 1595. H. 25.
Disobedient Child, The, Intl., Tr. Textor. Ingelend, T.

Before 1560, n. d. [1561-75]. Dodsley, ii.
Distracted Emperor, The. See Charlemagne.

560 A LIST OF PLAYS

Distracted State, The, Trag. Pseudo-Hist. Tatham, J. 1641,
1651.

Distressed Lovers, The. See Double Falsehood.

Distresses, The. See The Spanish Lovers.

Dives and Lazarus, Dialog. 1560. Mentioned in the play
of Sir Thomas More and in Greene's Groatsworth of
Wit.

Divorce, The. S. R. 1654.

Dixie, Woolstone, Pageant before. Peele, G. 1585.

Doctor Dodypoll. See The Wisdom of Doctor Dodypoll.

Doctor Faustus. See Faustus.

Don Horatio. See The Spanish Tragedy.

Don Quixote, The Comical History of, Com. Advertised in
1658.

Double Falsehood, or the Distressed Lovers, T. C. Shir-
ley, J. ? Before 1642. Pr. by Theobald as by "Shake-
speare," 1728. See Genest, iii, 203.

Double Marriage, The, Trag. (Beaumont and) Fletcher,
Massinger. 1620. Folio, 1647.

Double Masque, A. 1578. Revels, 135.

Doubtful Heir, The, T. C., Pseudo-Hist. Shirley, J. 1640.
Six New Plays, 1653.

2, Dough, Thomas. 1601. H. 145. No first part mentioned.

Duchess of Fernandina, Trag. Glapthorne, H. C. 1639.
Warburton.

Duchess of Malfi, The, Trag. Webster, J. 1617, 1623.
Ed. M. W. Sampson, 1906.

Duchess of Suffolk, The, Chron. Drue, T. 1624, 1631.

Duke, The, T. C. ? Shirley, J. Lie. 1631. Qy. The Humor-
ous Courtier.

Duke Humphrey, Trag. "By W. Shakespeare." S. R.
June, 1660. Warburton. Perhaps 2, Henry VI.

Duke of Guise, The, Hist. Shirley, H. Before 1627. Lie.

1653-

Duke of Milan, The, Trag. Massinger, P. 1620, 1623.
Duke of Milan, The, and the Marquis of Mantua. 1579.

Revels, 154.

" A LIST OF PLAYS 561

Duke's Mistress, The, T. C. Shirley, J. 1636, 1638.
Dumb Bawd, The, Com. ? Shirley, H. Before 1627. S. R.

1653-
Dumb Knight, The, Rom. Com. Markham, G., Machin,

L. 1607, 1608. Dodsley, x.
Duns Furens, Sat'l. Com. Nash,T. Before 1596. See Have

With You to Saffron Walden, p. 117.
Durance, Masque. " Temp. Car. I." Halliwell, 80.
Dutch Courtesan, The, Com. Marston, J. 1604, 1605.
Dutch Painter, The, and the French Branke. Lie. 1623-24.

Fleay, ii, 326, queries Doctor Dodypoll.

Earl Godwin. See Godwin.

Earl of Gloucester. See Gloucester.

Earl of Hereford. See Hereford.

Eastward Hoe, Com. Man. Chapman, Jonson, Marston.

1604, 1605. Ed. Belles Lettres Dramatists, 1905.
Ebrank,King. Acted, Chester, 1589. R. Morris, Chester in

the Plantagenet and Tudor Reigns, 1893, p. 322.
Edinburgh, Entertainment of King Charles into. 1633.
Edmund Ironside or War hath Made all Friends. Before

1642 ? Brit. Mus. MS. Egerton, 1994.
Edward I, The Famous Chronicle of King. Peele, G. 1590-

91* J593-
Edward II, The Troublesome Reign and Lamentable

Death of, Chron. Trag. Marlowe, C. 1592,1594.

Edward III, The Reign of King, Chron. Variously attri-
buted to Marlowe, Shakespeare, and Lodge. 1590-96,
1596.

I, 2, Edward IV, Chron. Heywood, T. 1594, 1600.

Edwardus Confessor, Sanctus, Lat. Hist. Before 1625.
Bibl. Heber. xi, 113; Halliwell, 219.

Egio, Intl. 1560. Halliwell, 82.

Eight Ladies, Masque of. June, 1600. See Nichols, Eliza-
beth, iii, 498.

Elder Brother, The, Com. (Beaumont and) Fletcher. Re-
vised 1626, 1637.

562 A LIST OF PLAYS

Elizabeth, Queen, and the French Ambassadors, The

Shews, etc., before. Goldwell, H. 1581, n. d.
Elizabeth, Queen, Troubles of. See If You Know Not Me.
Elvetham, Entertainment to the Queen at. In part by Breton,

N. 1591.
Emperor of the East, The, Hist. T. C. Massinger, P.

1631, 1632.
Enchiridion Christiados, Masque. Cayworth, J. 1636.

Brit. Mus. MS. Addit. 10311.
Endimion, the Man in the Moon, Court Com. Lyly, J.

1585, 1591.
England's Comfort and London's Joy, Entertainment.

Taylor, J. 1641.

England's Farewell, Entertainment. Roberts, H. 1606.
England's Joy, a Dumb Show. Vennar, R. Acted, 1602.

See Harletan Miscellany, ed. 1813, vol. x.
English Fugitives, The. Haughton, W. 1600. H. I2O.
English Moor, The, or the Mock Marriage, Com. Brome, R.

1636-37. Five New Plays, 1659.
English Traveller, The, Dom. Com. Heywood, T. 1632,

1633-
Englishmen for my Money, or a Woman will have her Will,

Com. Haughton, W. 1598, 1616. Dodsley, x.
Enough is as Good as a Feast. Listed, 1656, 1671. Greg,

ii, p. Ixvi.
Entertainment at the Earl of Newcastle's. Jonson, B. 1620.

Brit. Mus. MS. Addit. 10444. See Fleay, ii, 12,343.
Entertainment to King James, An. Dekker, Middleton.

See Ward, ii, 466.
Epicoene or the Silent Woman, Com. Man. Jonson, B.

1609, 1612 (Gifford). Folio, 1616.
Error, The History of. 1577. Revels, 102.
Errors, Comedy of. See The Comedy of Errors.
Essex Antic Masque. C. 1620. Halliwell, 88.
Ethiopians, The. 1578. Notes and Queries, IX, ii, 444.
Eunuch, The, Tr. Terence. Newman, T. The Two First

Comedies of Terence, 1627.

A LIST OF PLAYS 563

Eunuch, The. See The Fatal Contract.

Eunuchus, Tr. Bernard, R. Terence in English, 1598.

Euphormus siveCupidoAduItus.Lat. Wilde, G. St. John's,

Oxford, 1635. Brit. Mus. MS. Addit. 14047.
Eurialus and Lucretia. S. R. 1630 and 1683. Entered as by

"Shakespeare." Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, ii, 414.
Euribates Pseudomagus. Lat. Cruso, A. After 1610. Cam-

bridge, MS. Emmanuel Coll. 3. I. 17. See Jahrbuch,

xxxiv, 318.

Every Man in his Humor, Com. Jonson, B. 1598, 1601.
Every Man out of his Humor, Com. Jonson, B. 1599, 1600.
Every Woman in her Humor, Com. Before 1600, 1609.

Bullen's Old Plays, iv.
I, 2, Evoradanus, Prince of Denmark. S. R. 1605. Arber,

iii, 120.

Example, The, Com. Man. Shirley, J. 1634, 1637.
Exchange Ware at The Second Hand. See Band, Cuff, and

Ruff.

Exposure, The. Lie. 1598. Biog. Dram, ii, 209.
Ezechias, Bible Play. Udall, N. Cambridge, 1564. Nich-

ols, Elizabeth, i, 1 86.

Fabii, The. Mentioned by Gosson, Plays Confuted, 1582.

See Four Sons of Fabius.
Fair Anchoress of Pausilippo, The, Com. Fletcher, Mas-

singer. Lie. 1640. S. R. 1653.

1, Fair Constance of Rome. Munday, Drayton, Hathway,
Wilson, Dekker. 1600. H. 122. Alleyn Papers, 26.

2, Fair Constance of Rome. Hathway, R. 1600. H. 122.
Fair Em, the Miller's Daughter of Manchester, with the

Love of William the Conqueror. Before 1590, 1631.
Simpson, School of Shakspere, 1878, ii.
Fair Favourite, The, T. C. Davenant, Sir W. 1638. Folio,

Fair Foul One, The, Com. ? Smith, William. Lie. 1623.
Fair Maid of Bristow, The, Dom. Com. 1602, 1605. Ed.
A. H. Quinn, Publ. Univ. of Penna. 1902.

564 A LIST OF PLAYS

Fair Maid of Clifton. See The Vow Breaker.

Fair Maid of Italy. 1594. H. 1 6.

Fair Maid of the Exchange, The, Com. Heywood, T. ?

1602, 1607. Ed. B. Field, Sh. Soc. 1845.
Fair Maid of the Inn, The, Com. (Beaumont and) Fletcher,

Massinger. Lie. 1626. Folio, 1647.
I, 2, Fair Maid of the West, The, or a Girl Worth Gold,

Com. Travel. Heywood, T. Before 1603, 1631.
Fair Quarrel, A, Com. Man. Middleton, Rowley, W. 1616,

1617.

Fair Spanish Captive, The, T. C. Advertised, 1658.
Fair Star of Antwerp, The, Trag. Lie. 1624.
Fairy Knight, The. Dekker, Ford. Lie. 1624.
Fairy Masque, The. C. 1620. Halliwell, 91.
Fairy Pastoral, The, or Forest of Elves, Past. Percy, W.

1601. Pr. by J. Haslewood, 1824.
Fairy Queen, The, Com. ? Before 1642 ? Warburton.
Faithful Friends, The, T. C. "By Beaumont and Fletcher."

S. R. June, 1660. Daborne, R. ? 1614. Ed. Weber, 1812.
Faithful Shepherd, The. See Pastor Fido, II.
Faithful Shepherdess, The, Past. (Beaumont and) Fletcher.

1608, 1629.
Fallacy or the Troubles of the Great Hermenia, Allegorical.

Zouch, R. 1631. Brit. Mus. MS. Harl. 6869.
False One, The, Roman Hist. (Beaumont and) Fletcher,

Massinger. 1620. Folio, 1647.

Falstaff, Sir John. See The Merry Wives of Windsor.
Fame and Honor, The Triumph of, Civic Pageant. Tay-
lor, J. 1634.
Family of Love, The, Com. Man. Middleton, T. 1607,

1608.

Famous Victories of Henry V, The. See Henry V. Tarlton.
Famous Wars of Henry I and the Prince of Wales. See

Henry I.

Fancies Chaste and Noble, The, Com. Ford, J. 1635, 1638.
Fatal Brothers, The, Trag. Davenport, R. 1625-36. S. R.

June, 1660.

A LIST OF PLAYS 565

Fatal Contract, The, a French Tragedy. Heming, W.

1637. !653-
Fatal Dowry, The, Trag. Massinger, Field. 1619, 1632.

Fatal Friendship, The, Trag. Burroughs. S. R. 1646.
Fatal Love, The, "A French Tragedy by Chapman, G."

Before 1634. S. R. June, 1660. Warburton.
Fatal Marriage, The, or a Second Lucretia, Rom. Trag.

Before 1642. Brit. Mus. MS. Egerton, 1994. See Bullen,

Old Plays, ii, 425.

Fatal Union, The. See Sicily and Naples.
Father's Own Son. Mentioned in Beeston's List, 1639.

Collier, ii, 92.
Fatum Vortigerni, Lat. Trag. Before 1600. Brit. Mus. MS.

Lansdowne, 723. See Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 254.
Fault in Friendship, A, Com. Brome, R , Jonson, B., Jr.

Lie. 1623.

• Faustus, Doctor, Trag. Marlowe, C. 1588, 1604.
Fawn, The. See Parasitaster.
Feast and Welcome, Com. Massinger, P. Before 1640. S. R.

June, 1660. Warburton.
Felix and Philomena. 1584. Revels, 189.
Female Rebellion, The, Com. Before 1642. Pr. by A.

Smith, Glasgow, 1872.

Femelanco, Trag. Chettle, "Robinson." 1602. H. 170.
Ferrar, A History of. 1583. Revels, 177. Qy. The His-
tory of Error.

Ferrex and Porrex. See Gorboduc.
Ferrex and Porrex. Haughton, W. 1600. H. 119.
Fidele and Fortunatus. See Two Italian Gentlemen. Cf.

Greg, ii, pp. Ixviii, cxxvii.
Filli di Sciro, Tr. Bonarelli. Sidnam, J. 1630? 1655. See

Greg, Pastoral, 248.

Fine Companion, A, Com. Marmion, S. 1633.
Fishers' Masque. 1572. Revels, 34.
Five Plays in One. 1585. Revels, 189.
Five Plays in One. 1597. H. 51.
Fleire, The, Com. Man. Sharpham, E. 1606, 1607.

566 A LIST OF PLAYS

Floating Island, The, T. C. Strode, W. 1636, 1655. Ed.

B. Dobell, 1907.

Florence, The Great Duke of. See The Great Duke.
Florimene, a Pastoral in French. Lie. 1635. See Malone,

iii, 122 n.

Flowers, The Masque of. 1614. Repr. Evans, 1887.
Flying Voice, The, "a play, by R. Wood." Warburton. See

Gentleman s Mag. ii, 22O.
Fool and her Maidenhead soon Parted, A, Com. Davenport,

R. 1625. Beeston's List. S. R. Nov. 1663.
Fool would be a Favourite, The, or the Discreet Lover, T. C.

Carlell, L. 1638. Two New Plays, 1657.
Fool's Masque, The. C. 1620. Halliwell, 100.
Fool Transformed, The, Com. Advertised, 1658. See

ibid.
Fool Without Book, The. Rowley, W. S. R. 1653. See

ibid.

Forced Lady, The. See Minerva's Sacrifice.
Foresters' or Hunters' Masque, The. 1574. Revels, 53.
Fortunate Isles and their Union, The, Masque. Jonson, B.

1624, n. d.
I, Fortunatus, Folklore Drama. 1596. H. 28. See Old

Fortunatus.

Fortune, Play of. 1572. Revels, 36.
Fortune by Land and Sea, Com. Heywood, T., Rowley, W.

1607, 1655.

Fortune's Tennis. Dekker, T. 1600. H. 124.
Fount of New Fashions, The, Com. Chapman, G. 1598.

H. 96.

Fountain of Self-Love, The. See Cynthia's Revels.
Four Honored Loves, The Book of, Com. "Rowley, W."

S. R. June, 1660. Warburton.
Four Kings, The. 1599. H. 103.
Four Plays in One. 1592. H. 13. Qy. Sir Clyomon. Fleay,

ii, 296. See The Seven Deadly Sins.
Four Plays in One. See Triumphs of Honor, of Love, of

Death, of Time.

A LIST OF PLAYS 567

Four Prentices of London, The, Heroical Rom. Heywood,

T. 1594, 1615.

Four Seasons, Masque of the. Before 1625. Sh. Soc. 1848.
Four Sons of Aymon, Heroical Rom. 1602. H. 173. See

Heywood's Apology, 40, 58.
Four Sons of Fabius, The. 1580. Revels, 154.
Fox, The. See Volpone.
Fraus Honesta, Lat. Com. Stubbe, P. Trinity, Cambridge,

1616, 1632.
Fraus Pia, Lat. Com. ? Before 1642 ? Brit. Mus. MS.

Sloane, 1855.
Frederick and Basilea, Rom. Drama? 1597. H. 53. See

"platte," Malone, iii, 357.
Freeman's Honor, The, Com. ? Smith, William. 1614.

Mentioned in Dedication of The Hector of Germany.
Freewill, A certain Tragedy entituled, Tr. Bassano. Cheke,

H. 1561, n. d.
Freewill, King, Tr. Bassano. Bristowe, F. 1635. Biog.

Dram, i, 68.

French Comedy. 1595. H. 21.
French Doctor, Com. ? 1594. H. 19.
French Schoolmaster. Advertised, 1662. Halliwell, 104.
Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, Com. Greene, R. 1589,

'594-

Friar Fox and Gillian of Brentford, Com. Rowley, S. 1599.
H. 102.

Friar Francis. 1594. H. 1 6.

Friar Rush and the Proud Woman of Antwerp, Com. Day,
Haughton. 1601. H. 143.

Friar Spendleton, or Pendleton. 1597. H. 54.

Fucus sive Histriomastix, Lat. Com. ? Before 1642. Bod-
leian MS.

Fuimus Troes, or the True Trojans, Chron. Fisher, J.
1625, 1633. Dodsley, xii.

Fulgius and Lucrell, Com. Advertised, 1656. Greg, ii, p.
Ixx.

Furies Masque, The. C. 1624. Halliwell, 105.

568 A LIST OF PLAYS

Galfrido and Bernardo. H. 22. A forgery. See Greg, ibid.

p. xxxviii.

Galiaso. 1594. H. 17.

Gallant Cavaliero Dick Bowyer, This. See Trial of Chiv-
alry.

Gallathea, Court Drama. Lyly, J. 1584, 1592.
Game at Chess, A, Political Satire. Middleton, T. 1624,

1625.
Game of Cards, A Comedy or Moral devised on a. 1582.

Revels, 176.

Gamester, The. Shirley, J. Lie. 1633, 1637.
Gammer Gurton's Needle, Dom. Com. Stevenson, W.

1SS*-S3' 1575- Dodsley, iii.
Garlic, Sat'l. Com. 1612 or 1613. Mentioned in The Hog

hath Lost his Pearl, 1614, and elsewhere.
General, The, T. C. 1638 ? Pr. 1853. Halliwell, 106.
Gentle Craft, The. See The Shoemakers' Holiday.
Gentleman of Venice, The, T. C. Shirley, J. Lie. 1639,

1655.
Gentleman Usher, The, Com. Intrigue. Chapman, G. 1601

or 1602, 1606.
George a Greene, or the Pinner of Wakefield, Com. Greene,

R. 1588-92, 1599.
Gesta Grayorum, Entertainment, by various hands. 1594-

95, 1688. Nichols, Elizabeth, ii, 262-352.
Ghost, The, or the Woman Wears the Breeches, Com. 1640,

1653. See Genest, x, in.

Gillian of Brentford and Friar Fox. See Friar Fox.
Gipsies, The Masque of. Jonson, B. 1621. Horace, Art of

Poetry, 1640.

Gipsies' Metamorphosis, The. See Gipsies, The Masque of.
Giraldo, the Constant Lover. Shirley, H. Before 1627. S. R.

1653-

Girl Worth Gold, A. See The Fair Maid of the West.
Gismond of Salern, Trag. Wilmot, R., and others. 1568.

Pr. as Tancred and Gismunda, 1591.
Give a Man Luck and Throw Him into the Sea. S. R. l6oO.

A LIST OF PLAYS 569

Glass of Government, The, School Drama, Tr. from

Dutch ? Gascoigne, G. 1573, 1575. Hazlitt, Gas-

coigne, ii.
Gloucester, Earl of, 'Life of the Humorous. Wadeson, A.

1601. H. 133.
Goblins, The, Com. Suckling, Sir J. 1638. Fragmenta

A urea, 1646.

God Speed the Plough, Com. ? 1593. H. 16. S. R. 1601.
2, Godfrey of Boulogne, Pseudo-Hist. 1594. H. 18. No first

part is mentioned, unless it be "Jerusalem.
Godly Queen Hester. See Hester.
I, 2, Godwin, Earl, and his Three Sons, Chron. Drayton,

Dekker, Chettle, Wilson. 1598. H. 85, 86.
Golden Age, The. Heywood, T. 1595,1611.
Golden Age Restored, The, Masque. Jonson, B. 1615.

Folio, 1616.
Golden jfss, The, and Cupid and Psyche. Dekker, Day,

Chettle. 1600. H. 120.
Goosecap, Sir Giles, Com. Man. Chapman, G. ? 1601,

1606. Bullen, Old Plays, iii.
Gorboduc, Trag. Norton, T., Sackville, T. 1562, 1565.

Manly, ii.

Gossips' Brawl, The, Dom. Farce. Before 1640 ? 1654.
Governor, The, Trag. Formido, Sir C. 1637 (Collier, ii, 80).

S. R. 1653. Warburton.
Go-wry, Trag. 1604. Mentioned by J. Chamberlain. Fleay,

»> 329-

Grateful Servant, The, Com. Shirley, J. Lie. 1629, 1630.
Gray's Inn, The Masque of. Marston, J. ? 1618. Ed.

Collier in Sh. Soc. 1848. See Brotanek, 355.
Great Duke of Florence, The, T. C. Massinger, P. Lie.

1627, 1636.

Great Man, The, Trag. 1625-42. Warburton.
Grecian Comedy, The. 1594. H. 2O.
Greek Maid, A Pastoral or History of a. 1579. Revels, 125.

Perhaps one with Peele's Mahomet and Hiren the Fair

Greek.

570 A LIST OF PLAYS

Greeks and Trojans, Trag. ? 1625-42. Mentioned, E. Gay-
ton, Festivous Notes on Don Quixote, 1654, p. 271.
Greene's Tu Quoque, or the City Gallant, Com. Cooke, J.

1609-12, 1614. Dodsley, xi.
Grim the Collier of Croydon, or the Devil and his Dame,

Com. "By J. T." Haughton, W. ? 1600. Gratia

Theatrales, 1662. Dodsley, viii.
Grobiana's Nuptials, Com. ? Before 1642 ? Bodleian MS.

30. Halliwell, 112.

Guardian, The. See Cutter of Coleman Street.
Guardian, The, Com. Massinger, P. Lie. 1633. Three

New Plays, 1655.
Guelphs and Ghibbelines, Trag. ? 1625-42. Mentioned,

E. Gayton, Festivous Notes on Don Quixote, 1654,

p. 271.

Guido, Hist. ? 1597. H. 51.
Guise, The, Trag. 1593. H. 15.
Guise, The, Hist. Webster, J. 1619. Alluded to in Introd.

to The Devil's Law Case, 1623.
Gustavus, King of Swedland, Hist. Dekker, T. Before

1640. S. R. 1660. Warburton.
Guy, Earl of Warwick, Heroical Rom. "Day and Dekker,"

S. R. 1620, 1639. "By B. J." Ed. 1661.
Gyncecocratia, Com. Puttenham, G. Before 1589. Art of

Poesie, ed. Arber, 146-148.

Haddington, Viscount, Masque at the Marriage of. Jonson,

B. 1608, n. d.
Hamlet, Trag. Kyd, T. 1588-89. Mentioned in Nash's

preface to Greene's Menaphon, 1589; by Lodge in Wit's

Misery, 1592; by H. 17, 1594, and elsewhere.
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, The Tragical History of.

Shakespeare, W. 1602, 1603.
Hamlet, Prinz, aus Dannemark. See Bestrafte Bruder-

mord, Der.
Hampton Court, Royal Masque at. See The Vision of

the Twelve Goddesses.

A LIST OF PLAYS 571

Hannibal and Hermes, or Worse 'feared than Hurt. Wilson,
Drayton, Dekker. 1598. H. 90.

Hannibal and Scipio. Hathway, Rankins. 1601. H. 60.

Hannibal and Scipio. Nabbes, T. 1635, 1637.

Hans Beer- Pot, Dialog. Belchier, D. 1618.

Hard Shift for Husbands, or Bilboe's the Best Blade, Com. ?
Rowley, W. or S. ? Lie. Oct. 1623.

Hardiknute, or Canute, Chron. 1597. H. 54.

Harfield, Devise to entertain her Majesty at. 1602. Sh.
Soc. Papers, ii, 67.

Harry of Cornwall, Chron. 1591. H. 13.

Hat field, Masque for the Princess Elizabeth at. 1556.
Nichols, Elizabeth, i, 1 6.

Hay, Lord, Masque at the House of. See Lovers made
Men.

Hayes, Masque at the Marriage of Lord. See Whitehall.

Haymakers' Masque, The. C. 1623. Halliwell, 114.

Health and Prosperity, The Triumphs of, Civic Pageant.
Middleton, T. 1626. «

Heautontimoroumenos, Tr. Bernard, R. Terence in Eng-
lish, 1598.

Hector of Germany, The, Pseudo-Hist. Smith, Wentworth.
C. 1613, 1615. Ed. L. W. Payne, 1906.

Hecyra, Tr. Bernard, R. Terence in English. 1598.

Heir, The, Com. May, T. 1620, 1622. Dodsley, xi.

Heliogabalus, The Life and Death of. S. R. June, 1594.

Helmet, The Masque of the. 1594-95. Gesta Grayorum,
1688.

Hengist, or Henges, Chron. 1597. H. 53. Revised by Mid-
dleton as The Mayor of Quinborough. *

Henry I, Life and Death of, Chron. 1597. H. 53. S. R.

r597-

Henry I, The History of. Davenport, R. Lie. 1624.
Henry I and Henry II. " By Shakespeare and Davenport."

S. R. 1653. Warburton.
Henry I and the Prince of Wales, Famous Wars of. Drayton,

Dekker, Chettle. 1598. H. 85.

572 A LIST OF PLAYS

• i, Henry IV, The History of, Chron. Shakespeare, W. 1597,

1598.

• 2, Henry IV, The Second Part of, Chron. Shakespeare, W.

1598, 1600.
' Henry V, The Chronicle History of. Shakespeare, W. 1599,

1600.

Henry V. 1595. H. 27.
Henry V, The Famous Victories of, Chron. Tarlton, R.

1585-88, 1598. Facsimile quarto ed. 1887.

• i, Henry VI, Chron. Greene, Peele, Marlowe, Shakespeare.

1590. Folio, 1623.
. 2, Henry VI, Chron. Revision by Shakespeare, W. 1591-

92. Folio, 1623.
. 3, Henry VI, Chron. Revision by Shakespeare, W. 1591-

92. Folio, 1623.
Henry VI. 1591. H. 13. Doubtless i, Henry VI.

• Henry VIII, The Famous History of the Life of King.

Shakespeare, W. 1604 or 1612-13. Folio, 1623.
'Henry VIII, The Famous Chronicle History of. See When
You See Me.

2, Henry Richmond. 1599. H. 113. No first part is men-
tioned.

Henry's Barriers, Prince, Speeches at. Jonson, B. 1610.
Folio, 1616.

1, Hercules. 1595. H. 22. One with The Silver Age. Fleay,
i, 283; ii, 303.

2, Hercules. 1595. H. 24. One with The Brazen Age. Fleay,
i, 284; ii, 304. M. Slater's part in these plays was doubt-
less that of agent.

Hercules Furens, Tr. Heywood, Jasper. 1561. Seneca his
Ten Tragedies, 1581. Repr. Spenser Soc. 1887.

Hercules (Etaeus, Tr. Studley, J. Seneca his Ten Tragedies,
1581. Repr. Spenser Soc. 1887.

Hereford, Earl of, Chron. 1602. H. 170.

Hermophus, Lat. Com. Wilde, G. Oxford. C. 1635.

Herod and Antipater, Trag. Chron. Markham, G., Samp-
son, W. 1621, 1622.

A LIST OF PLAYS 573

Herodes, Lat. Trag. Adamson, P. C. 1572. Fleay, i, 23.

Herodes, Lat. Trag. Goldingham, W. 1567. MS. Univer-
sity Library, Cambridge.

Heroes, The Masque of. See Inner Temple Masque. Mid-
dleton.

Heroic Lover, The, or the Infanta of Spain, Trag. Cart-
wright, G. Before 1642? 1661.

Herpetulus, the Blue Knight, and Perobia. 1574. Revels, 51.

Hester, Godly Queen, Bible Hist. 1525-1529 ? 1561. Ed.
Greg, Matenahen zur Kunde, v, 1904.

Hester and Ahasuerus. 1594. H. 17. Qy. Godly Queen
Hester. Fleay, ii, 300.

Hey for Honesty. See Plutophthalmia Plutogamia.

Highgate, Entertainment of the King and Queen at [" Pe-
nates"]. Jonson, B. 1604. Folio, 1616.

Highway to Heaven, The, Moral. Mentioned in Greene's
Groatsworth of Wit, 1592.

Himatia-Poleos, Civic Pageant. Munday, A. 1614.

Hippolytus, Tr. Studley, J. Seneca his Ten Tragedies,
1581. Repr. Spenser Soc. 1887.

Hispanus, Lat. Com. Morrel. Cambridge, 1596. Bodleian
MS. Douce, 234.

Histriomastix, or the Player Whipt, Sat'l. Medley^ Revised
by Marston, J. ? Before 1599, 1610. Simpson, School of
Shakspere, ii.

Hit Nail o the Head, Intl. C. 1560. Mentioned in Sir
Thomas More.

Hoffman, The Tragedy of. Chettle, H. H. 173. 1602,1631.
Ed. R. Ackermann, 1894.

Hog hath Lost his Pearl, The, Sat'l. Com. Tailor, R. 1613,
1614. Dodsley, xi.

Hollander, The, Com. Man. Glapthorne, H. 1635, 1640.

Holland's Leaguer, Com. Man. Marmion, S. 1632.

Holophernes, The Play of. Hatfield, 1556. Revived, 1572.
Nichols, Elizabeth, i, 1 6.

Homo, Lat. Trag. Atkinson, T. Cambridge, 1612. MS.
Harl. 6925.

574 A LIST OF PLAYS

Honest Lawyer, The, Dom. Com. "By S. S." 1615, 1616.
Honest Man's Fortune, The, T. C. (Beaumont and) Fletcher,

Daborne, Field, Massinger. 1613. Folio, 1647.
Honest Man's Revenge, The. See The Atheist's Tragedy.

1, Honest Whore, The, Dom. Com. Dekker, Middleton.
1604.

2, Honest Whore, The, Dom. Com. Dekker, Middleton.
1604 or 1608, 1630.

Honor, The Triumph of. See The Triumph of Honor.
Honor and Industry, The Triumphs of, Civic Pageant.

Middleton, T. 1617.

Honor and Virtue, The Triumphs of, Civic Pageant. Mid-
dleton, T. 1622.
Honor of Wales, For the, Antimasque. Jonson, B. 1618.

Addition to Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue, Folio, 1640.
Honor of Women, The, Com. Massinger, P. Lie. May,

1628. Warburton. See Fleay, i, 223.
Honor Triumphant, Barriers. Ford, J. 1606. Repr. Sh.

Soc. 1843.
Honoria and Mammon. See A Contention for Honor and

Riches.
Honor's Academy, or the Famous Pastoral of the Fair

Shepherdess Julietta, Tr. Montreux. Tofte, R. 1610.
Horestes, An Interlude of Vice Concerning. Pickering, J.

1567-
Hospital of Lovers, The, Com. Oxford, 1636. Brit. Mus.

MS. Addit. 14047.
Hot Anger Soon Cold, Com. ? Porter, Chettle, Jonson.

1598. H. 93.
How a Man May Choose a Good Wife from a Bad, Com.

Man. "Cooke, Joshua." Heywood, T. ? 1602. Dodsley,

ix.
How a Man May Please his Wife. See The Way to Content

all Women.
How to Learn a Woman to Woo, Com. Heywood, T. 1604.

Perhaps The Wise Woman of Hogsdon, Fleay, i, 291.

Revels, 205, of doubtful authenticity.

A LIST OF PLAYS 575

[Hue and Cry after Cupid, The.] See Haddington, Viscount,

Masque at the Marriage of.
Humor, or Honor in the End. S. R. 1624. See Wit and

Drollery, 1 66 1.
Humor out of Breath, Com. Day, J. Lie. and pr. 1608.

Nero and other Plays, Mermaid ed. 1888.
Humorous Courtier, The, Com. Shirley, J. 1631, 1640.
Humorous Day's Mirth, A, Com. Man. Chapman, G.

1597-98, 1599.
Humorous Lieutenant, The, T. C. (Beaumont and) Fletcher.

1619. Folio, 1647.
Humors, The Comedy of. 1597. H. 52. Qy. Chapman's

Humorous Day's Mirth.

Humors Reconciled. See The Magnetic Lady.
Hungarian Lion, The, Hist. ? Gunnell, R. Lie. 1623.
Hunters' Masque. See Foresters' or Hunters' Masque.
Hunting of Cupid, The, Court Drama fragments. Peele, G.

S. R. 1591. See Bullen, Peele, i, p. xxviii.
Huntington, Robert Earl of, Death and Downfall of.

See Robert, Earl of Huntington.
Huon of Bordeaux, Romance. 1593. H. 16.
Hyde Park, Com. Shirley, J. Lie. 1632, 1637.
lymenaei, Masque. Jonson, B. 1606.
lymenaeus, Lat. Com. 1580. Pr. 1631 (non extant?). MS.

Caius Coll. Cambridge, 125. See Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 287.
lymen's Holiday or Cupid's Vagaries, Com. Rowley, W.

1612. Revels, 211.
Hymen's Triumph, Past. T. C. Daniel, S. 1614, 1615.

Idol of a Woman, The. Chapman, G. 1595. H. 88. Qy. A

Woman's Tears,
leronimo, The First Part of, Pseudo-Hist. 1602, 1605. Not

by Kyd. Boas, Kyd, 1901.
If it be not Good, the Devil is in it, Moral Com. Dekker,T.

1610, 1612.
I, 2, If You Know Not Me You Know Nobody, Chron.

Heywood, T. 1604-05; 1605, 1606.

576 A LIST OF PLAYS

Ignoramus, Lat. Com. Ruggle, G. Cambridge, 1615, 1630.

See Hazlitt, 113.
Ignoramus, Com., Tr. Ruggle. Coddington, R. 1662. Biog.

Dram, ii, 318.
/// Beginning has a Good End, An, Com. Ford, J. Before

1640. S. R. June, 1660. Warburton.
Impatient Poverty, Intl. S. R. 1560.
Imperial Impostor, The. See Demetrius and Marsina.
Imperiale, Senecan Trag. Freeman, Sir R. Not acted,

1639. Forthcoming ed. by C. C. Gumm, Pennsylvania

Thesis.

Impossible Dowry, The. See Amyntas. Randolph.
Imposture, The, T. C. Shirley, J. Lie. 1640. Six New

Plays, 1653.
Inconstant Lady, The, Com. Wilson, A. 1633. Ed. P. Bliss,

1814.
Inner Temple and Gray's Inn Masque, The. Beaumont, F.

1613, n. d. [1613]. Nichols, James, ii, 589.
Inner Temple Masque, The. Browne, W. 1615. Hazlitt's

Browne, 1868, vol. ii, 239. Also called Ulysses and

Circe.
Inner Temple Masque, The, or Masque of Heroes. Mid-

dleton, T. 1619.
Insatiate Countess, The, Trag. Marston, J. [Barkstead,

W. ?] 1610-13, 1613.
Integrity, The Triumphs of, Civic Pageant. Middleton, T.

1623.
Invisible Knight, The. Before 1633. Mentioned in Shirley's

Bird in a Cage, ii, I.

Iphigenia, Tr. Euripides. Lat. ? Peele, G. C. 1576. Ox-
ford.

Iphigenia, Trag. 1571. Revels, 13.
Iphigenia in Aulis, Tr. English. Lumley, Lady J. 1576-

77. Brit. Mus. MS. Royal, 15 a, ix, f. 63.
Iphis and lanthe. "Shakespeare." S. R. 1660.
Ira seu Tumulus Fortunes, Masque. See The Christmas

Prince, 1607.

A LIST OF PLAYS 577

Irenes Trophaea, Tes, Civic Pageant. Squire, J. 1620.

Irish Knight, The. 1577. Revels, 114.

Irish Masque, The. Jonson, B. 1613. Folio, 1616.

Irish Rebellion, The, Hist. Kirke, J. Lie. 1642.

I, 2, Iron Age, The, Dramatized Myth. Heywood, T. 1596,

1632.
» Island Princess, The, T. C. (Beaumont and) Fletcher. 1621.

Folio, 1647.
Isle of Dogs, The, Sat'l. Com. Nash, T. 1597, not printed.

See Nash, Lenten Stuff, 1599. H. 62.
Isle of Gulls, The, Com. Day, J. 1605, 1606. Bullen,

Day, i.

Italian Nightpiece, The. See The Unfortunate Piety.
Italian Tragedy, The. Day, Smith. 1600. H. 117, 190.

Jack and Gill, Com. ? 1567-68. Mentioned, Harl MS. 146.

Collier, i, 194.
Jack Drum's Entertainment, Dom. Com. Marston, J.

1600, 1601. Simpson, School of Shakspere, ii.
Jack Juggler, Intl. 1553-58, n. d. [1562-69]. Dodsley, ii.
Jack Straw, The Life and Death of, Chron. 1587, 1593.

Dodsley, v.
Jacob and Esau, History of, Biblical Intl. Before 1558,

1568. Dodsley, ii.
James IV, The Scottish History of, Pseudo-Chron. Greene,

R. 1590, 1598.
James, King, his Entertainment in passing to his Coronation.

Jonson, B. 1604.

Jane Grey, Lady. See Lady Jane Grey.
Janus, Masque of. 1573. Revels, 35.
Jealous Comedy, The. 1593. H. 15. By some believed to

be The Merry Wives of Windsor. Fleay, i, 298.
Jealous Lovers, The. Randolph, T. Acted and printed,

1632.

Jephthah. Munday, Dekker. 1602. H. 166
Jeronimo. See leronimo.
Jerusalem. 1592. H. 13. See Fleay, ii, 302.

578 A LIST OF PLAYS

Jew, The, Com. ? Before 1579. Mentioned, Gosson, School

of Abuse, 30.

. Jew of Malta, The Rich, Trag. Marlowe, C. 1589-90, 1633.
Jeweler of Amsterdam, The. Fletcher, Field, Massinger. C.

1619. S. R. 1654. Fleay, i, 202.

Jewish Gentleman, The, Com. ? Brome, R. S. R. 1640.
Jews' Tragedy, The. Heming, W. C. 1638, 1662.
Joan as Good as my Lady, Com. ? Heywood,T. 1599- H.

102.
Job, The History of. Greene, R. Before 1592. Warburton ?

Not in S. R. 1594.

Jocanda and Astolfo, Com. Dekker, T. S. R. 1660. War-
burton.
Jocasta, Tr. Dolci, Senecan Trag. Gascoigne, G. 1566.

A Hundreth Sundry Flowers, 1572. Ed. J. W. Cun-

liffe, 1906.

John, King, The Life and Death of, Chron. Shake-
speare, W. 1591-92. Folio, 1623.
I, 2, John, King of England, The Troublesome Reign of,

Chron. 1588, 1591. Facsimile quarto, ed. 1888.
John a Kent and John a Cumber, Pseudo-Chron. Munday,

A. 1595. Sh. Soc. 1851.
John and Matilda, King, Chron. Davenport, R. 1624, 1655.

Bullen, Old Plays, n. s. iii. .
John of Gaunt, The Famous History of, with his Conquest

of Spain. S. R. 1594. Perhaps one with Hathway and

Rankins' Conquest of Spain, 1 60 1.
John the Evangelist, Enterlude of, fragment. Before 1557-

65. Ed. W. W. Greg, Malone Society, 1907.
Joseph's Afflictions. Listed 1 66 1. See Greg, ii, p. Ixxix.
Joshua. Rowley, S. 1602. H. 171.
Jovial Crew, A, Com. Brome, R. 1641, 1652.
Jovial Philosopher, The. See Aristippus.
Judas. Haughton, Bird, Rowley, S. 1600. H. 122, 151.
Judge, The, Com. Massinger, P. Acted 1627. Warburton.

One with The Fatal Dowry? Fleay, i, 223.
Jugurtha, Hist. Trag. Boyle, W. 1600. H. 118.

A LIST OF PLAYS 579

Jugivith, Hist. Trag. 1625-42. Mentioned, E. Gayton,

Festivous Notes on Don Quixote, 1654, p. 271.
Julia Agrippina, Empress of Rome, Trag. May, T. 1628,

1639.
Julian the Apostate, Hist. Ashton, T. ? Shrewsbury, 1566.

See Chambers, ii, 394.
Julian the Apostate, Hist. 1596. H. 30.
Julio and Hyppolita, Trag. Qy. same as Philippo and

Hippolito.
Julius Ccesar, Trag. Trinity, Oxford, n. d. See Retros.

Rev. xii, 8.
Julius Caesar, Senecan Trag. Alexander, W. Not acted.

The Monarchic Tragedies, ed. 1607.
Julius Ccesar, Trag. Geddes, R. Oxford, 1582.
Julius Caesar, Trag. May, T. C. 1625. MS.
Julius Caesar, The Tragedy of. Shakespeare, W. 1601.

Folio, 1623.

Julius Ccesar. At Court, Feb. 1562. Collier i, 180.
Juno and Diana, Com. 1565. Cal. State Papers, Spanish,

1558-1567, London, 1892, p. 404.
Jupiter and lo, Dialog. Heywood, T. Pleasant Dialogues,

1637.

Just General, The, T. C. Manuche, C. Before 1642 ? 1652.
Just Italian, The. Davenant, Sir W. Lie. 1629, 1630.

Katherine and Pasquil. See Jack Drum's Entertainment.
Kenilworth, The Princely Pleasures at, Entertainment.

Gascoigne, G. 1575, 1576.
King and no King, A, T. C. Beaumont and Fletcher. Lie.

1611, 1619.
King and Subject, The, Trag. Massinger, P. Lie. June,

1638. See The Tyrant.
King and the Poor Northern Man. See Too Good to be

True.

King John, Lud, etc. See John, Lud, etc.
King of Fairies, The. Mentioned in Greene's Groatsworth

of Wit, 1592.

580 A LIST OF PLAYS

King of Scots, The Tragedy of the. Hunnis, W. ? 1567-
68. Mentioned, Harl. MS. 146. See Athenceum, March
31, 1900.

Knack to Know a Knave, A, Com. 1592, 1594. Dodsley, vi.

Knack to Know an Honest Man, A, Com. 1595, 1596.

Knave in Grain, The, Com. Man. "By J. D." 1639, 1640.

Knave in Print, or One for Another, Com. Rowley, W. S. R.

I653-
Knight of Malta, The, T. C. (Beaumont and) Fletcher,

Massinger, Field ? 1619. Folio, 1647.
Knight of Rhodes, The, Hist. Peele, G. 1580-90. Mentioned

in Merry Conceited Jests of Peele, 1627.
Knight of the Burning Pestle, The, Sat'l. Com. Beaumont

(and Fletcher). 1607-08, 1613.

Knight of the Burning Rock, The. 1580. Revels, 142.
Knight of the Golden Shield. See Clyomon, Sir.
Knights, Masque of. 1579. Revels, 126.
Knights of the Helmet, A Masque of the. 1595. Gesta

Grayorum, 1688. Nichols, Elizabeth, ii.
Knot of Fools, A, Com. ? 1613. Halliwell, 139.
Kynes [sic] Redux, Lat. ? Gager, W. Oxford, 1591. M. L.

Lee, Narcissus, xiv.

Labyrinthus, Lat. Com. Hawkesworth, W. Cambridge, 1599.

S. R. 1635. Retros. Rev. xii, 28, 35. See Jahrbuch, xxxiv,

308.

Ladies, Masque of. 1581. Revels, 177.
Ladies' Privilege, The, T. C. Glapthorne, H. 1635, 1640.
Lady Alimony, Sat'l. Com. C. 1635, 1659. Dodsley, xiv.
Lady Barbara. 1571. Revels, 13.
Lady Errant, The, T. C. Cartwright, W. 1635. Comedies,

1651.

1, Lady Jane Grey, Chron. Dekker, Heywood, Smith,
Webster. 1602. H. 183. Perhaps an earlier version of
Sir Thomas Wyatt, 1606.

2, Lady Jane Grey. Dekker, T. 1602. H. 184. Seei,Ia</y
Jane Grey.

A LIST OF PLAYS 581

Lady Mother, The, T. C. Glapthorne, H. 1635. Perhaps

one with The Noble Trial. S. R. 1660. Pr. Bullen, Old

Plays, ii.
[Lady of May, The.] See Wanstead, Entertainment of her

Majesty at.

Lady of Pleasure, A, Com. Shirley, J. 1635, 1637.
Lady Peace, Masque of. 1572. Revels, 19.
Lady's Trial, The, Com. Ford, J. 1638, 1639.
Laelia, Lat. Com. Cambridge, 1590. MS. Lambeth, 838.

See Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 291.

Lance Knights, Masque of Six. 1574. Revels, 51.
Landgartha, Chron. Burnell, H. 1639, 1641. Old English

Drama, 1824..
Larum for London, A, Hist. 1598-99, 1602. Simpson,

School of Shakspere, 1872.
Lascivious Queen, The. See Lust's Dominion.
Late Lancashire Witches, The, Drame de circonstance.

Heywood, T. 1633, 1634.
Late Murder of the Son upon the Mother, Dom. Trag. Ford,

Webster. S. R. 1624.
Launching of the May, The, or the Seaman's Honest Wife.

"A eulogy of the East India Co." Methold, W. 1632.

Brit. Mus. MS. Egerton, 1994. See Mod. Lang. Notes,

xxii, 137.
Law Tricks, or Who Would Have Thought It, Com. Man.

Day, J. 1606, 1608.
Laws of Candy, The, T. C. (Beaumont and) Fletcher,

Massinger. 1619. Folio, 1647.
Leander, Lat. Com. Hawkesworth, W. 1598. Brit. Mus.

MS. Sloane, 1762, etc. Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 286.
Lear, King, Trag. Shakespeare, W. 1606, 1608.
Leir, King, Chron. Lodge, T. ? and others. 1594, 1605.

Hazlitt, Shakespeare's Library, vi.

Leo Armenus, Lat. Trag. Simeon, J. After 1631, 1657.
[Lethe, The Masque of.] See Lovers made Men.
Lewis XI, King of France, The History of, T. C. Adver-
tised, 1658.

582 A LIST OF PLAYS

Light Heart, The. See The New Inn.

Like Quits Like, Com. ? Heywood, Chettle. 1603. H. 173.

A forgery. See Greg, ibid, xliii.
Like unto Like, Com. 1600. H. 131. Doubtless Grim the

Collier.
Like Will to Like, Moral Intl. Fulwell,U. 1561,1568. Dods-

ley, iii.

Lingua, Moral. Tomkins, J. 1603-04, 1607. Dodsley, ix.
Little French Lawyer, The, Com. (Beaumont and) Fletcher,

Massinger. 1619. Folio, 1647.
Little Thief, The. See The Night Walker.
Locrine, Chron. Peele, G. 1586, 1595. Tyrrell, Doubtful

Plays of Shakespeare.

Lodovick Sforza. See Sforza. ,

Loiola, Lat. Sat'l. Com. Hackett, J. Cambridge, 1622,

1648. Retros. Rev. xii.
Londini Artium et Scientium Scaturgio, Civic Pageant.

Heywood, T. 1632.

Londini Emporia, Civic Pageant. Heywood, T. 1633.
Londini Sinus Salutis, Civic Pageant. Heywood, T. 1635.
Londini Speculum, Civic Pageant. Heywood, T. 1637.
Londini Status Pacatus, Civic Pageant. Heywood, T. 1639.
London, Entertainment through, March, 1603. Dekker, T.

1604.
London, Royal Entertainment into, 1603. S. R. 1604. Fleay,

»> 342.
London Chanticleers, The, Com. 1637, 1659. Dodsley, xii.

1, London Florentine, Com. ? Chettle, Heywood. 1602.
H. 172.

2, London Florentine, Com. ? Chettle, H. 1602. H. 174.
London Merchant, The, Com. Ford, J. Before 1640. S. R.

June, 1660. Warburton.
London Prodigal, The, Com. "William Shakespeare."

1603, 1605. Tyrrell, Doubtful Plays of Shakespeare.
London's Jus Honorarium, Civic Pageant. Heywood, T.

1631.
London's Love to Prince Henry, Entertainment. 1610.

A LIST OF PLAYS 583

London's Tempe, Civic Pageant. Dekker, T. 1629, n. d.

Longbeard. See William Longbeard.

Long Meg of Westminster, Com. 1594. H. 21. Mentioned
in Amends for Ladies, n, i.

Longer Thou Livest, the More Fool Thou, The, Moral.
Wager, W. 1559-60, n. d. [1568-80]. Repr. Brandl,
Jahrbuch, xxxvi.

Longshank, Chron. 1595. H. 27. Perhaps Peele's Ed-
ward I.

Longsivord. See William Longs-word.

Look About You, Com. Wadeson, A. (Fleay, ii, 266.)
1594-99, 1600. Dodsley, vii.

Look to the Lady, Com. ? Shirley, J. S. R. 1639. Halliwell,

H9;
Looking Glass for London and England, A, Biblical Moral.

Lodge, Greene. 1589, 1594.
Lords' Masque, The. Campion, T. 1613. Pr. with Caw-

some-House, Entertainment at, 1613.
Lost Lady, The, T. C. Berkeley, Sir W. 1637 ? 1638.

Dodsley, xii.

Lost Recovered, The. See The Captives.
Love, The Triumph of. See The Triumph of Love.
Love and Antiquity, The Triumphs of, Civic Pageant.

Middleton, T. 1619.
Love and Fortune. See Rare Triumphs of Love and

Fortune.
Love and Honor, Heroic T. C. Davenant, Sir W. 1634,

1649.
Love Crowns the End, Past. Tatham, J. 1632. The

Fancies' Theatre, 1640.
Love Freed from Ignorance and Folly, Masque. Jonson, B.

1610. Folio, 1616.
Love hath Found out his Eyes, Com. Jordan, T. C. 1640.

S. R. June, 1660. Warburton.
Love in a Maze. See The Changes.
Love in its Ecstasy, or the Large Prerogative, Past.

Peaps, W. ? 1635, 1649. Described, Engl. Stud. xxxv.

584 A LIST OF PLAYS

Love lies a Bleeding. See Philaster.

Love of a Grecian Lady, Com. ? 1594. H. 19.

Love of an English Lady, Com. ? 1594. H. 19.

Love Parts Friendship, Com. ? Chettle, Smith. 1602. H.

165.

Love Prevented, Com. ? Porter, H. 1598. H. 87.
Love Restored, Masque. Jonson, B. 1612. Folio, 1616.
Love Tricks, or the School of Compliment, Com. Man.

Shirley, J. 1625, 1631.

Love will Find Out the Way. See The Constant Maid.
Lovers made Men, Masque. Jonson, B. 1617.
Lover's Melancholy, The, T. C. Ford, J. 1628, 1629.
Lovers of Ludgate, The, Com. ? Before 1642. Warburton.
Lovers' Progress, The, Heroic T. C. (Beaumont and)

Fletcher, Massinger. 1623. Folio, 1647.
Love's Aftergame, or the Proxy. 1635. Malone, iii, 238.
Love's Changelings Changed, Com. Before 1642 ? Brit.

Mus. MS. Egerton, 1994. See Bullen, Old Plays, \\,

432-
Love's Cruelty, Trag. Shirley,}. 1631,1640.

Love's Cure, Com. (Beaumont and Fletcher,) Massinger.

1626. Folio, 1647.
Love's Hospital, Com. Wilde, G. Oxford, 1636. Brit. Mus.

MS. Addit. 14047.
Love's Labour's Lost, Com. Shakespeare, W. 1589,

1598.
Love's Labour's Won, Com. Shakespeare, W. Mentioned

by Meres, 1598.
Love's Labyrinth or the Royal Shepherdess, T. C. Forde,

T. Before 1642 ? 1660.
Love's Loadstone. See Pathomachia.
Love's Masterpiece, Com. Heywood, T. S. R. 1640.
Love's Metamorphosis, Court Drama. Lyly, J. 1588-89,

1601.
Love's Mistress, or the Queen's Masque, Court Drama.

Heywood, T. 1634, 1636. Also called Cupid's Mistress,

or Cupid and Psyche.

A LIST OF PLAYS 585

Love's Pilgrimage, T. C. (Beaumont and) Fletcher. 1635.

Folio, 1647.
Love's Riddle, Past. Cowley, A. 1635, 1638. Grosart,

Cowley, i.

Love's Sacrifice, Trag. Ford, J. 1630, 1633.
Love's Triumph through Callipolis, Masque. Jonson, B.

1631.

Love's Victory, Past. 1630. MS. in Plymouth Public Li-
brary. Extracts printed, 1853. Hazlitt, 143.
Love's Welcome at Bolsover, Entertainment. Jonson, B.

1634. Folio, 1640.
Lovesick Court, The, or the Ambitious Politic, T. C.

Brome, R. 1627. Five New Plays, 1659.
Lovesick King, The, Chron. Brewer, A. 1604, 1655.
Lovesick Maid, The, or The Honor of Young Ladies, Com.

Brome, R. Lie. 1629.
Loyal Subject, The, T. C. (Beaumont and) Fletcher. 1618.

Folio, 1647.

Loyalty and Beauty. 1579. Revels, 142, 147.
Lucia. 1574. Revels, 87.
Lud, King, Chron. 1594. H. 16.
Ludlow Castle, "Masque" at. See Comus.
Luminalia, or the Festival of Light, Masque. Ascribed to

Davenant, Sir W. 1638. Grosart, Miscellanies of the

Fuller Worthies' Library, iv. See Brotanek in Anglia,

Beiblatt, xi, 177.

Lusiuncula, Lat. Before 1642 ? See Hazlitt, 145.
Lust's Dominion, Trag. "Christopher Marlowe." 1590,

1657. Marlowe, ed. Pickering, 1826, iii.
Lusty London, Intl. Puttenham, G. Before 1589. Art of

Poesie, ed. Arber, 183.

" Macbeth, The Tragedy of. Shakespeare, W. 1605-06.

Folio, 1623.

[Macbeth] Lat. Speeches of Welcome, to King James at
Oxford. Gwinne, M. 1605. Subjoined to Vertumnus,
1607. See Variorum Macbeth, p. 370.

586 A LIST OF PLAYS

Macchiavel, Com. ? 1591. H. 13.

Macchiavel and the Devil, Com. Daborne, R. 1613. Al-

leyn Papers, 56.
Macchiavellus, Com. Wiburne, D. Cambridge, 1597.

Bodleian MS. Douce, 234. See Jahrbuch, xxxiv.
Mack, The, Play of Cards. 1595. H. 22. See Malone, iii,

304-

Mad Couple Well Matched, The, Com. Brome, R. 1636.
Five New Plays, 1653.

Mad Lover, The, T. C. (Beaumont and) Fletcher. 1619.
Folio, 1647.

Mad World, my Masters, A, Com. Man. Middleton, T.
1606, 1608.

Madcap, The, Com. ? Barnes, B. ? Lie. 1624.

Madman s Morris, The, Com. Wilson, Drayton, Dekker.
1598. H. 89.

Madoc, King of Britain, History of. "Beaumont, F." Be-
fore 1642 ? S. R. June, 1660.

Maenander's Ecstasy. See Cynthia's Revenge.

Magnetic Lady, The, or Humors Reconciled, Com. Jon-
son, B. 1633. Folio, 1640 (bearing separate date 1631).

Mahomet, Conqueror Play? 1594. H. 18. Perhaps one
with Turkish Mahomet and Hiren by Peele.

Mahomet and Hiren. See Turkish Mahomet and Hiren the
Fair Greek.

Maid, a Widow, and a Wife, A Dialogue between a. Da-
vies, Sir J. 1602.

Maid in the Mill, The, Rom. Com. (Beaumont and)
Fletcher, Rowley, W. Lie. 1623. Folio, 1647.

Maid of Honor, The, T. C. Massinger, P. 1622, 1632.

Maidenhead Well Lost, A, Com. Heywood, T. 1633,

1634-
Maidens Holiday, The, Com.? "By Marlowe and Day."

S. R. 1654. Warburton.
Maid's Metamorphosis, The, Court Com. Day, Lyly? 1599,

1600. Bullen, Old Plays, i.
Maid's Revenge, The, Trag. Shirley, J. 1626, 1639.

A LIST OF PLAYS 587

Maid's Tragedy, The. Beaumont and Fletcher. 1609-10,

1619.

I Malcolm King of Scats, Chron. 1602. H. 165.
r Malmfnentj The, Com. Man. Marston, ]. 1600, 1604.

Malfi, The Duchess of. See The Duchess of Malfi.
I Mamittia. 1573. Revels, 51.

Mandfvillt, Sir John, Travel and Adventure. 1592. H. 13.

Manhood and Desert, IntL Churchyard, T. Part of the
Queen's Entertainment at Norwich, 1578. Nichols,
Elnabfth, H, 2OI.

Manhood and Wisdom, Listed, 1656. Greg, ii, p. IxxxviL

MOM'S Wit, Moral IntL Mentioned in Greene's Groats-
worth of Wit, 1592.

Marcus Geminus, LaL Com. Oxford, 1566. Nichols, Eliza-
beth, i, 210.

Mariam, the Fair Queen of Jewry, The Tragedy of. Carey,
Lady E. 1612, 1613.

Marios and Sulla. See The Wounds of Civil War.

Marriage Broker, The, or The Pander. "ByM. W." Be-
fore 1642 ? Gratis Thfotralfs, 1662.

Marriage of Mind and Measure, A Moral of the. 1578.
Revels, 125.

Marriage of die Thames and the Rhine. See Inner Temple
Masque. Beaumont.

Marriage of Wit and Science, The. Lie. 1569, n. d. Dods-
ley, iL

Marriage of Wit and Wisdom, The Contract of a, Moral
IntL 1579. Sk. Soc. 1846.

Marriage Without a Man, A. See If his and lanthe.

Marshal Osric, Pseudo-Hist. Heywood, Smith. 1597.
H. 51.

Martin Swart , his Life ami Death, Chron. 1597. H. 53. See
Collier, ii, 334.

Martyred Soldier, The, Trag. Pseudo-Hist. Shirley, H.
Before 1627, 1638. Bullen, Old Plays, i.

Man- Magdalene, Life and Repentance of. Biblical Intl.
Wager, L. 1566.

588 A LIST OF PLAYS

Masque, Madrigal, for a. 1613. Brit. Mus. MS. Addit. 5336.

fol. 246. Music alone extant. Brotanek, 338.
Masquerade du Ciel. Sadler, J. Cambridge, 1639, 1640.

See MS. note in Dyce's copy, South Kensington. •
Massacre at Paris, The, Hist. Marlowe, C. 1593, n. d.
Massacre of France. See The Massacre at Paris.
Match at Midnight, A, Com. Middleton?, Rowley, W.

Revised, 1623, 1633. Dodsley, xiii.
Match Me in London, Com. Man. Dekker, T. 1611-23,

1631.
Maw, TheSuitat, Playof Cards. 1595. H. 21. SeeMalone,

iii, 304. Fleay, i, 134, identifies with Match Me in London.
May-Day, Com. Man. Chapman, G. 1601, 1611.
Mayor of Quinborough, The. Middleton, T. 1596 or

1597, revived 1622, 1661.
Measure for Measure, Com. Shakespeare, W. 1603-04.

Folio, 1623.

Medea, Tr. Seneca. C. 1600. Brit. Mus. MS. Shane, 911.
Medea, Tr. Studley, J. 1566. Seneca his Ten Tragedies,

1581. Repr. Spenser Soc. 1887.
Medicine for a Curst Wife, A, Dom. Com. ? Dekker, T. 1602.

H. 169.
Melanthe Fabula Pastoralis, Lat. Brookes, S. Cambridge,

1615.
Meleager. Gager, W. Oxford, 1581, 1592. See Jahrbuch,

xxxiv, 233.

Meleager, Publii Ovidii Nasonis, English Trag. MS. frag-
ment. 1570-1590. Described by B. Dobell, Athenaeum,

Sept. 14, 1901.
Menaecmi, Com., Tr. Plautus. Warner, W. 1593, 1595-

Shakespeare's Library, v.
Merchant of Emden, The, Dom. 1594. H. 18. See Evans,

Old Ballads, i, 28.
Merchant of Venice, The, Com. Shakespeare, W. 1594,

1600.
Mercurius Britannicus, or the English Intelligencer, Sat'l.

Com. Brathwaite, R. 1641.

A LIST OF PLAYS 589

Mercury Vindicated from the Alchemists, Masque. Jon-
son, B. 1615. Folio, 1616.
Merry i Tragedy of Thomas, Murder Play. Haughton, Day.

1599. H. 57.

Merry as may be, Com. Day, Hathway, Smith. 1602. H. 171.

Merry Beggars, The. See A Jovial Crew.

Merry Devil of Edmonton, The. Drayton, M., and others.

1600, 1608. Dodsley, x.
Merry Tricks. See Ram-Alley.

Merry Wives of Windsor, The, Com. Shakespeare, W. 1598,
1602.

Messalina, the Roman Empress, Trag. Richards, N. 1637,
1640. See Genest, x, 112.

Metamorphosed Gipsies, The Masque of the. See Gipsies,
The Masque of.

Metropolis Coronata, Civic Pageant. Munday, A* 1615.

Michaelmas Term, Com. Man. Middleton, T. 1604,
1607.

Microcosmus, Lat. Trag. Arthur, T. Before 1600. MS.
St. John's, Cambridge. Fleay, i, 27. Reported not found
in Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 257.

Mkrrocosmus, a Moral Masque. Nabbes, T. 1634, 1637.
Bullen, Old Plays, n. s. iL

Midas, Court Com. Lyly, J. 1589, 1592.

Middle Temple and Lincoln's Inn Masque, The. Chap-
man, G. 1613, n. d. [1613]. Nichols, James, ii, 588.

Middlesex Justice of Peace, The. See The Weeding of

Covent Garden.

• Midsummer-Night's Dream, A, Com. Shakespeare, W.
1595, 1600.

Milan, The Duke of, Trag. Massinger, P. 1620, 1623.

Miller, The. 1598. H. 84.

Minds, Interlude of, Moral., Tr. from the Dutch. Nich-
olas, H. See Rfstituta, iv, 142.

Minerva's Sacrifice, Trag. Massinger, P. Lie. 1629. S. R.
Sept. 1653. Warburton. One with The Queen of Cor-
inth ? Fleay, i, 224.

5QO A LIST OF PLAYS

Mingo or Mings. 1577. Collier, Northbrooke' s Treatise,

viii; Notes and Queries, IX, ii, 444.
Mirza, Trag. Baron, R. Before 1642 ? c. 1648.
Miseries of Enforced Marriage, The, Dom. Drama. Wil-

kins, G. 1605, 1607. Dodsley, ix.
[Misfortunes of Arthur, The], otherwise Certain Devices, etc.

Hughes, T., and others. 1587, n. d. [1587]. Ed. H. C.

Grumbine, 1900.
Misogonus, Com. Johnson, L. ? 1560-77. Pr. by Brandl,

Quellen und Forschungen, Ixxx, 1898.
[Mock Play, AI\ Cambridge, 1564. Spanish State Papers, i,

375. See Ward, ii, 628.

Monsieur D'Olive, Com. Chapman, G. 1605, 1606.
Monsieur Thomas, Com. Man. (Beaumont and) Fletcher.

After 1610, 1639.
Montacute, Viscount, Masque for. Gascoigne, G. 1571.

A Hundreth Sundry Flowers, 157^-

Monuments of Honor, Civic Pageant. Webster, J. 1624.
Moor of Venice. 1605. Revels, 203. See Othello.
Moors, Masque of. 1605. Revels, 204.
Moore's Masque. Oxford, 1636. Fleay, ii, 358.
More, Sir Thomas, Chron. 1590. Dyce, Sh. Soc. 1844.
More Dissemblers besides Women. Middleton, T. Revised,

1622. Two New Plays, 1657.
Mors Comoedia, Lat. Drury, W. 1620. Dramatica Poe-

mata, 1628.
Mortimer his Fall, Chron. fragment. Jonson, B. 1602.

Folio, 1640. H. 170. Giffbrd, Jonson, vi.
Most Vertuous and Godly Susanna, The. Garter, T. Lie.

1569, 1578. See Bio-g. Dram, iii, 310.
Mother Bombie, Com. Lyly, J. 1590, 1594.
Mother Redcap, Com. Drayton, Munday. 1597. H. 70.

Cf. The Wise Woman of Hogsdon, n, i,
Mountebanks, The Masque of Gray's Inn with the Anti-
masques of. Fragment. Marston, J. ? 1618. Collier, Five

Court Masques, Sh. Soc. 1848.

A LIST OF PLAYS 591

Mucedorus, Rom. Com. Lodge, T. ? 1588-98, 1598. Dods-

ley, vii.
' Much Ado About Nothing, Com. Shakespeare, W. 1598,

1600.

Mucius Sccevola. 1577. Revels, IO2.
Mulleasses, the Turk, Trag. Mason, J. 1607, 1610.
Mulmutius Dunwallow, Chron. Rankins, W. 1598. H.

96.
Mulomorco, or Mulamulloco. 1591. H. 13. One with

Peek's Battle of Alcazar. Malone, iii, 297.
Mundus Plumbeus, Lat. Com. Arthur, T. MS. St. Johns,

Cambridge. Fleay, i, 27. Reported not found, Jahrbuch,

xxxiv, 257.
Murderous Michael, The History of. 1579. Revels, 143.

Perhaps one with Arden of Feversham. See Collier, iii,

26.
Muses' Looking Glass, The, Sat'l. Com. Randolph, T.

1634. Poems, 1638.
Mustapha, Trag. Greville, F. 1606, 1609.

Nann's Masque. Before 1642. Music in Elizabeth Rogers

her Virginal Book, Brit. Mus. MS. Addit. 10337. Bro-

tanek.
[Narcissus], a Twelfth Night Merriment, Farce. Oxford,

1602. Ed. M. L. Lee, 1893.

Narcissus, The Play of. Acted, 1572. Revels, II, 13.
Naufragium Joculare, Com. Cowley, A. 1638. Grosart's

Cowley, i.

Nebuchadnezzar. 1596. H. 50.
Necromantes, or the Two Supposed Heads, Com. Percy, W.

1601-02. Percy MS. Duke of Devonshire's Library.
Nectar et Ambrosia, Lat. Trag. Campion, E. Oxford, 1564.

See Athen. Oxon. i, 475.
Neptune's Triumph for the Return of Albion, Masque.

Jonson, B. 1624, n- d.

Nero, Claudius Tiberius, Trag. 1606, 1607.
Nero, The Tragedy of. 1623, 1624, Bullen, Old Plays, i.

592 A LIST OF PLAYS

Nero, tragoedia nova, Lat. Gwinne, M. 1603. See Jahr-

buch, xxxiv, 267.

Netherlands, Play of the. Listed, 1656. Greg, ii, p. xci.
New Academy, The, or the New Exchange, Com. Man.

Brome, R. 1628 ? Five New Plays, 1659.
New Custom, Polemical Moral. Revived 1563, 1573. Dods-

ley, iii.
New Guise. 1575 Mentioned by Laneham. See Nichols,

Elizabeth, i, 454.
New Inn, The, or the Light Heart, Com. Jonson, B. 1629,

1631.

New Ordinary, The. See The Damoiselle.
New River, Entertainment at the Opening of. Middleton,

T. 1613.
New Trick to Cheat the Devil, A, Com. Man. Davenport,

R. 1625-36, 1639. Bullen, Old Plays, n. s. iii.
New Way to Pay Old Debts, A, Com. Massinger, P. 1625,

l633-

New Way to Please You, A. See The Old Law.
New Wonder, A, a Woman Never Vexed. Rowley, W.

1631, 1632. Dodsley, xii.
New World's Tragedy. 1595. H. 27.
News from Plymouth, Com. Man. Davenant, Sir W. 1635.

Folio, 1673.
News from the New World Discovered in the Moon,

Masque. Jonson, B. 1621. Folio, 1640.
News out of the West, Intl. Pr. 1647. Halliwell, 180.
Nice Valor, The, or the Passionate Madman, Com. (Beau-
mont and) Fletcher, Middleton ? Revised c. 1614. Folio,

1647.
Nice Wanton, A Pretty Interlude called, "T. R." 1547-53,

1560. Manly, i.
Night Walker, The, or the Little Thief, Com. (Beaumont

and) Fletcher. 1614. Revised by Shirley? 1633, 1640.
Nineveh's Repentance. Listed, 1656. Greg, ii, p. xcii.
Ninus and Semiramis. S. R. May, 1595. Mentioned in

Heywood's Apology for Actors, 1612.

A LIST OF PLAYS 593

No Wit, No Help Like a Woman's, Com. Man. Middle-
ton, T. 1613, 1657.

Noble Choice, The, T. C. Massinger, P. Before 1640.
Warburton. See The Orator.

Noble Gentleman, The, Com. (Beaumont and) Fletcher.
Rowley, W. Lie. 1625. Folio, 1647.

Noble Grandchild, The. 1614. Warner's Cat. of Dulwich.

Noble Ravishers, The. S. R. 1653. Halliwell, 182.

Noble [Spanish] Soldier, The, or a Contract Broken Justly
Revenged, Pseudo-Hist. Rowley, S., Dekker. 1631,1634.
Bullen, Old Plays, i.

Noble Stranger, The, T. C. Sharpe, Lewis. 1638, 1640.
See Genest, x, 117.

Noble Trial, The, Trag. Glapthorne, H. C. 1639. War-
burton. Surmised the same with The Lady Mother, by
Fleay, i, 244.

Nobleman, The, T. C. Tourneur, C. S. R. Feb. 1612. War-
burton. Revels, 211.

Nobody and Somebody, Chron. 1592, n. d. [1606]. Simp-
son, School of Shakspere, ii.

Nonesuch, The, Com. "Rowley, W." S. R. 1660. War-
burton.

Nonpareils, The. See Love and Honor.

Northern Lass, The, Com. Brome, R. 1630, 1632.

Northward Hoe, Com. Man. Dekker, Webster. 1605, 1607.

Norwich, Princely Masque at. Goldingham, W. 1578. See
Nichols, Elizabeth, ii, 159.

Norwich, Receiving of the Queen into, Entertainment.
Garter, B., Goldingham, H. 1578, n. d. Nichols, Eliza-
beth, ii, 136.

Norwich Pageants, Miracle Plays. 1565. Manly, i.

Nothing Impossible to Love, Trag. ? Le Grys, R. C. 1630.
(Fleay, ii, 36.) S. R. June, 1660. Warburton.

Nottingham Castle, Devises for, Moral Masque. 1562. See
Evans, The English Masque, xxiii.

Nottola, Lat. Com. Before 1642 ? Douce MS. no. 47. Haz-
litt, 1 68.

594 A LIST OF PLAYS

Novella, The, Com. Man. Brome, R. 1632. Five New
Plays, 1653.

Oberon, the Faery Prince, Masque. Jonson, B. 1611.

Folio, 1616.
Obstinate Lady, The, Com. Cockayne, Sir A. 1638-39,

1657-
Octavia, Tr. Nuce, or Newton, T. 1561. Seneca his Ten

Tragedies, 1581. Repr. Spenser Soc. 1887.
Octavia, The Virtuous, T. C. Senecan. Brandon, S. 1598.
(Edipus, Lat. Tr. Gager, W. Oxford, 1580. Brit. Mus.

MS. Addit. 22583. Fragment. See Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 236.
(Edipus, Tr. Nevile, A. 1560. Seneca his Ten Tragedies,

1581. Repr. Spenser Soc. 1887.

Old Couple, The, Com. May, T. 1619,1658. Dodsley, xii.
Old Drapery, Triumphs of, Civic Pageant. Munday, A.

1614.

/• Old Fortunatus, Com. Dekker, T. 1596, 1600.
Old Law, The, Com. Massinger, Rowley, W. 1599-1607,

1656.
Old Man's Lesson and a Young Man's Love, An, Dialog.

Breton, N. 1605.

Old Tobit, Bible Play. Lincoln, 1564. Gentleman's Maga-
zine, liv, 103.
• Old Wives' Tale, The, Com. Peele, G. 1590, 1595.

1, Oldcastle, The First Part of Sir John, Chron. Drayton,
Hathway, Munday, Wilson. 1598, 1600. Tyrrell, Doubt-
ful Plays of Shakespeare.

2, Oldcastle, Chron. Drayton, Hathway, Munday, Wilson.
1599. H. 113.

Olympio and Ingenio. 1595. H. 24.

Opportunity, The, Com. Shirley, J. Lie. 1634, 1640.

Orator, The, T. C. ? Massinger, P. Lie. Jan. 1635. One
with The Noble Choice and The Elder Brother ? Fleay,
i, 228.

Ordinary, Shank's. Shank, J. Lie. 1624. Malone, Vario-
rum Shakspeare, iii, 221.

A LIST OF PLAYS 595

Ordinary, The, Com. Man. Cartwright, W. 1634. Come-
dies, 1651. Dodsley, xii.

Orestes, Trag. or Moral. 1567. Mentioned, Harl. MS.
146. One with Pickering's Horestes.

Orestes, The Tragedy of. Goffe, T. 1623, 1633.

Orestes Furies. Dekker, T. 1599. H. 107.

Orestes. See Horestes.

Orgula or the Fatal Error, Trag. "By L. W." Before 1642 ?
1658.

Orlando Furioso, Rom. Com. Greene, R. 1592, 1594.

Orphan's Tragedy. Day, Haughton, Chettle. 1599. H. 57.

Orpheus, Com. Before 1642? Warburton. "Fragment in
Brit. Mus.," Fleay, ii, 336.

Osmond, the Great Turk or the Noble Servant, T. C.
Carlell, L. 1638. Two New Plays, 1657.

Osric. See Marshal Osric.

Othello, the Moor of Venice, The Tragedy of. Shake-
speare, W. 1604, 1622.

Overthrow of Rebels, The, Hist. 1602. H. 184.

Owen Tudor. Drayton, Munday, Hathway, Wilson. 1600.
H. 117.

Owl, The. "A play." Daborne, R. 1613. See Alleyn
Papers, 72. Greg, ii, p. xcv.

Owls, The Masque of. Jonson, B. 1626. Folio, 1640.

Page of Plymouth, Murder Play. Jonson, Dekker. 1599.

H. no. See Sh. Soc. Papers, ii, 79.
Painful Pilgrimage, The, Moral. 1567-68. Mentioned,

Harl. MS. 146. Collier, i, 194.
Painter's Daughter, The. 1576. Revels, 101.
Palcemon and Arcite, Trag. 1594. H. 19.
Paltemon and Arcite, Trag. Edwards, R. 1566. See Nichols,

Elizabeth, i, 212.

Palantus and Eudora. See The Conspiracy.
Panaccea. 1574. Revels, 87.

Pan's Anniversary, Masque. Jonson, B. 1620. Folio, 1640.
Paradox, The, Com. ? 1596. H. 42.

596 A LIST OF PLAYS

Parasitaster, or the Fawn, Com. Man. Marston, J. 1604,

1606.
Paria, Lat. Com. Vincent, T. Cambridge, 1627, 1648.

Listed, 1656.

Paris and Vienna, Heroical Rom. 1572. Revels, 13.
Parliament of Bees, The, Allegorical Dialog. Day, J. Not

acted, 1641.
Parliament of Love, The, Com. Man. fragment. Massinger,

Rowley, W. ? Lie. 1624.
Parricide, The, Trag. Glapthorne, H. Lie. 1624. S. R.

Nov. 1653. Perhaps one with Revenge for Honor.
Parson's Wedding, The, Com. Man. Killigrew, T. 1635,

Comedies and Tragedies, 1641. Dodsley, xiv.
Parthenia, Past., Tr. Groto. Before 1603. Cambridge.

MS. Emmanuel College, i, 3, 16. See Jahrbuch, xxxiv,

31?-
Partial Law, The, T. C. 1620-30. To be printed from the

original MS. See B. Dobell, Cat. 146, Dec. 1906.
Pasquil and Catherine, The Comedy of. See Jack Drum's

Entertainment.
Passion of Christ, The. Ashton, T. ? 1561. See Phillips,

History of Shrewsbury, 2OI.

I, 2, Passionate Lovers, The, T. C. Carlell, L. 1636, 1655.
Pastor Fido, II, Tr. Guarini. Dymocke, J. ? 1602. See

Greg, Pastoral, 242 n.
Pastor Fido, II, Tr. Guarini. Fanshaw, R. 1633, 1647. See

Greg, Pastoral, 242.
Pastor Fido, II, or The Faithful Sheapheard, Tr. Guarini.

Sidnam, J. 1630. Brit. Mus. MS. Addit. 29493.
Pastor Fido, II, ... recitata in Collegio Regali Cantabrigiae,

Tr. Guarini. 1606. Cambridge University Library MS.

Ff. ii, 9.

Pastor Fidus. See Pastor Fido . . . recitata, etc.
Pastoral Tragedy. Chapman, G. 1599. H. IIO.
Pathomachia, or the Battle of the Affections, Moral. 1630.
Patient Grissil, Com. Dekker, Chettle, Haughton. 1598,

1603. Ed. G. Hiibsch, 1893.

A LIST OF PLAYS 597

Peace, The Triumph of, Masque. Shirley, J. 1634,

''Peace and Discord" Masque. Fleay, ii, 341.

Peaceable King, The, or Lord Mendall. Lie. An Old Play,

1623.
Pedantius, Lat. Com. Wingfield, M., or Forsett, E. Cam-

bridge, 1581, 1631. Ed. G. C. M. Smith, Materialien zur

Kunde, 1905.

Pedlars' Masque, The. 1574. Revels, 87.
Pedlar's Prophecy, The, Moral Intl. Wilson, R. 1590, 1595.
Pelopidarum Secunda, Lat. Trag. Before 1603. Harl. MS.

5110.

Pelopoea and Alope. See Amphrissa.
Penates. Jonson, B. See Highgate.
Perfidius Hetruscus, Lat. Trag. Date and college unknown.

Bodleian MS. Raivl. C. 787. See Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 250.
Pericles, Prince of Tyre, "Romance." Shakespeare, W.

1608, 1609.

Perkin Warbeck, Chron. Ford, J. 1633, 1634.
Perseus and Andromeda [Anthomiris]. 1574. Revels, 68.
Petronius Maximus, Trag. "W. S." 1619. Constable's

Edinburgh Magazine, 1821. Qy. Valentinian.
Phadrastus and Phigon. 1574. Revels, 87.
Phaeton, Court Drama. Dekker, T. 1598. H. 83. Identi-

fied by Gifford, Ford, ii, 360, with The Sun's Darling.
Pharamus sive Libido Vindex. See Thibaldus.
Pharaoh's Daughter. Mentioned by K. L. Bates, The

English Religious Drama, 251.
Philaster, or Love Lies a Bleeding, T. C. Beaumont and

Fletcher. 1609, 1620.

Philemon and Felicia. 1574. Revels, 68.
Philenzo and Hippolyta, " T. C. Massinger, P." Warbur-

ton. See Philippo and Hippolito.
Philip of Spain, Hist. 1602. H. 169.
Philippo and Hippolito. 1594. H. 18.
Philoctetes, Tr. Sophocles. Lat. Ascham, R. Before 1568.
Philomanthes, Lat. Trag. of the Christmas Prince, 1607.
Philomela, Lat. Trag. of the Christmas Prince, 1607.

598 A LIST OF PLAYS

Philosophaster, Lat. Com. Burton, R. Oxford, 1618. Pr.

privately, Roxburghe Club, 1862.
Philotas, a play on. Lateware, R. 1588. Mentioned by

Daniel in his "Apology" and appended to his Philotas.
Philotas, The Tragedy of. Daniel, S. 1600-04, 1607.
Philotus, Com. C. 1600, 1603. Repr. Bannatyne Club,

1835-
Phocas, or Focasse. Slater, M. 1596. H. 30.

Phoebus' Knights. See Whitehall, Masque at, in Honor of

the Marriage of Lord Hayes.
Phoenix, The, Com. Man. Middleton, T. 1607.
Phoenix in her Flames, The, Dramatized Rom. Lower, Sir

W. 1638, 1639. See Genest, x, 69.
Phormio, Tr. Bernard, R. Terence in English, 1598.
Phyllida and Corin. 1584. Revels, 188.
Picture, The, T. C. Massinger, P. Lie. 1629, l^3°-
Pierce, Alice. See Alice Pierce.
Pierce of Exton, Chron. Wilson, Dekker, Drayton, Chettle.

1598. H. 85.
Pierce of Winchester. Dekker, Drayton, Wilson. 1598.

H. 91.
Pilgrim, The, Rom. Com. (Beaumont and) Fletcher. 1621.

Folio, 1647.
Pilgrimage to Parnassus, The, Sat'l. Com. Cambridge, 1598.

Ed. W. D. Macray, 1886.

Pinner of Wakefield, The. See George a Greene.
Pirate, The. Davenport, R. Fleay, ii, 369.
Pity the Maid. S. R. 1653.
Placid as, Sir. Chettle, H. 1599. H. 106.
Plantation of Virginia, A Tragedy of the. Lie. 1623. Collier,

i, 445-

Platonic Lovers, The, T. C. Davenant, Sir W. 1635, 1636.
" Play of Pastoral." Mentioned in Sir Humphrey Mildmay's

Diary, 1634.
Play of Plays, The. Mentioned as acted 1580, in Gosson's

Plays Confuted. See Fleay, i, 249. See Delight.
" Play of Strange Morality, A." Mentioned by Nash, Choos-

A LIST OF PLAYS 599

ing of Valentines, 1590-1600. See Grosart, Nash, i,

p. Ix.
Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue, Masque. Jonson, B. 1618.

Folio, 1640.
Plutophthalmia Plutogamia, or Hey for Honesty, Down

with Knavery. Randolph, T. ? Before 1635, 1651.
Poetaster, or his Arraignment, Sat'l. Com. Jonson, B. 1601,

1602.
Politic Bankrupt, The, or Which is the Best Girl. S. R.

I653-
Politic Father, The. One with The Brothers. Lie. 1641. See

Fleay, ii, 246.
Politic Queen, The, or Murder will Out, Trag. Davenport, R.

1625-36. S. R. June, 1660.
Politician, The, Trag. Shirley, J. 1639, 1655.
Polyeuctes, or the Martyr, Tr. Corneille. Lower, Sir W.

ti64i, 1655.
Polyhymnia, a Triumph at Tilt. Peele, G. 1589, 1590.
Polyphemus. Chettle, H. 1599. H. 102.
Pompey, A Story of. 1580. Revels, 167. Cf. Ccesar and

Pompey.
Pompey the Great, his Fair Cornelia's Tragedy. Later title

for Kyd's Cornelia.
Pontius Pilate. Prologue and epilogue by Dekker. 1602.

H. 153.
Poor Man's Comfort, The, Past. Com. Daborne, R. 1613,

1655.

Poor Man s Paradise. Haughton, W. 1599. H. 1 10.
Poor Northern Man, The. See Too Good to be True.
Pope Joan, Pseudo-Hist. 1592. H. 13.
Porta Pietatis, Civic Pageant. Heywood, T. 1638.
Portio and Demor antes. 1580. Revels, 155.
Praise at Parting, Moral. Gosson, S. 1579. See Fleay, i,

248.

Predor and Lucia. 1573. Revels, 51.
Presentation for the Prince, A. See Charles, Prince.
Pretestus. 1575. Revels, 87.

600 A LIST OF PLAYS

Prince d' Armour, The Triumphs of the, Masque. Davenant,

Sir W. 1635.

Prince of Tarent. See A Very Woman.
Princely Pleasures at Kenilworth. See Kenilworth.
Princess, The, or Love at First Sight, T. C. Killigrew, T.

1637-38. Comedies and Tragedies, 1664.
Prisoner, The. One with The Fair Anchoress of Pausi-

lippo.
Prisoners, The, T. C. Killigrew, T. 1637. With Claracilla,

1641.

Privy Council, Entertainments for the Lords of the. Middle-
ton, T. 1621.

Prodigal Scholar, The, Com. Randolph, T. S. R. 1660.
Prodigality, Moral. 1568. Mentioned, HarL MS. 146. See

Collier, i, 194.
Progne, Lat. Trag. Calfhill, J. Oxford, 1566. See Nichols,

Elizabeth, i, 215.
Projector Lately Dead, A, Com. 1636. See Halliwell,

2OI.
Promos and Cassandra, The History of, Com. Whetstone,

G. Not acted, 1578. Hazlitt, Shakespeare's Library, iii.
Prophetess, The, or the History of Diocletian, T. C. (Beau-
mont and) Fletcher, Massinger. Lie. 1622. Folio, 1647.
Proteus and the Rock Adamantine, The Masque of. Da-

vison, F., Campion, T. 1595- Gesta Grayorum, 1688.

Nichols, Elizabeth, ii.

Proud Maid, The, Trag. 1613. Revels, 21 1.
Pseudomagia, Lat. Com. Mewe,W. 1618-26. Cambridge.

MS. Emmanuel Coll. See Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 317.
Ptolemy. Mentioned, Gosson, School of Abuse, 1579.
Puritan, The, or the Widow of Watling Street, Com. Man.

Middleton, T. ? 1606, 1607. Tyrrell, Doubtful Plays of

Shakespeare.
Puritan Maid, the Modest Wife, and the Wanton Widow, \

The, Com. Middleton, T. Before 1627. S. R. Sept. 1653.

Warburton.
Pythagoras. Slater, M. 1596. H. 27.

A LIST OF PLAYS 601

Queen, The, Trag. "John Fletcher." Listed, 1656. Greg,
ii, p. c.

Queen, The, or the Excellency of her Sex, T. C. Published
by Gough, A. Before 1642, 1653. Ascribed to Ford by
W. Bang. See his ed. Materialien zur Kunde, xiii.

Queen and Concubine, The, T. C. Brome, R. 1635, 1659.

Queen Elizabeth's Entertainment at Elvethan. Breton, N.,
and others. 1591. See Nichols, Elizabeth, iii, 102.

Queen Hester. See Hester.

Queen of Aragon, The, T. C. Habington, W. 1640. Dods-
ley, xiii.

Queen of Corinth, The, T. C. (Beaumont and) Fletcher,
Massinger, Field. 1618. Folio, 1647.

Queen of Corsica, The, Trag. Jaques, F. 1642. Brit. Mus.
MS. Lansdowne, 807.

Queen of Ethiopia, The, Rom. Bristol, 1578. Northbrooke's
Treatise, p. viii.

Queens, The Masque of. Jonson, B. 1609.

Queen's Arcadia, The, Past. Daniel, S. 1605, 1606.

Queens' Exchange, Th^, T. C. Brome, R. 1632, 1657.

Queen's Masque, Th^. See Love's Mistress.

Queen's Masque, The. Date unknown. Music in Play-
ford's Mustek's Handmaid, 1678. Brotanek.

Queen's Wake, The. See Tethy's Festival.

Quid pro Quo. 1578. Notes and Queries, IX, ii, 444.

Quintus Fabius. 1574. Revels, 51.

Raging Turk, The, or Bajazet II. Goffe, T. Before 1627,

1631.

Ram-Alley, or Merry Tricks, Com. Barrey, L. 1609, 1611.
i^l Dodsley, x.
,W,J Randall, Earl of Chester, Chron. Middleton, T. 1602. H.

171.

Ranger's Comedy, The. 1594. H. 17.
Rape of Lucrece, The, Trag. Heywood, T. 1603,1608.
Rape of the Second Helen, The History of the. 1579. Revels,
125.

602

A LIST OF PLAYS

Rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune, The, Mythological

Court Play. 1582, 1589. Revels, 176. Dodsley, vi.
Raymond, Duke of Lyons, Hist. 1613. Biog. Dram, iii,

193-
Re Vera or Verily, Lat. Sat'l. Com. Ruggle, G. 1598.

Fleay, ii, 172.
Rebellion, The, Trag. Rawlins, T. 1639, 1640. Dodsley,

xiv.
Red Knight, The, Rom. Bristol, 1576. Northbrooke's

Treatise, note, p. x.
Regicidium, Lat. Hist. ? Before 1642. Mentioned, Retros.

Rev. xii, 8.

Renegade, The, T. C. Massinger, P. 1624, 1630.
Reparatus sive Depositum, Tragico-comcedia. Drury, W.

1620. Dramatica Poemata, 1628.
Repentance of Mary Magdalene, The, Intl. Wager, L.

1565, 1567. Ed. F. I. Carpenter, 1902.

1, Return from Parnassus, The, Sat'l. College Play. 1601.
First pr. ed. W. D. Macray, 1886.

2, Return from Parnassus, The, or The Scourge of Simony,
Sat'l. College Play. 1602, 1606. Repr. ed. W. D. Macray,
1886.

Re-united Britannia, The Triumphs of, Civic Pageant.

Munday, A. 1605, n. d.
Revenge for a Father, A. See Hoffman.
Revenge for Honor, Trag. "By Chapman, G." ?, Glap-

thorne, H. 1624, 1654. Chapman, 1874, iii.
Revenge of Bussy D'Ambois, The, Trag. Chapman, G.

1604, 1613.
Revenger's Tragedy, The, or the Loyal Brother. Tourneur,

C. 1606-07, 1607. Dodsley, x.
Rhodon and Iris, Past. Knevet, R. 1631. See H. Smith,

Pastoral Influence, 74.
Ricardus Tertius. 1586. Lacy, H. A transcript of Legge's

Tragedy.
Richard Cordelions Funeral. Wilson, Chettle, Munday,

Drayton. 1598. H. 87.

A LIST OF PLAYS 603

Richard, Duke of York, The True Tragedy of. See 2,
Contention.

Richard, Duke of York, The True Tragedy of. Second
part of The Whole Contention between the Two Famous
Houses, Lancaster and York, Chron. 1590, .1595.

Richard, the Confessor, [sic], Chron. ? 1593. H. 16. See
Fleay, ii, 298.

[Richard II, A Tragedy of King,] Chron. 1591. Pr. Halli-
well-Phillipps, 1870. See Jahrbuch, xxxv.

Richard II, The Deposing of, Trag. Mentioned in Cam-
den's Annales Rerum, ed. 1625, p. 810. Perhaps Shake-
speare's.

Richard II, The Tragedy of. Shakespeare, W. 1594, 1597.

Richard II, Trag. i6n. Reported by Dr. Forman. See
Ward, i, 387.

Richard Crookback. Jonson, B. 1602. H. 168. Alleyn
Papers, 24.

Richard III, A Tragedy of, or the English Prophet. Rowley,
S. Lie. 1623.

Richard III, The Tragedy of King. Shakespeare, W. 1593,

1597-
Richard III, The True Tragedy of, Chron. Peele, Lodge,

Kyd ? 1591, 1595. Ed. B. Field, Sh. Soc. 1844.
Richardus- Tertius, Lat. Trag. Legge, T. 1579. Sh. Soc.

1844.
Richmond, The King and Queen's Entertainment at. 1636.

Repr. Bang and Brotanek, Materialien zur Kunde, ii,

1903.
Ring, The. Before 1633. Mentioned in Shirley's Bird in a

Cage, H, i. Qy. Two Merry Milkmaids.
Rising of Cardinal Wolsey, The, Chron. Chettle, Munday,

Drayton, Smith. 1601. H. 149.
Rival Friends, The. Hausted, P. 1631, 1632. See Genest,

x, 148.

Rivales, Lat. Com. Gager, W. Oxford, 1583.
Roaring Girl, The, or Moll Cutpurse. Middleton, T. 1610,

1611.

604

A LIST OF PLAYS

Robert II, King of Scots, Trag. Dekker, Jonson, Chettle.

1599. H. in.
Robert, Earl of Huntington, The Death of, Chron. Mun-

day, Chettle. 1598, 1601. Dodsley, viii.
Robert, Earl of Huntington, The Downfall of, Chron. Mun-

day, A. 1598, 1601. Dodsley, viii.
Robin Conscience, Dialog. 1575, 1579- See Collier, ii,

403; Fleay, ii, 294.
Robin Good fellow. Chettle, H. 1602. H. 181. This title

is an interpolation of Collier's. See Greg, ibid. xliv.
Robin Hood, A Tale of. See The Sad Shepherd.
Robin Hood and Little "John, A Pastoral Comedy of. S. R.

1594. Listed, 1656. Greg, ii, p. ciii.

1, Robin Hood. See Robert, Earl of Huntington, Downfall
of.

2, Robin Hood. See Robert, Earl of Huntington, Death of.
Robin Hood's Pennyworths. Haughton, W. 1600. H. 124.
Roderick, Trag. 1 Chettle, H. ? 1600. H. 131. Fleay, ii, 308.
Roister Doister, Com. Udall, N. 1534-41, n. d. [1566-67].

Dodsley, iii.

Rollo, Duke of Normandy. See The Bloody Brother.
Roman Actor, The, Trag. Massinger, P. 1626, 1629.
Romanus, Trag. "Ja. Co." Before 1642. "Design" alone

extant, Brit. Mus. MS. Harl. 4628.
Romeo and Juliet, Trag. 1562. Mentioned by Brooke in

his Tragical History. See Ward, i, 116, 394.
Romeo and Juliet, Trag. Shakespeare, W. 1591-96, 1597.
Romeus et Julietta, Lat. fragment. 1615 ? Brit. Mus. MS.

Shane, 1775. See Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 255.
Rosania or Love's Victory. One with The Doubtful Heir.

Fleay, ii, 245.
Roxana, Lat. Trag., Tr. Groto. Alabaster, W. Before 1592.

Cambridge. See Retros. Rev. xii, 19.
Royal Choice, The, T. C. Stapyleton, R. Before 1642 ?

l653-
Royal Combat, The, Com. Ford, J. Before 1640. S. R.

June, 1660. Warburton.

A LIST OF PLAYS 605

Royal King and the Loyal Subject, The, T. C. Heywood,
T. 1618, 1637. Ed. K. W. Tibbals, 1906.

Royal Master, The, Com. Shirley, J. 1638.

Royal Slave, The, T. C. Carrwright, W. 1636, 1639.

Royal Widow of England, The History of a. 1602. Men-
tioned in The Diary of the Duke of Stettin, Trans. Royal
Hist. Soc. vi, 1892.

Rule a Wife and have a Wife, Com. Intrigue. (Beaumont
and) Fletcher. Lie. 1624, 1640.

"Running" or Travelling Masque, The. 1620. See Nichols,
James, iii, 587.

Sad One, The, Trag. fragment. Suckling, Sir J. 1640.

Last Remains of Suckling, 1659.
Sad Shepherd, The, Past, fragment. Jonson, B. 1614.

Folio, 1640.

Sages, Masque of Six. 1574. Revels, 51.
Sailors' Masque, The. 1620. Halliwell, 218.
St. Albans, The Tragedy of. Shirley, J. S. R. 1639.
St. George for England, Chron. ? Smith, William. 1615-23.

See Fleay, ii, 251, who refers it to Warburton's List. I do

not find it there.
St. Patrick for Ireland, Rom. Miracle Play. Shirley, J.

1639, 1640.
Salisbury Plain. After 1625. Halliwell, 219. Qy. one with

Wilde's The Converted Robber.
Salmacida Spolia, Masque. Davenant, Sir W. 1640.
Sampson. Rowley, S., Juby, E. 1602. H. 169. Mentioned

in The Family of Love, I, iii; and in The Diary of the

Duke of Stettin, 1602.

Sapho and Phao, Court Com. Lyly, J. 1581, 1584.
Sapientia Salomonis, Tr. Birck, Lat. Biblical Senecan Play.

Oxford, 1566. Brit. Mus. MS. 20061. See Jahrbuch,

xxxiv, 224, 323.
Sarpedon. 1580. Revels, 155.
Satire of the Three Estates, A, Moral. Lindsay, Sir D. 1540,

1602.

606 A LIST OF PLAYS

Satiromastix. Dekker, T. 1602.

[Satyr, The.] See Althorpe, Entertainment at.

Scanderbeg, The True History of George, Conqueror Play.

Marlowe, C. Before 1593. S. R. 1601.
Scholar, The, Com. Lovelace, R. 1636 ? Prologue and

Epilogue in Lucasta, 1649.
School of Compliment, The. See Love Tricks.
Scipio Africanus. 1581. Revels, 155.
Scornful Lady, The, Com. Man. Beaumont and Fletcher.

1609, 1616.
Scyros, Fabula Pastoralis, Tr. Bonarelli. Brooke, S. 1612.

Cambridge University Library, MS. Ee. 5, 16, and

others.

Sea Feast. See Aphrodisial.

Sea Voyage, The, Com. (Beaumont and) Fletcher, Mas-
singer. Lie. 1622. Folio, 1647.
Sebastian, King of Portugal. Dekker, Chettle. 1 60 1. H.

136. Perhaps Stukeley or an earlier version of Believe as

You List.
[Second Maiden's Tragedy, The.] Lie. 1611. Pr. Baldwin's

Old English Drama, 1824-25. Dodsley, x.
See Me and See Me Not. See Hans Beer-Pot.
Sejanus his Fall, Trag. Jonson, B. 1603, 1605.
Selimus, The First Part of the Tragical Reign of, Conqueror

Play. Greene, R. ? 1588, 1594.
Senile Odium, Lat. Com. Hausted, P. Cambridge, 1630,

1633. Retros. Rev. xii.
Senilis Amor, Lat. Com. Cambridge, 1635. MS. Rawl.

Poet. 9.
[Senile and Astrea], eine Comoedia von eines Koniges Sohn

aufs Engeland und des Koniges Tochter aufs Schottlandt.

Pseudo-Hist. Before 1620. See Cohn, Shakespeare in

Germany, cviii, ex.

Set at Tennis. Munday, A. 1602. H. 172.
Seven Champions of Christendom, The, Heroical Rom.

Kirke, J. 1634, 1638. See Genest, x, 108.
I, 2, Seven Days of the Week. 1595, 1596. H. 24, 28.

A LIST OF PLAYS 607

Seven Days of the Week, The, Com. The Christmas Prince,

1607. Miscellanea Antiqua Anglicana, i, 1816.
Seven Deadly Sins, The, Second Part of the, Medley Drama.

Tarlton, R. Before 1588. Platte or plan alone extant.

See Malone, iii, 348.
Seven Wise Masters. Dekker, Haughton, Day, Chettle.

1600. H. 118.
Sforza, The Tragedy of Lodovick. Gomersal, R. Pr.

1628.
She Saint, The, "a play." Daborne, R. 1613. Alleyn

Papers, 82.
Shepherds' Holiday, The, Past. Rutter, J. 1634, 1635.

Dodsley, xii.
Shepherds' Masque, The. Mentioned in Mucedorus, ed.

1606.' Fleay, ii, 49. Halliwell, 225.
Shepherds' Paradise, The, Past. Montague, W. 1632,

1659.
Ship, The. Before 1611. Mentioned in Amends for Ladies,

H, i.
Shoemaker a Gentleman, A, Pseudo-Chron. Rowley, W.

1610, 1638.

Shoemakers' Holiday, The, Com. Dekker, T. 1597-99, I6°o-
Shore, Jane. Chettle, H. 1598. H. 160.
Shore's Wije, Chron. Day, Chettle. 1603. H. 190.
Sicelides, Piscatory. Fletcher, P. 1615,1631. Grosart's ed.

of P. Fletcher, iii.
Sicily and Naples, or the Fatal Union, Trag. Harding, S.

1638, 1640.

Siderothriambos, Civic Pageant. Munday, A. 1618.
Siege, The (earlier called The Colonel), T. C. Davenant,

Sir W. 1629. Folio, 1673, under title The Siege.
Siege, The, or Love's Convert, T. C. Cartwright, W. 1637.

Comedies, etc. 1651.

Siege of Antwerp, The. See A Larum for London.
Siege of Dunkirk, with Alleyn the Pirate. 1603. H. 174.
Siege of London, Chron. 1594. H. 21. Qy. Heywood's

Edward IV.

608 A LIST OF PLAYS

Sight and Search. 1643. MS. See Halliwell, 228.

Silent Woman, The. See Epicoene.

Silvanus, Lat. Com. Cambridge, 1596. Bodleian MS.

Douce, 234.

Silver Age, The. (Hercules.) Heywood, T. 1595, 1613.
Silvia, Lat. Com. Kynder, P. 1625-42. Alluded to in MS.

Ashmole, 788.
Singer's Voluntary. Singer, J. 1602. H. 173. Cf. Day's

Humor Out of Breath, iv, 3.
Sir Clyomon, Giles Goosecap, etc. See Clyomon, Goosecap,

etc.
Sisters, The, Com. Shirley, J. Lie. 1642. Six New Plays,

l653-
Sisters of Mantua, The. 1578. Revels, 125.

Six Clothiers of the West. One with 2, Six Yeomen of the

West.
Six Fools, Com. ? 1567-68. Mentioned, Harl. MS. 146.

Collier, i, 194.

Six Seamen, Masque of. 1582. Revels, 178.
Six Virtues, Masque of. 1574. Collier, i, 209.

1, Six Yeomen of the West, Murder Play. Day, Rowley, S.,
Haughton. 1601. H. 137, 138.

2, Six Yeomen (or Clothiers') of the West, Murder Play.
Hathway, Smith, Haughton. 1601. H. 150.

Skink, Sir Martin, Com. Brome, R., Heywood, T. 1634 ?

S. R. 1634.
Skogan and Skelton. Rankins, Hathway, Rowley, S. 1601.

H. 125, 134.
Sold an and the Duke of , The History of the. 1580.

Revels, 155.

Soldier, The, Trag. Lovelace, R. Before 1642.
Soldiered Citizen, The. See The Crafty Merchant.
Soliman and Perseda, Trag. Kyd, T. 1588, 1599.
Solitary Knight, History of the. 1577. Revels, 114.
Solymannidae, Lat. Trag. of palace intrigue. 1581. Brit.

Mus. MS. Lansdowne, 723. See Jahrbuch, xxxiv.
Somebody, Avarice and Minister. Politico-Religious Intl.

A LIST OF PLAYS 609

(Brandl, lix). 1547-53, n.d. Fragment. See S. R. Mait-
land, List of Early Printed Books at Lambeth, 1843, 280.

Somerset's Masque. See Whitehall. Campion.

Somnium Fundatoris, an Allegorical Show. The Christmas
Prince, 1607.

Sophister, The, Com. Zouch, R. Oxford, 1638, 1639.
Greg, ii, p. xxix.

Sophomorus, Com. ? 1620. Bliss MS. Fleay, ii, 361.

Sophonisba. See The Wonder of Women.

Sophy, The, Trag. Denham, Sir J. 1641, 1642.

Spaniard's Night Walk, The. See Blurt, Master Constable.

Spanish Bawd, represented in Celestina, The, T. C., Tr.
Rojas. Mabbe, J. Not acted, 1631.

Spanish Comedy, The. 1591. H. 13.

Spanish Curate, The, Com. (Beaumont and) Fletcher,
Massinger. 1622. Folio, 1647.

Spanish Duke of Lerma, The, Hist. ? Shirley, H. Before
1627. S. R. 1653.

Spanish Fig, The, Trag. 1602. H. 153. Fleay, ii, 308, iden-
tifies with The Noble Spanish Soldier.

Spanish Gipsy, The. Middleton, Rowley, W. 1623, 1653.

Spanish Lovers, The, T. C. Davenant, Sir W. S. R. 1639
as The Distresses. Folio, 1672. Fleay, i, 103.

Spanish Maz, The Tragedy of the. 1605. Revels, 205. Of
doubtful authenticity. See Fleay, Stage, 177.

Spanish Moor's Tragedy, The. Dekker, Haughton, Day.
1600. H. 118. Perhaps Lust's Dominion.

Spanish Puecas (Fleay, ii, 336) or Purchase, The, Com.
Warburton.

Spanish Tragedy, The. Kyd, T. 1586, 1594.

Spanish Viceroy, The, or the Honor of Women, Com. Mas-
singer, P. 1624. S. R. Sept. 1653. Warburton.

Sparagus Garden, The, Com. Brome, R. 1635, 1640.

Spartan Ladies, The, T. C. Carlell, L. 1634. S. R. 1646.
Mentioned in Mildmay's Diary, Collier, ii, 63.

Spensers, The, Chron. Chettle, Porter. 1599. H. 103.

Spightful Sister, The, T. C. Baily, A. Before 1640 ? 1667.

6io A LIST OF PLAYS

Spring's Glory, The, Masque. Nabbes,T. May, 1638, 1638.

Bullen, Old Plays, n. s. ii, 256.
Spurius, Lat. Com. Heylin, P. Oxford, 1615. Retros. Rev.

xii, 8.
Squire's Masque, The. See Whitehall, Masque at, at the

Marriage of the Earl of Somerset.

Staple of News, The. Jonson, B. 1625. Folio, 1631-40.
Stark Flattery, Com. 1598. H. ed. Collier, 276.
Stephen, The History of King. " By W. Shakespeare." S. R.

June, 1660.
Stepmother's Tragedy, Murder Play. Dekker, Chettle.

1599. H. 1 10.
Stoicus Vapulans, Lat. Moral. Cambridge, 1627, 1648.

Retros. Rev. xii, 29, 35.
Stonehenge, Past. ? Speed, J. 1636. See Athen. Oxon. ii,

660.

Strange Discovery, The, T. C. Gough, J. 1640.
Strange News out of Poland. Haughton, "Mr. Pett." 1600.

H. 121.
Strowde, Thomas. See 2 and 3, Blind Beggar of Bednal

Green.
Studely, Pastoral Dialogue at. 1592. Nichols, Elizabeth, iii,

142.
' Stukeley, The Famous History of Captain Thomas, Biog.

Chron. 1596 (H. 50), 1605. Simpson, School of Shak-

spere, i.

Suffolk, The Duchess of. See The Duchess of Suffolk.
Suffolk and Norfolk, The Queen's Entertainment in. 1578.

Churchyard, T. n. d. See Nichols, Elizabeth, ii, 136.
Summer's Last Will and Testament, Court Drama. Nash,

T. 1592, 1600. Dodsley, viii.

Sun in Aries, The, Civic Pageant. Middleton, T. 1621.
Sun's Darling, The, "a Moral Masque." Ford, Dekker.

1623, 1656.

Supposed Inconstancy, The. S. R. 1653. Halliwell, 239.
Supposes, Tr. Ariosto. Gascoigne, G. 1566. A Hundreth

Sundry Flowers, n. d. [1566].

A LIST OF PLAYS 611

Susanna, The Comedy of the Most Virtuous. Garter, T.

S. R. 1568-69, 1578. See Greg, ii, p. cxxiii.
Susanna's Tears. Listed, 1656.' Perhaps Garter's Virtuous

Susanna. See Greg, ii, p. cix.
Swaggering Damsel, The, Com. Man. Chamberlain, R.

1640.
Swetnam the Woman Hater Arraigned by Women, Rom.

and Sat'l. Com. 1618-19, IO2a Repr. Grosart, 1880.
Swisser, The, T. C. Wilson, A. 1631. Ed. A. Feuillerat,

Paris, 1904.

[Sylla Dictator], Hist. 1588. See Collier, i, 266.
Sylvanus, Monologue. Gascoigne, G. Kenilworth, 1575.

Nichols, Elizabeth, i, 575.

Tale of a Tub, A. Com. Jonson, B. 1601 ? Lie. 1633.
Folio, 1640.

1, Tamber Cam, Conqueror Play. 1588-92 (H. 14). Plot
extant. See Malone, iii, 356.

2, Tamber Cam, Conqueror Play. 1592. H. 42.

i, 2, Tamburlaine the Great, Conqueror Play. Marlowe, C.

1587, 1592.

Tamer Tamed, The. See The Woman's Prize.
Taming of a Shrew, The, Com. Intl. 1588, 1594. Repr. Sh.

Quartos, 1886.
Taming of the Shrew, The, Com. Shakespeare, W. 1596-

97. Folio, 1623.
Tancred and Gismunda, Trag. Senecan. Wilmot, R.,

and others. 1568, 1591. Dodsley, vii.
Tancredo, Trag. Wotton, Sir H. Oxford, 1586-87. See

Ward, i, 215, and Walton's Life of Wotton.
Tanner of Denmark, The. 1592. H. 14.
Tararantantara, Sat'l. Com. Nash, T. Before 1590, Cam-
bridge. Nash, Have with you to Saffron Walden, 117.
Tasso. Revised by Dekker. 1594, 1602. H. 19, 171.
Tasso's Melancholy. 1594. H. 1 8.
Technogamia, or the Marriages of the Arts, Moral.

Holiday, B. 1618. See Nichols, James, iii, 713.

6i2 A LIST OF PLAYS

Telemo, A History of. 1583. Revels, 177.

Tell Tale, Com. Before 1625. See Warner, Cat. of Dul-

wich, p. 342, and Bullen, Old Plays, ii, 417.
Tempe Restored, Masque. Townsend, A. 1632. See Bro-

tanek, 362.
Tempest, The, Com. Shakespeare, W. 1610-11. Folio,

1623.
Temple of Love, The, Masque. Davenant, Sir W. 1634

[35]-
Terminus et Non Terminus, Lat. Com. Nash, T. 1588.

See Grosart, Harvey, iii, 67.

Tethy's 'Festival or the Queen's Wake. Daniel, S. 1610.
That will be shall be. 1596. H. 50.
Theagenes and Chariclea. 1573. Revels, 34.
Theater of Apollo, The, Entertainment. 1625. Brit. Mus.

Bibl. Reg. 1 8 A. Ixx.
Thebais, Tr. Newton, T. Seneca his Ten Tragedies, 1581.

Repr. Spenser Soc. 1887.

Thenot and Piers, A Dialogue between. Pembroke, Coun-
tess of. 1601. Nichols, Elizabeth, iii, 529.
Theobald's, Entertainment of the King and Queen at.

Jonson, B. 1607. Folio, 1616.
Theobald's, Entertainment of Two Kings at. Jonson, B.

1606. Folio, 1616.
Theobald's, Queen Elizabeth's Welcome at. Peele, G.

1591, 1833 in Collier, i, 383.
Theomachia, Lat. Moral. Heylin, P. Oxford, 1618. See

Retros. Rev. xii, 8.
Thibaldus sive Vindictae Ingenium, Tragoedia, Lat. Snel-

ling, T. Oxford, 1640. See Jahrbuch, xxvii, 228.
Thierry and Theodoret, Trag. Hist. (Beaumont and)

Fletcher, Massinger. 1617, 1621.
Thracian Wonder, The, Com. "Webster, J., and Rowley,

W." 1598 (Fleay, i, 287). Two New Plays, 1661.
Three Brothers, or Two Brothers. Smith, W. 1602. H. 182.
Three Ladies of London, The, Moral. Wilson, R. 1583,

1584. Dodsley, vi.

!

A LIST OF PLAYS 613

Three Laws of Nature, Moses and Christ, Miracle. Bale, J.

1538, 1562.
Three Lords and Three Ladies of London, The, Moral.

Wilson, R. 1585, 1590. Dodsley, vi.
Three Plays in One. 1585. Revels, 189.
Three Sisters of Mantua. 1578. Revels, 125.
Thyestes, Tr. Heywood, Jasper. 1560. Seneca his Ten

Tragedies, 1581. Repr. Spenser Soc. 1887.
Tide Tarrieth no Man, The, Moral. Wapull, G. 1576.

Ed. Collier, Illustrations of Popular Literature, 1864, ii,

no. 4.

Time, The Triumph of. See The Triumph of Time.
Time's Complaint, The Comedy of. See The Christmas

Prince, 1607.

Time Triumphant, Entertainment. 1603. S. R. 1604.
Time Vindicated, Masque. Jonson, B. 1623. Folio, 1640.

J Time's Triumph, and Fort[unat]us. 1597. H. 52. See The
Triumph of Time, and Fortunatus.
Timodea at Thebes. 1574. Revels, 62.
vTimon, Trag. 1600. Sh. Soc. 1842.
-Timon of Athens. Shakespeare, W., Wilkins, G. ? 1607.

Folio, 1623.

Tinker of Totness, Com. 1596. H. 42.
'Tis Good Sleeping in a Whole Skin, Com. Wager, W.

1566. Perhaps one with The Cruel Debtor.
'Tis no Deceit to Deceive the Deceiver. Chettle, H. 1598.

H.99.

'Tis Pity She's a Whore, Trag. Ford, J. 1627, 1633.
Tito Andronico und der hofjertigen Kay serin. 1586. Eng-

lische Comoedien und Tragoedien, 1620. Perhaps one with

Titus and Vespacia, 1591. H. 14.
Titus and Gisippus. 1577. Revels, 114, 120.
Titus and Ondronicus, Trag. 1594. H. 16.
Titus and Vespasian, Trag. 1591. H. 14.
Titus Andronicus, Trag. Shakespeare, W. 1588-90, 1594.
Tobias. Chettle, H. 1602. H. 166.
Tom Bedlam the Tinker, Com. 1618. Fleay, ii, 328.

6i4 A LIST OF PLAYS

Tom Tyler and his Wife, Dom. Intl. 1550-69, 1661. Ed.

F. E. Schelling, Mod. Lang. Publ. xv, 1900.
Tomumbeius sive Sultanici in JEgypto Imperii Eversio,

Lat. Trag., Conqueror Play. Salterne, G. Before 1603.

See Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 247.
Too Good to be True, or the Poor Northern Man, Com. ?

Chettle, Hathway, Smith. 1601. H. 151.
Tooly. 1576. Revels, 102.
Toothdrawer, The. Advertised, 1661.
Tottenham Court, Com. Man. Nabbes, T. 1633, 1638.

Bullen, Old Plays, n. s. i.
Toy, The. Prologue by Shirley. Poems, 1646.
Toy to Please Chaste Ladies, A, Com. 1595. H. 27.
Traitor, The, Trag. Shirley, J. Lie. 1631, 1635.
Trapolin Supposed a Prince, T. C., Tr. Italian. Cockayne,

Sir A. Before 1640. Small Poems, 1658.
Travails of Three English Brothers, The, Chron. Day,

Rowley, W., Wilkins. 1607. Bullen, Day, ii.
Tres Sibylbe, Intl. Gwinne, M. 1605. With Vertumnus,

1607. See Variorum Macbeth, ed. 1903, p. 397.

Trial of Chivalry, The, Pseudo-Hist. 1597-1604, 1605.

Perhaps identical with Burbon, H. 54. Bullen, Old

Plays, iii.

Trial of Treasure, The, Moral. 1565, 1567. Dodsley, iii.
Triangle, or Triplicity of Cuckolds, Com. Dekker. 1598.

H. 84.
Trick to Catch the Old One, A, Com. Man. Middleton, T.

1606, 1608.

Tristram de Lyons, Rom. 1599. H. 112.
Triumph of Beauty, The, Masque. Shirley, J. Before

1642 ? Poems, 1646.
Triumph of Death, The, Trag. Beaumont and Fletcher.

1608. See Four Plays in One. Folio, 1647.
Triumph of Honor, The, Com. Beaumont and Fletcher.

1608. See Four Plays in One. Folio, 1647.
Triumph of Love, The, Com. Beaumont and Fletcher. 1608.
See Four Plays in One. Folio, 1647.

A LIST OF PLAYS 615

Triumph of Time, The, Moral Intl. Beaumont and
Fletcher. 1608. See Four Plays in One. Folio, 1647.

Triumphs of Integrity, Truth, etc. See Integrity, Truth,
etc.

Troas, Tr. Heywood, Jasper. 1559. Seneca his Ten Tra-
gedies, 1581. Repr. Spenser Soc. 1887.

Troia Nova Triumphans, Civic Pageant. Dekker, T. 1612.

Troilus and Cressida, Trag. Dekker, Chettle. 1599. H. 104.
•Troilus and Cressida, T. C. Shakespeare, W. 1601-02,
1609.

Troublesome Reign of John, The. See John, The Trouble-
some Reign of.

Troy. 1596. H. 42. Probably Heywood's Iron Age. Fleay,
i, 285.

Troy's Revenge, with the Tragedy of Polyphemus. Chettle,
1599. H. 102.

True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York, The. See 2, Con-
tention.

True Tragedy of Richard III. See Richard III, The True
Tragedy of.

True Trojans, The. See Fuimus Troes.

Truth, The Triumphs of, Civic Pageant. Middleton, T.
1613.

Truth, Faithfulness and Mercy. 1574. Revels, 51.

Truth's Supplication to Candlelight. Dekker, T. 1600. H. 58.

Tu Quoque. See Greene's Tu Quoque.

Turk, The. See Mulleasses, the Turk.

Turkish Mahomet and Hiren the Fair Greek, The, Pseudo-
Hist. Peele, G. 1594. Mentioned in Merry Conceited Jests
of Peele, 1607.

•Twelfth Night, or What You Will, Com. Shakespeare, W.
1600-02. Folio, 1623.

Twelve Labors of Hercules, The. Mentioned in Greene's
Groatsworth of Wit, 1592.

Twelve Months, The Masque of the. 1612. Life of Inigo
Jones and Five Court Masques, ed. Collier, Sh. Soc. 1848.
See Brotanek, 346.

616 A LIST OF PLAYS

Twins, The, T. C. Rider, W. After 1629, 1655. (A revi-
sion of the following.)

Twins' Tragedy, The. Niccols, R. S. R. 1612. Revels,
211.

1, Two Angry Women of Abington, The, Com. Porter, H.
1596-98, 1599. H. 100. Gayley.

2, Two Angry Women of Abington, Com. Porter. 1598.
H. 100.

Two Gentlemen of Verona, The, Com. Shakespeare, W.

1591-92. Folio, 1623.
Two Harpies (Collier) or Shapes (Greg). Drayton, Dekker,

Middleton, Webster, Munday. 1602. H. 167.
Two Italian Gentlemen, Com. Tr. ? Munday, A. 1582,

1584. Repr. in part by Halliwell-Phillipps, Literature,

1849.
Two Kings in a Cottage, Trag. Bonen, W. Lie. 1623. See

Fleay, i, 32.
Two Lamentable Tragedies, Murder Play. Yarington, R.

1599, 1 60 1. Bullen, Old Plays, iv.
Two Maids of More-clake, The, Com. Man. Armin, R.

1608, 1609.

Two Merry Milkmaids, The. Cumber, J. 1619, 1620.
Two Merry Women of Abington, Com. Porter, H. 1598.

H. 103.
Two Noble Kinsmen, The. (Beaumont and) Fletcher,

Shakespeare. 1612, 1634.
Two Noble Ladies, The, or the Converted Conjurer, T. C.

1619-22. Brit. Mus. MS. Egerton, 1994. See Bullen,

Old Plays, ii, 430.
Two Sins of King David, The, Bible Play. S. R. 1562.

But see Fleay, ii, 293, where this is identified with David

and Absalom by Bale and declared still extant in MS.
Two the Most Faithfullest Friends. See Damon and Pithias.
Two Tragedies in One. See Two Lamentable Tragedies.
Two Wise Men and All the Rest Fools, Com. Man. 1619.
Tyranical Government Anatomized, Tr. of Buchanan's

Baptistes. 1642. Herford, 114 n.

A LIST OF PLAYS 617

Tyrant, The, "Trag. Massinger, P." Warburton. S. R.
June, 1660. Perhaps one with The King and Subject.
Lie. June, 1638. See Malone, iii, 230.

Ulysses and Circe. See Inner Temple Masque. Browne.
Ulysses Redux, Lat. Trag. Gager, W. 1580, 1592. See

Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 238.
Unfortunate Fortunate, The, T. C. Garfield, B. Mentioned

by R. Baron in Pocula Castalia, 1650.
Unfortunate General, French History of the. Hathway,

Smith, Day. 1603. H. 186.
Unfortunate Lovers, The, Trag. Davenant, Sir W. 1638,

1643-

Unfortunate Mother, The, Trag. Nabbes, T. 1638-39,
1640. Bullen, Old Plays, n. s.

Unfortunate Piety, The, or the Italian Night Piece. Massin-
ger, P. Lie. 1631. S. R. 1653. See Fleay, i, 225.

Unhappy Fair Irene, The, Trag. Swinhoe, G. Before 1640,
1658.

Unnatural Combat, The, Trag. Massinger, P. 1621, 1639.

Untrussing of the Humorous Poet. See Satiromastix.

Usurping Tyrant, The. See The Second Maiden's Tragedy.

Usury Put to Use. See The Devil of Dowgate.

Utherpendragon, Chron. 1597. H. 52.

Valentine and Orson, Rom. Hathway, Munday. S. R.

1595, 1598. H. 90.
Valentinian, Hist. Trag. (Beaumont and) Fletcher. 1617.

Folio, 1647.
Valetudinarium, Com. Johnson, W. Cambridge, 1638. MS.

in St. John's Coll. See Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 286.
Valiant Scholar, The. Lie. 1622.
Valiant Scot, The, Chron. "J. W." 1637. Forthcoming

ed. by J. L. Carver, Penna. Thesis, 1905.
Valiant Welshman, The, Chron. Armin, R. 1595, 1615.
Vallia and Antony. 1595. H. 21.
Valteger, or Vortigern, Chron. 1596. H. 50.

6x8 A LIST OF PLAYS

Variety, The, Com. Man. Cavendish, W., Duke of New-
castle. 1638. Two Comedies, 1649.
Vayvode. Chettle, H. 1598. H. 94.
"Vely a for" [sic]. 1594. H. 21.
Venetian Comedy. 1594. H. 19.
Venus, the White Tragedy or the Green Knight, Heroical

Rom. Philips. Mentioned in Nash's Lenten Stuff, 1599.
Versipellis, Lat. Com. Pestell, T. 1631. College unknown.

Biog. Dram, ii, 566.
Vertumnus. See Alba.
Very Woman, A, T. C. Massinger, P. Revised 1634. Three

New Plays, 1655.

Vestal, The, Trag. Glapthorne, H. C. 1639. Warburton.
Vice, An Interlude of. See Horestes.
Vices, The Masque of. Date unknown. Music in Brit. Mus.

MS. Addit. 10338, fol. 286. Brotanek, 339.
Victoria, Com. Fraunce, A. 1583. Ed. G. C. Moore Smith,

1906.

Vindicta. See Adrasta Parentans.
Virgin Martyr, The, Trag. Massinger, Dekker. Lie. 1620,

1622.
Virgin Widow, The, Com. Man. Quarles, F. Before 1642,

1649. Grosart, Quarles, iii.

Virtue and Beauty Reconciled, Masque. 1625. Fleay, ii, 345.
Virtues, Masque of Six. 1574. Fleay, ii, 341.
Virtuous Octavia. See Octavia.
Vision of Delight, The, Masque. Jonson, B. 1617. Folio,

1640.
Vision of the Twelve Goddesses, The, Masque. Daniel, S.

1604.

Vittoria Corombona. See The White Devil.
Volpone, or The Fox, Com. Man. Jonson, B. 1606, 1607.
Vortigern. See Valteger.
Vow and a Good One, A. Acted, 1623. Fleay, ii, 98, believes

this one with A Fair Quarrel.
Vow Breaker, The, or the Fair Maid of Clifton, Dom.

Trag. Sampson, W. 1636.

A LIST OF PLAYS 619

Walks of Islington and Hogsdon, The, Com, Man. Jordan, T.

1641, 1657.

Wallenstein, Albertus, Trag. Glapthorne,H. 1634-38,1639.
Wandering Lovers, The, T. C. Fletcher, J. Lie. Dec. 1623.

Warburton. S. R. Sept. 1653. One with The Lovers'

Progress.
Wanstead, Entertainment of her Majesty at. Sidney, Sir P.

1578. Arcadia, ed. 1598.
War without Blows, and Love without Suit, or Strife. Hey-

wood, T. 1599. H. 101.
Warbeck, Perkin. See Perkin Warbeck.
Ward, The, T. C. Neale, T. 1637. Bodleian MS. Rawl.

Poet. 79.

Ward and Dansiker. See The Christian Turned Turk.
Warlamchester. 1594. H. 2O.
Warning for Fair Women, A. Murder Play. 1598, 1599.

Simpson, School of Shakspere, ii.
Wars of Cyrus, The, Hist. Trag. 1588-91, 1594. Repr.

Jahrbuch, xxxvii, 1901.
Wars of Pompey and Caesar, The, Trag. Chapman, G.

1604-1608? 1631.
Way to Content all Women, The, Com. Gunnell, R. Lie.

1624.
Weakest Goeth to the Wall, The, Pseudo-Hist. "Webster

and Dekker." 1600.
Wealth and Health, Intl. 1557. Ed. W. W. Greg, Malone

Society, 1907.

Wedding, The, Com. Man. Shirley, J. 1626, 1629.
Weeding of Covent Garden, The, or the Middlesex Justice

of Peace, Com. Brome, R. 1632. Five New Plays, 1659.
Welbeck, The King's Entertainment at. 1633. Folio, 1640.
Welsh Ambassador, The, Chron. 1623. See Halliwell, 269.
Welsh Traveller. See The Witch Traveller.
Welshman, The. Drayton, Chettle. 1595. H. 27, 85.
Welshman s Prize, The. See The Welshman.
Westward Hoe, Com. Man. Dekker, Webster. 1603-04,

1607.

6zo A LIST OF PLAYS

What Mischief Worketh in the Mind of Man, Moral. Men-
tioned in Northbrooke's Treatise, 1578. Notes and Que-
ries, IX, ii, 444.

What you Will, Com. Man. Marston, J. 1601,1607.

What will be shall be. See That will be shall be.

When Women go to Law. See The Devil's Law Case.

When You See Me You Know Me, Chron. Rowley, S.
1604, 1605. Ed. K. Elze, 1874.

Whimsies of Senor Hidalgo or the Masculine Bride, Com. ?
Before 1603. Brit. Mus. MS. Harl. 5152.

Whisperer, The, or What You Please. Prologue by Tatham
(pr. with Ostella, 1650) alone extant.

White Devil, The, or Vittoria Corombona, Trag. Webster,
J. 1611, 1612.

Whitehall, Masque at, at the Marriage of the Earl of Som-
erset. Campion, T. 1614. Bullen's Campion, 1889.

Whitehall, Masque at, in Honor of the Marriage of Lord
Hayes. Campion, T. 1607. Bullen's Campion, 1889.

Whitehall, Masque at, February, 1612. See The Inner
Temple and Gray's Inn Masque.

Whitehall, Masque at, February, 1613. See The Middle
Temple and Lincoln's Inn Masque.

Whittington, The History of Richard. S. R. 1605.

Who Would Have Thought It. See Law Tricks.

Whole Contention, The. See Contention betwixt the Two
Famous Houses of York and Lancaster; The First Part
of the, and Richard Duke of York, The True Tragedy of.

Whore in Grain, The, Trag. Lie. 1624. See Fleay, ii, 273,
and his Stage, 358.

Whore New Vamped, The, Sat'l. Com. 1639. See Collier,
ii, 94.

Whore of Babylon, The, Allegorical Chron. Dekker, T.
1604, 1607.

Widow, The, Com. " Jonson, Fletcher, Middleton." 1616-
25, 1652.

Widow of Wading Street, The. See The Puritan.

Widow's Charm. Munday, or Wadeson. 1602. H. 169.

A LIST OF PLAYS

621

Widow's Prize, The, Com. Sampson, W. 1624-26. (Halli-

well; see Fleay, ii, 175.) S. R. Sept. 1653. Warburton.
Widow's Tears, The, Com. Chapman, G. 1605, 1612.
Wife for a Month, A, T. C. (Beaumont and) Fletcher. Lie.

1624. Folio, 1647.
•Wild Goose Chase, The, Com. Man. (Beaumont and)

Fletcher. 1621, 1652.
Wild Men, Masque of. Greenwich, 1573. See Fleay, ii,

341.

Will of a Woman, The. Chapman, G. 1598. H. 88.
William Longsword, or Longbeard. Drayton, M. 1599.

H. 59, 100.

William the Conqueror, Chron. 1594. H. 16.
Wily Beguiled, Com. Peele, G. ? Before 1595, 1606. Dods-

ley, ix.

Wine, Beer and Ale, Dialog. 1629.
Winter's Tale, The, "Romance." Shakespeare, W. 1610-

ii. Folio, 1623.
Wisdom of Doctor Dodypoll, The. Peele, G. ? Before 1596,

1600. Bullen, Old Plays, iii.
Wise Man of Westchester. 1594. H. 2O.
Wise Woman of Hogsdon, The, Dom. Heywood, T. 1604,

1638.
Wit and Will, Moral. At Court, 1568. Perhaps a revival

of Wit and Science, 1541-48. See Collier, i, 194.
Wit at Several Weapons, Com. Man. (Beaumont and)

Fletcher, Rowley, W. 1608-09. Folio, 1647.
Wit in a Constable, Com. Man. Glapthorne, H. 1639, 1640.
Wit in a Madness, Com. Brome, R. S. R. 1640.
Wit of a Woman, The, Com. Man. 1604.
Wit without Money, Com. (Beaumont and) Fletcher. 1614,

1639.
Witch, The, T. C. Middleton,T. Before 1627. Ed. I. Reed,

I778.
Witch of Edmonton, The, Dom. Rowley, W., Dekker, Ford.

1621, 1658.
Witch of Islington. 1597. H. 54.

622 A LIST OF PLAYS

Witch Traveller, The. Lie. 1623. Halliwell reads Welsh

Traveller.

Witless, Moral Intl. S. R. 1560-61.
Wits, The, Com. Man. Davenant, Sir W. 1634, 1636.
Witty Fair One, The, Com. Man. Shirley, J. 1628, 1633.
Wizard, The, Com. ? Before 1603. Brit. Mus. MS. Addit.

10306.
Wolsey, The Life of, Chron. Munday, Chettle, Drayton,

Smith. 1601. H. 138.

1, Wolsey, The Rising of, Chron. Chettle, Drayton, Mun-
day, Smith. 1601. H. 147.

2, Wolsey, The Second Part of. Chettle, Rowley. 1602.
H. 167.

Woman, Play of a. See Woman's Tragedy.

Woman Hater, The, Com. Beaumont (and Fletcher). 1606,

1607.
Woman in the Moon, The, Court Drama. Lyly, J. 1591-93,

*597-
Woman is a Weather-cock, A, Com. Field, N. 1611, 1612.

Nero and Other Plays, Mermaid ed. 1 888.
Woman Killed with Kindness, A. Dom. Drama. Heywood,

T. 1603, 1607.

Woman, or Women, Hard to Please. 1597. H. 51.
Woman will have her Will, A. See Englishmen for my

Money.

Woman's Law, The. S. R. 1653. Hajliwell, 276.
Woman's Masterpiece, The. S. R. 1653. Halliwell, 277.
Woman's Mistaken, The, Com. ? Davenport, Drue. 1622.

S. R. 1653.
Woman's Plot, The, Com. Massinger, P. Before 1640.

Warburton. S. R. Sept. 1653. See Fleay, i, 215, 227.
Woman's Prize, The, or the Tamer Tamed. (Beaumont

and) Fletcher. 1606. Folio, 1647.

Woman's too Hard for Him, The, Com. 1622. Fleay, i, 215.
Woman's Tragedy. Chettle, H. 1598. H. 90.
Women Beware Women, Trag. Middleton, T. 1612. Two

New Plays, 1657.

A LIST OF PLAYS 623

Women Pleased, T. C. (Beaumont and) Fletcher. 1620.

Folio, 1647.

Wonder of a Kingdom, The. Dekker, Day? 1623, 1636.
Wonder of a Woman. 1595. H. 25.
Wonder of Women, The, or the Tragedy of Sophonisba.

Marston, J. 1603, 1606.
Woodstock, The Queen's Entertainment at. Gascoigne, G.

Woodstock, The Tragedy of Thomas of. See Richard II.
Wooer, The, Intl. Puttenham, G. Before 1589. Art of

Poesie, ed. Arber, 233.

Wooing of Death. Chettle, H. 1600. H. 121.
Worcester, Entertainment at. Heywood, Wyatt, R. 1575.

Nichols, Elizabeth, i, 537.
Work for Cutlers, Dialog. 1615.
World, The. Mentioned in Beeston's List, 1639. See Collier,

ii, 92.
World Runs Well on Wheels, The, Com. Chapman. 1599.

H. 10 1. Perhaps All Fools.
World Tost at Tennis, The, Masque. Middleton, Rowley,

W. 1620.

World's Tragedy, The. 1595. H. 25.
Worse 'feared than Hurt. See Hannibal and Hermes.
Wounds of Civil War, The, or Marius and Sulla, Anc. Hist.

Lodge, T. 1587-90, 1594. Dodsley, vii.
Wyatt, Sir Thomas, Chron. Dekker, T. 1602, 1607.

Xerxes, King. Ferrant, R. 1574-75. See Collier, i, 235.

Yorkshire Gentlewoman and her Son, The, Trag. Chap-
man, G. Before 1634. S. R. June, 1660. Warburton.

Yorkshire Tragedy, A, Murder Play. 1605, 1608.

Young Admiral, The, Com. Shirley, J. Lie. 1633, 1637.

Younger Brother, The, Com. ? 1607. Mentioned in Alleyns
Diary. Malone, iii, 223.

Your Five Gallants, Com. Man. Middleton, T. Lie. 1607,
n. d.

624 A LIST OF PLAYS

Yule-tide, Com. Oxford, 1608. See M. L. Lee, Narcissus,
1893, p. xiv.

Zabeta, Court Intl. Gascoigne, G. 1575. The Princely

Pleasures at Kemlivorth, 1576.
Zelotypus, Lat. Com. Cambridge, 1600-03. MS. Emmanuel

College. Jahrbuch, xxxiv, 313.

Zeno, Lat. Trag. Simeon, J. Cambridge, 1631, 1648.
Zenobia. 1592. H. 13.
Zulziman, Hist. ? Mentioned in Satiromastix, 1602.

INDEX

Abelard, i, 8.

Aberdeen, i, 494.

Abraham and Isaac, i, 22; ii, 443.

Abraham''! Sacrifice, i, 39; ii, 446.

Abram and Lot, i, 42.

Absalom, i, 550.

Absalon, i, 37; ii, 55, 56.

Abuses, i, 285.

Academic drama. See Drama and Col-
lege drama.

Accoramboni, Vittoria, i, 409.

Acolastui, i, 35, 63-65, 81, 94; ii, 446,
519.

Actteon and Diana, ii, 170.

Actors. See Players.

"Actor-playwright," the, i, 187-192;

», 375> 376.

Adams, J. Q., Jr., i, 204, 205, 534.

Adamson, Patrick, i, 38.

Adelphe, ii, 75.

Adelphi, i, 461.

Admiral's players, i, 145, 146, 168, 169,
198, 224, 313, 314, 365, 412, 422, 460,
466, 472, 495, 509, 557; ii, 22, 377-

379- .

/Elian, i, 439.
&milia, ii, 75, Si.
jEschylus, ii, I.
./Esop, i, 215, 216.
Agamemnon, i, 344, 385, 577; ii, 21.
Agamemnon and Ulysses, i, 123; ii, 3.
Agas, Ralph, i, 157.
Agincourt, i, xxxix.
Aglaura, i, 449, 450; ii, 182, 362.
Ainsworth, William, ii, 75.
Ajax, ii, 56.

A jax and Ulysses, i, 118; 11,43,402.
Ajax Flagellifer, ii, 56, 72.
Alabaster, William, i, 577; ii, 76, 402,

519.

Alaham,i,M.$, 577; ii, 11,340, 496.
Alba, ii, 72, 79.
Albertus Alasco, Prince Palatine of

Poland, ii, 59.

Albion Knight, i, 70, 255; ii, 470.
Albion's England, i, 250.
Albion^s Triumph, ii, 130.
Albovine, i, 410; ii, 341, 425, 536.

Albumazar, ii, 78.

Alcazar, Battle of. See Battle of Alcazar.

Alcestis, i, 34, 83; ii, 2.

Alchemist, i, xxxv, 168, 170, 206, 469,

47°, 5°5» 5°8> 53'» 539-54*5 »» *9» 7».

103, 110,283,317,319,499.
Alcmeeon, i, 118; ii, 3.
Aleman, Mateo, ii, 213.
Alencon, Francois, Due d', i, 124, 127.
Alexander, Sir William, later Earl of

Stirling, i, xxxii; ii, 7, 13-15, 22, 76,

4", 5I3-

Alexander VI, Pope, i, 410.
Alexander VI, Life and Death of Pope.

See Devir* Charter.
Alexander and Lodowick, i, 379; ii, 20.
Alexander, Campaspe, and Diogenes.

See Campaspe.
Alexandrian Tragedy, ii, 14.
Alexias, ii, 234.
Alexius Imperator, ii, 28.
Alfred the Great, i, 253.
Alfredus, i, 253; ii, 84.
All Fools, i, 461, 462; ii, 410, 494, 497.
All for Money, i, 68; ii, 402.
All is True, i, 290.
Allegory, use of, i, 51, 52, 121, 123, 124,

"7-I31, '39. 23*> 289> 4545 "» i*4»

266, 456, 501.
Allesandro, i, 462.
Alleyn, Edward, i, xxvi, 144, 160, 185,

196, 211, 224, 225, 313-317, 387, 483,

528; ii, 378.

Alleyn Papers, i, 409, 438, 460.
All's Well That Ends Well, i, 332, 333,

372, 380-383, 398, 403, 411; ii, 409,

491.
Alphonsus of Aragon, i, 194, 227, 228,

244, 406, 408, 428, 552.
Alphonsus of Germany, i, 136, 194, 228,

408,437,438,453; ii, 496.
"Alternation theory" of Elizabethan

staging, i, 164-166, 168.
Ahhorpe, Entertainment at, ii, 101, 102.
Alucius, i, 115.
Am ante Liberal, ii, 206, 233.
Amateur performances, i, 521; play-
wrights, ii, 385.

626

INDEX

Amazon, the, as a disguise, i, 533.
Amazons, Masque of, ii, izi.
Ambois, Cleremont D', ii, 413.
Amends for Ladies, i, 519, 520, 599; ii,

5°3- ..

Ameto, ii, 139.

Aminta,ii, 143, 144, 155, 156,524,525.
Amorous War, ii, 219, 278, 365, 366.
Amphitheatres, i, 156, 157; ii, 83.
Amphitruo, i, 83, 370, 458; ii, 497.
Amphrissa, ii, 152, 171.
Amyntas, i, 396; ii, 85, 87, 174, 175, 425,

519, 526.

Amyot, Jacques, ii, 6.
Anachronism, i, xzzii, 472; ii, 199.
Anckenbrand, H., i, 554, 578.
Ancre, Concino Concini, Marquis d', i,

424, 425, 590.
Andrasta, ii, 75.
Andria, i, 82.

Andromana, ii, 48, 179, 365, 537.
Andronicus Comnenus, ii, 28.
Angel King, i, 43, 406.
Angels, i, 386.
Anne of Denmark, queen of James I, ii,

104, 119, 123, 285; her players, i,

i44» i4S» 3!4, 357, 495, 496> "> *42>

310, 383.

Annunciation, i, 10.
Antichrist, cycle of, i, 39.
Anti-Christ, miracle play of, i, IO.
Antichristus, i, 51; ii, 443.
Antigone (of Sophocles), ii, 2, 12; (of

May), 44, 45, 76.
Antimasque, ii, 102, 108, 109, 111,115,

118, 119, 124, 126, 129, 131, 133, 135.
Antiphonarium, i, 2.
Antipodes, ii, 270, 273, 282.
Antiquary, ii, 276.
Antonie, ii, 6, 7, 8, 512.
Antonio and Mellida, i, 436, 452, 483,

484, 486, 488, 555; ii, 2.
Antonio and Vallia, i, 379; ii, 229.
Antonio of Ragusa, i, 379.
Antonio's Revenge, i, 179, 555-558, 564,

578, 5795 »» 4*3-

Antony, i, 573.

Antony and Cleopatra (of Shakespeare),
i, 185, 550, 572-574; ", 6, 29, 30, 32,
413, 414, 515; (of Greville), i, 573.

Anything for a Quiet Life, i, 511, 512,

515, 579! »» H4-
Aphrodisial, i, 465.
Apocrypha, i, 19, 21, 38.
Apollo Shroving, i, 66; ii, 82, 83.

Apollodorus, i, 132.

Apollonius of Tyre, ii, 30, 516.

Apologetical Dialogue, i, 486.

Appian, ii, 41.

Appius and Virginia, i, 198; (of Web-
ster), i, 595, ii, 513; (of Bower), i, 72,
85, 120, ii, 1 6, 38.

Apprentice's Prize, ii, 262, 270.

Ara Fortune, ii, 73.

Arabia Sitiens, i, 465.

Arber, E. A., cited, i, 82, 84, 113, 149,
167, 172, 1 8 1, 209, 293; 434; ii, 56, 69.

Arcades, ii, 133, 523.

Arcadia, the conception of an ideal, ii,
140, 141, 153, 154.

Arcadia (of Shirley), ii, 171, 179, 314,

!»$•

Arcadia Reformed. See Queen's Arcadia.
Arcadian Virgin, ii, 153.
Archer, Francis, i, 237.
Archipropheta sive Johannes Baptista, i,

36, 37, 91; ii, 54, 446-
Arden of Feversham, i, xxiz, 119, 194,

312, 318, 343-345> 347, 352» 365>

366, 404, 405, 455, 549; ii, 486.
Areopagus, the, ii, 10.
Aresta Amorum, ii, 255.
Argalus and Parthenia, ii, 176, 177, 179.
Argensola, Votolome' Leonardo, i, 430;

ii, 211, 215, 216.
Ariel, ii, 203.
Ariodante and Genevora, i, 119, 200, 201,

211, 374.
Ariosto, i, 66, 99, 104, 119, 196, 200, 201,

3.7*
Ariosto, ii, 58.

Aristarchus, ii, 220.

Aristippus, ii, 85, 86.

Aristophanes, i, 445, 535, 539; ii, 46, 54,

55, 85, 265> 4io.
Aristotle, i, 37; ii, 388, 389.
Armada, the Spanish, i, xxxix, 98, 194,

257, 262, 288, 376, 387, 465; ii, 191,

405-
Armin, Robert, i, 295, 302, 579; ii, 376,

379-

Arraignment. See Poetaster.
Arraignment of London, i, 499; ii, 241.
Arraignment of Paris, ii, 147,412, 456.
Arthur, Prince, i, 74; ii, 97.
Arthur, Life and Death of King, i, 298.
Artour, Thomas, ii, 53.
Arundel, Lord, his players, i, 142.
Arviragus and Philicia, i, 303, 449; ll»

354, 356.

INDEX

627

As Plain as Can Be, i, 119.

As You Like It, i, rxiv, 295, 310, 374,

375, 380; ii, 129, 139, 142, 154, 155,

412,469,489-491.
Ascham, Roger, i, 37, 61; ii, 2, 55, 56,

374-

Ashley, Sir John, ii, 243, 268.
Ashton, Thomas, ii, 83.
Astree, ii, 169, 173, 178," 346.
Astrologo, ii, 78.
Atalanta, ii, 75.
Athanasius, i, 37.
Atheist''} Tragedy, i, 564-566, 579, 604;

ii, 4'3» 5°7-
Athelstan, i, 253, 284.
Atkinson, Thomas, ii, 75.
Aubrey, John, ii, 340, 361.
Audignier, Vital 6", ii, 208.
Augurs, Masque of, ii, 123, 127.
Aulularia, i, 457; ii, 56.
Aurelio y Isabella, ii, 209, 238.
Aureng-Zebe, ii, 349.
Austria, English players in, ii, 391, 461.
Authorship, tests of, ii, 186-189.
Auvergne, Martial d', ii, 255.
Ayrer, J., ii, 490.

Babes in the Woods, i, 346.
Bacon, Francis, i, 102, 105, 106, 305,
353; ii, 4, 10, 94, 107, 109, 112, 117,

"9, l85> 374-
Baeske, W., i, 279.
Bahlman, L. D., i, 64.
Bahlsen, L., ii, 205, 213."
Bailey, N., i, 82.
Baily, Abraham, ii, 303.
Baines, Richard, i, 236.
Baker, G. P., i, 124, 130, 220, 221, 599.
Balcony, use of the, i, 157, 158, 163, 164,

166, 168, 170, 171.
Bale, John, i, 31-33, 35, 37, 39, 43, 56,

59, 60, 70, 71, 91, 254, 255; ii,375, 393,

395. 403, 445, 446, 45°-

Ball, ii, 282, 290-292, 295, 428.

Ballads, as dramatic material, or con-
nected with plays, i, 254, 283, 284,
320, 337, 348, 388; ii, 397.

Ballmann, O., i, 198.

"Balusters," i, 159.

Band, Cujf, and Ruf, i, 522; ii, 84.

Bandello, M., i, 203, 334, 374, 401, 544,
585 ; ii, 193, 211, 218, 224, 448.

Bang, W., i, 62, 281; ii, 135.

Bankside, the theaters of the, i, 496.

Bapst, G. P., i, 50.

Baptistes, i, 34, 44.
Barclay, Alexander, i, ixxiii, 492.
Barkstead, William, i, 585; ii, 376.
Barnavelt, i, 440, 441, 551, 552, 603; ii,

4I9-

Barnes, Barnabe, i, 390, 410, 465; ii, 262,
331,496.

Baron, Robert, i, 451.

Barrey, Lodowick, i, 518.

"Barriers," the, ii, 94.

Barriers, Speeches at Prince Henry's, ii,
94, in.

Bartholomew Fair, i, 156, 496, 530, 532;
ii, 240, 309, 415.

Bashful Lover, ii, 233.

Bassano, F. Nigrida, i, 60.

Baston, Robert, i, 37.

Bath, Shakespeare's company in, i, 493.

Bathurst, Edward, ii, 338.

Battle of Alcazar, i, 227, 228, 428; ii,
456, 495.

Baudissin, W. H. T., i, 478.

Bayne, R., i, 345.

Bajazet II, i, 447, 449.

Bear a Brain, i, 279, 280, 504.

Bear Garden, the, i, 156, 496.

Beard, Thomas, i, 237; ii, 62.

Beatty, A., i, 254.

Beaumont, Francis, i, xxiv, xxr, rxxvii,
202, 207, 306, 315, 432, 497, 523-527,
586, 595-597, 600-602; ii, 37, 38, 204,
250, 413, 418; indebtedness to Cer-
vantes, i, 206; and the comedy of
manners, 351, 525; in romantic com-
edy, 400-402, 404; chronology of
earlier plays of, 401; details of the life
of, 523-525; share of, in Maid's Tra-
gedy, 596; character of Philaster cred-
ited to, 597; and the masque, ii, 104,
116-118, 127; relations to Fletcher
and other dramatists, 184, 185, 190,
268; characteristics of his work and
record, 185-190, 193-197, 216, 220,
376, 381-383 ; indebtedness of, to
Shakespeare, 41 5, 41 7. See, also, Beau-
mont and Fletcher, and the several
plays.

Beaumont and Fletcher, folio of, i, 525,
601; incorrect attribution of plays to,
525; chronology of the works of, 525;
influence of, 600, 601 ; and the masque,
ii, 128; collaboration of, 183-189;
tests of several authorship, 186-189;
variorum edition of, 194; use of Span-
ish sources, 205-216; Shakespearean

628

INDEX

reminiscence in, 220; first folio of, 243;
method of dramatic contrast intro-
duced by, 351 ; contrasted with Shake-
speare, 417; their contribution to ro-
mantic drama, 417; technique of, 418;
bibliography of, 462, 503-505, 526,

5*7, 53°. 53 »•

Beaumont, Sir John, i, 524.
Beaumont, Joseph, i, 524; ii, 83.
Beauties, ii, 315.
Beauty, Masque of, ii, 108.
Beauty and Housewifery, i, 386.
Beauty in a Trance, ii, 328.
Beeston, Christopher, ii, 311.
Beggar' 's Bush, ii, 205, 206, 219, 220.
Belchier, Danbridgcourt, ii, 256, 257.
Believe as Tou List, i, 603; ii, 37, 234,

308,312,423, 424, 430-432,453, 495,

53'. 532-

Belin Dun, i, 252, 261.
Belisarius, ii, 45.
Bell Savage theater, the, i, rxxiv, 144,

H7, i53» '54-
Bell an, Sieur de, ii, 211.
Belleforest, F. de, i, 374, 560, 585.
Bellman of London, i, 499; ii, 241, 242.
Bellman of Paris, i, 423.
Bellum Grammatical, ii, 63, 64.
Belphegor, the story of, i, 356, 357; ii,

486.

Benger, Thomas, i, 102.
BTeblock, John, i, 107-108; ii, 58, 72.
Berkeley, Sir Thomas, ii, 8.
Berkeley, Sir William, ii, 367, 368.
Bernardo and Fiametta, i, 379.
Bestrafte Brudermord, i, 216, 217, 554;

ii, 464.

Better Late than Never, i, 279, 280, 504.
Beza, T., i, 39; ii, 446.
Biblical plays and sources, i, 6, 10, 15-

19, 22, 27-35, 37-44. 55» 77, 91, 4545

»» 394, 446.

Bibliotheca Heberiana, i, 252.
Biographical themes in the early drama,

i, 285-291; ii, 402.
Bird in a Cage, ii, 313-315.
Birkhead, Henry, i, 306.
Biron, Charles, Duke de, i, 416, 417,

420; and see Byron, Conspiracy of,

etc.

Birth of Hercules, i, 458; ii, 53, 518.
Birth of Merlin, i, 295, 296, 386, 433,

510; ii, 480, 481, 495.
Black Batman of the North, i, 345, 349.
Black Dog of Newgate, i, 360, 499, 521.

Blackfriars, the theater in, i, mv,
xrxviii, 123, 146, 147, 154, 160, 172,

i73» 3I2> 427, 472, 489> 496» 4975 "»

36, 242, 243, 302, 311, 329, 369, 391.
Blackness, Masque of, ii, 104, 112.
Blacksmith's Daughter, i, 291; ii, 404.
Blagrave, Thomas, i, 102.
Blakiston, H. E. D., i, 68.
Blessed Sacrament, Play of the, i, 31.
Blind Beggar of Alexandria, i, 460,464,

465; ii, 271, 409.
Blind Beggar of Bednal Green, i, 281,

284, 397; ii, 479.
Bloody Banquet, i, 594; ii, 261.
Bloody Brother, i, 425-427,603; ii, 341,

495-
Blurt, Master Constable, i, 380, 381, 402,

511, 522, 523 ;ii, 493.
Boadicea, i, 253, 302.
Boar's Head Tavern, i, 499.
Boas, F. S., i, 211-214, 2I^> 224> 225>

^35, *36> 4i8» 424, 428, 555; ii, 375-
Boase, C. W., ii, 53.
Bobadil, 462.
Boccaccio, i, 196, 197, 301, 401,456,

537, 5445 «, i39, !93> 3°i> 5°3-
Boddeker, K., i, 48.
Bohemia, Queen of. See Elizabeth Stuart,

Princess.

Boleyn, Anne, i, 95.
Bolte, J., i, 36, 64; ii, 8 1.
Bonarelli della Rovere, G. U.. Count, ii,

178.
Bond, R. W., i, 101, 109, 113, 121, 123-

126, 131, 200; ii, 63, 145, 146, 147,

149, 150, 151, 378.
Bondman, ii, 38, 39, 230, 232.
Bonduca, i, 253, 302, 303, 601; ii, 38,

4I7-

Boss of Billingsgate, i, 499.

Bower, Richard, i, 72, 112, 120; ii, 16.

Boy-actors, i, 112-119, 146, 147, 186,
495; ii, 369, 454. See, also, Children
of the Chapel, and of Paulas.

Boy Bishop, the, i, 47, 54, 73, in; ii,

447-

Boyle, R., i, 206, 384, 598; ii, 253.
Brachiano, Paulo Giordano Ursini,

Duke of, i, 588, 589.
Brackyn, Francis, ii, 66.
Bradley, A. C., i, 561, 576, 581.
Brae, A. E., i, 372.
Braggart, the, as a type, i, 311, 361, 369,

382, 462, 463, 467.
Brandl, Alois, i, 38, 54-57, etc., passim.

INDEX

629

Brandon, Samuel, i, 573, 574; ii, 6-8.

Brandt, Sebastian, i, xxxiii.

Branhowlte, i, 423.

Brazen Age, i, 176; ii, 19, 20, 513.

Brcnnoralt, i, 422, 423; ii, 362-364.

Brereton, J. Le G., i, 205.

Bretbie, Masque at, ii, 134, 282.

Breton, Nicholas, i, 522; ii, 147.

Brewer, Anthony, i, 284; ii, 303.

Breymann, H., i, 231.

Bride, ii, 280, 281.

Bridgewater, Earl of, ii, 133.

Bright, M., ii, 158.

Bristol, i, 493.

Bristow Merchant, i, 349.

Bristowe, Francis, i, 44, 60.

Britannia Triumphant, i, 198; ii, 135.

British legends as dramatic material,

i, 295-307.

Brodmeier, Cecil, i, 163, 166, 170, 171.
Broken Heart, ii, 37, 312, 328-333, 335,

535-

Brome, Alexander, ii, 366.

Brome, Richard, i, 363, 503; ii, 247,
261-263,366,377,381,385; a servant
of Jonson's, ii, 269; instructed by
Jonson and Dekker, 269, 381; come-
dies of, 269-275; tragicomedies of,
336-338; a follower of Fletcher and
Jonson, 337, 425, 426, 428; contem-
porary status of, 425; bibliography of,

533. 535-

Brooke, Arthur, i, 208, 570; ii, 92.
Brooke, Christopher, ii, 163.
Brooke, Lord. See Greville, Fulkc.
Brooke, Samuel, ii, 80, 163, 519.
Brotanek, R., i, 74, 76; ii, 95, 135, 136.
Brothers, i, 293; ii, 288.
Browne, William, ii, 120, 121, 126, 139,

164, 374, 418, 522.
Browne, W. H., i, 534.
Browning, Robert, i, xlii, 420; ii, 14.
Brunhild, Queen, i, 423.
Bruno, Giordano, i, 540-542; ii, 4, 500.
Brute, i, 253.
Brute Greenshield, i, 298.
Brydges, Dr., i, 86, 87.
Buc, Sir George, i, 416, 424, 441, 498;

ii, 243, 245, 453.
Buchanan, George, i, 33-37, 39, 40, 44,

83, 88, 91; ii, 2, 55, 401, 446.
' Buckingham, George Villiers, first Duke

of, i, 252, 443; ii, 124.
Buckingham, i, 253, 261, 281.
Buffeting, the, i, 46.

Bugbears, i, 196.

Bull theater, the, i, xxxiv, 143, 153, 297,

311.
Bullen, A. H., editor, cited passim, i,

61, 114, 132, 135, 178, 199, 202, etc.
Bunyan, John, i, 54.
Burbage, Cuthbert, i, 183.
Burbage, James, i, 154, 496.
Burbage, Richard, i, xxvi, 146, 155, 182,

183, 185, 188, 312, 313, 315, 317, 318,

33*, 347, 348, 366, 49°, 496~498; ">

38, 67, 122, 242, 243, 378, 380, 418,

458.

Burbon, i, 413
Burleigh, William Cecil, Lord, i, 102,

123, 124, 289.
Burn, J. H., i, 154.
Burnell, Henry, i, 442.
Burning of John Huss, i, 72, 406.
Burning of Sodom, i, 35.
Burton, Robert, ii, 74, 75, 319.
Bussy D^Ambois, i, 400, 414-416, 418-

420, 563, 579, 580; ii, 407, 494, 495.
Butler, P., i, 6.
Byron, George Gordon Noel, Lord, i,

xl.
Byron, Conspiracy of Charles, Duke of,

1,415-417, 420,421,440, 452»55'; »•

414, 4i9» 495-
Byrsa Basilica, i, 285; ii, 59, 402.

Calia, i, 465.

Caesar, Julius, i, 253, 303; plays on, 550,

ii, 21 - 24, 27, 92 ; and see Julius

Ctesar.
Cttsar and Pomfey, (several of this title),

ii, 21, 22, 28 ; (of Chapman), 22, 28,

5'4-

Canards Fall, i, 509, 587.

Ciesar's Revenge. See Caesar and Pom-
fey.

Calderon, Pedro, i, xliii; ii, 249.

Calfhill, James, ii, 57.

Caliban, ii, 203.

Caliito and Melibcea, i, 88-92, 197, 198,
386, 595; ii, 205.

Calvinistic theology in Cymbeline, ii,
199.

Cambists, i, 72, 120, 121, 199; ii, 16.

Cambridge, i, 336, 374, 397, 465, 489;

»» 53« 54, 56> 57, 75, 5'8 '> and see Col~

Jege drama.

Camden, William, i, 99, 465, 508 ; ii, 452.
Campaspe, i, 123, 124, 127, 128, 130,

132,240; ii, 16, 18, 339; 456.

630

INDEX

Campbell, K., ii, 341.

Campion, Edmund, ii, 57.

Campion, Thomas, ii, 99, 103, 104, 107,
115, 118; ii, 374, 411, 418, 521, 522.

Candelaio, i, 540, 541.

Capello, Bianca, i, 409, 586, 587, 589;
ii, 312.

Captain, i, 528; ii, 184, 205.

Captain Underwit. See Country Cap-
tain.

Captives, or the Lost Recovered, i, 352;
ii, 236, 262, 309, 457, 485.

Captivi, i, 457; ii, 88.

Caracalla, i, 426; ii, 28.

Caractacus, i, 253, 302, 303.

Cardenio, ii, 190, 206, 207, 212, 213,
5*7-

Cardinal, ii, 312, 313, 321, 324-326,
428.

Cards used as dramatic material, i, 138,

445-

Careless Shepherdess, i, 449; ii, 169,
170, 174.

Carew, Lady Elizabeth, i, 42; ii, 8, 512.

Carew, Thomas, ii, 132, 133, 269, 361,
374, 522.

Carlell, Lodowick, i, 303, 449, 602; ii,
336, 352-358, 385; the spelling of the
name, 352; his preferment at court,
353; tragicomedies of, 353-356; de-
generacy in his plays derived from
Fletcher, 356; the verse prose of, 356,
357; romances of, intermediary be-
tween Fletcher and heroic romance,
426-428; bibliography of, 496, 537.

Carlisle, Lucy Hay, Countess of, ii,
346.

Carlton, Sir Dudley, ii, 121.

Carlyle, Thomas, ii, 351.

Carnarvon, Robert Dormer, Earl of,
i, 231.

Cartwright, George, ii, 365.

Cartwright, R., i, 485.

Cartwright, William, i, 172, 425, 449;
ii, 46, 47, 89-91, 219, 269, 275-277,
336, 361, 381, 533.

Carver, J. L., i, 306.

Casamiento Enganoso, ii, 248.

Case is Altered, i, 176, 380, 409, 457,
465, 477, 488, 489, 500, 539; ii, 493.

Casina, i, 538.

Castiglione, Baldassare, i, 93; ii, 143.

Castigo del Pensquee, ii, 315.

Castle of Perseverance, i, 54-56, 156; ii,
394, 449-

Castrioto, George. See Scanderbeg.
Castro, Guillen de, i, 402; ii, 214.
Catilina Triumphans, ii, 32.
Catiline, plays on, ii, 27, 32.
Catiline, his Conspiracy, i, zzxiii, 469,

524, 5775 », 26, 32-34, 50, 414, 516.
Catizzone, Marco Tullio, i, 431.
Cawarden, Sir Thomas, i, 76, 100-102.
Cawsome-House, Entertainment at, ii,

lit.

Caxton, William, i, 199.
Cayet, Pierre Victor, i, 418.
Cecil (first name unknown), ii, 81.
Celant, Disordered Life of the Countess

of, i, 585.

Celestina, i, 89, 386; ii, 451.
Celtic legend. See British legends.
Cenci, the, i, 604.
Censorship of plays, i, 498.
Cervantes, Miguel de, i, 206, 217, 520,

599; ii, 205-208, 213, 215, 217, 231,

236, 248, 260, 530.
Cespedes, Gonzalo de, ii, 210, 215.
Chabot, Admiral of France, i, 415, 420,

4", 452» 453» 55 !> "> "4, 292» 3l6»

317.

Challenge at Tilt, ii, 118.
Challenge for Beauty, i, 338; ii, 225, 309,

425, 532.

Chamberlain, John, ii, 121.
Chamberlain, Robert, ii, 303.
Chamberlain's players, i, 145, 169, 313,

383, 460, 466, 472, 481, 489, 494; ii,

379. See, also, Shakespeare's com-
pany.
Chambers, E. K., i, 2-142; ii, 53, 96,

etc., passim.
Chance Medley, i, 504.
Chances, ii, 206-208, 215.
Changeling, i, 510, 583, 595, 596, 599,

600; ii, 419, 510.
Changes, ii, 290.
Chapel children. See Children of the

Chapel.
Chapman, George, i, rrv, 407, 418, 423,

424, 452, 453, 504, 509, 537, 563, 566,

579, 598; »» »» "» 23, 25, 28> 77,
271, 381, 382, 388, 389, 392; one of
the school of conscious effort, i, xxxv ;
Eastward Hoe, i, 169, 229; and Mar-
lowe, 225; Alphonsus of Germany at-
tributed to, 228; Comedy of Umers as-
cribed to, 322; the work of, 351, 352;
dramatic career of, 398; in romantic
comedy, 398-400, 404; his plays on

INDEX

631

contemporary French history, 407,
413-421; his studies in dramatic por-
traiture, 413, 414; his life and work,
414-417; his translations and respect
for the ancients, 414; his difficulties
about the plays on Byron, 417; sources
of the historical plays of, 417; his
opinions as to the nature of "authen-
tical tragedy," 418, 419; in historical
drama, 419, 420; his gnomic poetry,
420; and Browning, 420; not the
author of Alphonsus of Germany, 438;
not the author of Revenge for Honor,
448; and the comedy of manners, i,
456, 459-464; compared with Shake-
speare, 459; led naturally to use of
Italian and classical sources, 459;
anticipated Jonson in use of the word
"humor" and "humorous" types,
460; excellence of All Fools, 461;
laid scene of two comedies in France,
464; comedies of, characterized, 464;
and the "war of theaters," i, 473,
484; his collaboration in Eastward
Hoe, 505, 506; imprisoned for the
satire of that play, 507; his gnomic
moralizing, ii, 3; and the masque,
104; his Masque of the Middle Tem-
ple and Lincoln''* Inn, 115, 116; cost
of this masque, 1 19; his classical learn-
ing in the masque, 126; collaborator
with Jonson, 268; and The Ball,
291, 292; and Chabot, 293; a gentle-
man born, 376; leaves the Admiral's
men, 379; esteemed by Jonson,
381; praised for his "haightned
style" by Webster, 382; the tempered
romanticism of, 388; the Plautine
intrigue of the comedies of, 400; Plau-
tus filtered through Italian playwrights
in the comedies of, 401; preposterous
disguises in The Blind Beggar of Al-
exandria of, 409; recurrence of, to
Plautine intrigue in All Fools and
subsequent comedies, 410; his con-
tribution to the tragedy of revenge,
413; plays of, on modern French his-
tory, 414; political allusions hi the
dramas of , 4 14; his romantic comedies
influenced by Shakespeare, 415; a
writer of masques, 418; mutilation,
by the censor, of plays of, 419; bibli-
ography of, 494, 495, 497, 514.
Character, the Jew as a, i, 232, 233;
Lodge's drawing of, 242; Marlowe's

drawing of, 268; Shakespeare's draw-
ing of, 274-276; methods of drawing
of, contrasted, 302, 303; in Chapman,
463; Jonson's portrayal of, 467; re-
lation of, to incident in comedy, 468,
469; in the comedy of manners, 503,
504, 545; in Middleton, 512-515; in
Beaumont and Fletcher, ii, 195, 197;
in Fletcher, 250.

Charlemagne, i, 202, 203; ii, 35, 399,
462.

Charles I, i, zxiii, xxxii, 43, 44, 115, 342,

355. 443-445; »> I0. 83, 94. i°4. "2>
124, 127, 128, 130, 131, 135, 163, 164,
285, 292, 295, 300, 301, 310, 311, 345-
352, 385; his company of players, 242,
245, 310, 329, 386; and see Revels.

Charles II, ii, 310, 342, 386.

Charles V of Germany, i, 453.

Charles VII of France, ii, 255.

Charles, Prince Palatine, ii, 135.

Charteris, R., i, 70.

Chase, L. N., ii, 350, 351.

Chaste Maid in Cheaf>side, i, 499, 513,

547, 595! », 2?6.
Chaucer, Geoffrey, i, xxiii, 35, 58, 80,

113, 198, 329, 385, 392; ii, 155, 198,

462, 488, 491.

Cheke, Henry, i, 60, 81; ii, 55.
Chester Plays, i, 10, 17, 19, 23, 406; ii,

19' 444. 445-
Chester Tragedy, i, 509.
Chettle, Henry, i, 42, 253, 271, 408, 431,

436» 452, 52I» 58?; ». 32> '53. '54,
the plays of, 279-283, 305, 329, 345,
346, 349, 385; influence of, on Daven-
port, 304, 305; satirized Daniel, 478;
his many lost plays, 562; his Hoff-
man, its place among tragedies of re-
venge, 562, 563; his publication of
Greene's Groatsworth of Wit, 563;
his apology to Shakespeare in Kind-
Heart''! Dream, 563; ii, 473; his pop-
ular mythological plays, 20, 21; his
recognition of Shakespeare, 379;
leaves the Admiral's men, 379; his
Hoffman, a following of earlier tra-
gedies of revenge, 411; bibliography
of, 479, 507.
Chief Promises of God unto Man, i, 32,

33. 59-

Child, C. G., i, 127, 350, 541.
Child, F. J., i, 83, 337; ii, 155.
Children of the Chapel, i, in, 112, 114-

117, 120, 123, 138, 146, 147, 154, 167,

632

INDEX

172, 186, 198, 255, 313, 473, 482,
484, 488, 495, 496, 519; ii, 377, 454.

Children of Paul's, i, 473, 489; ii, 190.

Children of the Revels, ii, 190.

Chinon of England, i, 202; ii, 359.

Chloridia, ii, 130.

Chorus used by Jonson, i, 469.

Christ, K., i, 515.

Christ Triumphant, \, 39.

Christ's Passion, i, 44; ii, 394.

Christ's Victory, ii, 164.

Christianetta, ii, 269.

"Christian Terence," ii, i.

Christian turned Turk, i, 292; ii, 241,
480.

Christmas, Masque of, ii, 120, 122, 127.

Christmas Comes but Once a Year, \,
504.

Christmas Lord. See Misrule, Lord of.

Christmas play, the, i, 2, 5, 7 ; and see
Pastores.

Christmas Prince, the, at Oxford, ii,
73; at Gray's Inn, 73.

"Christmasing," ii, 98.

Christopherson, John, i, 37; ii, 54, 446.

Christus Nascens, i, 37.

Christus Fattens, i, 44.

Christus Redivivus, i, 36; ii, 54.

Christus Triumphans, i, 39.

Chronicle play, i, xxviii, nix, 42, 71,
114, 193, 194, 233, 234, 242, 486; pre-
eminence of Shakespeare in, i, 248,
253,254; definition of , 25 1 ; range of
subject, 251-254; forerunners of, 254-
256; the earliest, 257; comedy in, 257;
before Shakespeare, 261-265, 267;
influence of Marlowe upon, 268, 269;
of Shakespeare, 272-279; on pseudo-
historical themes, 284, 285, 293-296,
298-301; on biographical themes,
285-291; the Tudor group, 287-291;
journalism in the, 288, 289, 292; al-
legory in the, 289; of travel and ad-
venture, 291-293; on legendary and
mythical themes, 293-303; glorifica-
tion of, by Shakespeare, 298-301; on
English themes, 298, 305, 306; ab-
sorbed into the romantic drama, 301-
304; advance represented on older
drama, 302, 303; attempts to revive
the older form, 304; as literature,
307, 308; Shakespeare and the, 368,
369; in relation to romantic comedy,
396; of Heywood, 397; local color
in, 499; presaged in earlier decades of

Elizabeth's reign, ii, 403; extension
of, to foreign subjects, 405; height of,
406, 407; rivalry of Shakespeare and
Marlowe in, 406; bibliography of,
470-472, 477-481.

Chronicles, the, as sources of dramatic
material, i, 300, 454.

Chronology of the Elizabethan drama,
i, xiiv, xxv.

Churchill, G. B., i, 265, 267, 398.

Churchyard, Thomas, ii, 83, 98, 403.

Cicero, i, 539; ii, 33.

Cicilia and Clorinda, ii, 357.

Cinthio, G., i, 210, 230, 331, 382, 575;
ii, 324.

Cintia, ii, 77.

City, dispute between actors and, i,
312.

City Madam, ii, 246, 252-254, 423, 533.

City Match, ii, 277.

City Nightcap, i, 599; ii, 259.

City Wit, ii, 270, 271, 425.

Civil wars in France, plays on, i, 412,

55 1 •

Civil Wars in France, i, 412, 551.
Civitatis Amor, i, 510; ii, 128.
Claracilla, ii, 356.
Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl of, ii,

43-

Clark, A., ii, 340.

Clark, W. G., i, 299.

Classical influences and sources, i, xxxi,
xxxii, 63, 240, 309, 414, 454, 467, 469,
538> 539; "> i-5°> I2S. 400-402, 485,
$11-5*7;

Classification, its dangers and desira-
bility, i, 552.

Cleander, ii, 234.

demons, W. H., ii, 92.

Cleodora. See Queen of Aragon.

Cleopatra, plays on, ii, 44.

Cleopatra (Shakespeare's), i, 573, 574.

Cleopatra (of May), i, 572; ii, 44; (of
Daniel), ii, 7, 402, 411.

Clerico et Puella, De, i, 49, 50.

Cleopatre Captive, ii, 6.

Clinton, Lord, his players, i, 144.

Clitophon, ii, 75.

Cloetta, W., i, 9.

Cloridon and Radiamanta, i, 199.

Clorys and Orgasto, i, 379.

Clough, A. H., i, 353.

Club Law, ii, 64.

Cobbler's Prophesy, i, 68, 189.

Cock, John, i, 519.

INDEX

633

Cockayne, Sir Aston, ii, 134, 228, 231,
275, 281, 282, 384, 533.

Cockpit theater, i, xzxiv, 160, 242, 285,
298; ii, 311,354, 360, 384, 385,427.

Coddington, Robert, ii, 78.

Ccelo and Olympo, ii, 20.

Caelum Britannicum, ii, 132, 133.

Cohn, A., i, 144, 186, 232, 285; ii, 391.

Cola's Fury, i, 306.

Coleorton, Masque of, ii, 103, 121.

Colet, John, i, 85.

Coligny, Admiral Gaspard de, i, 453.

Colin Clout Come Home Again, ii, 76.

Coliphizacio, or Buffeting, i, 18.

Collaboration, i, 265-267, 505, 506.

College drama, i, 66, 85, 239,4595^,51-
92; pre-Elizabethan, 53, 54; employed
to entertain Queen Elizabeth, 56-58;
its popularity, 58, 59; census of, 59;
included biblical and classical myths
even in the reign of James, 75; Roman
historical subjects in, 75, 76; Italian
sources in, 77, 78; pastoral influences
on, 79, 80; satire and allegory in, 81,
82; political application of, 89; ama-
teurish character of, 90, 91, biblio-
graphy of, 449, 517-520.

Collier, J. P., i, 32, 55, 59, etc., passim;
forgeries of, i, 411, 430; ii, 375.

Collier, History of the, i, 119.

Collier of Croydon. See Grim.

Collins, J. C., i, 200, 227, 243, 244, 260,
428, 564; ii, 400.

Cologne Martyrology, ii, 40.

Colonel. See Siege.

Columbus, i, 430.

Colwell, Thomas, i, 86.

Combat of Love and Friendship, ii, 84,

345-

Come See a Wonder, ii, 235.

Comedias de capa y espada, ii, 2 1 6.

Comedy, a permanent element in drama,
i, xxviii; in the sacred drama, xxviii,
12, 41, 45-47; influence of the Roman,
63, 240; in the early drama, 86, 87, 91;
ii, 449; influence of Gascoigne's Sup-
poses on the, i, 104, 105; Lyly's use
of, 133, 240; composite character of
earlier, 240; in chronicle plays, 257,
274-276; of disguise, 279, 283; in the
miracles and early plays, 309-311;
elements of, satire led to birth of
drama, 309; in earlier plays, 309,
311; prepared for the later domestic
drama, 312; playwrights with Hen-

slowe excelled in, of everyday life,
318; of London life, 319, 327; of
intrigue, 333, 380; romantic, 351, 352;
satirical, 351, 352; the Monsieur
D'Olive, a notable example of, 399;
of humors, 454-476; ii, 497-502; the
basis of, i, 467, 468; in Shakespeare,
and Jonson, 468-471; Jonson 's clas-
sical theories concerning, 469, 470; of
disguise, ii, 409. See, also, below.

Comedy of Beauty and Housewifery, i,
386.

Comedy of Errors, i, xxxv, xxxvi, 119,

'93. 323» 370, 371, 378, 458> 459.
468; 11, 99, 400, 407.

Comedy of Humers, i, 460.

Comedy of London life, i, 319, 327, 493,
499, 500; early, 500, 501 ; Dekker and
Webster in, 502, 503; Eastward Hoe, a
typical, 504-508; Middleton and, 511-
518; imitators of Middleton in, 518-
522; Fletcher in, 526-528; Jonson
and, 529-532; bibliography of, ii, 502-
505.

Comedy of manners, its nature and vari-
eties, i, 455, 456, 492; Latin and
Italian elements in, 456-458 (see, also,
ch. x, passim); relation of the Comedy
of Errors to, 458, 459; Chapman and,
459-464; Jonson and, 460, 465-472;
the single dynamic personality as a
structural element in, 462; Percy and
the, 464; epoch-making character of
Every Man in His Humor, 467; Jon-
son's conception of "humors" in its
relation to, 470-472; satire in earlier
drama, 473-476; the "war of the
theaters," 476-491; Jonson and Mid-
dleton contrasted in, 492, 515; local
color in, 498; London life in, 500-522;
in romantic plays, 522, 523; Fletcher
and, 525, 526; Jonson in, 529-542;
English fiber of, 529, 530; develop-
ment in the, 532, 533; life as viewed
in, 535; ingenuity of plot in, 536; the
"demonstrator" of the action in, 536;
sources and use of material in, 536-
542; Marston in, 542-545; types of
character in, 546, 547; wide vogue and
popularity of, 547; contrasted realistic
and satirical types of, ii, 240; later,
240-305; influence of Jonson and
Middleton on, 240, 241; of the elder
dramatists, 244-246; English and for-
eign setting in the, 246, 247; of

634

INDEX

Fletcher, 247-252; of Massinger, 252-
256; of May and Davenport, 257-261;
minor, non-extant, 261, 262; of Hey-
wood and William Rowley, 262, 263;
of Jonson, 264-267; of Brome, 269-
275; of Marmion, Cartwright, Mayne,
275-278 ; of Glapthorne, Nabbes,
and Cockayne, 279-282; of the Duke
of Newcastle, 282-284; °f James
Shirley, 284-297; of Ford, 297-299;
of Davenant, 299-302; of Thomas
Killigrew, 302; of other minor play-
wrights, 302-304; bibliography of,
502-505, 532-534. See, also, Romantic
Comedy.

Comical Gallant, i, 278.

Commedia dell' arte, i, 196.

Commedy Achademios, i, 68.

Common Conditions, i, 199; ii, 348, 359,
402, 462.

Comodey of Umers, i, 322.

Companies, the, i, rxvi, 141-148, 181-
184, 266, 312-314, 317, 318, 365, 366,
493-498; ii, 241-243, 310, 311, 454,
460, 461; and see under individual
companies named.

"Comparative literature," ii, 5.

Complaint of the Satyrs, ii, 146.

Comus, i, 201; ii, 95, 120, 133, 134, 158,

523-

Conan of Cornwall, i, 298.
Conceited Duke, ii, 314.
Conceited Pedlar, ii, 86.
Condell, Henry, i, 182, 183, 384; ii, 243,

380,458.

Congreve, William, i, xxxiii, xlii.
Conqueror plays, i, 552; ii, 190, 191,406,

407.

Conquest of Brute, i, 298.
Conquest of Granada, ii, 349.
Conquest of Spain by John of Gaunt, i,

252, 429.
Conquest of the West Indies, i, 429; ii,

212.

Conspiracy. See Palantius and Eudora.

Conspiracy of Charles, Duke of Byron.
See Byron, Conspiracy of, etc.

Constant Maid, ii, 279, 294, 295.

Constantine, i, 203.

Contemporary life and events as dra-
matic material, i, xxix; 309-366, pas-
sim ; 372, 375, 376, 379, 407, 409, 418,
419, 421, 441, 443-445, 551; ii, 414,
418, 419.

Contention oj Ajax and Ulysses, ii, 138.

Contentions oj Tork and Lancaster, i,

261, 264, 265, 267; ii, 471.
Conversations of Jonson with Drum-

mond. See Drummond.
Conversion of St. Paul, i, 12, 30.
Converted Robber, ii, 170.
Cooke, Joshua, i, 331.
Corbet, Richard, Bishop of Oxford, ii,

79-

Coriolanus, ii, 29, 30, 515.

Corneille, Pierre, i, 427, 577, 601; ii, 26,
29, 30, 312, 414.

Cornelia, ii, 2, 6, 8, 368, 465, 512.

Cornelianum Dolium, ii, 85.

Cornelie, ii, 6.

Cornish, William, i, 76, 198.

Cornish cycle of miracle plays, the, i,
21 ; ii, 445.

Corombona, Vittoria, i, 585, 588.

Corona Minerva, ii, 135.

Coronation, ii, 43, 317, 321, 322, 336,
428.

Corporal, i, 427; ii, 338.

Corpus Christi, Institution of the Feast
of, 14; the Festival at York, 15; at
Chester, 19 ; plays acted by craft-
guilds, i, 20, 22-25; expense of the
plays of, 25; effect of Protestantism
on the plays of, 25, 26.

Cosmo de1 Medici, i, 408.

Costly Whore, i, 439 ; ii, 496.

Costume in the masque, ii, 106.

Cotton, Sir Robert, i, 19.

Countess of Celant, i, 585.

Country Captain, ii, 283, 284, 534.

Country Girl, ii, 303, 304.

Country Tragedy in Vacuniam, i, 465.

Couplet, use of the, in the heroic play,

"> 349> 35'» 427.

Courage oj Love. See Love and Honor.

Courageous Turk, i, 449; ii, 81.

Coursing oj the Hare, ii, 36.

Court, plays at, i, 245, 256, 265, 378,
394, 401.

Court Beggar, ii, 273, 276.

Court plays, i, 93-140; close relation of
school and, 94, 95; staging and setting
of, 107-110; classification of, 118,
119; Italian influence on the, 119; of
Inns of Court, 121; allusiveness of,
124, 127-131; allegory in, 128-131;
the literary coterie in relation to, 128,
129; Lyly's part in, 133, 134; and
the popular drama, 1 86, 187; defects
of, 367; Shakespeare's indebtedness

INDEX

635

to» 369. 370, 391; bibliography of, ii,

454, 455-

Court Secret, ii, 313, 318.
Courthope, W. J., i, 369.
Cousin, V., ii, 346.
Covent Garden, ii, 280.
Coventry, i, 490.
Coventry Plays, i, 20-22, 26; ii, 444,

445-
Cowley, Abraham, ii, 87, 88, 176, 179,

304, 401.

Cowley, Richard, i, 188.
Cox of Collumpton, i, 345.
Coxcomb, i, 401, 402, 599; ii, 206.
Crafty Merchant, ii, 262.
Crashaw, Richard, i, 44; ii, 328, 330.
Crawford, C., i, 343, 344, 592.
Creation of Eve, i, 22.
Creed, abolition of the guild of the, i, 26;

plays of the, i, 26.
Creizenach,W., i, 2, 7, 50, 51, 53, 54, 57,

88, 217; ii, 392.
Cripple of Fenchurch Street, i, 499; and

see Fair Maid of the Exchange.
Croesus, ii, 14.
Croft, H. H. S., i, 82.
Croll, M. W., ii, 7, n.
Cromwell, Oliver, ii, 71,72.
Cromwell, Thomas, Earl of Essex, i, 32,

59, 85> 499-
Cromwell, History of Thomas, Lord, i,

261, 285-287; ii, 479.
Crown, the burning, i, 563.
Cruel Brother, ii, 341, 425.
Cruell Defter, i, 208, 209.
Cruelty of a Stepmother, i, 118, 343.
Cruso, Aquila, ii, 75.
Cuckqueans" and Cuckolds' Errants, i,

334, 464, 465.
Cumber, John, i, 439.
Cunliffe, J. W., i, 97, 107, 209, 215, 425,

556; ii, 6, 96.
Cunning Lovers, ii, 366.
Cunningham, F., i, 117, 173, 326, 357.
Cunningham, P., i, 146.
Cupid and Death, ii, 136.
Cupid's Banishment, ii, 121.
Cupid's Revenge, i, 601; ii, 179, 193,

365, 601.

Cupid's Whirligig, i, 518.
Cure for a Cuckold, i, 350, 433, 544; ii,

236, 244, 510.
Curioso Impertinente, i, 520, 599; ii, 206,

260, 505, 511, 530.
Cursor Mundi, i, 1 8.

Curtain. See Traverse.

Curtain theater, the, i, 144-146, 149,

'53-'55> '59» l6°, 3'35 "', *42> 375-
Cushman, L. W., i, 25, 53, 54.
Custom of the Country, ii, 208.
Cutlack, i, 294.

Cutter of Coleman Street, ii, 88.
Cutwell, i, 1 1 8.
Cymbeline, i, 301-303, 595; ii, 29, 32,

129, 199, 200, 414, 480, 516, 528,

529-

Cymon, 11, 47, 249.
Cynocephali, History of, i, 1 1 8.
Cynthia's Revels, i, 172, 173, 468, 473,

481, 482, 488, 529, 536; ii, 68, 105,

410.
Cynthia's Revenge or Manander's Ex-

tasy, ii, 14.
Cyrus. See Wars of Cyrus.

Daborne, Robert, i, 292, 316, 409, 528;
ii, 38, 161-163, 228, 229, 211, 242, 480,

527, 533-

D ali da, ii, 76.

Dame Siriz, i, 49.

Damoiselle, ii, 273.

Damon and Pithias, i, 98, 113, 120, 121,
310; ii, 21.

Daniel, i, 8, 9.

Daniel, John, his attempt to establish a
provincial theater, ii, 242, 243; his li-
cense to act refused at Exeter, 243.

Daniel, P. A., ii, 70.

Daniel, Samuel, i, xxx, xxxii, 250, 577;
11,6,49,76,91,113,126,242,340,375;
in the court drama, i, 133, 134; his
obligations to Lyly, 140; in pastoral,
400; satirized by Jonson, 478,481,
482; and by Dekker and Chettle,
478; standing of, in 1598, 478; his
success in the classical mode, 574; his
life and works, ii, 7-11; his Delia, 9,
112; intimacy of, with Greville, ii;
introduces the pastoral drama in the
universities, 80; his Panegyric of
James, 101 ; his Vision of the Twelve
Goddesses, 102-104; bis rivalry of
Jonson, 1 10; his post as groom of the
Privy Chamber, no; his Tethys*
Festival, 111-112; and the Maid's
Metamorphosis, 151, 152; his Queen's
Arcadia, 156, 158; his Hymen's Tri-
umph, 163, 164, 169, 174, 175, 179;
Jonson's contempt for, 381, 410;
wholly of the academic school, 388;

636

INDEX

his Senecan tragedies, 402, 411; ridi-
culed in the war of the theaters, 410;
minor part of, in the development of
the masque, 411; leadership of, in the
pastoral drama, 412; bibliography of,
512, 521, 525.

Danse macabre, i, 51.

Dansiker, the pirate, i, 292.

Danter, John, i, 220.

Darby, the Countess of, ii, 107, 108, 133.

Darius, King, i, 38, 39, 120; ii, 513.

Darius (of Alexander), ii, 14; (of the
brothers La Taille), 15.

Darnley, Henry Stuart, Lord, i, 120, 255,
256.

Dasent, J. R., i, 237.

Dates, symmetry of, in Elizabethan
drama, i, xxiv, xxv.

D'Aubigny, Duke of Lennox, Esme
Stewart, Lord, i, 507.

Davenant, Sir William, i, 198, 317, 410;
ii, 10, 184, 275, 308, 385, 421, 602,
603; and the masque, ii, 104, 132; his
Temple of Love, and other masques,
135, 136; patent to, for the creation of
a company of players, 299; his early
comedies, 299-302; attempt of, to re-
vive the tragedy of blood, 336, 341;
influence of Fletcher on, 336, 340;
early authorship of, 339, 340; suc-
ceeds Jonson as laureate, 339; Gondi-
beri, an epic poem by, 340; and Gre-
ville,34o; influences of France on, 340;
Ode on the death of Shakespeare, 340 ;
alleged relationship with Shakespeare,
340; earlier dramas of, 340-342; the
folio of, 342; and the forebears of the
heroic play, 342-344, 347, 348; Love
and Honor and other plays of the he-
roic type, 342-344; and Platonic love,
345-348; and the heroic play, 348,
352; intimacy of, with Suckling, 361;
the reorganizer of the King's men at
the Restoration, 386; writes for the
King's company of players, 386; his
revival of the tragedy of blood in Al-
bovine, 424; an intermediary be-
tween Fletcher and heroical romance,
426; bibliography of, 522, 536.

Davenport, Robert, i, 280, 304, 305,
389> 594. 598, 599» 6oJ5 »» 247-^62,
424, 533-

David and Absalom, i, 37.

David and Bethsabe, i, 42, 43, 171, 179,
*56J "> 394, 456-

David, Two Sins of King, i, 37.
Davidson, C., i, 6, 12, 17-19, 21.
Davies, Sir John, i, 520.
Davies, John, of Hereford, ii, 194.
Davies, R., i, 15.
Davies, T., i, 26.
Davies, Thomas, i, 466.
Davison, Francis, ii, 99, 103, 411.
Day, John, i, 39, 168, 169, 178, 222, 223,
234, 281, 282, 284, 291, 292, 347, 354,

4^3> 429, 433. 562; », 31' 1S*> 360,
521, 545; Maid's Metamorphosis as-
cribed to, i, 132, 140; the work of,
397; not proved to be author of Par-
nassus Plays, ii, 67; probable author
of Maid's Metamorphosis, 151; pas-
toral elements in comedies of, 151;
and the "merry resourceful maiden,"
251; described by Jonson as a rogue,
377; leaves the Admiral's men, 379;
his lightsome comedies affected by
Shakespeare and Lyly, 415; bibli-
ography of, 480, 493, 525.

De Una Causa Dos Efectos, ii, 249.

Dead Man's Fortune, i, 196.

Death, Dialogue of, i, 61.

Death of Robert, Ear] of Huntington, i,
279, 281, 283, 305; ii, 154.

Debat, the, i, 48, 73, 79; ii, 448.

Debate between Body and Soul, i, 48.

Debate of the Carpenters Tools, i, 48.

Decameron, i, 196, 197, 301, 401, 439,
5l8, 537, 5645 ", 260.

Dee, John, i, 353; ii, 54.

Defiance of Fortune, i, 434.

Derailing, H., i, 19.

Dekker, Thomas, i, xxv, xxxii, xxxiv, xl,
412, 414, 421, 423, 429, 431, 447, 493,
509, 510, 547, 587, 603; ii, 40,43, 137,

244, 3°9> 327, 328> 353, 36o> 4°8J his
service in the representation of con-
temporary life, i, xxix; and The Vir-
gin Martyr, 43, 297, 328; Guilds Horn-
book, 173, 175, 184, 270; and the
Sun's Darling, 175, 396; and the
Roaring Girl, 176, 327; Honest Whore,
177, 338, 339; influence of, on the
drama, 193, 194; Satiromastix, 216,
218, 284; and Lust's Dominion, 222-
224; and The Spanish Maoris
Tragedy, 222, 223; and Pierce of
Exton, 253, 280; and Pierce of Win-
chester, 253; and the comedy of every-
day life, 278; Bear a Brain attributed
to, 279, 280; Old Fortunatus, 122,

INDEX

637

153, 184, 379, 390, 391, 404; Shoe-
makers'" Holiday, 285, 297, 327, 329,
379; and The Famous Victories of
Sir Thomas Wyatt, 287, 288; The
Whore oj Babylon, 289, 359; Truths
Supplication to Candlelight, 289; the
chronicle plays of, as literature, 307,
308; prices paid, 316; influenced by
connection with Henslowe, 318; the
domestic drama of, 318, 319, 326-335,
338-341 ; satire in, 327; life and work
of, 327, 328; his life contrasted with
that of Shakespeare, 328; and
Faustus, 328; Virgin Martyr of Mid-
dleton and, 328; diversity of work of,
336; the Honest Whore of Middleton
and, 338-340; the Medicine for a
Curst Wife of, 340; collaborated on
Black Batman, 345, 349; on Step-
mother" i Tragedy, and Page oj Plym-
outh, 346; and the Witch of Ed-
monton, 348, 362; // This be not a
Good Play of, 355, 357; Jonson in
rivalry with, 357; the Whore of Baby-
lon of, 359; use of witchcraft by, 359;
the domestic drama of, 366; chrono-
logical relation of Shakespeare to, 378;
and Antonio and Vallia, 379; Aga-
memnon of, 385; at his best in Old
Fortunatus, 390,391,396; Fleay on,
396; the genius of, 396; comedies of,.
396, 397; relation of to romantic com-
edy, 403, 404; anachronisms in, 472;
and the "war of the theaters," 478,
481, 484-487; the success of his Shoe-
makers" Holiday, 500; his collabora-
tion with Webster in comedies of Lon-
don life, 502, 503; lost play of, 503,
504; his activity in popular mytho-
logical plays, ii, 20, 21; and the Sun^s
Darling, 95; and civic pageants, 128;
his collaboration with Massinger, 229;
his imitations of Fletcherian tragi-
comedy, 235, 236; satirized by Jon-
son, 268; friend of Brome, 269; pro-
ductivity of, as a playwright, 374; his
allusion to Jonson as an actor, 376; a
writer for the Chamberlain's men,
379; personal relations of, 381; im-
providence and imprisonment for
debt of, 381; incessant collaboration
of, 381; journalistic ease and fluency
of, 381; praised by Webster, 382;
share of, with Jonson in the welcome
of James to London, 382; employed

in civic pageants, 382; Heywood's
verse on, 383; writes for the Princess
Elizabeth's players, 384; a mercenary
in the war of the theaters, 410; his
and Middleton's dramatic treatment
of the conflict of woman and man, 413;
bibliography of, 456, 462, 480, 483,
484, 502.

Delight, Comedy of, i, 119.

Delivery of Susannah, i, 35.

Delia Porta. See Porta, G.-B. delta.

Deloney, Thomas, i, 297, 329, 347; ii,
483.

Demetrius and Marsina, ii, 39.

Demonstrator of the action, the, in the
plays of Jonson, i, 536.

Denham, Sir John, i, 451.

Denmark, English players in, ii, 391.

Deorum Judicium, ii, 137.

Deposing of Richard II, i, 280.

Derby, Lord, his players, i, 142, 144-
146 ; ii, 360.

Deserving Favorite, ii, 353, 426, 537.

Dessoff, A., i, 410; ",315.

DeThou, Jaques Auguste, ii, II.

Devereui, Penelope. See Rich, Penel-
ope.

Devil, the, in the drama, i, 232, 354-358,
365,386-390,403; ii,26i.

Devil and his Dame, i, 1 19.

Devil is an Ass, i, 357, 358, 537, 538; ii,
263, 264, 276; ii, 486, 499.

Devil of Dow gate, i, 499, 521.

DeviFs Charter, i, 389, 390, 410, 436,
552, 569; ii, 262, 331,493, 494.

Devirs Law Case, i, 237, 243.

Devonshire, Charles Blount, Earl of, i,
465; ii, 331.

De Witt, John, i, 161, 162, 166, 174.

De Worde, Winkin, i, 62.

Dialect in Jonson, i, 326.

Dialogue, or debat, the, i, 48, 73, 79; ii,
448.

Dialogue, Shakespeare's, 370, 371;
Lyly's influence on, 370, 371, 392.

Dibden, J. C., ii, 391.

Diccon oj Bedlam. See Gammer Gurton's
Needle.

Dick of Devonshire, i, 293; ii, 288, 424.

Dickens, Charles, i, 278.

Didacticism in the drama, i, 28, 309.

Dido (of Rightwise), i, 83, ii, 18; (of
Gager), i, 121, ii, 18, 59, 404; (of Hal-
liwell), i, 550, ii, 18, 56, 57; (college
play). '»» 3> bibliography, 513.

638

INDEX

Dido and Mneas (interlude), ii, 19;

(listed by Henslowe), 18, 19.
Dido, Queen of Carthage, i, 138, 139,

234,266; ii, 18, 19,404,407, 513.
Didone, i, 209 ; ii, 462, 467.
Digby Manuscript, i, 29, 40, 41, 52.
Digby Plays, i, 12, 24, 29, 30,40,41, 52,

177.

Digges, Leonard, i, 206; ii, 210.
Dio Cassius, ii, 35, 41, 42.
Diocletian, i, 328; ii, 18, 38, 40.
Diogenes Laertius, i, 132.
Disguise, use of, i, 73, 75, 76, 104, 279,

283,459.460. 533! ">4°9-

Disobedient Child, i, 64, 65, 8 1 ; ii, 396.

Disordered Life of the Countess of Celant,
i, 585.

Distracted Emperor. See Charlemagne.

Distracted State, ii, 365.

Distresses. See Spanish Lovers.

Dobell, B., i, 416, 507.

Dolce, Luigi, i, 99, 104, 209, 230; ii, 2,
462, 467.

Domestic drama, i, 92, 309-366; in the
earlier drama, 309-311; examples of,
in the earliest "regular" plays, 310;
low life pictured in, 311; realistic
comedy prepared the way for, 312;
assumes artistic importance, 312;
playwrights with Henslowe excelled
01,318,319; varieties of, 3 1 9; affected
by other kinds of plays about it, 319;
best illustrated by typical plays, 319;
position of Greene and Peele in, 319-
321; Wily Beguiled an exceptional
example of, 320; types of the single
comedy in, 321-328; Merry Wives
Shakespeare's only contribution to,
324; but displays Shakespeare's pre-
eminence, 325; place of Dekker and
Heywood in, 326-339; theme of the
faithful wife in, 329-335; and of the
tyrannic husband and prodigal son,
330, 331; the shrew and curst wife
as motives in, 339-343; the murder
plays, 343-349; might have developed
an indigenous tragedy, 345; Fair
Quarrel finest later example of, 350;
the supernatural in, 353-364; the
devil in, 354-358; witchcraft in, 358-
364; journalistic instinct in, 364;
summary of, 364, 366; Middleton's
proper work lay in, 381; realism in
the, 455; already mature in Gammer
Gurton, ii, 402; the flourishing period

of, 408; in the reign of James, 4 12;
bibliography of, 481-487.

Dominis, Antonio de, i, 444.

Don Giovanni, ii, 247.

Don Lope de Car dona, ii, 317.

Donne, John, i, 492.

Dorlandus, P., i, 57.

Dorset, Richard, fifth Earl of, i, 427.

Double Falsehood, ii, 212.

Double Marriage, \, 601-603; ii, 204,
213.

Doubtful Heir, ii, 286, 317, 318.

Dowden, Edward, i, 273, 458.

Downfall of Robert, Earl of Huntington,
i, 279, 280; ii, 154,479.

Drake, Sir Francis, i, 241.

Drama, the, growth and subsidence of,
in Tudor and Stuart times, i, xxiii,
xxiv; symbolic, didactic, and artistic
phases in the growth of, xxiii; the
peculiar art of the Elizabethan age,
xxiii; its Elizabethan diversity of spe-
cies, xxiv; the chronology of, mapped
out, xxv, xxvi; the religious element
in, xxvii; the vernacular element in,
xxvii, xxviii; national spirit in, xxviii;
its glory, its reflection of actual life,
xxix; the element of romance in, xxix,
xxx; classical influence on, xxxi, xxxii;
romantic bias for classical themes in,

• xxxi, xxxii; Jonson's several services
to, xxxiii; variety of, explained in the
mingling of the above elements, xxxiv;
popular, romantic, and scholarly
schools of, xxxiv, xxxv; diversity of
Elizabethan, illustrated in Shake-
speare, xxxv, xxxvi; eclectic character
of post-Shakespearean drama, xxxvi,
xxxvii; the strain after originality,
xxxvii; universality of the appeal of
Elizabethan, xxxviii, xxxix; function
of, in guiding public opinion, xxxix;
employed for satire and current com-
ment, xxxix, xl; imaginative quality
of Elizabethan, xl; amateurishness
of Elizabethan, xli; its large appeal,
ili; later narrowing of the constitu-
ency of, xli; Elizabethan, a great
national utterance, xlii; of old time
not separated from literature, xlii; of
Elizabethan period takes its rise in the
miracle play and morality, i (and see
Sacred drama) ; influence of medieval
drama on the Elizabethan, 30; sig-
nificance of Buchanan in the devel-

INDEX

639

opment of the, 34; the place of the
morality in the history of the, 45-72
(see Morality) ; transition to the ear-
lier secular, 73-77; the interlude, 77
( see Interlude) ; classical influence
on earlier secular, 81-86 ; academic
plays, 84-86; earliest "regular Eng-
lish plays," 86-92; early, of school
and court, 93-140 (and see Court
flay) ; influence of court on, 98-105;
early origin of the various types of,
193, 194; romantic spirit in the, 194,
195 (see, also, Romantic drama) ; the
influence of Greene and his contem-
poraries on, 245 ; the "national his-
torical" type of the, 247-308 (and see
Chronicle play) ; the "domestic " type
of, 281, 309-366 (see, also, Domestic
drama); historical, based on foreign
themes, 405-453; extended scope of
subject in Elizabethan, 454; the fur-
ther development of comedy, 454-548
(and see Comedy) ; stage history, 1 603-
14, 493-498; provincial visits of the
theatrical companies, 493, 494; the
companies pass under royal patron-
age, 495, 496; " the five companies,"
497; act to restrain profanity and in-
stitute censorship, 498; the romantic
tragedy, 549-606 (and see Tragedy);
relation of comedy and tragedy in
Elizabethan, 549, 550; classical in-
fluences on English, ii, 1-5; classical
sources, 1-50; of the colleges, 51-92
(see, also, College drama); academic
versus popular, 51, 52; attacks upon,
60; the masque, 93-138 (see, also,
Masque) ; statutes against the stage,
141, 142, 369, 370; the "pastoral
type" of the, 139-181 (and see Pas-
toral) ; place of the tragicomedy and
"romance" in the, 182-239 (see,
also, Tragicomedy) ; the later comedy
of manners, 240-306; stage history,
1614-25, 241-243 ; the decadence
of the romantic, 307-370; stage his-
tory of the reign of Charles I, 310,
311; ethical deterioration in the,
333; in retrospect, 371-431; between
1558 and 1642, 371-373; academic
versus the popular, 387; chief names
in the academic, 387, 388; contribu-
tions of the academic, 388; extrava-
gance of the art of the Elizabethan,
388; characteristics of this art, 389;

influence of Elizabethan, on the Ger-
man stage, 392; characteristics of
medieval, 396, 399; resum6 of his-
tory of Elizabethan, 393-428; roots
of, in its medieval forebears, 393-396;
vital element the touch with life, 396;
true progenitors of, the moralities
depicting social and political life, 396;
indigenous character of, 396; John
Heywood and the birth of the artistic
element in, 397, 400; place of legend
and balladry among the forebears of,
399; the heroical element in, 399;
Lyly's lift of, into an art, 400; classi-
cal influences on, 400; Plautus and,
400, 401; Senecan influence on, 401,
402; the variety of, presaged in the
first decades of Elizabeth's reign, 402-
404; the period of Lyly, 404, 405;
the first great tragedies of, 405; the
period of Marlowe, 405-407; the di-
versity of, at its height, 405-407; the
period of Shakespeare, 407-41 1 ; flour-
ishing of the chronicle play, romantic
comedy, and domestic drama, 408 ;
superficial character of the romantic
settings of some plays of, 408; com-
bination of romantic with other ele-
ments in, 408, 409; comedy of dis-
guise, Jensen's comedy of humors, and
dramatic satires, 409, 410; classical
history as treated by Shakespeare,
Jonson, and Marston, 410; revival of
the tragedy of revenge, 410, 411; the
masque and pastoral as contributions
to, 411, 412; diversity of, in the first
years of James, 412,413; height of ro-
mantic tragedy, 413; the flourishing
of romantic comedy and the earlier
comedy of manners, 414, 451; Shake-
spearean "romance" and Fletcherian
tragicomedy, 416, 417; the period of
Jonson, 418; dramas of contemporary
allusion, 418; the period of Fletcher,
419-421; degeneracy in moral tone of
later, 421; pervading influence of
Fletcher in the time of Charles, 423-
425; persistence of the influence of
Jonson, 425; degeneracy of, 425; the
period of Shirley 427, 428.

Dramatists. See Playwrights.

Drayton, Michael, i, 250, 279, 394, 412,
587; ii,7,22, 106,252, 253, 280; re-
muneration paid, i, 316, 317; Merry
Devil ascribed to, i, 323; and the Lon-

640

INDEX

don Prodigal, 333; and the Black Bat-
man, 349; estimate of, in The Return
from Parnassus, ii, 69; leaves the
Admiral's men, 379; writes inter-
mittently for the Chamberlain's com-
pany, 379; visit of, to Shakespeare,
380 ; bibliography of, 482.

Drue, Thomas, i, 304, 594; ii, 261,
262.

Drummond, William, i, 466, 477, 483,
508, 541; ii, 91, 115, 122, 123, 166,

167, 377. 498-

Drury, G. T., ii, 10, 342.

Drury, William, i, 253; ii, 84, 519.

Drury Lane theater. See Cockpit.

Dryden, John, i, xxxi, xxxiii, 98, 166;
ii, 184,199, 273, 308, 348, 352, 421, 536;
on Jonson's "dotages," i, 533; on the
learning and borrowings of Jonson,
537; his mistake as to Albumazar as
a source of The Alchemist, ii, 78; on
the superiority of Fletcher's to Shake-
speare's gentlemen, 251; his criticism
of the last plays of Jonson, 267; af-
firms Davenant the inventor of the
heroic play, 343: preface of, Of He-
roic Plays, 343; his Conquest of Gra-
nada and Aureng-Zebe, 349; his
prologue to Carlell's Arviragus anil
Philicia, 356.

Dublin, the new theater in, ii, 285,
286.

Duchess of Malfi, i, 409, 552, 568, 583,
589-594; ii, 179, 237, 312, 414, 419,
420, 428, 452, 510.

Duchess of Su $olk, i, 304, 594; ii, 481.

Dudley, Lord Robert, i, 353.

Dugdale, W., ii, 119.

Duke Humphrey, i, 307.

Duke of Milan and the Marquis of
Mantua, i, 119, 211, 408, 410, 569,
595, 604, 605.

Duke''! Mistress, ii, 320, 321.

Dulwich College, i, 314, 315; ii, 239.

Dumb Knight, i, 203, 204, 445; ii,

35-

Dumb shows, i, 256, 262.
Dunbar, William, i, 77.
Dunlop, J., ii, 178.
Dunstan, St., i, 4, 255, 294, 356.
Durand, W. Y., i, 107, 108, 113, 157;

ii, 58.

D'Urfe1, Honore", ii, 169, 173, 178.
Dutch Courtesan, i, 333, 334, 542-544,

586.

Dutch history as dramatic material,

»» 434, 44i; «, 4^6.
Dyce, A., i, 168, 199, etc., passim.

Eades, Richard. See Geddes.
Earl Godwin, i, 253.
Easter play, i, 7; ii, 443, 444.
Eastward Hoe, i, xxxv, 169, 229, 470,
488, 493, 504-509, 542, 546; ii, 252,

254, 396> 415, 499, 5°2-
Eckert, E., i, 53.
Edgar, King, i, 255, 294.
Edmund Ironsides, i, 253.
Edward I, i, 136, 256, 261, 262; ii, 456,

471-
Edward II, i, 230, 233, 234, 261, 267-

270, 274, 275, 285, 551; ii, 406, 472.
Edward III, i, 234, 252, 260.
Edward III, i, 234, 273, 378, 411, 595;
' ii, 472.
Edward IF, i, 261, 263, 281-283, 337»

397, 499- .
Edward VI, i, 32, 60, 61, 64, 77, 78, 249;.

11, 395; the Whore of Babylon at-
tributed to, i, 289.

Edward, Prince (the Black Prince),

i, 298.
Edwards, Richard, i, 98, 112-115, I2°,

121, 123, 187, 310, 311; ii, 57, 58,

198, 454.

Edwardus Confessor, Sanctus, i, 253.
"Effiginia." See Iphigenia.
Egerton MS., i, 253, 280.
Einstein, L., i, 93.
Elckerlijk, i, 57; ii, 450.
Elder Brother, ii, 205, 246, 249.
Elderton, William, i, 85, 112; ii, 454.
Elinor, Queen (of Castile), i, 262.
Elizabeth, Queen, i, xxiv, xxv, xxix,

12, 26, 37, 60, 68, 69, 78, 81, 83, 84,
87, 93-106, no, in, 113, 114, 116,
117, 121, 124, 125, 127-131, 135, 141-
144, 195-197, 247-249, 252, 265, 287-
289, 324, 348, 353, 378, 391, 445, 480;
ii, 4, 10, 56-58, 72, 97, 395, 452, 512.

Elizabeth, Stuart, Princess (afterwards
Queen of Bohemia), i, 437; ii, 115-
117, 122; her company of players, i,
146, 495, 513; ii, 241, 242, 245, 310,

377, 383> 384, 4°4-
Elizabeth, Troubles of Queen. See //

You Know Not Me.
"Elizabethan," the term defined, i,xxiii.
Ellis, G., i, 347.
Ellis, H., i, 70.

INDEX

641

Elsinore, ii, 391, 461.

Elyot, Sir Thomas, i, 82.

Elze, K., i, 190, 438.

Emperor of the East, ii, 38, 40, 43.

Endimion, i, 109, 124, 127-132, 135,
240, 369, 386, 387, 396.

Enganos, Comedia de los, ii, 194.

"English, a language unfit for the uni-
versity," ii, 75.

English Moor, ii, 273.

English spirit in the drama, i, xxvii;
subsides with the accession of James
I, xxxix.

English themes and setting, i, 151-154,

*98> 3°5> 3°6> 3Z5> 343. 349> 37*> 3?5»

3?6, 387, 388, 454, 455, 523; also

passim in chapter on Domestic

Drama.
English Traveller, i, 336-338, 363,

457; ii, 88, 262, 309, 425, 539.
Englishmen for My Money, i, 500, 501,

546.
"Entertainment," the, ii, 94; its nucleus

a speech of welcome, 94.
Entertainment at Althorpe, ii, 101, 102.
Entertainment of the Two Kings at

Theobald's, ii, 94.

"Entry," the, of the masque, ii, 94.
Ephesian Matron, i, 462.
Epicccne, i, xxxv, 206, 273, 277, 471,

SH» 53°. 53 '» 536» S38> 5395 "> 277,

4i5>499> 5°°-
Epiphany, play of the, i, 7.
Erasmus, i, 82, 93, 286; ii, 137.
Error, History of, i, 119.
Essex, Frances Howard, Countess of,

i, 585; ii, 105, 166.
Essex, Robert Devereux, second Earl

of, i, 122, 144, ii, 10; his players, i,

144.
Essex, Robert Devereux, third Earl of,

ii, 105, 121, 338.
Essex rebellion, the, i, 494.
Este, Leonora d*, i, 409.
Estrife, the, i, 48, 73, 79; ii, 448.
Ethenwold, i, 4.
Etheridge, Sir George, ii, 416.
Ethiopia, Queen of, ii, 16, 48.
Eton, ii, 56.
Eucharist, the, in relation to the drama,

i, 6.

Eumenides, i, 577.
Eunuchus, i, 457; ii, 58.
Eupkormus, ii, 83.
Euphuism, i, 126-127, '3°! ''»4SS-

Euribates, ii, 75.

Euripides, i, 34, 37, 83, 91, 97; ii, I, 2,

5S> 59. 3g8, 4°i, 5"-
Eutropius, ii, 41.
Evans, H. A., ii, 93.
Every Man in His Humor, i, xxv, 303,

462, 466, 467, 471, 478, 488, 529; ii,

68, 266, 380, 410, 499.
Every Man Out of His Humor, i, 460,

467, 470, 479, 481, 482, 488, 536; ii,

34, 68, 266, 410, 499.
Every Woman in Her Humor, i, 471,

472.

Everyman, i, 57-58, 81; ii, 394, 450.
Evoradanus, Prince of Denmark, i, 434.
Example, ii, 294, 296, 315.
Exchange Ware at Second Hand. See

Band, Cuff, and Ruff.
Exeter, ii, 243, 391.
Ezechias, i, 38; ii, 50.

Fabyan, Robert, i, 250.
Faery Pastoral!, i, 174.
Faery Queen, i, 128, 197, 199, 289, 356,

3935 »> 125. 399-

Fair Anchoress of Pausilippo, ii, 234.
Fair Em, i, 180, 189-191, 201, 259, 261,

476; ii, 399, 479.
Fair Favorite, ii, 342, 344, 426.
Fair Maid of Bristow, i, 285, 332-334,

366; ii, 484.

Fair Maid of Italy, i, 379.
Fair Maid of the Exchange, i, 349, 499,

501, 502; ii, 485.

Fair Maid of the Inn, ii, 206, 207.
Fair Maid of the West, i, xxxix, 292;

"» 357-
Fair Quarrel, i, xlii, 350-352, 365, 510;

"> *36» HS» 4I9-
Fairholt, F. W., ii, 124, 128.
Fairies, i, 245, 354, 379, 386, 387, 391-

396, 403.

Fairy Knight, ii, 328.
Faith and Mercy, i, 85.
Faithful Friends, ii, 37, 41, 242.
Faithful Shepherd, ii, 171, 412, 417.
Faithful Shepherdess, ii, 158-161, 175,

180, 525, 526.
Faithful wife as a dramatic theme, i,

329-339; ii, 484.
Faithfulness and Mercy, i, 118.
Falkland, Henry Gary, fourth Viscount,

", 365> 537- _

Falkland, Lucius Gary, second Vis-
count, ii, 365.

642

INDEX

Fall of princes, the, as a tragic theme,

i, 569.

Fallacy, ii, 82.

False One, i, 574, 603; ii, 40, 41, 516.
Falstaff, i, 276-279, 324, 359, 463, 468,

469; ii, 478.
Famee Comatdia, i, 37.
Family of Love, i, 513.
Famous History of Captain Thomas

Stukeley. See Stukely.
Famous History of Sir Thomas Wyatt.

See Wyatt.
Famous History of the Life of Henry

Fill, i, 1 68, 288, 290.
Famous Victories of Henry V. See

Henry V.

Fancies Chaste and Noble, ii, 297, 298.
Fancy's Festival, ii, 136.
Fanshaw, Richard, ii, 144.
Fantesca, ii, 77.
Farce, the French, i, 73, 80, 94, 311,

3", 323> 343-

Farmer, J. S., i, 62, 79, 221.
Farmer, R., ii, 28.
Farquhar, George, ii, 247.
Fatal Brothers, ii, 261.
Fatal Contract, i, 426, 427; ii, 36, 364.
Fatal Dowry, i, 352, 603, 604; ii, 229,

234, 4i9» S32-

Fatal Love, i, 421.

Fatum Vortigerni, i. 296; ii, 80, 481.

Fault in Friendship, ii, 261, 269.

Faust (of Goethe), i, 232; ii, 14.

Faust Book, ii, 392.

Faust-drama in Germany, ii, 392.

Fausten, Historia von D. Johann, i, 23 1 .

Faustus, Historie of Dr. John (source
of Marlowe's play), i, 231.

Faustus, Tragical! History of Dr., i,
xxvi, 168, 175, 185, 232, 233, 238,
244, 268, 269, 321, 328, 354, 357, 358,
387,412,436, 569; ii, 40, 406, 467, 468.

Fawn. See Parasitaster.

Feast and Welcome, ii, 234.

Feast of Fools, i, 14, 46,54, 73; ii, 447.

Feast of Innocents, i, 46.

Felix and Philomena, i, 371 ; ii, 205.

Female Rebellion, ii, 238, 532.

Fenton, Geoffrey, i, 132, 341, 390; ii,
488, 493.

Ferdinand I, of Germany, i, 453.

Ferrant, Richard, i, 112.

Ferrers, George, i, 76; ii, 451.

Ferrex and Porrex. See Gorboduc.

Feuillerat, A., i, 427; ii, 338.

Fidele and Fortunio, i, 210, 211.

Field, John, i, xxxviii, 473.

Field, Nathaniel, i, 117, 156, 185, 441,
528, 599; ii, 38, 185, 251, 376; his
relations with Shakespeare, i, 271;
given over to the comedy of manners
in the reign of James, 351; and the
Fatal Dowry, 352; details of the life
of, 473; his cleverness as an actor,
497; his new company the Queen's
Revels at Whitefriars, 497; his fe-
male parts in earlier plays of Jonson,
and Beaumont and Fletcher, 519;
taught to write plays by Jonson, 519;
becomes a King's man, 519; his re-
tirement to the trade of stationer, 519;
his comedies of manners, 519, 520;
their Middletonian character, 520;
Shakespeare reminiscence in, 520;
influence of Jonson on, 520; the
masque in the plays of, ii, 128; his
collaboration with Massinger, 228,
229; joins the King's company, 242;
educated by Jonson, 269, 381; biblio-
graphy of, 503.

Filli di Sciro, ii, 178.

Finding of Troth, i, 55.

Fine Companion, ii, 276.

Florentine, Giovanni, i, 324.

Firth, C. H., ii, 284.

Fischer, R., i, 97.

Fisher, Jasper, i, 306; ii, 80.

Fitzmaurice-Kelly, J., ii, 206, 207, 233.

Fitzstephen, William, i, 12.

"Five Companies of London, the," i,

4955 ", 310-

Five New Plays, ii, 270, 366.
Five Plays in One, i, 401.
Fleay, F. G., i, xxv, 37, etc., passim.
Fleir, the i, 518, 545.
Fletcher, Giles, the Elder, i, 524; ii,

164.
Fletcher, Giles, the Younger, i, 524; ii,

164.
Fletcher, John, i, xxiv, xxx, xli, xlii, 407,

433. 439, 452» 497, 5°5> 5", S'6, 5'7;
ii, 49, 242, 245, 254, 282, 292, 295,
296, 304, 307-309, 329, 337, 340, 365,
385, 428; his influence on Shake-
speare exaggerated, xxxvi, eclectic
method of, xxxvi; his succession to
the primacy of Shakespeare, xxxvii;
contrasted with Shakespeare, 181;
and the Knight of the Burning Pestle,
202, 206, 207; Bonduca, 253, 302,

INDEX

643

303; and The Famous History of
the Life of Henry VIII, 168, 288, 290;
not mentioned in Henslowe, 315;
Woman** Prize of, 341; relations of
Shakespeare and, 342; Rule a Wife
of, 343; influence of, 349; given over
to comedy of manners in the reign of
James, 351; heroical romance of,
385; in romantic comedy, 400-402,
404; the comedy of manners and
pastoral of, 400; chronology of earlier
plays of, 401; his French histories,
423-426; his and Massinger 's Bar-
navelt, 440-441; born a gentleman,
523; his association with Beaumont,
524; his collaboration with Beaumont,
Massinger, and Shakespeare, 524;
chronology of Beaumont and, 525;
the first work of, comedy of manners,
525; his early imitation of Middleton,
526; his comedies of London life,
526-528; his success in sketches of
contemporary life, 545; his and Mas-
singer's The False One, 573, 574, 586,
594-596, 599-602, 606; influence of
Beaumont and, in tragedy, 600-602,
606; his clever manipulation of stock
characters and situations, 602; his suc-
cess in tragedy, 602, 603; his dramas
in classic setting, ii, 37-41, 50; his
Faithful Shepherdess, 158-161; his
conception of the pastoral, 159, 164,
165, 175, 179; his relations to Beau-
mont and to other dramatists, 184,
185; his prolonged activity, 185;
collaboration of, with various drama-
tists, 185, 186, 190, 198; the "notes"
of, 1 86, 187; quality of the blank
verse of, 186, 187; sentence structure
and phrasing of, 187; his superficial-
ity, 188; chief author of the Beau-
mont and Fletcher plays, 189; stage
history of, 189, 190; Jonson and,
190; Philaster and plays of its type,
193-197; and The Two Noble Kins-
men, 198, 199, 200; other tragicome-
dies of, 204-227; Spanish sources of
plays of, 206-216; Cervantes a source
of, 206, 209; Spanish sources em-
ployed by, in translation, 208, 215;
Flores and other Spanish authors
and, 209-212; his likeness in temper
to Lope de Vega, 209; Lovers Cure,
not by, 214, 215; period of Spanish
influence on, 216; not directly af-

fected by contemporary Spanish
drama, 216; tragicomedies of Italian
and other source, 218-227; Shake-
spearean reminiscences in, 220; typi-
cal later tragedies of, 220-227; tne
ideal knight of, 221; the moral taint
of, 222, 223; "unmaidenly modesty"
of women of, 225; collaboration of,
with Massinger, 226-228; influence
of, on his contemporaries in tragi-
comedy, 235-239; imitations of his
manner and style, 237, 239; activity
of, in later comedies of manners, 244;
gives over English settings for com-
edy, 246; later comedies, in foreign
garb, 247-252; coarseness of speech
and brutality of, towards women, 248;
types in the personages of, 250; con-
ventional realism of, 251; the gen-
tlemen of, 251; the capability of, in
comedy, 252; a collaborator with
Jonson, 268; his foil for Arethusa in
Philaster, 334; influence of, on his
successors, 336; his Evadne in The
Maid's Tragedy, 341; tragicomedy
of, and the heroic play, 350; the
method of contrast in plays of, and
the heroic play, 351 ; a gentleman born,
376; access of, to gentle society, 381;
praised by Webster, 382; Heywood's
word of, 383; collaboration and re-
lation of, with Shakespeare^ 383, 386;
succeeds Shakespeare as chief poet
of the King's players, 384; death of,
by the plague, 384; close personal
relations of, with Massinger, 384, 386;
plays of, in Germany, 392; the failure
of, to popularize the pastoral drama
in his Faithful Shepherdess, 412; his
sequel to Shakespeare's Shrew, 413;
his romantic paternity in Shakespeare,
415; his following of the Middle-
tonian comedy of manners, 416; the
tragicomedy of Beaumont and its
contrast with the "romance" of
Shakespeare, 416, 417; the contri-
bution of Beaumont and, to romantic
drama, 417, 418; the method of, that
of contrast and surprise, 417; the
technique of Beaumont and, 418;
the period of, 419-421; use by, of
Spanish sources, 420; qualities of,
as a playwright, 420, 421; the com-
plete dramatist, 421; and the de-
generacy of later drama, 421-423;

644

INDEX

the change wrought by, in romantic
drama, 423; pervading and lasting
quality of the influence of, 423-425;
the tragicomedy of, chief among the
forebears of the heroic play, 426; bib-
liography of, 480, 481, 495, 496, 505,
516, 525-530. See, also, Beaumont and
Fletcher.

Fletcher, J. B., ii, 346, 347.

Fletcher, Lawrence, i, 494, 495; ii, 391.

Fletcher, Phineas, i, 524; ii, 80, 164-
166, 179, 525.

Fletcher, Richard, i, 523, 524.

Floating Island, ii, 81, 82, 89, 90, 520.

Flores, Juan de, ii, 205, 209, 238.

Florimene, ii, 171, 178.

Flower, Francis, i, 105.

Flowers, Masque of, ii, 118, 126.

Flugel, E., i, 87, 95, 96.

Fol et du sage, Dialogue du, i, 8l.

Folk-drama, i, 48, 49; ii, 447.

Folk-lore, as a source for, or appearing
in the drama, i, 201, 240, 254, 258, 259,
283-285, 321, 354, 356. See, also,
Devil, Fairies, Supernatural, Witches.

Fool and Her Maidenhead Soon Parted,
ii, 261, 262.

Fool would be a Favorite, ii, 355.

Ford, John, i, xxxvii, xlii, 606; ii, 37,
43> '37, 3°8> 377» 385, 392; and the
Sun's Darling, i, 175, 396; and Perkin
Warbeck, 305, 308; and the Witch of
Edmonton, 348, 362; and the Late
Murder of a Son, 349; use of witch-
craft by, 359; his and Dekker's Sun's
Darling, ii, 95; in comedy, 297,298;
in romantic drama, 327-336; a legal
agent or factor, 327, non-extant plays
of, 328; amateur pose of, 328; poeti-
cal casuistry of, 330; and Barnes, 331;
originality of, in plot, 333; freedom
of, from Italian influence, 333; beauty
of the verse of, 333; trifling with
vice in the tragedies of, 334; strained
and intolerable situations of the trage-
dies of, 334; dramatic method of,
analysis of emotion, 334-336; Hey-
wood's word of, 383; criminal passion
treated by way of problem by, in TH
Pity, 422; Perkin Warbeck of, a prob-
lem drama, 424; the art of, 427; the
success of, short-lived, 427, 428; bib-
liography of, ii, 481, 534, 535, 537.

Forde, Thomas, ii, 39, 176, 178.

Forgeries of Collier, i, 411, 430; ii, 375.

Forman, Dr. Simon, i, 280, 299; ii, 201.

Forsett, Edward, ii, 62, 519.

Fortitude of Judith, i, 35.

Fortunate Isles, ii, 124.

Fortunatus, i, 354.

Fortune, Play of, i, 115, 122.

Fortune by Land and Sea, i, xxxix, 292,

3495 "> 357-
Fortune theatre, the, i, xxvi, xxxiv, 146,

J54> 1 6°, 313, 366, 472, 483, 496, 557;

ii, 242, 311,379.
Fouchet, Claude, i, 424.
Fountain of New Fashions,!, 399, 461.
Four Elements, Nature of the, i, 62; ii,

395-

Four Honored Loves, ii, 263.
Four P's, i, xviii, 80, 8 1, 400, 401; ii,

193.

Four Plays in One, i, 568.
Four Prentices of London, i, 205, 206,

397, 404; ", 348, 359, 406.
Four Sons of Aymon, i, 203.
Four Sons of Fabius, i, 1 1 8.
Fox. See Volpone.
Fox and the Kid, i, 216.
Fore, John, i, 39, 40, 59, 250, 286,

3°4-

Fraenkel, L., ii, 92.
France, English players in, ii, 461.
Francis I of France, i, 420, 453.
Fraser, M. E. N., i, 294, 346, 468.
Fraunce, Abraham, ii, 62, 82, 144.
Fraus Pia, ii, 75.
Fredegonda, Queen of Neustria, i, 424,

427.

Frederick V, Elector Palatine, ii, 115.
Frederick and Basilea, i, 196, 228, 229.
Freeman, Ralph, ii, 364, 402, 537.
Freewill, i, 60, 81.
Freires of Berwick, ii, 261.
French interpolated in early religious

drama, i, 9, 19.
"French Seneca," influence of, ii, 5-16,

76, 340.
French themes and influence, i, 214, 374,

378, 392, 398, 400, 4°7, 4°8, 410-427;
ii, 5-16, 76, 340, 351, 407, 426, 451,

454, 485, 494, 495, 5°°, 5I2» 53°, 53 ^

536.
Friar Bacon and Friar Bun gay, i, 178,

194, 244, 245, 259, 283, 284, 378, 387-

389; ii, 154, 169, 261, 406, 467, 470.
Friar Fox and Gillian of Brentford, i,

355-
Friar Francis, i, 345, 355.

INDEX

645

Friar Rusk and the Proud Woman of

Antwerp, i, 354, 355.
Friar Spendleton, i, 355.
Fries, C., i, 34.
Friesen, H. von, i, 324.
Fuimus Troes, i, 306; ii, 80.
Fuller, H. De W., i, 220-222, 570; ii,

92.

Fuller, Thomas, i, 205; ii, 64.
Fulwell, Ulpian, i, 68, 310.
Furness, H. H., i, 184, 217, 362, 561;

ii, 92, 152, 202, 203, 205. .
Furnivall, F. J.,i, 14; ii, 70, etc., passim.
Furnivall Miscellany, i, 23, and passim.
Furza de la Costumbre, ii, 214.

Gaedertz, K. T., i, 161.

Gager, William, i, 121; ii, 4, 18, 59, 60,

63, 404, 518.
Gallathea,\, 109, 124, 128, 132,387,393;

ii, 149, 150, 154.

Galleries, in the theatre, i, 160, 161.
Games, dramatized, as basis of plays,

i,445-
Game at Chess, i, 408, 429, 443-445, 453,

510; ii, 419, 496, 503.
Game of Cards, i, 445.
Gamelyn, Tale of, ii, 154, 491.
Gamester, ii, 285, 292-294, 297, 304, 428,

534-

Gammer Gurton's Needle, i, nviii, 86,
87, 91, 92, 104, 193, 310, 492; ii, 58,
402, 451.

Gardiner, Stephen, Bishop of Winches-
ter, i, 59, 60, 152, 288; ii, 54.

Gardiner, S. R., ii, 293.

Garnett, R., ii, 143.

Gamier, Robert,!, 213, 223; ii, 2, 5-7,
156,340.

Garrick, David, ii, 293.

Garter, Thomas, i, 38.

Gascoigne, George, i, mi, xzxii, 65, 66,
92, no, 121, 135, 196, 210, 265, 341,

436» 49Z» 5°9; »» *» 9'» 92> 97, 98>
375; as courtier and playwright, 94;
employed by Leicester, 103; impor-
tance of the plays of, 104, 105; his
innovation of comic prose dialogue,
105; Supposes, 104, 105; an amateur
playwright, 139, 187; his indebted-
ness to Latin and Italian sources, 457;
his entertainments, ii, 144, 145; his
relation to the pastoral, 145; peda-
gogical moralities emerge into true
drama in The Glass of Government

by, 395; his Supposes based on
Plautus by way of Italian intermedia-
ries, 401 ; his Jocasta, Seneca by way
of Dolce, 401 ; bibliography of, ii, 453,
496.

Gaud, W. S., i, 136, 256.

Gautier, L., i, 3.

Gaveston, Piers, Earl of Cornwall, i,
268.

Gayley, C. W., i, 12, 18, etc., passim.

Geddes, Richard, ii, 21, 22.

Gehler, V., i, 305.

Gen6e, R., i, 165.

Genest, John, i, 305; ii, 237, 283, 342,

365-

Genseric, ii, 45.
Gent, J. W., i, 306.
Gent, P. F., i, 231.
Gentle Craft, i, 297, 329. .
Gentleman Usher, i, 352, 398, 415, 463,

464; ii, 494, 497.
Gentleman of Venice, ii, 286.
Gentleness qnd Nobility, i, 79.
Geoffrey, Abbot of St. Albans, i, n.
Geoffrey of Monmouth, i, 293, 298.
George a Greene, i, 194, 245, 259, 260,

283, 285, 312, 498; ii, 406, 470, 479.
Georgievitz, B., ii, ii.
Gericke, R., i, 560.
German history as dramatic material,

i, 434-441 ;»> 494, 496-
German versions of English plays, i,

216, 217, 220, 221, 285.
Germany, English players in, ii, 391,

461.
Gesta Grayorum of 1594, ii, 73, 98-100,

103,411.

Gesta Romanorum, i, 373; ii, 30.
Ghost, the, in the drama, i, 386, 553,

554, 577-584; ", 3°3» 5°8» 5°9-
Ghost, ii, 303.
Gifford, William, i, 117, 173, 326, 356,

361, 478, 604; ii, 25, 34, 104, 282.

285> 347, 386-
Gilchrist, O. G., ii, 79.
Giles, Nathaniel, i, 115-116, 472, 473;

ii, 369, 454.

Giles, Thomas, i, 112, 124, 146, 186.
Giocasta, i, 104.

Gipsies in the drama, ii, 123, 216-219.
Gipsies Metamorphosed, ii, 1 8.
Girardin, S., ii, 346.
Gismond of Salern. See Tancred and

Gismunda.
Gitanilla, ii, 206, 217.

646

INDEX

Glapthorne, Henry, i, 442, 448, 452,
602, 606; ii, 176, 275, 295, 336; his
comedies, The Hollander and Wit in
a Constable, ii, 278, 279; his Lady
Mother, 278, 279; Shakespearean
borrowings in, 278, 279; his heroic
play, The Ladies' Privilege, 344, 345;
bibliography, 533.

Glass of Government, i, xxxi, 65, 66, 8 1,
92,94, 104, 509; ii, 395, 453.

Globe theater, the, i, xxxv, xxxviii, 146,
*53» J55» IS^> J59> *6°» 182-184,
313, 368, 383, 460, 472, 481, 489, 496,
497; ii, 36, 241, 242, 311,391.

Gloucester, Richard, Duke of, his play-
ers, i, 142.

Gloucester, Thomas of Woodstock,
Duke of, i, 280.

Goblins, ii, 362.

Godfrey of Boulogne, i, 203.

Godly Queen Hester. See Hester.

Godwin, Earl, i, 253.

Goedeke, K., i, 51, 58.

Goethe, J. W. von, i, 232, 355, 559; i,

14-

Goffe, Thomas, i, 598; ii, 43, 45, 81,
169, 170, 174, 179; his melodramas
on Turkish history, i, 449; the Turk-
ish tragedies of, their reversion to the
type of the earlier conqueror plays,

553-

"Going Out" of the masque, ii, 94.
Golden Age, ii, 19, 21, 513.
Golden Age Restored, ii, 120.
Golden Legend, i, 29.
Golding, Arthur, i, 39, 392; ii, 446.
Goldingham, William, i, 38, 577; ii, 75.
Goldsmith, Oliver, i, xxxiii.
Gollancz, I., ii, 67.
Gomersall, Robert, i, 410; ii, 177.
Gondomar, Diego Sarmiento de Acuna,

Marquis de, i, 27, 444.
Goodlet, J., i, 369.
Goodwin, G., i, 564.
Googe, Barnabe, ii, 139.
Gorboduc, \, xxxi, 84, 86, 87, 96, 97, 106,

181, 209, 230, 239, 255, 256, 265, 293,

426; ii, 4, 401, 403, 453.
Gosse, E., i, 419, 589; ii, 151.
Gossips' Brawl, ii, 303.
Gosson, Stephen, i, xxxviii, 82, 149, 150,

151, 209, 233, 291; ii, 21, 32, 461.
Gothein, Marie, i, 200, 371.
Gough, John, ii, 48, 359.
Goughe, Henry, ii, n.

Goulart, Simon, ii, 237.

Gower, John, ii, 199.

Gowry, Earl of, i, 306, 307.

Cowry's Conspiracy, i, 252.

Grabau, C., i, 196.

Graf, H., i, 463.

Grafton, Richard, i, 250, 298.

Grassi, Giacomo di, i, 93.

Grateful Servant, ii, 313, 320, 322.

Gray, C. H., ii, 352, 355.

G razz in i, A. F., i, 196.

Great Duke of Florence, i, 408, 410, 452;

ii, 232, 256, 308, 423, 532.
Great Yarmouth, the "playhouse" at,

ii, 39 '•

Greek influence, i, 469.

Greek Maid, i, 118; ii, 145.

Greeks and Trojans, ii, 39.

Greene, Robert, i, xxiv, xxix, 41,43, 178,
180, 204, 215, 229, 241, 266, 283, 428,
446; ii, 140, 161, 177, 178, 182, 190,
201, 204, 205; Bible plays of, 42;
Groatsworth of Wit of, 189, 235, 271;
plays of, 189, 192, 194, 200, 201, 221,
227, 228, 244, 245, 253, 259, 271;
contrasted with other playwrights,
192; influenced by romantic drama,
194; and the heroical romance, 203;
and Titus Andronicus, 221; on Mar-
lowe's "Atheism," 224; on Marlowe's
death, 237; representative of the new
romantic spirit in comedy, 242-244;
imitative nature of the works of, 244,
245; his services to the drama, 245,
246; and the chronicle play, 259, 285,
286, 308; his part in the Contentions,
267; and i Henry VI, 267; his atti-
tude toward Shakespeare, 271, 272;
in the domestic drama, 319-321,326;
Taming of a Shrew ascribed to, 340;
chronological relation of Shakespeare
to, 378; use of magic by, 387; James
IV, a source of Midsummer-Night's
Dream, 392, 393; fairies of, 396; his
Planetomachia the source of The
Costly Whore, 439; Tully's Love of,
used as a source, 472; cited in regard
to satire in the drama, 474; and
Love's Labor's Lost, 476; his hum-
ble birth, 523; not an actor; ii, 375;
a writer for the Queen's Company,
377; contempt of, for non-academic
writers, 378, 379; the romanticism
of, 388; plays of, in Germany, 392 ;
his heroical romance Orlando, 399,

INDEX

647

406; dramatic rivalry of, with Mar-
lowe in Alphonsus and Friar Bacon,
406; power of, in the representation
of English rural life, 406, 407; suc-
cess in romantic drama, 407; biblio-
graphy of, 462, 465, 467, 469, 470,

49°. 493> S28-

Greene, Thomas, i, 497, 519.

Greenstreet, J., i, 1 1 6.

Greet, Ben, i, 164.

Greg, W. W., i, 241, 313, 588; ii,i28,
etc., passim.

Gregory the Great, i, 2.

Grein, C. W. M., i, 48.

Gresham, Sir Thomas, i, 285, 288, ii,
402.

Greville, Sir Fulke, later Lord Brooke,
i, xxxii, 99, 420, 446, 577; ii, 6-8,
49, 76; his tragedies of Oriental scene,
448; his destruction of a play on
Anthony and Cleopatra, 573; his life,
ii, 10; his association with the
Sidneys and Pembrokes, 1 1 ; his inti-
macy with Daniel, 1 1 ; his Alaham and
Mustapha, 11-14; his Life of Sidney,
II, 12; his theory of tragedy, 12-14;
and Davenant, 340; his tragedies
wholly academic and not intended for
the stage, 388; bibliography of, 452,
496, 512, 513.

Grey, Lady Jane, i, 252, 287, 288; ii, 55.

Grim, the Collier of Cray don, i, 1 19, 310,
356, 498, 578.

Grimald, Nicholas, i, 36, 37, 39, 40,
87, 91, 198; ii, 154, 446.

Grimestone, Edward, i, 218, 424; ii, 1 1,

237, 494. 495;
Grimm, J. L., i, 392.
Grindal, Archbishop, i, 150.
Griselda, the story of, i, 50, 329.
GriseliJis, Esloire de, i, 50.
Grissil, Patient. See Patient Grissil.
Grosart, A. B., i, 38, 98, etc., passim.
Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, i, 14,

46.

Grotius, Hugo, i, 44; ii, 394.
Groto, L., i, 208; ii, 76, 80, 144, 178.
Grumbine, H. C., i, 106.
Guardian, ii, 88, 255, 256, 304, 308.
Guarini, Giambattista, ii, 80, 139, 142,

143, 145, 156, 167, 175, 178, 179.
Guarna, Andrea, ii, 63.
Guazzo, Stephen, i, 93.
Guelphs, the, i, 409.
Guelphs and Ghibbelines, i, 442.

Guerra, Guido, i, 409.

Guicciardini, Francesco, i, 390, 410.

Guido, i, 409.

Guilds, their part in the performance
of miracle plays, i, 14; of York, 15,
17; of Chester, 19; of Coventry, 20;
and elsewhere, 22; fined for neglect
of pageants in the Corpus Christi
Plays, 23, 24.

Guise, Francois de Lorraine, Duke of,
i, 41 1, 453.

Guise, i, 423.

Guise, Duke of, i, 423.

Gummere, F. B., i, 201.

Gunnell, R., i, 442; ii, 238, 262.

Guskar, H., i, 527.

Gustavus Adolphus, i, 453.

Guy of Warwick, i, 197, 208.

Guy, Earl of Warwick, ii, 360.

Guzman de Alfarache, ii, 213, 247.

Gwinne, Matthew, ii, 28, 72, 73, 76,

5'9-

Gwynn, Nell, ii, 342.
Gypsies, [Anti] Masque of, ii, 123, 127.
Gypsies'" Metamorphosis. See Gypsiet,

[Anti] Masque of.

Habington, William, ii, 368, 374, 385.
Hacket, John, ii, 75, 81.
Haddington, John Ramsey, Viscount,
Masque at the marriage of, ii, 108,

112.

Hadriana, i, 208.

Hales, J. W., i, 85, 87, 270.

Hall, Edward, i, 69, 75, 250; ii, 95, 96,
448.

Hall, Joseph, 483, 492.

Hallam, H., ii, 76.

Halliwell, Edward, i, 550; ii, 18, 56.

Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O., i, 142, 146,
182, etc., passim.

Halpin, N. J., i, 129, 130, 392.

Hamlet (of Kyd), i, 214-218, 246; ii,
68, 401, 408, 554-556; quartos of
1603 and 1604, i, 558-560; the folio,
560; (of Shakespeare in final form),
i, xiv, xlii, 117, 172, 230, 275, 376,

383» 4'3» 436» 468, 489. 49'» S59~
562, 575, 576, 578, 580-582; ii, 19,
52,69,91,220, 325, 335, 393,407, 413,
428, 554; bibliography of, 464, 506,
509, 529.
Hamlet, the character and its influence,

>• 543> SS5» S66> 597! «, 4>3-
Hampton, John, ii, 306.

648

INDEX

Handlyng Synne, i, 14.

Hannibal and Hermes, ii, 21.

Hannibal and Scipio, ii, 21, 45, 280.

Hans Beerpot, ii, 256, 257.

"Happy ending," the, ii, 313.

Hard Shift for Husbands, ii, 238, 422.

Hardicanute, i, 253, 254.

Harding, Samuel, i, 410, 606; ii, 364.

Harington, i, 115, 200, 445; ii, 60.

Harriott, Thomas, i, 225.

Harrowing of Hell, i, 48.

Harry of Cornwall, i, 261.

Hart, J. M., i, 36.

Harvey, Gabriel, i, 124, 138, 224, 228,

237, 447, 4745 "> 6o> 61, 502.
Haslewood, Joseph, i, 115, 137, 138,

167, 174, 219, 237, 445, 465.
Hatcher, O. L., i, 527; ii, 218, 250, 251.
Hathway, Richard, i, 252, 253, 278, 279,

347, 379, 388» 4i3> 4*9» 521-
Haughton, William, i, 1 19, 222, 223, 298,

347, 354, 356» 429» 5°°» 5OI> 562> "»
'53» 379-

Hausted, Peter, ii, 84, 87.

Haveloc, Lay of, i, 50.

Hawkesworth, Walter, ii, 62, 77.

Hawkins, F., i, 373.

Hawkins, J. S., i, 564.

Hawkins, William, ii, 83.

Hawkins, Captain William, of the Hec-
tor, ii, 393.

Hay, Lord, ii, 107, 112.

Hazlitt, W. C., i, 48, 71, 82, 141, 142,
147, etc., passim.

Heautontimoroumenos, i, 461.

Hearne, T., ii, 55.

Hecatommithi, i, 210, 331; ii, 208, 324.

Heckmann, T., ii, 231.

Hector of Germany, i, 398, 436-438; ii,
496.

Hecuba, i, 577.

"Hegge plays" i, 19, 51.

Heir, ii, 43, 239, 258, 259, 272.

Hekastus, ii, 450.

Heliodorus, ii, 48, 359, 517.

Heliogabalus, ii, 18.

Helmet, Masque of the, ii, 99.

Heming, John, i, 145, 182, 384; ii, 36,
243, 380.

Heming, William, i, 182, 183, 426, 427;

»» 35, 36» 364, 458-

Hengist, i, 296, 510.

Henrietta Maria, Queen, ii, 124, 130,
171, 173, 285, 329, 345, 346, 351; her
players, 285, 310, 311, 385, 386.

Henry, Prince, and his players, i, 422,

495»496> »> 94, no, in, 114.
Henry's Barriers, Speeches at Prince, ii,

94, in.

Henry I, History of, i, 304.
Henry I and Henry II, i, 304.
Henry II, i, 12.
Henry III of England, i, 438.
Henry III of France, i, 411, 415.
Henry IV, i, «xvi, 72, 257, 273, 276,

278, 282, 324, 353 ; ii, 406, 478.
Henry IV of France, i, 416, 417, 421,

422, 440.

Henry V, i, 248, 252, 254, 281; ii, 406.
Henry V, Famous Victories of, i, xxviii,

188, 257, 261, 262, 281, 411; ii, 404.
Henry V(ol Shakespeare), i, ixiv, xxxvi,

257, 273, 277, 2?8, 281 ; ii, 478.
Henry VI, i, 74, 188, 234; ii, 471, 472.
Henry VI, i, 247, 261, 263-265, 267,

*7i> 273, 358> 359, 4", 55'J "» 4°6,

471-

Henry VH, i, 249.
Henry VIII, i, «iii, xxiv, xrrii, ixii,

31, 36.55, 59»64,69, 70, 73, 76, 78,81,
82, 86, 91, 93, 94, ico, in, 139, 141,
195, 198, 247, 249, 287, 290, 406, 422;
ii, 95, 129.

Henry VIII (of Shakespeare and
Fletcher), i, 168, 273, 274, 287, 288,
290; ii, 69, 190, 229, 290, 337, 383,
412, 479, 480, 527; (of Wylley), i, 59,
85.

Henry, A., i, 538; ii, 277.

Henry of Almaine, i, 261, 438.

Henryson, R., i, 49.

Henslowe, John, i, 313.

Henslowe, Philip, i, xxv, nxvi, 408, 411,
418, 422, 423, 431, 436, 445, 466; ii,
i53» '54, "8, 234,379, 381, 394, 434,
438 (and Diary cited passim) ; the
Rose, his theatre, i, 155; Fortune the-
ater built by, 156, 1 60; Ben Jonson en-
gaged to write Bartholomew Fair for,
156; his inventories, 175-177, 179,
1 80; his playwrights given no interest
in his playhouses, 184; character of,
and of his Diary, 313-318; compa-
nies and theaters managed by, 317;
domestic drama acted chiefly by com-
panies of, 365; satirized in Jack
Drum's Entertainment, 483; erects
the Hope theater, 496; his quarrels
with his company, ii, 241; his death,
242; bibliography of, 482.

INDEX

649

Heptameron of Civil Discourses, i, 196,
210.

Heraclius, ii, 353.

Herbert, George, i, 44.

Herbert, Sir Henry, i, 43, 304, 342, 422,
43'» 498» 5275 ii» 169, 235, 243, 262,
268, 285, 291, 292, 295, 316, 317, 371,

385. 453> S32-
Herberts, the, ii, 232.
Hercules, plays on, ii, 20, 452, 512.
Herford, C. H., i, mi, 34, 36, 37, 39,

48, 60, 61, 65, 66, 83, and passim.
Hermophus, ii, 83.
Hero and Leander, i, 225, 230, 269,

272.
Herod and Antipater, i, 42,550,605; ii,

8» 35> 5I2> Sl6-
Herodes (of Adamson), i, 38; (of Gold-

ingham), i, 38, 577; ii, 75.
Herodian, i, 426.
Heroes, Masque of, ii, 122.
Heroic element in the drama, ii, 190,

3 59, 360, 399, 402, 406, 426. See, also,

Heroic play.
Heroic Lover, ii, 365.
Heroic play, ii, 184, 190, 343, 348-352,

536, 537-

Heroic verse, ii, 349, 351, 427.

Herpetulus, i, 198-199.

Herrick, Robert, ii, 269.

Hertford, Earl of, his players, i, 145.

Hertz, £., i, 144, 186, 217, 220.

Hesiod, i, 414.

Hester, Godly Queen, i, 38, 114, 119,
120.

Hester and Ahasuerus, i, 42.

Hewlett, M., i, 273.

Hey for Honesty, ii, 87.

Heylin, Peter, ii, 75, 81.

Heywood, Jasper, i, 97.

Heywood, John, i, 48, 61, 68, 90, 94,
203, 218, 310, 339, 345; ii, 137, 375;
his farces, i, ixviii; raises the interlude
to an independent dramatic form, 78-
81; T her sites assigned to, 88, 89, 91,
92; his services to the drama, ii, 397;
repudiates the didactic element in his
farces, 397; his farces written for the
circle of the court, 399; responsible
for the step from medieval to modern
drama, 400; bibliography of, 451.

Heywood, Thomas, i, 48, 194, 457, 499,
500, 509, 547; ii, 49, 137, 152, 171,
376, 392; his service in the representa-
tion of contemporary life, i, xxix; his

dramatization of Ovid, xxxiv; The
Iron Age, Part II, 178; // Tou Know
Nat Me You Know Nobody, 178,288,
289; mentioned by Henslowe, 180;
Apology for Actors, 203, 218, 345;
Woman Killed with Kindness, 204,
z83> 34°) m heroical comedy, 204,
205, 303, 304; The Thracian Won-
der, 170, 204, 205; Four Prentices of
London, 205, 206, 397, 404; his obli-
gations to Fuller's History of the Holy
War, 205; King Edward IV, 261, 281-
283, 337, 397; plays on Queen Eliza-
beth, 288; plays on piracy, 292; and
Fortune by Land and Sea, 292, 349;
Fair Maid of the West, 292; Dick of
Devonshire, attributed 10,293; Royd
King and Loyal Subject, 303, 304; and
the chronicle play, 307, 308; fecundity
of, 310; influenced by connection with
Henslowe, 318; compared with Mar-
lowe and Shakespeare, 318; in domes-
tic drama, 326, 335-338; the Wise
Woman of, 335; life and work of,
335-338; Yorkshire Tragedy ascribed
to, 347; The Captives of, 352; History
of Women of, cited, 352, 353; Apol-
ogy for Actors of, cited, 345, 355; use
of witchcraft by, 359; and the Late
Lancashire Witches, 362; domestic
drama of, 366; chronological rela-
tion of Shakespeare to, 378; work of,
397; romantic comedy of, 397, 403,
404; mythology in, 397; chronicle
history of, 397; Five Plays in One
ascribed to, by Fleay, 401 ; his drama-
tized mythology, ii, 19-21; his Rape
of Lucrece, 21, 27; his Lovers Mistress,
95; and civic pageants, 128; his
Royal King and Loyal Subject, 224;
his Captives, 236; his later comedies,
262, 263; his bourgeois attempt in
The Challenge for Beauty to imitate
cavalier ideals, 309; fecundity of, as
a playwright, 374; leaves the Ad-
miral's men, 379; personal relations
of, 381; obscurity of the life of, 381;
journalistic fluency and carelessness
of, 381; praised by Webster, 382;
jocular couplets of, on contemporary
playwrights, a pleasant proof of
agreeable social relations; 382, 338;
employed in civic pageants, 382;
The Hierarchie of Blessed Angels by,
quoted, 383; writes for the Princess

650.

INDEX

Elizabeth's players, 384; Plautine
scenes in plays of, 401; degradation
of heroical romance in The Four
Prentices of, 406; domestic pathos of
his Edward IV, 408; attempt of, to
dramatize mythology, 409, 410; do-
mestic comedies of, in the reign of
James, 413; later romantic comedies
of, 425; the attempt of, to emulate
Fletcher in tragicomedy, 425; biblio-
graphy of, 478-481, 485, 513, 516,

53 !> S32-

Hickscorner, i, 56, 62; ii, 395, 450.
Higden, Ralph, i, 31, 298.
Higges, Griffin, ii, 73-75.
Hilarius, i, 8, 9; ii, 443.
Hill, H. W., i, 241.
Hirzel, R., i, 48, 61.
Historia de Bella Africano, i, 428.
Histoira Histrionica, ii, 122.
History, as a subject for drama, i, xxviii,

4°5» 453. 454. 5S25 Pla7s on pseudo-
historical themes, 284, 285, 293-296,
298-301; liberal Elizabethan inter-
pretation of, 406; groups of plays on,
407; of Italy, 408-410; of France,
410-427; of Spain, 428-434; of Hol-
land and Germany, 434, 443; of the
Turks and other Eastern peoples, 445-
451; bibliography of dramas based
on, 470-481, 493~496-

History of Error, i, 119, 458.

Hiitriomastix, i, 479, 480, 484, 488,
542; ii, 173, 174, 502.

Hock Tuesday Play, i, 254; ii, 470.

Ho$man, 1,408,411,413, 436, 452, 453,
562-565; ii, 479, 507.

Hog Hath Lost His Pearl, i, 350, 437,
521, 522; ii, 184.

Hogarth, William, i, 508.

Hohlfeld, A., i, 13, 21, 51.

Hoker, John, ii, 54.

Holbein, Hans, i, 75.

Holiday, B., ii, 81.

Holinshed, Ralph, i, 75, 82, 250, 298,
300, 301, 344; ii, 71, 408, 477.

Holland, English players in, ii, 391.

Holland's Leaguer, ii, 275, 276.

Hollander, ii, 278, 279.

Hollstein, E., i, 357.

Holophernes, i, 37.

Holstein, the Duke of, ii, 104.

Holt, L. H. Jr., i, 533.

Holthausen, F., i, 31, 65, 81, 89.

Homer, ii, 20, 22, 286, 292, 414, 418.

Homo, ii, 75.

Homulus, ii, 450.

Hone, W., i, 12.

Honest Excuses, i, 150.

Honest Lawyer, i, 350.

Honest Man's Fortune, i, 528; ii, 228,

241, 505, 530.
Honest Whore, i, 177, 388, 339, 510;

"> 4J3» 484-

Honneur des Dames, i, 51.
Honor and Riches, ii, 137.
Honor of Wales, ii, 120.
Honor of Women, ii, 233.
Honoris Academy, ii, 178.
Hooker, John, i, 83.
Hoopes, E. S., i, 68.
Hope theater, the, i, 153, 156, 159-160,

496; ii, 242.

Horace, i, xxxiii, 469, 537, 539; ii, 55.
Horestes, i, 118, 120; ii, 45, 402, 513.
Houghton, William, i, 521.
Housekeepers, playhouses owned by,

i, 182-184; Shakespeare's company

managed by, 317.
How a Man May Choose a Good Wife

from a Bad, i, 330-334; ii, 484.
Howard, Lord Charles, his players, i,

144.

Howard, Sir Robert, i, 430; ii, 362.
Howe, F. A., i, 296.
Howell, James, ii, 131, 347.
Hudson, J. H., i, 581.
Hue and Cry after Cupid, ii, 108, 112.
Hughes, Thomas, i, 97, 105, 106, 109,

225, 255, 256, 265, 293, 549; ii, 3, 4,

*5> 374, 453-
Humanism and the humanists, i, 33-35.

41, 67, 81, 91, 92, 94; ii, 394, 395,

400,446,449,485, 511.
Humers, Comedy of, i, 460.
" Humor," the, i, 278, 3 10, 3 1 1, 323, 3 39,

460, 470, 471; ii, 265-267.
Humor out of Breath, i, 168, 169, 397;

ii, 152, 158, 415.
Humorous Courtier, ii, 313-315.
Humorous Day's Mirth, i, 460, 464.
Humorous Lieutenant, ii, 24, 38, 39, 205.
Humors Reconciled. See Magnetic Lady.
Humphrey, Duke, i, 263.
Humphrey, Duke, i, 307.
Hungarian Lyon, i, 442.
Running, William, i, 124.
Hunnis, William, i, 112-115, 118, 122,

186, 187, 255, 256; ii, 98, 374, 375,

455-

INDEX

651

Hunsdon, Henry Carey, Lord, his

players, i, 144, 145.
Hunting of Cupid, i, 135; ii, 147.
Huntingdon, Earl of, Masque for the,

at Ashby, ii, 107.
Huntington, Robert, Earl of, i, 279, 280;

ii, 154. 479-

Huon of Bordeaux, i, 203, 392, 393.
Huss, John, Burning of, i, 72,
Hyde Park, ii, 290, 291, 296, 428.
Hyginus, C. J., i, 132.
Hymentti, ii, 105, 1 06.
Hymenifus, i, 196, 197, 456; ii, 77.
Hymen's Holiday, i, 422.
Hymen's Masque in As Tou Like It, ii,

129.
Hymen's Triumph, ii, 163, 167, 1 68,

172, 174, 412, 325-
" Hypolitus" ii, 3.

Ibsen, Henrik, i, xliii.

leronomo, i, 219, 428, 452; ii, 464.

// This be not a Good Play, the Devil ii
in It, i, 355, 538.

// Tou Know Not Me Tou Know No-
body, i, 178, 285, 288, 289, 429, 500;
ii, 412, 480.

Ignoramus, i, mi, 77-79, 81; ii, 123,
401.

/// Beginning has a Good End, ii, 328.

/// Beginning Makes a Bad End, i, 333.

Ilustre Fregona, ii, 206.

Imelmann, R., i, 39, 209.

Imperial Tragedy, ii, 365.

Imperiale, ii, 364, 402, 537.

Imposture, ii, 322.

Inconstant, ii, 247.

Inconstant Lady, ii, 338, 339, 427.

Ingannanti, i, 197, 456; ii, 77, 92.

Ingeland, Thomas, i, 64, 65, 81.

Ingleby, C. M., ii, 375.

Ingram, J. H., i, 225, 235, 236, 238.

Inner Temple and Gray's Inn Masque
(by Beaumont), i, 524; ii, 116, 129,
185; (by Brown), see Ulysses and
Circe; (by Middleton), see Heroes,
Masque of.

Innocent III, Pope, i, 14.

Inns of court, plays of the, i, 139, 185.

Inn-yards employed as theaters, i, xxvi,

i53> I57-I59-
Insatiate Countess, i, 542, 585, 586, 594;

ii, 413, 414, 501, 509.
"In-scenes," i, 165, 166.
Interlude, the biblical, i, 43; a true dra-

matic form, 73, 78; a function of, 76;

definition of the, 77, 78; of John Hey-

wood, 78-81, 94; and the spirit of

romance, 89, 90; the vernacular, 92;

Jack Straw, an historical, 257; familiar

humorous types inserted in the, 310;

satire in the, 474.
Interludium de Clerico et Puella, i, 49,

50; ii, 448.
"Intei-means" in Jonson's late comedies,

ii, 265, 266.

Introit of the Mass, the, i, 3, 5, 7.
Iphigenia, i, 118, 550; ii, 2, 3, 59.
Ira seu Tumulus Fortuna, device at

Oxford, ii, 74.
Ireland, Shirley takes Elizabethan

drama to, ii, 285, 286.
Irish Knight, i, 1 1 8.
Irish Masque, ii, 1 1 8.
Irish Rebellion, i, 306.
Iron Age, i, 178; ii, 20, 513.
Isaac and Jacob, ii, 43.
Island Princess, i, 429, 430; ii, 211, 215,

53°-

Isle of Devils, ii, 202.
Isle of Dogs, i, 138; ii, 67.
Isle ofGulls,i, 140, 397, 445; ii, 152, 158,

3i4,4i5-

Italian influence in the drama, i, xrix,
xxx, 203, 208-211, 239, 248, 259, 309,
341, 369, 374, 378, 382, 386, 387, 398,
401, 403,408-410, 307,454; 456 (and
passim in ch. x); 11,77, 7^» '39» 462,
486-488, 493, 494, 511, 524, 525.

Italian Nightpiece, ii, 234.

Italian Tragedy, i, 562.

Iver, Printemps of, ii, 214.

Jack and Gill, i, 119.

Jack Drum's Entertainment, i, 398, 413,

482-484, 486, 488, 489, 542; ii, 502.
Jack Straw, Life and Death of, i, xx, 136,

257, 258, 261, 280; ii, 406, 471.
Jack Wilton, i, 138.
Jacke Juggler, i, 83.
Jacob and Esau, i, 40, 41,43, 87, 88; ii,

393» 394-

Jacob, T. E., i, 286.

Jacobs, J., ii, 131, 224.

Jaques, Francis, i, 427.

James I, i, xxiv, xxxii, 19, 27, 43, 179,
211, 252, 254, 285, 306, 307, 353, 359,
381,383,441,443-445,506; ii, 10, n,
14, 52, 71, 73, 78, 79, io'» "9, 1*°,
123, 124, 158, 164, 166, 411, 419; hi*

652

INDEX

company of players, i, 145, 169, 182,

3°4, 3°7» 358» 383> 389, 39°. 4955 "•

122, 190, 242, 243, 310, 380, 383.
James IV, of Scotland, i, 253.
James IV, Scottish History of King, i,

*44, H5> 253» 259> 378, 392, 393; ii,

182, 407, 469, 478, 493.
James V, of Scotland, i, 70.
James, Henry, i, 468.
Jastrow, M., i, 373.
Jealous Lovers, ii, 85, 86.
Jealousy as a Shakespearean theme, i,

575-

Jephtha, i, 42, 550.

Jephthes (by Buchanan), i, 34, 37, 91; ii,
54, 446; (by Christopherson), 37.

Jeronimo. See leronimo.

Jerusalem, the destruction of, as a dra-
matic theme, i, 26, 27.

Jerusalem, i, 203.

Jew, the, in Elizabethan drama, i, 209,

232, 233> 372-374; », 49°-
Jew, i, 209.
Jew of Malta, i, xxvi, 232, 233, 268, 372,

447, 5695 ", J9> 4^7, 489-
Jewell, John, i, 358.
Jeweller of Amsterdam, i, 441.
Jewish Gentleman, ii, 269, 270.
Jews'" Tragedy, ii, 35, 36.
Joan of Arc, i, 359, 411.
Job"s Sufferings, i, 35, 37.
Jocasta, 1, 97, 104, 163, 177, 209, 230,

265, 401, 426; ii, 2, 453.
Jodelle, Etienne, ii, 6, 340, 467.
Johan 5a/>mr«j,i,33,43, 59; ii, 393, 446.
Johan, King, i, 59, 70, 71, 91, 254, 255.
John, King, i, 170, 234, 252, 280.
John, King, i, 258, 273, 305; ii, 471.
John, King, and Matilda, i, 280, 304,

305, 598; ii, 258-260, 424, 481, 533.
John a Kent and John a Cumber, i, 176,

284, 388, 389; ii, 409, 479, 493.
John of Gaunt, i, 252.
John of Gaunt, Conquest of Spain by, i,

252.
John, Troublesome Reign of, i, 257, 258,

261, 262.

John the Baptist, i, 44, 446.
John the Husband, Tib his Wife, and

Sir John the Priest, i, 80, 8l, 119.
Johnson, Laurence, i, 87; ii, 451.
Johnson, Samuel, i, 290; ii, 76.
Johnson, William, ii, 84.
Johnson, W. S., i, 537.
Jonas, i, 35.

Jones, H. A., i, 329.

Jones, Inigo, ii, 98, 158; his ingenuity
in varying scenes, i, 172; influence of
his stage-craft on the popular drama,
179; takes the step from medieval
to modern pictorial stage setting, ii,
72; his part in Vertumnus, 73, 74; his
scenic devices in the Masque of Black-
ness, 105, 107, in; payment for the
device of Love Freed from Ignorance,
112; retires to Italy, 114; his part in
Campion's Lords' Masque, 115;
becomes surveyor of the king's works,
122; his quarrel with Jonson, 122,
123; his genius in scenic effect and
contrivance, 126; last masques with
Jonson, 130; Jonson's inveterate
quarrel with, 130, 131, 264, 267, 268,
381; his ingenuity in later masques,
131, 132; his devices for Luminalia,
136; association of Jonson with, in
the masque, 381; his development
of the scenery, costume, and other
setting of the masque, 411.

Jonson, Ben, i, xxv, xxxv-xxxvii,xl,xli,

"7, 4H, 4i8, 4*°, 453, 492» 493, 5°4,
508, 509, 515, 519, 520, 523,524, 526,
545, 5475 ii, 77, 207, 254, 277, 292, 296,
301, 304, 307, 310, 336, 337, 340, 360,

377, 389> 4°7, 4*°, 4*i, 4*3, 4J4! and
the school of conscious effort, i, xxxii,
xxxiii; the scholarly classical tragedies
of, xxxiii; the dramatic satires of,
xxxiii; importance historically of his
Every Man in His Humor, i.i\n\; and
the Office of the Revels, 102; his obli-
gations to Lyly, 133, 134, 140; Bar-
tholomew Fair, 156, 222; Poetaster, 167,
177; The Alchemist, 168, 170, 206;
Cynthia' 's Revels, 172, 173; The Case
is Altered, 176, 380; and simultane-
ous scenery, 178, 179; his sense for
historical anachronism, 181; and the
popular stage, 187; low life depicted
by, 193, 278; Epiccene, 206; his
additions to Kyd's Spanish Tragedy,
21 1 ; Richard Crookback, 281; The
Sad Shepherd, 284, 360, 395; his part
in Mortimer, 306; prices paid, 316,
317; compared with Shakespeare,
318; changes names and settings in
Every Man in His Humor, 325; the
Tale of a Tub, the single domestic
drama of, 326; influence of, 327, 349;
relations of Shakespeare and, 342;

INDEX

653

collaboration on Page of Plymouth,
346; given over to the comedy of
manners in the reign of James, 351;
the Devil is an Ass of, 357, 358; use
of witchcraft by, 359; the Sad Shep-
herd of, 360; the supernatural in, 365;
domestic drama of, 366; Every Man
in his Humor of, 368; Shakespeare's
relations with, 368; fairies of, 395,
396, 403 ; Shakespeare compared with,
395; influence of, towards satire, 400;
relation of, to romantic comedy, 403;
in comedy of manners, 404; his char-
acter Sejanus and Hamlet compared,
413; his hand in The Bloody Brother,
425, 426; and the comedy of manners,
456, 465-471; use of Plautus, 457;
compared with Shakespeare, 459; and
the Comedey of Hunters, 460; relation
of Chapman to, 460, 464; details of
the life of, 465-466; importance of
Every Man in His Humor, 467; his
comedy, 467-469; contrasted with
Shakespeare as regards his portrayal
of character, 468-471; classical theo-
ries of, 469; use of "humors," 470,
471; imitation of, 471; Field taught
by, 473; and the "war of the theaters,"
473» 477-49M standing of, in 1598,
478; nature of the satire of, 487;
writes Bartholomew Fair for the new
Hope, 496; his collaboration in East-
ward Hoe, 505, 506; imprisoned for
the satire of that play, 507; released
by the influence of D'Aubigny, 507;
his great comedies, 529-542; his view
of life in his comedies, 534; his at-
titude contrasted with that of Shake-
speare, 535, 536; ingenuity of the
plot construction of, 535, 536; his use
of material, 536-542; his learning
and employment of it, 537; his
draughts on the classics, 538; alleged
Shakespearean borrowings, 539, 540;
and Giordano Bruno, 540-542; his
want of French and Italian, 541; the
variety of his fools, 547; his Sejanus,
550; his additions to The Spanish
Tragedy, 557; his development of
the character, Hieronimo, 557; his
rivalry of Shakespeare's re-written
Hamlet in the additions, 558; his
scholarly picturing of the life of the
ancients, 574, 577; theSenecan ghost
in his Catiline, 577, 594; Dido and

JEneas ascribed to, ii, 18, 19; his
Sejanus, 24-27, 32, 33; relations of
with Shakespeare, 25, 70; his dra-
matic portraiture, 25, 33; his display
of classical learning, 26, 27, 28, 33;
his Catiline, 26, 32, 33, 414; fidelity to
history in his classical plays, 33; in
classical tragedy, 33-34; commends
Cartwright, 46, 49, 50; his Volpone
acted at the universities, 52; estimate
of, in The Return from Parnassus, 69;
taunted with bricklaying, 69; his con-
tact with the universities, 91; his hon-
orary degrees, 91; and the masque,
93-95; his Panegyre on James' first
Parliament, 101; his Entertainment
at Althorpe, 101, 102; the anti-masque
presaged, 102; his activity as a de-
viser of masques at court, 103; masque
at Coleorton attributed to him, 103;
his Masque of Blackness, 104, 105; his
Masque of Beauty, 108; his Masque
of Queens, 108; its anti-masque, 108;
his rivalry of Daniel, 1 10; cost of his
masques, 112, 113; his honorarium
for Love Freed from Ignorance, 112;
his masques of 1610-13, "35 leaves
the court for France, 115; returns to
his post as entertainer of the court,
118; his masques of 1615-18, 119; his
quarrel with Inigo Jones, 122, 123;
his journey afoot to Scotland, 123; re-
warded for the Masque of Gypsies,
123; renewed activity in the, after
his return from Scotland, 123; his
last Jacobean masques, 123, 124; his
opinion of allegory and allusion, 125;
his classical learning in the, 126; his
employment of the supernatural, and
of satire in the masque, 127; of humor
and drollery, 1 27 ; last years of, 1 30; his
quarrel with Jones renewed, 130; his
entertainments of the king at Welbeck
and Bolsover, 131; his part in the pas-
toral, 146, 154, 156; his Sad Shepherd,
166-169, 1 80; his rivalry of Daniel in
the pastoral, 167; the comedy of, as a
type, 240, constructive excellence of
the comedy of, 240; his activity in
later comedies of manners, 244; last
dramas of, 263-267; his quarrel with
Jones inveterate, 264, 267, 268; his
library destroyed by fire, 264; loss of
a patron in King James, 264; his de-
caying powers, 267; last days of, 267,

654

INDEX

268; chronologer of London, 267, 268;
kindness of King Charles to, 267, 268;
failure of the reversion of the Master-
ship of the Revels to, 267, 268; death
of, 268; tributes to the memory of,
268; second folio of the works of, 268;
influence of, on his contemporaries,
268, 269; personal relations of, 268;
collaboration of, 268; his Underwoods,
282; popularity of the plays of, in
Charles' reign, 308; his ridicule of
Platonic love, 347, 351; apocryphal
tradition that he was an actor, 376;
leaves the Admiral's men for killing
Gabriel Spenser, 379; joins the com-
pany of Shakespeare, 380; writes
for the Chapel Children, 380; Shake-
speare's recommendation of, 380;
Shakespeare's friendship for, 380;
visit of, to Shakespeare, 380; a culti-
vator of "great ones," 380; friends
and patrons of, 381 ; intimate of
Marston and Chapman, 381; ene-
mies and butts of the ridicule of, 381;
"sons" of, 381; association of, with
Jones in the masque, 381; access of,
to court and gentle society, 381;
praised by Webster, 382; Heywood's
couplet on, 383; the sovereign of lit-
erary Bohemia, 385; occasional lit-
erary extravagance of, 388; Plautine
plots and personages in, 400; romantic
elements in The Case is Altered of,
409; versus Shakespeare in dramatized
classical history, 410; the comedy of
humors and dramatic satire in the
hands of, 410; war of the theaters,
410; his revision of The Spanish
Tragedy, 411; his development of the
masque to its artistic height, 41 1 ; suc-
cess of, in the pastoral fragment, The
Sad Shepherd, 412; his Catiline, 414;
his acceptance of English scene for
comedy, 415; his great comedies, 415;
Volpone, a study in villainy, 415; self-
consciousness of the comedies of, 415;
effect of the comedy of , on later writers,
416; the dominating dramatic influ-
ence of the first decade of James, 418;
a Jacobean, 418; turns from the pop-
ular stage to the masque at court, 418;
struggle of, against the tastes of his
age, 419; return of, to satire, allegory,
and "humors," 425; persistence of
the influence of the earlier comedy of,

on his successors, 425, 426; bibliogra-
phy of, 479,486,493,497-502, 522,
52S» S2*.

Jonson, Junior, Ben, ii, 261, 262, 269.

Jonsonus Virbius, ii, 176, 268.

Jordan, Thomas, ii, 303.

Josephus, Flavius, i, 410; ii, 36, 218.

Joshua, i, 42.

Journalism in the drama, i, 105, 106, 288,
289, 292, 369, 370.

Jovial Crew, ii, 274, 275, 425.

Judas, i, 42.

Judge, ii, 233.

Judicium, i, 18.

Jugurtha, ii, 21.

Julia Agrippina, ii, 44.

Julian Apostata, ii, 18.

Julian the Apostate, ii, 82.

Juliet, i, 571, 572.

Julius Caesar, plays on, i, 550; ii, 21-24,
27, 92, 514.

Julius Caesar (of Shakespeare), i, xxv,
180, 407, 414, 552, 569, 573, 577, 580;
ii, 6, 21-24, 26, 29, 49, 312, 514, 515;
(of Alexander), ii, 14; (of Geddes), 17,
21 ; (of May), 22, 45, 81.

Julius Ctssar, The Revenge of, ii, 23.

Julius Ciesar, The Tragedy of, ii, 23.

Julyus Sesar, ii, 17, 21.

Jusserand, J. J., i, 23, 30, 49, 51.

Just General, ii, 368.

Just Italian, ii, 300, 341.

Juvenal, i, xxxiii, 492, 538.

Kamen, P., i, 17.

Katherine of Aragon, i, 74.

Keeling, Captain William, ii, 393.

Keller, W., i, 227, 398; ii, 18, 92.

Kelly, J. Fitzmaurice, i, 206.

Kelly, W., ii, 390, 391.

Kemp, William, i, 76, 144, 186, 255, 489;
ii, 67-69, 92, 458.

Kenilworth, entertainment at, i, 254,
391; ii, 97,403.

Ker, W. P., ii, 261.

Kett, Francis, i, 234, 235, 238.

Kildare, Earl of, ii, 285.

Kilian, E., i, 165, 1 66.

Killigrew, Henry, i, 606 ; The Con-
spiracy of, ii, 358.

Killigrew, Thomas, ii, 300, 374, 385;
patent to, for the creation of a com-
pany of players, 299; degradation of
comedy in The Parson^s Wedding of,
302; pre-Restoration tragicomedies

INDEX

655

of, 356, 357; folio of his works, 357;
romances of, intermediary between
Fletcher and the heroic drama, 427,
428; bibliography of, 537.
Killigrew, Sir William, his tragicome-
dies acted after the Restoration, ii,

3S8» 3<>5-
King, the lecherous, as a stock figure,

i, 596.

King Freewill, i, 44, 60.
King Johan, i, 406; ii, 403, 470, 477.
King John and Matilda. See John,

King, and Matilda.
King Lear, i, 230, 253, 294, 295, 298-

300, 551, 573, 575, 576, 591; ii, 32,

179, 413, 480.

King Leir, i, 253, 294, 295, 300, 378, 409.
King Lud, i, 298.

King of Scots, i, 114, 255, 306; ii, 403.
King Robert of Sicily, i, 50, 406.
King Sebastian of Portugal, i, 431.
King's players. See James I, his players.
King's Revels. See James I, his players.
King and No King, ii, 37, 183, 193, 195-

197, 417, 422.
Kingsley, C., ii, 293.
Kinwelmersche, Francis, i, 104, 265.
Kipling, R., ii, 182, 183.
Kirchmayer, Thomas, i, 39, 59, 60.
Kirke, John, i, 197, 208, 258, 306, 426;

ii, 318, 360.

Kirkman, Francis, i, 8 1, 336.
Kittredge, G. L., i, 87, 114, 121, 199,

352, 463.

Klein, J. L., i, 208; ii, 205.
Knack to Know a Knave, A, i, 255, 294,

3S6» 379> 38o> 475; "> 232-
Knave in Grain, ii, 303.
Knave in Print, ii, 263.
Knevet, Ralph, ii, 171, 172, 179.
Knight of Malta, ii, 220-223, 35°> 425>

530.

Knight of the Burning Rock, i, 1 18, 199.
Knight of the Burning Pestle, i, 202, 206,

207, 213, 215, 525, 579; ii, 462, 463.
Knight, C., i, 494.
Knight-errantry, ii, 399, 402.
Knolles, Richard, i, 446, 449; ii, n,

496.

Knowles, Lord, ii, 118.
Knowles, Sheridan, i, ilii.
Koeppel, E-, i, 563; ii, 43, 208, 22O, 233,

292, 33°>33I»333-
Korting, H., ii, 346.
Kramer, M., i, 20.

Kyd, Francis, i, 213.

Kyd, Thomas, i, zxiv, m, rxiii, 122,
137, if, ^yi66. 28l» 406, 407, 428,
446; ii, 2, 3, Vl6, 49; Spanish Trag-
edy, i, 98, 210-214, "9> 23°> 239> 246;
his influence on Shakespeare, 140;
and leronimo, 213, 214, 219; Hamlet,
214-218; Soliman and Perseda, 201,
214, 219; and Titus and Andronicus,
219, 221; his translations, 223; his
relations to Marlowe, i, 223, 224, 234,
236; his Letter to Sir John Puckering,
i, 223, 224, 235; his revolt from classic
conventions, 239; his influence on the
popular stage, 245; his influence on
the drama, 246; Taming of a Shrew,
ascribed to, 340; and the authorship
of Arden, 345, 366; his humble birth,
523; sets the type of the tragedy of
revenge in his Spanish Tragedy, 553-
556; his translation of Cornelie, ii,
6, 8; his projected translation of
Porcie, 8; not an actor, 375; his
touch with the Pembroke circle, 375;
an author for Strange 's and Pem-
broke's companies, 377, 378; not of
the university circle, 378; the roman-
ticism of, 388; plays of, in Germany,
392; his Cornelia, Seneca by way of
France, 401; The Spanish Tragedy
of, Seneca popularized, 401 ; effective
situation and vitalized personages the
contribution of, to the drama, 405;
bibliography of, 463-465, 512.

Kynaston, Edward, i, 185.

Kynder, Philip, ii, 170.

Labyrinthus, ii, 77.

Lacey, Henry, i, 281.

Ladies* Privilege, ii, 344, 345.

Lady Alimony, ii, 347.

Lady Errant, ii, 46, 47, 219, 366.

Lady Jane Grey, i, 288, 587.

Lady Mother, ii, 278, 295, 533.

Lady of May, ii, 98, 145, 403, 525.

Lady of Pleasure, ii, 294, 296.

Lady's Trial, ii, 297, 299, 327.

Lxlia, i, 197, 374, 456; ii, 77, 92, 491.

Laidler, J., ii, 170.

Laing, D., i, 150.

Lamb, Charles, i, 305, 323, 338, 339,

501, 589.

Lamentatio Rachel, i, 7.
Lancaster, the royal house of, i, ixiv;

ii, 477-

656

INDEX

Lancaster, John, i, 105-106.

Landgartha, Queen, i, 442.

Lane, Sir Robert, his players, i, 144.

Lang, A., ii, 141.

Langbaine, Gerald, i, 203, 331, 356; ii,

41, 213, 292, 319, 358, 361, 365.
Lange, F., i, 297, 329.
Langland, William, i, 492.
Langley, Francis, i, 155.
Lansdowne MS., i, 102, 296.
Lor urn for London, i, 405, 435, 452; ii,

496.

Lascivious Queen, ii, 406.
Late Lancashire Witches, i, 363, 364; ii,

262.
Late Murder of the Son upon the Mother,

i> 349-

Lateware, Richard, ii, 10.
Latin plays, i, 34-38, 81-84, 86> 91, 281,

296; ii, 400, 401, 449, 517, 518.
Latin sources and influence, i, 309, 370,

374. 38o» 392> 398> 4°4> 4H, 454, 456
(and passim in ch. x); ii, 496, 497,
513. See, also, Classical influence.

Laud, William, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, ii, 88, 89.

Laurence, W. J., i, 162.

Law Tricks,i, 397, 545.

Lawes, William, ii, 132, 133.

Laws of Candy, ii, 226, 227, 309, 350,
425.

Leach, A. F., 1,31, 53.

Leander, ii, 77.

Lear. See King Lear,

Lee, M. L., i, 82; ii, 54, 70, 81.

Lee, S. L., i, 142, 143, 162, 185, 233,
370, 476, 493, 494; ii, 31, 198, 199,
202, 213, 229, 380, 411 (and passim).

Legend, as a source for the drama, i, 10,
197, 249* Z5r> 2S4» 293~297, 397-

Legge, Thomas, i, 84, 97, 255, 281; ii,

S9> 63-

Lehman, E., i, 415.
Leicester, Robert Dudley, Earl of, i,

103,114,129,131,289,391; ii,4, 59,

97, 403; his players, i, 143, 144, 147,

154.

Leith, i, 348.
Leland, John, ii, 72.
Lenten Stuff, i, 138, 203.
Leo Armenus, ii, 84.
Leonatus Posthumus, i, 575.
Leonhardt, B., i, 206.
Lepanto, the battle of, i, 446.
Lessing, G. E., i, 333.

Lester, J. A., ii, 5.

Leune, William de, ii, 54.

Lewis XI, History of, i, 427.

Libanius, i, 538.

Liberality and Prodigality, ii, 402.

Libero Arbitrio, i, 60.

Liebau, G., i, 273.

Like Will to Like, i, 68, 310; ii, 397.

Lily, William, ii, 63.

Lincoln's Inn Fields, projected theater
in, ii, 369.

Lingua, ii, 64, 70-72, 519.

Little French Lawyer, ii, 246, 247.

Little Musgrave, i, 337.

Littledale, H., ii, 129.

Liturgical drama. See Sacred drama.

Locrine, i, 98, 136, 253, 255, 256, 293,
578; ii, 404, 405, 471.

Lodge, Thomas, i, 216; ii, 140, 150, 155,
178; and the Looking Glass for Lon-
don and England, i, 41, 43, 180, 241,
244, 266, 499; Honest Excuses, 150;
Defence of Poetry, Music, and Stage
Plays, 150, 151; on Kyd's Hamlet,
217; and Mucedorus, 240; The
Wounds of Civil War, 241; but little
known of him, 141, 142; Rosalynd,
242; his collaboration in early chron-
icle plays, 267; True Tragedy of
Richard III, 281 ; and King Lear, 294;
and the Warning for Fair Women,
346; Rosalynd of, adapted by Shake-
speare, 375; satirized by Jonson, 482;
his allusion to the earlier Hamlet in
his Wit's Misery, 554; his Wounds of
Civil War, ii, 16, 17; his Defence oi
Plays, 32; identified with Philomusus
of The Return from Parnassus, 67;
ashamed of his converse with the
stage, 375; probably not an actor,
375; transfer of, from company to
company as writer, 377; perhaps a
writer for Shakespeare's company,
378; Mucedorus probably his, 407;
bibliography of, 416, 468, 469, 490.

Lodowick Sforza, i, 410.

Loening, R., i, 559.

Logan, W., ii, 132, 302, 340.

Logeman, H., i, 4, 57.

Loiola, ii, 75, 81.

London, i, xxvi, 151, 152; ii, 458.

London Chanticleers, i, 499; ii, 302,

3°3-

London Maid, i, 499.
London Merchant, i, 499.

INDEX

657

London Prodigal, i, 330, 333, 499; ii,

265, 396, 484.
Long Meg of Westminster, i, 499, 513,

522.

Longbeard, i, 253.
Longfellow, H. W., i, 172, 321.
Longshanke, i, 261, 262.
Look About You, i, 279, 283, 504; ii,

409.

Lope de Vega. See Vega.
Lord Gouvernaunce, i, 69.
Lord of Misrule, i, 76, 77, 100; ii, 73.
Lords and Ladies of London, ii, 404,

450.

Lords' Masque, ii, 115.
Lost Lady, i, 579; ii, 367, 368, 537.
Love in Romeo and Juliet, and later

plays, ii, 422.
Love, i, 79; ii, 451.
Love and Friendship, ii, 358.
Love and Honor, ii, 342-345, 348, 349,

426.

Love Crowns the End, ii, 172.
Love Freed from Ignorance, ii, 112, 113,

122.

Love in a Maze, ii, 129.

Love in its Ecstasy, ii, 171.

Love of a Grecian Lady, i, 379.

Love of an English Lady, i, 379.

Love Prevented, i, 322.

Love Restored, ii, 113, 127.

Love Tricks, ii, 169, 286, 287.

Lovers Convert, ii, 47.

Love's Cruelty, ii, 296, 322-324.

Love's Cure, i, 401, 402; ii, 214, 215.

Love's Hospital, ii, 84.

Love's Labour's Lost, i, 230, 239, 369,

3?o, 377. 384> 4". 476; ", 129, 407,

489,491.
Love's Labour's Won, i, 340, 372, 382;

ii, 486.

Love's Labyrinth, ii, 176-178.
Love's Metamorphosis, i, 387; ii, 149,

150, 412.

Love's Mistress, ii, 95, 137, 171.
Love's Pilgrimage, ii, 206, 207.
Love's Riddle, ii, 88, 176.
Love's Sacrifice, ii, 329, 330, 335.
Love's Triumph through Callipolis, ii,

130.

Love's Victory, ii, 170.
Love's Welcome (to Bolsover), ii, 131;

(to Welbeck), ii, 131.
Lovelace, Richard, his lost dramas, ii,

36l> 374-

of Ludgate, i, 499.
' Progress, ii, 226, 227, 231, 350.
ck Court, ii, 336.
ck King, i, 284.
ck Maid, ii, 270.

Lover's Melancholy, ii, 328, 329.

Lover Made Men, ii, 120.

Lover

Lover

Loves

Loves

Loves

Low life pictured, i, 193, 278, 311.

Lower, Sir William, i, 606; ii, 358, 426,

536.

Lowin, John, i, xxvi; ii, 243.

Lownes, Matthew, ii, 208.

Loyal Subject, ii, 220, 309, 425.

Loyalty a favorite theme with Fletcher,
ii, 223, 224.

Loyalty and Beauty, i, 115, 118.

Lucan, i, 213; ii, 42, 43, 137.

Luce, A., ii, 6.

Lucian, i, 83, 485, 534; ii, 193, 500.

Lucre, Play of, ii, 450.

Lucrece, i, 271, 272, 367.

Lucrece, a Play concerning, ii, 28, 513.

Lucretia, fragment of a "play concern-
ing," i, 55-

"Ludus Coventriae," i, 15, 17, 19-22,31,

Ludus de Kyng Robert of Cesill, i, 50.
Ludus Filiorum Israelis, ii, 54.
Luminalia, ii, 136.
Lumly, J. R., i, 82.
Lumley, Lady Jane, ii, 2.
Lupton, Thomas, i, 68; ii, 402.
Lust's Dominion, i, 222, 223, 234, 428,

434, 585-

Lusty Juventus, i, 62.

Luther, Martin, i, 406; ii, 395.

Lydgate, John, i, 31, 74, 76, 385; ii, 20,
97,448.

Lyly, John, i, xxiv, xxix, xxx, xxxvi, 94,
121-135, 137, 140, 408, 569; ii, 4,
16, 18, 19, 137, 151, 152, 375; sought
for the Mastership of the Revels, i,
102; dialogue in his plays, 105;
Mother Bombie, 109, 127-128, 132,
359; Gallathea, 109, 124, 128, 132;
Love's Metamorphosis, 109, 125, 127,
128, 132; Endimion, 109; Midas,
109, 124, 127-132, 135, 240, 386, 387,
396; The Woman in the Moon, no,
125,128,132; influenced by Edwards,
113; early plays acted by St. Paul's
boys, 115; Euphues, 123, 130; Cam-
paspe, 123, 124, 127, 128, 130, 132,
240; Sapho and Phao, 124, 127, 130,
132, 135, 179; his alleged post in the

658

INDEX

Revels, 124; his activity in the Mar-
prelate controversy, 124; Pap with a
Hatchet, 125; his anti-Martinist plays,
125; his disappointment of the Mas-
tership of the Revels, 125; euphuism,
126, 127, 130; Entertainments by, 129;
his sources, 131, 132; his influence on
the court drama, 133, 134; his influ-
ence on the drama, 139, 246; some
plays arranged for classical staging,
163; not associated with the popular
stage, 187; first artistic dramas in
England by, 193; Italian influence on,
21 1 ; his influence on other play-
wrights, 240; romantic drama of, 369;
Shakespeare's debt to, 369, 370, 391;
supernatural in, 386, 387; fairies of,
393, 396; influence of, in romantic
comedy, 392, 397, 403; Chapman
and, 464; and the Marprelate con-
troversy, 475; and Lovers Labour's
Lost, 476; not concerned in Bellum
Grammaticale, or in Rivales, ii, 63;
alleged pastoral entertainments by,
146; pastoral elements in the dramas
of, 149; affiliations of, with the court,
377, perhaps aloof from literary
Bohemia, 378; share of, in the Mar-
prelate controversy, 378; wholly of
the academic school, 387; medieval
and Renaissance elements in the plays
of, 399; his plays written for the nar-
row confines of the court, 399; their
appeal to culture and refinement, 399;
artistic and professional spirit of, 400;
influential in the lifting of English
drama to an art, 400; the period of
Lyly, 404, 411; pastoral tone in the
comedies of, 412; bibliography of,

455, 4H S2S-
Lyndsay, Sir David, i, xxviii, 60, 69, 70,

775 », 397, 45°. 45* •
Lyric, the pastoral, ii, 139-140.
Lyte, M., i, 85.
Lytton, Edward Bulwer, Lord, i, xlii.

Mabbe, James, i, 206, 207.

Macaulay, G. C., i, 206, 526; ii, 185,
189.

Macbeth, i, xxxvi, 253, 256, 275, 298-
300, 359, 360, 362, 365, 376, 511, 551,
573, 576, 578, 582, 583; ii, 28, 32, 92,
109, 413, 416, 480, 487, 503.

Macchiavel and the Devil, i, 316, 409; ii,
241.

Macchiavelli, N., i, 93, 99, 355, 357, 408,

409, 538; ii, 486, 487, 493.
Machiavellus, i, 408.
Machin, Lewis, i, 203, 204; ii, 35.
Mack (play of cards), i, 445.
Macray, W. D., ii, 65.
Macropedius, i, 65.
Madcap, ii, 262.

Mad Couple Well Matched, ii, 272, 273.
Mad Lover, ii, 218, 220.
Mad World, My Masters, i, 513, 547.
Madden, D. H., i, 50, 221.
Madoc, King of Britain, i, 306.
Maeterlink, Maurice, i, xliii.
Magic and magicians, i, 240, 386-388,

39°. 394, 403-

Magnetic Lady, ii, 266, 267.
Magnificat, i, 46.

Magnificence, i, 56, 67, 68; ii, 397.
Magnus Her odes, i, 1 8.
Mahomet II, i, 446, 447, 449.
Mahomet, i, 447.
Mahomet and Hiren, i, 118.
Maid, the disconsolate, regarded as a

creation of Beaumont, ii, 251.
Maid in the Mill, i, 433; ii, 129, 210,

217, 248.

Maid of Honor, ii, 231, 234, 532.
"Maiden, the merry resourceful," not

the invention of Fletcher, ii, 251.
Maidenhead Well Lost, ii, 263.
Maiden's Holiday, i, 234.
Maidment, J., ii, 132, 302, 340.
Maid's Metamorphosis, i, 132, 140; ii,

151.
Maid's Revenge, i, 605; ii, 313, 322, 323,

3*4, 5°4, 511,529-
Maid's Tragedy, i, 568, 595-597; ii, 129,

J93, '95, '97, "3> 34*. 413, 4i7-
"Main," the, of the masque, ii, 94.
Mak, i, xxviii, 18, 27, 77.
Malcontent, i, 488, 542, 543, 557, 587; ii,

182,332,339, 501.
Malespini, Celio, i, 503; ii, 292.
Malone, E., i, 102, 160, 184, 188, 196,

317, 324; ii, 21, 72, 73, 171, 228, 285,

291, 292, 301, 315, 316, 371.
Manuche, Cosmos, ii, 368.
Mamillia, i, 118; ii, 17.
Mankind, i, 55, 56; ii, 449.
Manly, J. M., i, 4, 7, 19, 23, 31.
Manningham, J., i, 378.
Mantuan, Battista Spagnuoli, ii, 139,

143.
Marc Antoine, ii, 6.

INDEX

659

Marcus Geminus, ii, 17, 27, 57, 76.

Margaret of Navarre, Queen, ii, 292.

Margaret, Queen (wife of Henry VI), i,
263.

Mariam, the Fair Queen of Jewry, 1,42;
ii, 8,512.

Marius and Sylla. See Wounds of
Civil War.

Markham, Gervais, i, 42, 203-204, 605;
ii, 35, 516.

Marlowe, Christopher, i, xxiv, xxx,
xxxii, xxxvi, 122, 140, 141, 192, 213,
405, 406, 407, 41 1, 412, 415, 447, 452,
500, 594; ii, 3, 18, 19, 49, 421; Tam-
berlaine, i, 84, 226, 231 (and see
title) ; influenced by Peek's Arraign-
ment, 135; the Dido of, 138, 139, 234,
266; Faustus, 1 68 (and see title);
and the popular stage, 187, 245; and
Titus Andronicus, 221; his relations
to Kyd, 223, 224; his translation of
Ovid's Amores, 224; his intimates and
rivals, 224, 225; his career, 224-238;
Hero and Leander, 225, 230, 269, 272;
Scanderbeg attributed to, 228; his use
of blank verse, 230; Edward II, 230,
233, 234, 260-270 (and see title) ; Jew
of Malta, 232, 233, 268, 372; Taming
of a Shrew, 234; the accusation of
" atheism" against, 234-236, 238;
The Maiden'' s Holiday, attributed to
Day and, 234; The Massacre at Paris,
234; Acts of the Privy Council against,
236, 237; the death of, 237, 238; his
revolt from classic conventions, 239;
his influence on Greene, 244; his in-
fluence on the drama, 246; and the
chronicle play, 254, 305; and collabo-
ration, 266, 267; his part in the
Contentions, 266; Shakespeare's obli-
gations to, 272, 274, 275; Heywood
compared with, 318; Taming of a
Shrew ascribed to, 340; author of
Arden likened to, 366; influence of,
367-369; imitated by Shakespeare,
368, 369; chronological relation of
Shakespeare to, 378; relation of, to
romantic comedy, 403; his humble
birth, 523; estimate of, in The Return
from Parnassus, ii, 69; the ballad de-
scribing, as an actor a forgery, 375;
transfer of, as author from company
to company of players, 377; joins the
company of Shakespeare, 378; dra-
matic primacy of, before Shakespeare,

386; a co-worker with Shakespeare,
386; the romanticism of, 388; plays
of, in Germany, 392; the heroic con-
ception of human passion a contribu-
tion of, to the drama, 405; the period
of, 405-407; dramatic rivalry of, with
Shakespeare, 406; the passion and
pathos of his Edward II, 408; biblio-
graphy of, 465-468, 472, 513.

Marly, Christopher, i, 236.

Marmion, Shakerley, ii, 275, 276; come-
dies of, 275-277; bibliography of,

533;

Marriage of Mind and Measure, i, 118.
Marriage of Wit and Science, i, 199; ii,

399;

Marriage Night, ii, 365, 537.
Marshal Osric, i, 304, 397; ii, 224, 309.
Marston, John, i, xxv, xl, 176, 179, 453,

493 > 5°4> S°9» 545; "» 2> 3» l6> 27> 46,
50, 388, 392; one of the school of con-
scious effort, i, xii v; prices paid, 317;
the Dutch Courtesan of, 333; given
over to comedy of manners in the
reign of James, 351; and Troilui and
Cr««"<ij, 384; satire in, 400; the com-
edy of manners of, 400; and the "war
of the theaters," 473, 476-491; de-
tails of the life of, 477; revision of
Histriomastix attributed to, 480; his
satire, 492; his collaboration in East-
ward Hoe, 505, 506; escapes impris-
onment for the satire of that play, 507;
comedy of manners of, 542-545; in-
equality of, 544; his plays on Antonio
and Mellida a revival of the tragedy
of revenge, 555, 558; his contribution
to the type, 556; and the authorship
of The Insatiate Countess, 585, 586;
602; his Antonio and Mellida, ii, 23;
his Antonio^s Revenge, 23; his
Sophonisba, 26; bis criticism of Jon-
son's classical learning, 26; identified
with Furor Poeticus of The Return
from Parnassus, 67; and the masque,
103; his Masque at Ashby, 107, 108,
122; his part in entertainments, 128;
his Malcontent, 182; satirized by Jon-
son, 268; his Malcontent a source
for a scene of The Broken Heart, 332;
a gentleman born, 376; his quarrel
with Jonson, 381, 410; the last great
dramatist to come under the influence
of Seneca, 401 ; protest of, against the
"pedantry** of Jonson in dramatized

66o

INDEX

classical history, 410; the antagonist
of Jonson in the war of the theaters,
410; his revival of the tragedy of re-
venge, 410,411,413; reminiscence of
Shakespeare in, 415; bibliography of,
501, 510, 516.

Martin Marprelate controversy, i, 124,
125. 370,474, 475! »> 65, 378, 500, 501.

Martin Swarte, i, 253.

Martyred Soldier, i, 43, 430; ii, 45.

Mary Magdalene, i, 12, 29, 30, 40, 41,
52, 177; ii, 393.

Mary Magdalene, Repentance of, i, 38,
39; ii, 402.

Mary, Queen, i, 12, 26, 32, 33, 36, 40,47,
60, 69, 77, 78, 87, 95, 114, 249, 287,
288; ii, 10.

Mary, Queen of Scots, i, 102, 129, 130.

Masking, ii, 128, 129, 403, 448.

Mason, John, i, 447.

Masque, the, i, 73, 74; revival of, 100;
Lyly's influence on, 140; influence of,
on popular drama, 179; defined, ii,
93; actors in the, 94; the dances of
the, 94; parts of the masque, 94; the
"entry,'" the "main," the* 'going out,"
94; the nucleus of a, a dance, 94;
loose contemporary employment of
the term, 95; congeners of the, 95; not
wholly an Italian or French innova-
tion, 95; and early mumming and
disguising, 96; complex vernacular
origin of the, 97; its Elizabethan fore-
runners, 97-100; the accession of
James gives impetus to the, 101; clas-
sification of the, 104, 105; earlier
masques of Jonson, 104-109; Jonson
and Daniel rivals in the, no; cost of
the, 112; difficulties at court in raising
funds for, 113; retrenchment in cost
of, 113; Jonson 's masques of 1610-12,
113; death of Prince Henry, a tem-
porary abatement of, 114; marriage
of the Princess Elizabeth gives a
renewed impetus to, 115; the grand
masques of her wedding, 115-117;
Bacon as a patron of the masque, 118;
Jonson's masques of 1615-18, 119;
other masques of the time of James,
1 20; falling off in expense and elabo-
ration of, 122; last Jacobean, 123;
characteristics of the Jacobean, 124;
allegory in the Jacobean, 124; classi-
cal personages and imagery in the,
125; Jonson's opinion of allegory and

allusion in the, 125; general want of
design in the Jacobean, 126; satirical
element in the, 127; place of the,
among Jacobean entertainments, 127;
influence of the, on the drama, 128; in
Shakespeare, 129; last of Jonson's
masques, 130; Townsend supersedes
Jonson as writer of masques at court,
130; Shirley's monster masque, The
Triumph of Peace, 131, 132; other
court masques of Charles' reign, 133;
Comus and private masques, 133, 134;
Davenant's masques, 135, 136;
masque-like plays, 136, 137; Jonson,
Daniel, and Jones, and the, 411;
other writers of masques, 418; bibli-
ography of, 520-523.

Masque of Flowers, ii, 118, 126.

Masque of Queens, i, 359, 361.

Mass, Examination of the, i, 61.

Massacre at Paris, i, 234, 405, 407, 452,

55'-

Massinger, Arthur, ii, 228.

Massinger, Phillip, i, xxiv, xxx, xxxvii,
290, 408, 410, 423, 430, 432, 505, 528,
544. 574. 595> 597~599» 60'. 602; ii,
37-43' 24*, 246-254, 282, 296, 308,
309, 312, 333, 336, 350; and The
Virgin Martyr, i, 43, 297; and the
Fatal Dowry, 352; and Antonio and
Vallia, 379; and the Old Law, 381;
a play of, on Dom Sebastian refused
license, 43 1 ; his and Fletcher's Bar-
navelt, 440, 441; in tragedy, 603-606;
his collaboration with Field, 603; a
reviser of Dekker's work in The fir-
gin Martyr, 603; his collaboration
with Fletcher, 603, ii, 185, 186, 226-
230; the "notes" of, 187; his
verse and style, 187, 188; rhetorical
quality of the style of, 188, 189; his
revision of plays of Beaumont and
Fletcher, 189,207, 210; his acquaint-
ance with Spanish, 211, 216; Love's
Cure ascribed to, 215; his life and
career, 227, 228; his bond to Hens-
lowe, 228; his friendship with Fletcher,
228, 229; in collaboration, 229; car-
ries forward the traditions of Beau-
mont and Fletcher, 229; the tragi-
comedies of, 230-235; his Roman
Catholicism, 231; his patrons, 232;
non-extant plays of, 233, 234; contri-
bution of, to the drama, 234, 235; his
moral earnestness, characterization,

INDEX

661

and stagecraft, 134, 235; influence
of Massinger in tragicomedy on his
contemporaries, 235; his comedies of
English scene, 246, 252-254; his com-
bination of Middletonian and Jon-
sonian comedy, 254; his types in
comedy, 254; his comedies in foreign
setting, 254, 255; substitution of
moral earnestness for poetic justice
in, 335; joins the King's company,
384; collaboration and close personal
relations of, with Fletcher, 384, 386;
the chief dramatic poet on the acces-
sion of Charles, 385; Shirley the chief
rival of, 385; co-worker with Shirley,
386; plays of, in Germany, 392; col-
laborator with Fletcher, 420; a prac-
tical playwright, 420; romantic spirit
in, 421; a Fletcherian in romantic
drama despite moral earnestness and
originality in theme, 423; his com-
bination of Jonsonian and Middle-
tonian comedy of manners, 423, 425;
the tragicomedy of, 423, 424, 428;
bibliography of, 495, 517, 526, 527,

S31* 533-

Masson, D., ii, 158.

Massuccio di Salerno, ii, 213.

Master, ii, 54.

Male h at Midnight, i, 511, 515; ii,
263.

Match Me in London, ii, 235, 353.

Matthew Paris, i, ii. See Paris,
Matthew.

Matthews, B., i, 166.

Matthieu, Pierre, i, 418.

Matzner, E., i, 15.

Maunder, Henry, i, 237.

Maurice, Prince of Orange, i, 440, 441.

May Day, i, 460, 462, 463; ii, 410.

May game, i, 49.

May Lord, ii, 166, 167.

May, Thomas, i, 572, 574; ii, 37, 48, 50,
81; his classical tragedies, 43-45; his
learning, 44; his Antigone, 76; his
tragicomedy The Heir, 239; his
comedy of manners, The Old Couple,
257-259; a follower of Jonson in
classical tragedy, ii, 268, 269; Hey-
wood's word of, 383; his attempted
revival of Jonsonian Roman tragedy,
425; the influence of Fletcher on, 425;
bibliography of, 517.

Mayne, Jasper, ii, 219, 275, 277, 278,
365.

Mayor ofQueenborough, i, 295, 296, 510;

ii, 481.

Mayors' shows, Lord, ii, 124, 128.
Mclntyre, J. L., i, 540.
McKerrow, R. B., i, 62, 390.
McLaughlin, E. T., i, 268.
Meade, Robert, ii, 84.
Mease, Peter, ii, 75.
Measure for Measure, i, 210, 330, 333,

372, 382, 383, 403, 523, 572, 595; ii,

'83. 333, 408, 414, 491-

Medea, i, 386.

Medea, of Euripides, i, 34, 83; ii, 2.

Medici, the, i, 408-411, 424, 453, 586.

Medicine for a Curst Wife, i, 340, 504.

Medwell, Henry, i, 55, 56; ii, 28.

Meissner, J., i, 232.

Melanthe, ii, 80, 163.

Meleager (play given at court), ii, 3;
(of Gager), 4, 59, 402, 404; (frag-
ment), 59.

Mentechmi (of Plautus), i, 370, 458; ii,
99> 4975 (of Warner), i, 458.

Merchant of Emden, i, 346.

Merchant of Venice, i, 137, 168, 219, 220,
372-374, 377, 469, 570; ii, 183, 219,
220, 489, 490.

Mercury Vindicated, ii, 119, I2O, 127.

Meres, Francis, i, 137, 219, 237, 340,
372, 381, 382, 466; ii, 59.

Merlin, i, 386.

Mermaid, the, i, 315, 368.

Merry Devil of Edmonton, i, 323, 389,
498; ii, 408, 482.

Merry Jests of Dan Hew, i, 352.

Merry Wives of Windsor, i, 247, 278,
324-326, 347, 359, 372, 375, 377, 394,
455, 468, 469, 572, 575, 595; 11, 129,
408, 483.

Messalina, ii, 48, 49, 517.

Mewe, William, ii, 75.

Meyer, E., i, 356, 409.

Michaelmas Term, i, 511, 512, 526, 546;
ii, 416.

Microcosmus (of Artour), ii, 53; (of
Nabbes), 95, 137, 280.

Midas, ii, 150.

Middle Tern fie and Lincoln's Inn, Chap-
man's Masque of the, ii, 115, 1 1 6.

Middleton, Christopher, i, 202.

Middleton, Thomas, i, nvi, niii, miv,
xixvii, ilii, 193, 278, 408, 409, 433,
503, 522, 523, 526, 545, 547, 586, 589,
595, 599, 603 J ", '37, 185, 24»» *44,
*47, 25', *54, 273, 276> *95. *96i 3°4»

662

INDEX

307, 310, 312, 379, 410, 423, 428; his
representation of contemporary life,
i, xxiz; nature of the comedy of man-
ners of, xxxiii; The Roaring Girl, 176,
327; four Five Gallants, 206; Mayor
of Queenborough, 295, 296; Witch,
299; compared with Shakespeare,
318; influence of, 327, 349; Virgin
Martyr of Dekker and, 327; the
Honest Whore of Dekker and, 338-
340; and the Fair Quarrel, 350, 351;
use of witchcraft by, 359; the Witch
of, 361, 362; compared with Macbeth,
362; the supernatural in, 365; chron-
ological relation of Shakespeare to,
378; the Blurt of, 380, 381; and the
Old Law, 381; his proper work
domestic drama and comedy of man-
ners, 381; the Old Law of, 402; the
Lovers Cure ascribed to, 402; rela-
tion of, to romantic comedy, 403, 404;
in comedy of manners, 404; his Game
at Chess, 443-445; in danger of ar-
rest for this play, 445; and the com-
edy of manners, 456; use of Plautus
by, 457; dramatic satire as practised
by, contrasted with that of Jonson,
492, 493, 515; writes No Wit for the
new Hope, 497; the life and work of,
509-517; chronologer of London,
510; his city pageants, 510; his com-
edies of manners, 511-515; the real-
istic art of, 515, 516; his moderation,
516; his propriety of verse and style,
516, 517; influence of, in comedy,
518, 519; his master tragedy, Women
Beware Women, 587; his witches, ii,
109; his Masque of Heroes, 122,
127; and civic pageants, 128; the
masque in the plays of, 128; his and
Rowley's Spanish Gipsy, 216; his More
Dissemblers Besides Women, 218,
romantic element in plays of, and
Rowley, 236; the comedy of, as a type,
240; range of the comedies of man-
ners of, 240, 244; later comedies of,
romantic in tone, 244; collaborator
with Jonson, 268; trifling with vice
in the comedies of, 334; a gentleman
born, 376; employed in civic pageants,
382; Heywood's word of, 383; joins
the King's company, 384; his and
Dekker's dramatic treatment of the
conflict of woman with man, 413;
reminiscence of Shakespeare in, 415;

absolute realism of the comedies of
manners of, 415, 416; imitators of,
416; contemporary allusion and satire
of The Game at Chess of, 419; brutal
treatment of criminal passion by, in
Women Beware Women, 422; bibli-
ography of, 481, 487, 493-496, 502,
503, 522, 523.

Midsummer-Night's Dream, A, i, xxxi,
xxxvi, 137, 184, 242, 311, 372, 376,

377, 39'-396> 435. 57°; ii, 7°. 13?.
152, 169, 369, 492, 493.

Mildmay, Sir Humphrey, ii, 170, 355.

"Miles Gloriosus" as a type, i, 369, 371,
462, 539; ii, 478.

Miller, S., ii, 71.

Millet, J., i, 50.

Milton, John, i, 44, 201, 529; ii, 76, 79,
95, 120, 122, 133, 134, 158, 199, 374,
394, 446.

Mind, Will, Understanding, i, 56; ii, 449.

Minerva's Sacrifice, ii, 234.

Minstrelsy, medieval, i, 47, 48; ii, 448.

Miracle play, the, its origin in the ser-
vice of the church, i, 2-8; its fore-
runners, 8, 9; characteristics of its
growth, 9; defined, 1 1, 12; in Eng-
land, 13; its popularity and distribu-
tion, 13, 16, 22; secularization of, 13;
16; clerical restriction of, 14; at its
height, 15; comedy element in, 16;
collective cycles of, 16-21; parts of
cycles extant, 21; the single, 22;
management and acting of, 22-24;
actors, setting and costume of, 24, 25,
30; expense attending, 25; Protestant
objection to, 26, Protestant influence
on, i, 26, 33; last of, 26, 27; con-
trasted motive of the collective and
single, 27; growth of the didactic ele-
ment in, 28; its emergence into true
drama, 40; resume' of the history of,
43; relation of the estrife to, 48;
French miracles, on secular themes,
50; connection with the polemical
morality, 60-61; farce in, and satire
in, 73, 89, 309, 474; influence of, still
felt in court drama, 120; ecclesiastical
and civic support of, 147; the Cornish
miracles, 156; family scenes in, 310;
its decline, ii, 393; its restriction to
fact, 394; still extant in the first
decades of Elizabeth's reign, 402; bib-
liography of, 443-446-

Mirandola, Pico della, i, 93.

INDEX

663

Mirror for Magistrates, i, 76, 96, 249,

250.

Mirror of Knighthood, ii, 529.
Mirza, i, 451.
Miseries of Enforced Marriage, i, 330,

334. 33S» 343» 347, 366! "> 31, 424-
Misfortunes of Arthur, i, 97, 105, 106,

109, 255, 256, 265, 293, 553; ii,4, 453.
Misogonus, 1,65,87-91, 113, 114; ii, 396,

45'-

Misrule. See Lord of Misrule.
Moeller, G. H., i, 572.
Moliere, Jean Baptiste, i, xliii ; ii, 500.
Molina, Tirso de, ii, 315.
Moltke, M., i, 560.

Monarchic Tragedies, ii, 7, 14, 15, 411.
Monsieur D'Olive, i, 398-400, 402, 464;

ii, 415.
Monsieur Thomas, i, 526, 527; ii, 205,

2Sl> SOS-
Montague, Walter, ii, 173, 178, 179.
Montaigne, i, 34; ii, 510.
Montemayor, Jorge, ii, 142, 152, 178,

194, 206.
Montgomery, Philip Herbert, Earl of,

ii, 232.

Moorman, F. W., i, 554, 581, 582.
Morality play, i, 22, 43, 45-72, 1 13, 147,
194, 240, 294; rise in popularity of
the, 28-30; contrasted with Miracle
Play, 51-52; Play of the Paternoster,
52; full-scope moralities, 54-56;
limited-scope moralities, 56, 57; classi-
fication of, 57; religious, 57, 58; con-
troversial, 58-61; pedagogical morali-
ties, 61-63; influence of foreign models
63-66; moralities of social and po-
litical satire, 67-71, 474; historical
personages represented in the, 71, 72;
secularizing of the, 73-92; Roman
or classic influence, 82-84; interpo-
lation of comedy and farce in, 89; in-
fluence of, on the drama, 120, 139,
262; elements of, in pre-Lylian com-
edy, 121, 122; staging of, 156; fore-
runners of the chronicle play found
in the historical, 254, 255; satire in
the, 474; comprehensiveness of the,
ii, 394; humanist influence on the,
394; made use of as a weapon of
controversy, 395; end of the contro-
versial, with the succession of Eliza-
beth, 395; of social and political life
alone dramatically fertile, 396; still
flourishing in the earlier decades of

Elizabeth's reign, 402; bibliography
of, 447-45 ', 470, 471-
More Dissemblers Besides Women, ii,

*36> *4S> *4&
More, John, ii, 113.
More, Sir Thomas, i, 61, 78, 82, 89, 90,

93, 445, 499-
More, Sir Thomas, i, 169, 185, 261, 285-

287, 499; ii, 479.
Morley, H., i, 74.
Morris dance, i, 49; ii, 448.
Mors, ii, 84.
M art de Cesar, ii, 15.
Mortimer, i, 268, 306, 469.
Morton, Cardinal, i, 55.
Moryson, Fynes, i, 1 85, 409, 586; ii, 461.
Moschus, ii, 108.
Moseley, Humphrey, ii, 212.
Mostellaria, i, 457, 538.
Mother Bombie, i, 109, 127, 128, 132,

386.

Mother Redcap, i, 360.
Mother Shipton, i, 360.
Mountebanks Masque, ii, 121, 122, 127.
Mouse Trap, i, 170.
Mrs. Warren's Profession, i, 339.
Mucedorus, i, 240-242, 245; ii, 153, 179,

407, 469.
Much Ado About Nothing, i, xxiv, 201,

347, 374, 375, 398> 57*; ", 489, 49°-

Mucius Sc&vola, i, 1 1 8.

Muiopotmos, ii, 8.

Mulcaster, Richard, i, 85, 112, 213; ii,
98,454.

Muleasses the Turk, i, 447. .

Mullinger, J. B., ii, 53, 57, 69, 79.

Mulmutius DumvaJlow, i, 298.

Mulomorco, i, 228.

Mumming, i, 73, 74; ii, 448, 470; and
see St. George's play.

Munday, Anthony, i, 307, 308, 412, 445,
509; ii, 22, 154, 194; Second and
Third Blast against Plays ascribed to,
i, 90, 150, 151; his pamphlets against
the stage evils, 150, 278; John a Kent
and John a Cumber, 176, 284, 388,
389; Two Italian Gentlemen, 196;
Italian influence on, 210; Fidele and
Fortunio,2lo,2li; Owen Tudor, 252,
253; and Life of Cardinal Wolsey,
253; and The Rising of Cardinal
Wolsey, 253; and Sir John Oldcastle,
278; and The Downfall of Robert,
Earl of Huntington, 279, 280; and
The Death of Robert, Earl of Hunting-

664

INDEX

ton, 279, z8o; influence of, on Daven-
port, 304; the V (dentine and Orson of,
379; the John a Kent of, 388,389; his
pamphlet on Dom Sebastian, 431; and
Love's Labor's Lost, 476; satirized by
Jonson, 478, 482; and in Histrio-
mastix, 480; translator of Palmerin
d'Oliva, 563; a frequent collabora-
tor with Chettle, 563, 587; and civic
pageants, ii, 128; his Felix andPhilo-
mena, 205; returns to his hereditary
trade of draper, 257; the butt of Jon-
son's ridicule, 268; an "actor play-
wright," 375; Jonson's ridicule of,
381; devices of, at Norwich, 403 ; over-
ingenuity of disguise in John a Kent
by, 409; bibliography of, 458, 479.

Mundus et Infans, i, 54, 56.

Mundus Plumbeus, ii, 53.

Murder plays, i, 118-119, 343~349» 3^6,
4555 ii, 4°4» 4°8, 486.

Murderous Michael, i, 119, 343; ii, 404.

Murray, J. T., i, 142; ii, 390.

Murray, Sir James, i, 507.

Muses' Looking Glass, ii, 85, 86, 304.

Mussato, Albertino, i, 96.

Mustapha, son of Solyman II, i, 446.

M«rfa/>/w, 1,446,448; ii, 11-13,340,355,
496.

Myndes, Enterlude of, i, 39.

Mystere du Viel Testament, i, 19.

"Mystery play," the term, i, ii. See
Miracle play.

Mythological pastoral school, the, ii,
148, 149.

Mythological themes, 97, 122, 127, 201,
255, 256, 295-303, 394, 395, 397; ii,
19-21.

Nabbes, Thomas, ii, 43, 247, 275, 361,
365; his Hannibal and Scipio, ii, 45;
his Microcosmus, 95; his Spring's
Glory, 133, 134, 137; his comedies:
Covent Garden, The Bride, Tottenham
Court, 279-281; his honorable and
virtuous young people, 280; bibli-
ography of, 534, 537.

Narcissus, i, 114-115; ii, 54, 70, 81, 518.

Nash, Thomas, i, 137; ii, 18, 19,64, 137;
on the Senecan craze, i, 98; his con-
nection with the Marprelate contro-
versy, 124; Terminus et non Ter-
minus, his part in, 138; Jack Wilton,
138; The Tragedy of Dido, 138, 139,
234, 266; Summer's Last Will and

Testament, 138, 139; The Isle of
Dogs, 138; Lenten Stuff, 138, 203;
contrasted with Kyd and Shake-
speare, 192; on the popularization of
Seneca, 214-216; on Kyd's Hamlet,
215-217; his prefatory epistle to Men-
aphon, 215, 216, 229; on Kyd's trans-
lations, 223; interpolations of, 264,
273; Pierce Penniless, 264; cited in
regard to the Marprelate controversy
474, 475; and Love's Labor's Lost, 476;
at Cambridge, ii, 60-62; his satirical
college comedies, 60, 61 ; his Have with
Ton to Saffron W olden, 61; identified
with Ingenioso of The Return from
Parnassus, 67; " young Juvenal " of
Greene's Groatsworth of Wit identi-
fied with, 67; his Terminus et non
Terminus, at Cambridge, 374; part of,
in the Marprelate controversy, 378;
bibliography of, 456, 457, 464, 502.

"National historical" drama, i, 247,
348 (and see Chronicle play); bib-
liography of, ii, 470-481.

National spirit and the drama, i, xxviii,
248, 249, 251, 259, 260.

Nature, i, 55, 56 ; ii, 449, 450.

Nature of the Four Elements, i, 76; ii,
450.

Naufragium Joculare, ii, 88, 401.

Neale, Thomas, ii, 84.

Nebuchadnezzar, i, 42.

Necromantes, i, 465.

Necromantia, i, 83.

Neilson, W. A., i, 290, 372; ii, 346.

Nennius, i, 298.

Neptune's Triumph, ii, 122, 124.

Nero plays, ii, 27, 35, 36, 50.

Nero (college play), ii, 27; (of Gwynne),
28, 76; (anonymous tragedy), 28, 34,

35. 5°» 4i9-

Neuma, i, 2.

New Academy, ii, 271.

New Custom, i, 60; ii, 395.

New Guise, i, 55.

New Inn, ii, 265, 266, 347, 483, 499.

New Trick to Catch the Devil, i, 389.

New Trick to Cheat the Devil, ii, 259,
260, 261.

New Way to Pay Old Debts, ii, 183, 187,
246, 252-254, 423.

New Wonder, ii, 244, 263, 433.

Newcastle, Margaret Cavendish, Duch-
ess of, ii, 131, 282, 283, 346.

Newcastle, William Cavendish, Duke of,

INDEX

665

ii, 131, 275, 282-184, 327, 374, 385,

534-
Ncwington Butts, the theater at, i, 145,

'55, 3'35 ii»49-

News from the New World, ii, 123, 127.
News from Plymouth, ii, 301, 302, 341.
News out of Afirick, i, 150.
Newton, Thomas, i, 97; ii, 511.
Nice Valor, i, 528, 529; ii, 250.
Nice Wanton, i, 64, 163; ii, 395.
Nicholas, Henry, i, 39.
Nicholas of Montreux, ii, 178.
Nichols, Elizabeth, i, 459.
Nichols, J., ii, 37, 38, 55, 95> '°3» "4,

116, 121, 172, 180; ii, 146.
Nicholson, B., i, 490.
Nider, Johann, 361.
Night of errors, the, ii, 99.
Night Walker, i, 527, 547; ii, 246.
Nigramansir, i, 68, 386.
Ninus and Semiramis, ii, 18.
No Wit, No Help Like a Woman's, i,

457, 496, 5", 5'4» 546; ii, 128, 236,

416.

Noble Gentleman, ii, 246, 249, 250.
Noble Spanish Soldier, ii, 419, 421, 422,

4*4, 452> 495-
Noble Stranger, ii, 368.
Nobleman, ii, 237.
Nobody and Somebody, i, 293; ii, IO2,

479, 481.

Nominis ac Verb't Pugna, ii, 63.
Nonesuch, ii, 263.
Nonpareilles. See Love and Honor.
Norris, E., 21.

North, Sir Thomas, ii, 6, 17, 21, 513.
Northbrook, John, i, xxxviii, 149, 150,

154; ii, 461.

Northern Lass, ii, 269, 271, 425.
Northumberland, Earl of, his players, i,

142, 465.

Northward Hoe, i, 327, 502, 503; ii, 502.
Norton, Thomas, i, 84, 86, 87, 94, 96,

104, 265.

Norwich Pageants, ii, 402.
Nottingham, Earl of, his players, i, 314.
Novellieri, the Italian, as sources for

English drama, i, 454; ii, 404, 487,

488.

Novella, ii, 272.
Nuptials of Peleus and Thetis, ii, 136.

Oberon, the Fairy Prince, i, 395; ii, 113,
122, 130.

Obituary plays, ii, 408, 412, 413.

Obstinate Lady, ii, 281, 282.

Occasion Perdida, ii, 315.

Ochino, i, 61; ii, 446.

CEdiput Coloneus, ii, 12.

CEdipus (at court, and college), ii, 3; (of

Gager), 59.
Oeftering, M ., ii, 48.
Officium of the Mass. Sec Introit.
Officium Pastorum. See Pastores.
Ogilby, John, ii, 286.
Ogle, Sir John, ii, 256.
Old Cheque-Book of the Chapel Royal, i,

114.

Old Couple ii, 257-259.
Old Custom, i, 79.
Old Fortunatus, i, 122, 253, 284, 379,

39°, 39', 4°4, 48i; «, 136, 169, 409,

483, 484.
Old Law, i, 381, 509; ii, 229, 245, 493,

5°3-

Old Tobit, i, 38.
Old Wives'" Tale, i, 136, 137, 176, 2OI,

202, 240, 242, 245, 256, 386; ii, 405,

407, 456, 462.
Oldcastle, Sir John, i, 278.
Oldcastle, Sir John, i, 278, 279.
Oldys, William, ii, 237.
Oliphant, E. H., i, 207, 340, 401, 402,

425, etc., passim.
Ophelia, i, 561, 576.
Opportunity, ii, 313-316, 321, 428.
Orator, ii, 234, 249.
Ordinary, ii, 276.
Ordish, T. F., i, 150, 153-156, 159, 161;

ii, 39'-

Orestes, i, 118, 120; ii, 45, 402, 513.
"Orestes furies," ii, 21.
Orgula, i, 427.
Oriental history, themes from, i, 445-

451; ii, 496.
Orlando Furioso, i, 119, 194, 200; ii, 190,

399, 406, 470.
Orosius, ii, 42.
Orphan's Tragedy, i, 562.
Orrery, Roger Boyle, first Earl of, ii,

348.
Osborne, Dorothy, later Lady Temple,

ii, 367, 368.
Osmond, the Great Turk, i, 449; ii, 355,

496.

Osric, i, 304.
Othello, i, xiTvi, 330, 402, 468, 552, 569,

574-576, 59°, 605; ii, 32, 408, 413,

508.
"Out-scenes," i, 165-166.

666

INDEX

Overbury, Sir Thomas, the murder of,

i, 585; ii, 166.
Ovid, i, xxxiv, 132, 224, 392, 538; ii, 19,

20, 70, 137, 149, 165.
Ovid's Tragedy, ii, 282.
Owen Tudor, i, 252, 253.
Owl, ii, 242.

Owl and the Nightingale, i, 48.
Owls, Masque of, ii, 128.
Oxford, i, 172, 321, 465, 477, 493; ii,

53, 54, 58> 73-75, 88» 89» 4°4, 455,
518.

Oxford, King and Queen's Entertain-
ment at, i, 172.

Oxford, Edward de Vere, seventeenth
Earl of, i, 123, 225; ii, 374; his play-
ers, 123, 142, 145.

Page of Plymouth, i, 316, 345, 346.
Pageants, i, 14, 15, 17, 23-26, 34, 73-75,

99; ii,97, 124, 128,444,470,503,521,

522, 532.

Parliament of Love, ii, 347.
Painful Pilgrimage, i, 118.
Painter, William, i, xxix, 209, 334, 382,

585, 591 ; ii, 27, 30, 223, 224, 230, 272,

488, 532.

Palantius and Eudora, ii, 358.
Paltemon and Arc yte, i, 113, 115, 198.
Palmerin d'Oliva, i, 563.
Palsgrave, Fredrick, commonly called

the Elector Palatine, his marriage

with the Princess Elizabeth, i, 437;

his players, 422, 495, ii, 242, 310.
Palsgrave, John, i, 35, 63-65, 94.
Pammachius, i, 39, 59, 60; ii, 54.
Panacea, i, 119.

Panegyre, Jensen's, on James, ii, 101.
Panegyric on James, Daniel's, ii, 101.
Pan's Anniversary, ii, 122, 123.
Pap with a Hatchet, i, 125.
Paradise of Dainty Devices, i, 1 14.
Parasitaster, i, 176, 179, 398, 525, 544.
Parasite, the, as a type, i, 311.
Pardoner and the Frere, i, 79-81.
Paria, ii, 84, 520.
Paris, Matthew, i, n.
Parker, Matthew, ii, 54.
Parliament of Love, i, 544; ii, 230, 246,

254, 255-

Paris and Vienna, i, 85, 118, 199.
Paris Garden, theater at, i, 155, 157.
Parnassus plays, i, 66; ii, 410, 465, 518.
Parr, Catherine, i, 95.
Parricide, i, 448.

Parrott, T. M., i, 463.

Parry, E. A., ii, 367.

Parsons, Philip, ii, 75.

Parsons, Robert, i, 225.

Parson's Wedding, ii, 302, 537.

Parthenia, ii, 80, 144, 178.

Parthenius of Nicaea, ii, 535.

Pasquier, Etienne, i, 420.

Passion of Christ, ii, 82.

Passionate Lovers, ii, 354, 355, 426.

Passionate Pilgrim, ii, 140.

Paston, Sir Wiliiam, ii, 171.

Pastor Fido, ii, 80, 143-145, 149-151,
156, 167, 524, 525.

Pastoral drama, the, ii, 139-181 ; its
origin and introduction into England,
139-141; its traits, 140, 141; in Italy,
143; translated, 144; beginnings of,
under Elizabeth, 146; pastoral ele-
ments in the comedies of Lyly and
others, 147-153; true pastoral drama
in England, 156-181; Daniel's
Queen''; Arcadia, 156; The Faith-
ful Shepherdess, 158; pastoral ele-
ments in The Winter's Tale, 161;
Hymen's Triumph, 163; the pisca-
tory, Sicelides, 164; The Sad Shep-
herd, 166-169; Shirley, Goffe, and
minor pastoralists of Charles' time,
169; provincial, 171; The Shepherd's
Paradise and its relations to Prynne,
173; Randolph's Amyntas, 174, 396,
425; Rutter, Cowley, and other late
pastoral dramatists, 175; foreign and
native sources of the pastoral drama,
177; fairies in, i, 394; in Maid's
Metamorphosis, 394; Fletcher in, 400;
premonitions of, in comedies of Peele,
Lyly, and Shakespeare, ii, 412; Daniel
the corypheus of, in England, 412;
always an exotic in England, 412;
Fletcher's failure to popularize, in
England, 412; Jonson and the, 412;
bibliography of, 523-526.

Pastoral Tragedy, i, 461; ii, 153.

Pastores, i, 5, 7, 8.

Pastourelle par personnages, i, 49.

Paliemon and Arcyte, ii, 57, 58, 70.

Paternoster, plays of the, i, 26, 52, 54.

Patient wife, as a dramatic theme, ii,
413. See, also, Patient Grissil.

Patient Grissil, i, 316, 329, 341, 478; ii,

483-

Pattern of Painful Adventures, ii, 30.
Paul's Boys, i, ill, 112, 115-117, 123-

INDEX

667

125, 146, 147, 167, 169, 186, 204, 495,
496, 502, 509, 518, 555, 558.

Paulus Diaconus, ii, 341.

Pavy, Salathiel, i, 117.

Pax, ii, 54.

Payne, L. W., Jr., i, 437.

Peaps, William, ii, 171.

Pedant, the, as a typical character, 369,

371-

Pedant ius, ii, 6l, 62, 401, 404, 520.

Pedlar's Prophesy, i, 68.

Peek, George, i, xxiv, xxxvi, 438, 447;
ii, 19, 147, 149, 152, 375, 377, 378,
394, 404; Locrinc, i, 98 (and see
title); in the court drama, 134, 135;
The Arraignment of Paris, 134-136;
The Hunting of Cupid, 135; and the
popular stage, 135, 187; Mahomet
and Hiren, 1 1 8, 228; Battle of Al-
cazar, 136, 227; Edward I, 136, 256,
261,262; David and Bethsabe, 42, 43,
136; The Old Wives Tale, 136 (and
see title) ; Jack Straw attributed
to, 136; and The Wisdom of Doctor
Dodypoll, 136, 137 ; Wily Beguiled
ascribed to, 136, 137; contrasted with
other actor playwrights, 192; his use
of blank verse, 230; compared with
Greene, 242, 244; his influence on the
popular stage, 245; his obligations to
Lyly, 266; and Henry VI, 267; his
collaboration in chronicle plays, 267;
in the domestic drama, 319-321; the
original Histriomastix assigned to,
479; assists Gager in Latin plays at
Oxford, ii, 59; translates Euripides,
59, 60; and civic pageants, 128;
his part in pastoral drama, 147;
conspicuous with Shakespeare as an
"actor playwright," 375; transfers
his talents from court to the city, 377;
joins the company afterwards Shake-
speare's, 578; with Gager at Oxford,
Lyly's rival at court, Wilson's com-
panion on the popular stage, 404;
probable author of Locrine, 404; paro-
dies the Senecan craze in Locrine, 404,
405; parodies the heroical romance
in The Old Wives* Tale, 405; pastoral
tone in comedies of, 412; bibliography
of, 456, 462, 471, 495, 525.

Pembroke circle, the, ii, 375.

Pembroke, Henry Herbert, Earl of, ii,
4, 228; his players, i, 145, 495, ii, 377,
378, 386.

Pembroke, Mary Sidney, Countess of,

»> 573 » i',4, 6» 7. i46> 5«-
Pembroke, William Herbert, Earl of,

ii, 232.
Penniman, J. H., i, 481, 482, 485, 487,

488, 490.

Penroodock, Master, i, 105.
Pentimento Amoroso, ii, 80, 144, 178.
Pepys, Samuel, ii, 158, 284.
Percy, William, i, 167, 174, 334, 464,

465; »> 497-

Percys, the, i, xxiv.

Pericles, Prince of Tyre, i, 197, 293,
334, 352> 57*5 ii, *4, *9, 3°. '98» '99-
a6°, 333, 4'4, 4'6, 515, 528.

Peremides, i, 229, 474.

Perkin Warbeck, ii, 297, 305, 308, 312,

3*7, 335, 4H, 481, 535-
Perseus, i, 492.

Perseus and Andromeda, i, 85, Il8.
Perspective, use of, in scenery, i, 173.
Pestell, Thomas, ii, 84.
Petronius Arbiter, i, 364, 462, 534.
Pettit de Julleville, i, 30.
Petty, George, i, xxix, 133.
Phaeton. See Sun"s Darling.
Pharamus. See Thibaldus.
Phedrastui and Phigon, i, 199.
Phelan, J., i, 598.
Phelps, W. L., i, 419.
Philaster, i, 400, 401; ii, 29, 161, 193-

*°4, 334,339, 35'»383, 4i7,5°4,529-
Philenzo and Hippolita, i, 379; ii, 229.
Philip II, of Spain, i, 127, 429, 453.
Philip III, of Spain, i, 431, 453.
Philip of Spain, i, 429.
Philippo and Hippolita. See Philemo

and Hippolita.
Philips (first name unknown), assumed

author of Venus, i, 203.
Philips, Sir Edward, ii, 115, 391.
Phillips, Augustine, i, 145, 182, 188; ii,

380.

Phillips, Edward, i, 231.
Phillipps, J. O. Halliwell. See Halliwell-

Phillipps.

Philoctetes, ii, 2, 56.
Philomanthes, ii, 74.
Philomela, ii, 74.
Philosophaster, ii, 75.
Philotas (play given at court), ii, 3; (of

Daniel), 103, 411.
Philotus, ii, 10.
Phocas, ii, 18, 20.
Phcenisstt, ii, 59.

668

INDEX

Phcenix, i, 523.

Phoenix theater, the, i, 410; ii, 230, 235,
285, 329.

Phoenix in her Flames, ii, 358, 359, 426.

Phyllida and Cor in, ii, 152.

Piccolomini, A., i, 462.

Pickering, John, i, 118, 120.

Picture, ii, 232, 309, 423, 442, 532.

Pierce of Exton, i, 253, 280.

Pierce of Winchesetr, i, 253.

Pierce Penniless, i, 264.

Piers, Edward, i, 146, 147, 473.

Pilgrim, ii, 205, 208, 215.

Pilgrimage to Parnassus, ii, 64, 65, 67,
68.

Pinner of Wake field. See George a
Greene.

Piracy, plays on, i, 291, 292.

Piscator, i, 83; ii, 53.

Piscatory drama, ii, 164, 179.

Placidas, i, 25, 94.

Plague, the, i, 148; ii, 369.

Plantation of Virginia, i, 292.

Platonic love in English drama, ii, 135,
346, 347; the cult' of, in England,
346-348; in Suckling's Aglaura, 362;
works on, 537, 538.

Platonic Lovers, ii, 135, 342, 347, 348.

Plautus, i, xxxi, xxxii, xxxv, xxxvi, 82,
86, 87, 91, 94, in, 177, 310, 311, 341,
370, 380, 454, 457~459> 4^4. 5"> 532>
538, 539; ii, i, 56, 62, 78, 91, 98, 400,
401, 407, 410, 497, 500, 501, 518.

Play of Cards, ii, 60.

Play of Lucre, ii, 450.

Play of Pastoral, ii, 170.

Play of Plays, i, 151.

Players, companies of, i, xrv (and see
Companies) ; development of profes-
sional, in; children as, 111-117;
costuming of, 179, 180; social status
of, 185; Italian, 195, 196; ordinances
against, 141-143; ii, 370; in the pro-
vinces, Scotland, and Ireland, 389-
391; their visits to Holland, Denmark,
and Germany, 391, 392; repertory of,
abroad, 392; works regarding, 457,

4S8» 46i, 532> 533-

Playhouse, the, i, 141-192; city's objec-
tion to, 147-151; influence of the con-
struction of amphitheaters on, 156,
157; inn used as a, 157-159; con-
struction of the early, 159-163; use of
scenery in the Elizabethan, 161-179;
structure of the stage, 162, 163; players

sharers in, 182-184; admission to the,
184; in the provinces, ii, 39 1 ; closed
by the plague, 369; works on, 457-
461.

Plays, forbidden on Sundays, ii, 369;
ordinance of Parliament to suppress,
370; census of Elizabethan, 371-373;
bibliography of printed, 436, 437.

Playwrights, prices paid the, i, 315-317;
Henslowe's treatment of, 315; the
popular, and the gentleman author, ii,
374; adaptability the first condition
of the success of the, 375; in the reign
of James, 376, 377; personal relations
of, 377; works upon, 437, 438, 482,

5'9-

Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue, ii, 120.
Pliny, i, 132; ii, 107.
Plummer, C., i, 108; ii, 58.
Plutarch, i, 392, 573, 574; ii, 6, 17, 21,

30, 41, 47, 249, 513, 514.
Plutus, ii, 54, 85, 265.
Poetaster, i, 167, 177, 471, 477, 484-

486, 519, 529, 539; ii, 410, 499.
Politic Father, ii, 288, 318.
Politic Queen, ii, 261.
Politician, ii, 286, 313, 318-320, 322,

420.

Politiziano, Angelo, ii, 143.
Pollard, A. W., i, 9, 14, 54, 55, 78, 80,

88.

Polyphemus. See Troy's Revenge.
Pompey, plays on, i, 118; ii, 17, 21.
Ponet, John, Bishop of Winchester, i, 6 1 ;

ii, 446.

Poole, John, ii, 293.
Poor Man's Comfort, i, 292; ii, 161, 162,

1 80, 242.

Pope, Alexander, i, 445.
Pope, Thomas, i, 145, 182, 188.
Pope Joan, i, 408, 409.
Popham, Sir John, ii, 327.
Popular drama, Plautus transferred by

Shakespeare to the, 459; Jonson's

disapproval of the, 469; satire in the,

473, 474; at the universities, ii, 52;

ideals of the, 387.
Porcie, ii, 6.

Porta, G.-B. della, i, 197; ii, 77, 78.
Porter, Henry, i, 321-323; ii, 379, 408,

482.

Prasepe, the, i, 5.
Prayer for the sovereign at end of a play,

ii, 257.
Preciosity, ii, 340, 345, 346, 350, 399.

INDEX

669

Predor and Lucia, i, 199.

Preston, Thomas, i, 72, I2O, III, 199,

200; ii, 16, 57, 91, 451, 462.
Prhre qu"on Porte, i, 351.
Pride of Life, i, 55, 56; ii, 449.
Prince D\4mour, ii, 135.
Princess, ii, 357. ,

Priscian, ii, 63.
Prisoner. See Fair Anchoress of Pausi-

lippo.

Prisoners, ii, 356, 357.
Problem drama, the, Perkin Warbeck

an example of, ii, 414.
Processus Noe, i, 1 8.
Procopius, ii, 41.
Prodigal son as a dramatic motive, i,

3"t 33!-335> 479> 480, 508, 509;

ii, 396, 484.
Prodigality, i, 1 1 8.
Proescholdt, L., i, 241, 273, 345.
Profanity, act against, i, 498.
Progne, a college play, ii, 3, 57, 58.
Promos and Cassandra, i, 121, 181, 209,

210, 382, 478, 595; ii, 403.
Prophette, i, 8.
Prophetess, i, 37, 40, 569, 603; ii, 213,

215.
Protestantism and the drama, i, 25-27,

31-36, 255, 258; ii, 395.
Proteus and the Rock Adamantine, ii, 99,

ICO.

Protomartyr, i, 37.

Provinces, performances in the, ii, 390,
391, 461.

Prynne, William, i, 88, 89, 507; ii, 131,
i?3» 285, 315, 369.

Pseudolus, ii, 78.

Pseudomagia, ii, 75.

Puckering, Sir John, Kyd's letter to, i,
223, 224, 235.

Purchas, Samuel, ii, 393.

" Purge," the, in the " war of the thea-
ters," i, 490.

Puritan, i, 518.

Puritanism and the theater, i, xxvi,
xxzviii, 148, 149, 289; ii, 65, 81, 87,
88,311, 335,369,370,461, 518.

Puritan Maid, i, 518; ii, 245.

Puttenham, George, i, 113, 123.

Pynson, E., i, 57.

Pythagoras, ii, 20, 21.

Quarles, Francis, ii, 366, 537.

Queen, ii, 368, 537.

Queen of Aragon, ii, 368, 537.

Queen and Concubine, ii, 337, 338, 535.

Queen of Corinth, ii, 37, 206.

Queen of Corsica, i, 427.

Queen's Arcadia, ii, 80, no, 156, 157,

163,412, 526.
Queen's Exchange, ii, 337.
Queen's Revels. See Anne of Denmark,

her players.
Queens, Masque of, ii, 94, 108, 109, 1 10,

125, 126.

Quern Quaritis, i, 3-5, 7, 27, 45; ii, 443.
Quinn, A. H., i, 332.
Quint a de Florencia, ii, 211.
Quint ilian, i, 469.
Quintuf Fabius, i, 118.

Raaf, K. H., i, 57.

Radclif, Ralph, i, 35-37, 72, 94, 109,

198,329, 406; ii, 63.
Raging Turk, i, 449; ii, 81.
Rainolds, John, ii, 60, 518.
Raleigh, Sir Walter, i, 225; ii, 115.
Ralph Roister Dotster, i, xni, 25, 85-87,

91,96,104,193,310,456,462; ii,400,

45'-

Ram Alley, i, 518, 546, 547.
Rambouillet, Marquise de, ii, 345, 346.
Randall, Thomas, ii, 393.
Randolph, Thomas, i, 396; ii, 85-87,

9'. 174, i75» >79» 269. *75» 3°4» 374.
425, 519, 526.

Rankin, William, i, 252; ii, 46, 379, 388,
429.

Rape of Lucrece, i, 595; ii, 21, 27, 410,
516.

Rape of the Second Helen, i, 118.

Rapp, M., ii, 213, 219.

Rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune, t,
121, 122, 386; ii, 403.

Rastell, John, i, 55, 62, 79, 83, 89.

Ravenscroft, Edward, i, 222.

Rawlins, Thomas, i, 430, 606; ii, 365.

Raymond, Duke of Lyons, i, 422, 423.

Realism, i, 246, 250, 278, 307 (and see
ch. vii, passim) ; brought about the
birth of the drama, 309; enhanced
by a conventional foreign setting, 325;
the London Prodigal as an example
of, 333; in the murder plays, 343-
349; the supernatural and, 354; in
witchcraft plays, 362-365; and the
domestic drama, 364; the supernatu-
ral combined with, 385; in Day, 397;
and satire, 402; the groundnote of
Elizabethan drama, 454; in the

670

INDEX

earlier drama, 454, 455; source of the
comedy of manners in, 455.

Rebelles, i, 65.

Rebellion, i, 430; ii, 365, 537.

Reconciliation, Masque of, ii, 99.

Red Bull, i, 154, 423, 436, 496; ii, 239,
360.

Red Knight, i, 199.

Redford, John, ii, 395, 450.

Reformation, i, 17, 32, 61, 91; ii, 400.

Rehearsal, i, xxxi.

Reichard, H. A. O., i, 217.

Reinhardstoettner, K. von, i, 82.

Religious drama. See Sacred drama.

Renaissance, the, i, xxiii; ii, i, 399, 452,
487.

Renegade, ii, 231, 235, 246, 256, 423, 532.

Rennert, H. A., ii, 143.

Reparatus, ii, 84.

Repentance of Mary Magdalene, i, 38, 39.

Respublica, i, 60, 69, 70.

Restituta, i, 39.

Restoration of Charles II, the, i, xiiii,
mv, 177, 308, 352.

Resurrection play, i, 3, 10.

Return from Parnassus, i, mi, si, 475,
489, 490; ii, 64-70, 502, 518.

Revels, the, i, 46, 47, 59, 75-77, 96, 100-
103, 107, 109, no, 115, 117, 122-126;
permanent master of the Revels estab-
lished, i, 76-77; Lyly and the master-
ship of'the, 124-126; Jonson's failure
to obtain the mastership of the, ii, 268;
Astley succeeds to the, 268; Herbert
succeeds to the, 268; bibliographical
references on, 453, 454.

Revels, the King's. See James I, his
company of players.

Revels, Queen's. See Anne, Queen, her
players.

Revenge plays, i, 210-213, 219-223, 228,
246, 506.

Revenge for Honor, i, 448, 449, 451; ii,

3S5» 496-
Revenge of Bussy D'Ambois, i, 415, 416,

418,564,566,580; 11,3,413.
Revenger"s Tragedy, i, 566-568, 598, 599;

ii, 128, 237,413, 507.
Rey Rodrigo, i, 433.
Reynolds, G. F., i, 15, 30, 163, 164, 166-

168, 171, 177-179.
Reynolds, Henry, ii, 144.
Reynolds, H. E., i, 46.
Reynolds, John, i, 599, 605; ii, 322.
Reynolds, Thomas, ii, 81.

Rhodon and Iris, ii, 171, 172.

Rhys, E., ii, 235.

Ricardus Tertius. See Richardus Tertius.

Rich, Penelope, i, 131.

Rich, Sir Robert, his players, i, 144.

Richard I, i, 285.

Richard II, i, in, 157.

Richard II, i, 220, 273-276, 280, 285,
369> 494. $$i, 576, 601; ii, 393, 472.

Richard II, Tragedy of King, i, 280, 477.

Richard II, Deposing of, i, 280.

Richard III, i, 116, 142, 252, 261.

Richard III (academic tragedies), ii, 92;
(of Shakespeare), i, 170, 177, 220, 263,
267, 273, 274, 281, 285, 369, 576, 578,
580, 601; ii, 407; (of Rowley), 281,
422, 478.

Richard III, True Tragedy of, i, 264,
265, 281; ii, 471.

Richard Crookback, i, 281, 306.

Richard the Confessor, i, 261.

Richard, Duke of fork, True Tragedy
of, i, 264.

Richards, Nathaniel, ii, 37, 48-50 ; ii,
268.

Richardus Tertius, i, 97, 255, 256; ii,
59, 63, 403, 471.

Riche, B., i, 356, 374, 412, 488.

Richmond, King and Queen's Entertain-
ment at, ii, 135, 522.

Rickets, J., i, 285; ii, 59.

Rider, William, ii, 237.

Right Woman. See Very Woman.

Rightwise, John, 1,83,86, 94,406; ii, 18.

Rime,i, 219, 257, 382. See, also, Heroic
Verse.

Ritson, J., i, 31, 68.

Rival Friends, ii, 87.

Rivales, ii, 59, 60, 404.

Roaring Girl, i, 176, 327, 513, 547.

Robart, Kynge, of Cicyle, i, 71, 72.

Robert of Brunne, i, 14.

Robert of Sicily, King, i, 50, 406.

Robert II of Scotland, King, i, 306.

Roberts, James, i, 383.

Robin and Marion, i, 49.

Robin Conscience, i, 61.

Robin Goodfellow, i, 356, 393.

Robin Hood, plays on, i, xxviii, 49, 73,
254, 260, 283, 284; ii, 153, 155, 168,

47°, 479, 49 r> S25-
Robin Hood and Little John, i, 283; ii,

154.

Robin Hood and the Stranger, ii, 155.
Robin Hood's Pennyworths, ii, 154.

INDEX

671

Robinson, Nicholas, Bishop of Bangor,
ii, 56.

Robyn and Makyn, i, 49.

Roderick, i, 562.

Rodrigo, King (of Spain), i, 433.

Roersche, A., i, 57, 58.

Rojas, F. de, i, 89.

Rolfe, William, {,312.

Rollinson, ii, 80, 151.

Rollo, Duke of Normandy. See Bloody
Brother.

Roman Actor, i, 603, 604; ii, 16, 38, 40,
42, 234, 308, 423, 517, 533.

Roman de la Rose, i, 51.

Roman history in English plays, i, xxxiii;
ii, 16, 17, 21-30.

Romance, the element of, in the drama,
i, xxix, xxx ; its persistency, rxx, xxxi.

"Romance," as a variety of drama, de-
fined, ii, 184; Shakespearean, ii, 416;
contrasted with Fletcherian tragi-
comedy, 416; bibliography of, 526-

532» 534-537-

Romantic comedy, i, 367-404; of the
earlier authors, 367; defects of the
early, 367; artistic development of,
due to Shakespeare, 367, 369-385,
391, 395; satire in Shakespeare's, 370,
384; bibliography, ii, 487-493.

Romantic drama, spirit of, in earlier
drama, i, 92, 193-246, 367; relation to
earlier types, 193-195; sources and in-
fluences which produced the, 195-197,
208-21 1, 240; the influence of Kyd on
the, 210-223, 246; of Marlowe, 223-
230, 246, 268, 269, 367; enfranchise-
ment of, from classical convention,
139; characteristics of the, 239, 240,
245; the influence of Greene upon,
245; absorption of the chronicle play
into the, 301-304; importance of Two
Gentlemen of Verona, 371, 372; full-
ness of Shakespeare's power in, 372,
374; character of Shakespeare's ro-
mantic comedies, 376; relation of ro-
mantic comedy to comedy of manners,
377; as verging towards tragedy in
the Merchant of Venice, 377; Shake-
speare's isolation as a playwright for a
time especially noticeable in, 378; ro-
mantic spirit in this interval used by
other authors only as an element of
relief, 379; effect of Shakespeare upon
his contemporaries, 380, 381; of hero-
ical character, 385; artificial, in the

reign of Charles, 385; the supernatural
in, 385-396; the wise-woman and
magician in, 386; Dekker and the,
390, 391, 396; fairies as a theme in,
391-396; influence of Midsummer-
Night's Dream, 394; Jonson's rela-
tions to the popular, 395, 396; Shake-
speare's younger contemporaries in,
396-403; Day and Heywood's rela-
tion to, 397; Chapman's, 398-400;
Beaumont and Fletcher's, 400-403;
summary of romantic comedy, 403,
404 ; and the native drama, i, 309;
influence of , on domestic drama, 319,
337; and the supernatural, 354, 365;
the influence of Lyly upon, 369; and
realism, 454; the later, ii, 182-239;
traits of, 191 ; of Elizabeth's time con-
trasted with that of later periods, 191,
192; in its decadence, 307-370; su-
perficial character of the romantic
settings of Elizabethan plays, 408;
bibliography ot, 462-470. See, also,
Romantic comedy and tragedy.

Romantic tragedy, the height of, ii, 405,
406, 412, 413.

Romanticism, the nature and influence
of, i, 377; decadent, the distinctive
"note" of the drama of Charles I, ii,
307, 308, 426.

Rome, i, 471, 472.

Romeo and Juliet, early versions of, i,
208; (of Shakespeare), i, xxv, 193,
208, 369, 372, 376, 391, 392, 570-572;
ii, 4, 334, 339, 408; bibliography of,
507, 508.

Romeus and Juliet, i, 208.

Romeus et Julietta, ii, 95, 92.

Roo, John, i, 69.

Roper, William, i, 82.

Rosania or Love's Victory. See Doubtful
Heir.

Rose theater, the, i, 145, 146, 153, 155,
156, 159, 313, 314, 346, 366, 460, 472,
496; ii, 22, 49, 379.

Rosenbach, A. S. W., i, 90, 599; 11, 194,
206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 215.

Roses, Wars of the, i, 252, 263.

Ross, C. H., i, 86.

Rosset, Francois de, ii, 208.

Rossi, V., ii, 145.

Rosseter, Philip, i, 497; ii, 190, 241.

Rounds, the Cornish, i, 156.

Rowe, N., i, 317, 324.

Rowlands, Samuel, i, 520.

672

INDEX

Rowley, Samuel, i, 42, 307, 421, 432,
452; ii, 376, 379; Tragedy of Richard
III, i, 281; When Ton See Me Tou
Know Me, 288-290; a member of the
Duke of York's players, 297, 307;
influenced by connection with Hens-
lowe, 318; the domestic drama of,
318, 319; and the Bristol Tragedy,
347; the Witch of Edmonton, 348, 362,
and Fortune by Land and Sea, 349;
the Fair Quarrel, 350, 351; his ca-
reer, 422; employed by Henslowe, 422;
his companies and plays, 422; author-
ship of, confined to Henslowe, 379;
bibliography of, 495.

Rowley, William, i, 510, 511; ii, 137,
2°7, 239, 244, 245, 262, 263, 310, 327,
328, 376, 422, 425, 432-434, 587, 595,
599, 603; and the Travels of Three
English Brothers, i, 178; and the
Thracian Wonder, 204; and The
Travails of the Three English Bro-
thers, 291; and Fortune by Land and
Sea, 292; and The Birth of Merlin,
295, 296; The Shoemaker a Gentle-
man, 296, 297; his obligations to
Deloney, 297; fecundity of, 316; be-
loved by Shakespeare, Fletcher, and
Jonson, 432; his collaborations, 432,
433; his unaided work, 433; in The
Changeling, 599; his alleged part in
Pericles, ii, 31 ; an actor in Middleton's
Inner Temple Masque, 122; a collabo-
rator with Fletcher, 210, 217; his and
Middleton's Spanish Gipsy, 216; his
Airs Lost by Lust, 217; his hand in
The Maid in the Mill, 217; his interest
in Spanish topics, 217; romantic ele-
ment in plays of, and Middleton, 236,
239; activity of, in later comedies,
244, 248, 262, 263; joins the King's
company, 384; his master work, Airs
Lost by Lust, 425; bibliography of,
480, 481, 495, 503.

Roxana,\,$jj; ii, 402.

Roxborough, Lord, ii, 163.

Royal Combat, ii, 328.

Royal King and Loyal Subject, i, 303,
304, 397; ii, 224, 309, 350, 425, 481,

48S. S31-

Royal Master, ii, 286, 315, 321.
Royal Slave, i, 172, 449, 450; ii, 47, 48,

89,90.

Royden, Matthew, i, 225.
Rucellai, B., i, 230.

Rueda, Lope de, ii, 194.

Ruggle, George, ii, 64, 78, 8 1, 519.

Rule a Wife and Have a Wife, i, 343; ii,

206, 213, 246, 248, 249.
Rumbaur, O., i, 198.
Rupert, Prince Palatine, ii, 135.
Rural life, English ideals of, ii, 153.
Rush, Friar, i, 354, 355.
Ruskin, J., ii, 201.

Rutter, Joseph, i, 427; ii, 175, 176, 179.
Rye, W. B., i, 152.
Rymer, T., i, 116.

Sackville, Sir Thomas, i, mi, xxxii, 84,
86, 87, 94, 96, 104, 105, 139, 187, 549,

556: »> 3»i5» 375-

Sacred drama, the, its nature and course,
i, xxvii; realistic simplicity of, xxviii;
comedy in, xxviii; stock characters in,
xxviii; the, i, 1-44; relation of the,
to later drama, i; origins of the, 2-9;
development from church ritual, 2-16;
its earlier symbolic nature, 6; effect of
the doctrine of the real presence on, 6;
elaborated ritual a feature of, 6, 7;
liturgical character of earlier, 7, 8;
changes in the growth of, 9, 10; con-
currence of growth and decay in, 10,
1 1 ; early, in England, 11,12; miracle,
"mystery," and saint's play, ii, 12;
secularizing of, 13, 45, 46, 73-92; cler-
ical restrictions of, 14; height of the,
as acted by the craft-guilds, 15, 16;
its popular and vernacular character,
1 6; comedy of relief in, 1 6; collec-
tive miracle plays in, 16-21; single
plays and parts of cycles extant, 21,
22; management and acting in, 22-
24; actors, setting and costume in, 24,
25, 30; expense in, 25; effects of Pro-
testantism on, 25-27; the latest mira-
cle plays, 26, 27; dramatic motive in,
27; the didactic element, allegory and
satire in, 28; mixed elements in the
later, 29-31; decadence of, 31, 32;
bible plays and Latin plays, the suc-
cessors of the, 31-39; emergence of
the true drama from the, 40, 41 ; reli-
gious plays that followed the, 41-44;
secularizing influences on, 46-49; ap-
parent realism in, 309; comedy
scenes in, 309; scenes of family life in,
310; religious drama, and realistic
reproduction of contemporary life,
454; satire in the, 474; relation of,

INDEX

673

to later drama, ii, 393, 394; biblio-
graphy of, 442-446. See, also, Biblical
plays, Miracle plays, Moralities.

Sad One, ii, 362.

Sad Shepherd, i, 284, 360, 395; ii, 113,
154, 156, 166-169, 479> S2S» 5*6-

Saint Benedict, i, 4.

Saint Patrick for Ireland, ii, 286, 318.

St. Botulph, i, 12.

St. Bartholomew, massacre of, i, 411.

St. Brice, massacre of, i, 254.

St. Catherine, i, 1 1, 12.

St. Clara, i, 12.

St. Clotilda, i, 12.

St. Fabian, i, 12.

St. Gall, Abbey of, i, 3.

St. Gall MS., i, 3.

St. George, i, 12; plays and pageants on,
49, 254; ii, 397, 470.

St. George for Merry England, i, 154.

St. James, i, 12.

St. Lawrence, i, 12.

St. Martial, Abbey of, i, 9.

St. Mary Overy's, Southwark. Sec St.
Saviour's.

St. Meriasek, i, 12.

St. Nicholas, i, 8, 9.

St. Glare, i, 12.

St. Saviour's Church, Southwark, i, 525;
ii, 228, 384.

St. Sebastian, i, 12.

St. Thomas of Canterbury, i, 12.

Saint's play, i, 10, 12, 29, 31.

Saintsbury, George, i, 214, 269, 299,
551; ii, 15.

Salisbury, Countess of, i, 273.

Salisbury Court, the theater in, i, 160;

", 137, 3IO» 3", 3'8-
Salisbury, Robert Cecil, Earl of, i, 437.
Sallust, ii, 32, 33.
Salmacida Spolia, ii, 136.
Salorzano, A. del C., ii, 353.
Sampson, M. W., i, 588, 589; ii, 237.
Sampson, William, i, 42, 348, 605; ii, 35,

262.

Samson, i, 42.

Samson Agonistes, i, 44; ii, 394.
Sancho VIII, King of Leon, i, 430; ii,

220.

Sanctus Edwardus Confessor, i, 253.
Sandys, George, i, 44: ii, 394.
Sannazaro, Jacopo,ii, 139, 143, 151,165,

177, 178, 179, 524.
Sapho and Phao, i, 124, 179, 387.
Sapientia Salomonis, ii, 75.

Sardou, Victorien, i, xliii.

Sarpedon, i, 118.

Sarrazin, G., i, 213, 214; ii, 67, 68.

Satire in the drama, i, xiiir, 68, 240,
3°9» 349, 365> 3*9, 37°, 384, 385, 39°,
397, 4°o, 4°*, 455, 468, 473-49', 5",
ii, 61, 62, 64, 410, 501.

Satire of the Three Estates, i, xxviii, 60,
69, 70, 77J ", 397, 45 '•

Satiromastix, i, 216, 218, 284, 447,
486, 487, 490, 502, 564; ii, 376, 379,
410.

Satyr, i, 395.

Saviolo, i, 93.

Saxo Grammaticus, i, 554, 560.

Scanderbeg, George Castriota, i, 447.

Scanderbeg, i, 228, 234; ii, 406.

Scapegrace, the, as a type, ii, 251.

Scene, indeterminate in Fletcherian
tragedy, i, 602; variation of, in aca-
demic plays, ii, 72; unreality of, in
later classical drama, ii, 37; change of,
in The Royal Slave, ii, 90.

Scenery, its use on the Elizabethan
stage, i, 161-179, 303; ", 4"> in the
masque, ii, 98, 102, 105, 106, 109, in,
115, 118, 126, 135.

Schelling, F. E., i, 66, 81, 103, 252, 354,
387, 469, 537J ", i°8, etc., passim.

Scherillo, M., ii, 143.

Schick, J., i, 211, 213.

Schiller, Friedrich von, i, 426.

Schipper, J., i, 77.

Schlegel, Friedrich, i, 286, 333.

Schmidt, Erich, i, 232.

Schoenwerth, R., i, 21 1.

Scholar, ii, 361.

Scholemaster, i, 37.

Sch'dne Phoenicia, ii, 490.

Schone Sidea, ii, 202.

School drama, the, i, xni, 63-66, 93-
140, 104; ii, i, 51, S^, 82, 83, 449.

Schroeer, M. M. A., i, 32, 56, 221.

Schiicking, L. L., i, 132; ii, 150.

Schwab, H., i, 76, 129.

Scipio Africanus, i, 1 1 8.

Scogan and Skelton, i, 388.

Scornful Lady, i, 526.

Scot, Reginald, i, 132, 353, 358, 361; ii,
486.

Scotland, players in, ii, 461.

Scots, the, ridiculed in Eastward Hoe, i,
506, 507.

Scott, Sir Walter, i, 103, 332, 436, 537;
ii, 78, 343-

674

INDEX

Scottish History of James IV. See James

IV.

Scourge of Folly, ii, 194.
Scourge of Villany, i, 477.
Scribe, A. E., ii, 247.
Scudery, Madeleine de, ii, 340, 351, 357.
Scylla's Metamorphosis, i, 241.
Scyros, ii, 80, 163, 178.
Sea Voyage, ii, 218, 220, 238, 366.
Sebastian, King of Portugal, i, 428, 552.
Sebastian of Portugal, King, i, 431, 432.
Second Maidens Tragedy, i, 578, 595,

597-5995 "» 5»-
Second Mrs. Tanqueray, i, 339.
Seifert, J., i, 62.
Sejanus, i, xxxiii, 418, 536, 550; ii, 24-

*8, 34, 44, 48, 50, 268, 410, 414, 516.
Selden, John, i, 508.
Selimus, Emperor of the Turks, i, 194,

"7, 446, 447, 4495 "» 4°6» 470, 471,

496.

Selindra, ii, 358.
Seneca, the influence of i, xxx-xxxiii,

34, 83, 87, 94, 96-98, 106, 136, 177,

209, 2IO, 2I2-2I6, 227, 228, 230, 239,

254-256, 264, 265, 267, 306, 386, 454,

549, 556> 569» 577; »', i-i6,49>55> 59,
388, 401-404, 411, 453, 463, 511-513,

537-

Senile Odium, ii, 84.
Senilis Amor, ii, 84.
Scnora Cornelia, ii, 207.
Serres, Jean de, i, 418.
Serule and Astrea, i, 285.
Servant, the humorous or contriving, as

a type, i, 311, 323,467.
Servi, Constantine de, ii, 118.
Seser and pompie, ii, 22.
Sesers flalle, ii, 22.
Set at Maw, i, 445.
Set at Tennis, i, 445.
Seven Champions of Christendom, i, 197,

208, 306; ii, 360, 426.
Seven Days of the Week, ii, 75.
Seven Deadly Sins, i, 52-54, 1 88, 196,

401.

Seven Sins of London, ii, 404.
Seven Wise Masters, ii, 366.
Sforza, ii, 177.

Shakespeare, Edmund, i, 348.
Shakespeare, John, i, 271.
Shakespeare, William (for comment on

the several plays, see their titles), i,

xxiii, xsiv, xxxii, xl, xli, xlii, 38, 84, 98,

117, 140, 141, 143, 153, 166, 172, 173,

204, 230, 270-283, 367, 477, 505, 523,
547; ii, 423, 424; his position in the
chronology of Elizabethan drama,
xxv; an actor and manager, xxvi; his
and Marlowe's elevation of history on
the stage, xxix; his representation of
contemporary life, rxix; his dominion
in romantic drama, xxx; superiority of
his company, his theater and his
emolument, xxxv; diversity of Eliza-
bethan drama illustrated in the plays
of, xxxv; confirmed in the practice of
romantic art, xxxvi; probably joined
Leicester's players, 144; rivals of, 146;
the company of, 145, 146, 156, 313,

3'7, 332> 347, 348, 366, 377~379» 383~
390, 494-497; his winter theater, 154;
Fair Em, ascribed to, i, 180, 190; con-
trasted with Fletcher, 181; contem-
poraneousness of, 181; his shares in
the Globe theater, 182-184; and the
popular stage, 187; may have acted in
Tarlton's Seven Deadly Sins, 188;
Italian influence on, 208-211; his ob-
ligations to Kyd, 219; Mucedorus at-
tributed to, i, 240, 241 ; his obligations
to Lyly, 242; and Greene, i, 242-244,
271, 272; and Marlowe, 246; and the
historical drama, 247, 249, 250, 253,
254, 261-265, 272~279> 298-301, 307,
308; and collaboration, 266, 267; his
early career, 269-272 ; his Venus and
Adonis, i, 271, 272; and the chronicle
play, i, 272; his obligations to Mar-
lowe, 274,275; Sir Thomas More at-
tributed to, 286; Thomas Lord Crom-
well, attributed to, 286; The Birth of
Merlin attributed to, 295, 296; name
of not in Henslowe, 315; and the Earl
of Southampton, 317; success of, 318;
Dekker, Hey wood, Jon son, and Mid-
dleton compared with, 318; comedy of
popular school compared with that of,
318; the Merry Devil ascribed to, 323;
Merry Wives his only domestic drama
but displays his preeminence, 324,
325; naming of characters and place
of setting indifferent to, 325, 326; his
life contrasted with Dekker's, 328;
faithful wife and jealous husband in,
330; and the London Prodigal, 333;
relations of Jonson and Fletcher with,
342; and the authorship of Arden,
345; Torkshire Tragedy ascribed to,
347; influence of, 349; fond of the

INDEX

675

theme of family reunion, 352; use of
witchcraft by, 359, 360; the supernat-
ural in, 365; the domestic drama of,
366; special influence of, in romantic
comedy, 367; position and success of
in 1595, 367, 368; promise of, indi-
cated by non-dramatic poems, 367;
Southampton's influence on the career
of, 368; circumstances of his life and
fortunes in 1595, 368; introduced and
played a part in Jonson's Every Man
in His Humor, 368, 466, 488; stand-
ing of, as a dramatist in 1595, 368; the
Love's Labour's Lost of, 369, 370; this
play his only use of satire, 370; the
romantic comedy of, 370-385, 391-
395, 403; the simple romantic art of,
371; character-drawing of, 371, 375,
376, 380; qualities as a writer of com-
edy, 372; Merchant of Venice last
play to show traces of an art other
than his own, 372; " unconscious art "
in, 373; atmosphere of his comedies
essentially English, 375; incident and
character in the romantic comedy of,
376; noble patronage a factor in the
success of, 377, 378; isolation of, for a
time as a writer of comedy an element
in his success, 378, 403; influence of
his treatment of romantic character on
his contemporaries, 380; darker and
graver tone of three later romantic
comedies, 381; Troilus and Cressida
unlike him, 383-385; returns to ideals
of the old court drama, but with
added poetry, in Midsummer-Night's
Dream, 391, 392; the fairies of, 391-
395; Chapman's Monsieur D'Olive
compared with, 399; development of,
in romantic comedy, 403; scenes in
France in the historical plays and
comedies, 411; his name coupled
with Rowley's, 433, exceptional char-
acter of Comedy of Errors, 458, 459;
eclecticism of his earlier art, 459; sig-
nificant preference of, for history and
romance rather than classical sources
and models, 459; contrasted with
Jonson as regards his portrayal of
character, 468, 469; the comedy of,
469; supposed satiric allusions in, 475,
476; not satirized by Jonson, 478;
or in Histriomastix, 480; assumed to
be Virgil in Poetaster, 484; relation of
to the "war of the theaters" in general,

488-491; allusion to, in the Return
from Parnassus, 490; his name second
to Lawrence Fletcher among the
King's players, 494; alleged borrowings
of Jonson from, 539, 540; reminis-
cence of, in Marston's Antonio and
Mellida, 555; Jonson and, in rivalry
in the rewriting of Hamlet and the ad-
ditions to The Spanish Tragedy, 558;
his cavalier treatment of the old mate-
rial of Hamlet, 559; imaginative por-
traiture the end of, in Hamlet, 559;
reminiscence of, in Hofiman, 563; hit
treatment of the passion of love, 572;
his treatment of the passion of jeal-
ousy, 575; his treatment of the trial of
woman's chastity restricted to com-
edy, 595; in tragedy, 583, 584; the
unmatchable truth of his pen, 584;
The Second Maiden's Tragedy as-
scribed to, 598; his personal relations
with Jonson, n, 25; his contempt for
the mob, 29, 30; contemporary esti-
mate of his poetry in The Return from
Parnassus, 69; his plays on classical
subjects, ii, 28-32; his disregard of
unessentials, 32; reminiscences of, in
May's Antigone, 45; and the universi-
ties, 91, 92; the masque in, 95, 128,
129; and the pastoral, 154-156, 161,
180, 181; his "romances," 184, 197-
204; his collaboration with Fletcher,
185, 190; later verse of, 186, 187;
average number of his plays yearly,
189; his penchant for dukes and
kings, 191, alleged likenesses to the
tragicomedies of Fletcher, 197; plays
included among, 197; anachronisms
of, 199; personages of, not wanting in
individuality, 200; lifelikeness of the
personages of, 200, 201; divergences
of, from tragicomedy, 203, 204; not
profoundly influenced by it, 204; The
Double Falsehood attributed to, by
Theobald, ii, 212; reminiscences of,
in Fletcher, 220; in Massinger, 233;
influence of, stronger on his modern
critics than on his contemporaries,
220; the first folio of, 232; perhaps a
collaborator with Jonson, 268; popu-
larity of the plays of, in Charles' reign,
308; Roman plays of, accepted as
veritable history, 312; alleged rela-
tionship of, to Davenant, 340; the
predecessors of, in no sense a coterie,

676

INDEX

378 ; almost alone among earlier
notable dramatists as an "actor play-
wright," 375; efforts of, to obtain a
grant of arms, 376; writes for but one
company of players, 377; the success
of, attracts other playwrights to his
company, 379; familiar acquaintance
of, with his fellow workers, 379; recog-
nized as a man and a dramatist by
Chettle, 379; succeeds to the head of
his profession, 379; friendship of, for
Jonson, 380; visited by Jonson and
Drayton, 380; Burbage, Heming, and
Condell the closest intimates of, 380;
Earl of Southampton the patron of,
380; not a cultivator of "great ones,"
380; steady industry and substantial
success of, 381; praised for "copious
industry" by Webster, 382; Hey-
wood's couplet on, 383; relations of, to
Fletcher, 383, 386; a co-worker with
Marlowe, 386; plays of, in Germany,
392; popularity of , in Germany in the
seventeenth century, 392; acted at sea
by contemporary sailors, 392, 393; his
acquaintance with the classics, 400;
his imitative period, 407; from the
death of Marlowe to the accession of
James, the period of Shakespeare,
407-409; supereminence of, in the
chronicle play, 408; work of, in do-
mestic drama not confined to The
M erry Wives, 408 ; supereminence of,
in romantic comedy, 409; his repre-
sentation of classical history on the
popular stage, 410; rewrites Hamlet
in rivalry of Jonson 's revision of The
Spanish Tragedy, 411; pastoral tone
in early comedies of, 412; the great
tragedies of, 413; the plays of, on clas-
sical story, 414; the "romance" of,
contrasted with Fletcherian tragi-
comedy, 416, 417; not seriously af-
fected by Fletcher's innovations, 416,
417; strictly an Elizabethan, 418, 423,
424; his guidance of the taste of his
public, 420; less a complete dramatist
than Fletcher, 421, 422; general biblio-
graphy of, 456, 458, 465, 466, 469,
470, 472-475. 479> 48*, 483. 485. 487.
495, 498, 501-503, 53 1 ; biographies of,
473; critical and historical works, 473,
474; order of plays, 474; the text, 474;
grammar and language, 474; blank
verse, 475; folios, 476; historical plays,

477, 478, 480; earlier comedies, 488-
493; tragedies, 506-509; dramas on
classical subjects, 513; classical learn-
ing, 513, 514; tragicomedies and ro-
mances, 527-529.

Shank, John, a player, i, 182.

Sharp, Lewis, ii, 368.

Sharp, T., i, 23, 24, 56.

Sharpham, Edward, i, 518.

She Saint, ii, 242.

Shelley, Percy Bysshe, i, ilii.

Shelton, Thomas, i, 206; ii, 207, 208,

212.

Shepherd's Holiday, ii, 175, 176.
Shepherds, Play of the. See Pastores.
Shepherds" Play, Second, of the Towne-

ley cycle, i, 46.

Shepherds* Paradise, ii, 173, 178.
Sheridan, Richard Brinsley, i, zzziii; ii,

416.

Sherwood Forest, ii, 154, 155.
Shilleto, A. R., ii, 329.
Shirley, the three brothers, travelers, i,

mil, 291.

Shirley, Henry, i, 43, 293, 430; ii, 45.
Shirley, James, i, xzx, xxxvii, 410, 430,

443. 45*. 5'4» 5*7, 594, 595, 6°5, fc>6;
ii, 108, 169, 171, 179, 235, 247, 282-

*97, 3°7, 3°8» S11-?*8, 333, 336-338,
361, 365» 377, 385, 4H5 the assumed
reviser of comedies of Middleton, i,
514; his use of classical story, ii, 43;
his part in entertainments, 128; and
the masque, ii, 129; his Triumph of
Peace, its sumptuousness and great
cost, 131-133; his earlier career and
activity as a playwright, 284, 285; in
Ireland, 285, 286, his later career as
schoolmaster and translator, 286; his
comedies of London life, 286-297;
edited Beaumont and Fletcher, 286;
his death by exposure, 286; plays of,
in Ireland, 286; his comedies, 286-
297; alleged collaboration of, with
Chapman, in The Ball, 291, 292;
The Gamester and the attacks upon
it, 293, 294; later comedies of man-
ners of, 295; eminence of, in com-
edies of contemporary life, 295; his
types, favorite situation, and adequacy,
295-297, 324; romantic dramas of,
312-326; lighter comedies, 314-316;
" historical" tragicomedies of, 316-
320; tragicomedies of intrigue of, 320-
326; heroines of, 321, 322; tragedies

INDEX

677

of, 322-326; in tragedy, 326; revived
simplicity and ingenuity of plot in,
335; simplified plot of, and the heroic
play, 351; the chief rival of Mas-
singer, 385; writes for Queen Henri-
etta's players at the Cockpit, 385;
joins the King's company, and be-
comes their chief poet, 385; the cloi-
ing of the theaters a bar to the career
of, 385; a co-worker with Massinger,
386; the last of the great Eliza-
bethan dramatists, 386; in Dublin,
391 ; a practical playwright, 420 ; in-
fluence of the return of, to simplicity
of plot, and its influence on the heroic
play , 426, 427 ; the period of . 427 , 428 ;
the industry, competency, and success
of, 427, 428; the independence of, and
his use of previous drama, 428; the
comedies of, as pictures of Caroline
life, 428; reason for his qualified suc-
cess, 428; bibliography of, 522, 534.

Shoemaker a Gentleman, i, 433; ii, 481.

Shoemaker''! Holiday, i, 285, 297, 327,
329> 379> 4o8, 481, 493, 500; ii, 483.

Shore, Jane, i, 282, 283, 499.

Shore's Wife, i, 282.

Shrew, the, in the drama, i, 339, 341, 413.

Shrewsbury, i, 493 ; ii, 83.

Shrewsbury, Elizabeth, Countess of, i,
129, 130.

Shrewsbury, Talbot, Earl, of , i, 129, 130,
142, 264, 273.

Sicelides, ii, 80, 164-166, 172, 179, 525.

Sicily and Naples, i, 410; ii, 364.

Sidney, Sir Philip, i, xxix, 84, 129, 131,
151, 167, 172, 178, 181, 197, 199, 240,
300, 478, 541, 591; ii, 4, 9, 10, 48, 59,
63, 98, 140, 145, 150, 152, 176, 178,
'79. '94, 3l8» 365> 374. 403, 510, 525,
5l6> 555-

Siege (of Cartwright), ii, 47; (of Dav-
enant), 47, 342.

Siege of Dunkirk, i, 291.

Siege of London, i, 261, 499.

Siege of Rhodes, ii, 348.

Siege of Urbin, The, ii, 358.

Sierra Leone, Shakespeare acted at sea
off, ii, 392.

Sigismond, Emperor, i, 254.

Silent Woman. See Epicccne.

Silvanus, ii, 80, 152.

Silver Age, ii, 19, 20, 513.

Silvia, ii, 80, 170.

Simons, Joseph, ii, 84.

Simpson, R., i, 190, 191, 241, 166, 286,
287,346,413,476,479,480.

Singer, H. W., i, 345.

Sir Clyomon and Sir Clamydes, i, 114,
121, 136, 180, 199, 200, 240, 244, 386;
ii, 399, 402, 462.

Sir Giles Goosecap, i, 463; ii, 497.

Sir John Mandeville, i, 291.

Sir John Oldcastle, i, 278, 279.

Sir Martin Skink, ii, 262, 270.

•Sir Placidas, i, 203.

Sir Thomas More, i, 169, 185, 261, 285-

287, 4995 »» 479-
Sir Thomas Wyatt, The Famous History

of, i, 252, 261, 287, 288} ii, 480.
Siriz, Dame, i, 49.
Sisters, ii, 313, 322.
Six Fools, i, 119.
Skeat, W. W., i, 7, 50.
Skelton, John, i, 56, 67, 68, 82, 386; ii,

397, 45°-

Slater, Martin, ii, 20.

Sly, Christopher, i, 170.

Sly, W., i, 188.

Small, R. A., i, 482, 542.

Smeaton, O., ii, 67.

Smith, A., ii, 238.

Smith, G. C. Moore, ii, 61-63, 82.

Smith, Homer, ii, 147, 160, 167, 169,
171, 172, 176, 178, 179.

Smith, L. Toulmin, i, 16.

Smith, Wentworth, i, 253, 254, 413, 429,
436, 521, 562, 587; Thomas, Lord
Cromwell, attributed to, 286; collabo-
rated on Six Teamen, i, 347.

Smyth, A. H., ii, 30.

Snelling, Thomas, ii, 81.

Soldan and the Duke, i, 446.

Soldier, ii, 361.

Soliman and Perseda, i, 2OI, 214, 219,

446, 551; '', 464, 465, 496-
Solitary Knight, i, II 8, 199.
Solorzano, Alonso del Castillo, ii, 353.
Solyman II, i, 446, 453.
SolymanniiLr, ii, 76, 446; ii, II, 496.
Somerset, Robert Carr, Earl of, i, 585;

ii, 118.
Somerset, Countess of. See Essex,

Countess of.

Sommer, H. O., ii, 139.
Somnium Fundatoris, ii, 74.
"Sons of Ben," the, ii, 91, 269.
Sophister, ii, 84.
Sophocles, ii, I, 55, 56.
Sophomorus, ii, 75.

678

INDEX

Sophonisba. See Wonder of Women.

Sophy, i, 451.

Sorgel, A., ii, 93, 129, 137.

Sottie, the, i, 80, 99.

Southampton, Henry Wriothesley, third
Earl of, i, 272, 317, 378; ii, 380.

Southwark, i, 525.

Spanish sources and influence in Eng-
lish drama, i, 402, 419, 428-434; ii,

494; 5*5> 529, 53°. 534-
Spanish Curate, ii, 210, 246, 248, 505,

530-

Spanish Duke of Lerma, i, 430.
Spanish Fig, i, 421.
Spanish Gipsy, ii, 217, 118, 236, 245,

495;

Spanish Lovers, ii, 348.

Spanish Moor's Tragedy, i, 222, 223;
ii, 428, 452, 495.

Spanish Tragedy, i, 76, 84, 167, 170,
210-214, 218-222, 234, 256, 483, 552-
557, 559, 57i, 5795 »» 378, 401, 405,
407, 41 1, 418, 429, 434, 436» 452» 464,
478.

Spanish Viceroy, ii, 232, 234.

Sparagus Garden, ii, 272.

Spartan Ladies, ii, 355.

Speed, John, ii, 80, 170.

Spedding, James, i, 286.

Spenser, Edmund, i, zxix, 61, 122, 128,
129, 197, 199, 213, 216, 227, 268, 289,
356, 393; ii, 4, 8, 10, 15, 61, 68, 76,
125, 139, 152, 165, 1 66, 399.

Spenser, Gabriel, i, xxv, 466; ii, 379.

Spiera, Francis, ii, 402.

Spightful Sister, ii, 303.

Spirita, i, 196.

Spoil of Antwerp, i, 436.

Sponsus, i, 9, 10.

Spring's Glory, ii, 134.

Spurius, ii, 75.

Stage, statutes against the, i, 141, 142,
148, 149, 498; ii, 369, 370, 460; and
staging in the Elizabethan drama, i,
161-179, l84, 464, 472, 4735 »» 4",
455» 457-46i.

Staple of News, ii, 264, 265, 273, 499.

Steel Glass, i, 66, 492.

Stella, i, 7.

Stephen, King, i, 252.

Stephen, King, i, 252.

Stephens, John, ii, 14.

Stepmother's Tragedy, i, 345, 346.

Sterne, Laurence, ii, 298.

Stettin, Duke of, i, 42, 447.

Stevenson, William, i, 86, 87, 311.

Stichomythia, ii, 15.

Stiefel, A. L., i, 402, 456, 459, 462; ii,

211,214,288,315,317.
Still, Bishop, i, 86.
Stirling, Earl of. See Alexander, Sir

William.

Stockwood, John, i, 149, 150.
Stoicus Vapulans, ii, 81.
Stoll, E. E., i, 204, 288, 399, 415, 425,

433, 5°°> 502> 54*, 543, 566» 588, 59* »

592; ii, 244.
Stonehenge, ii, 80, 170.
Stopes, C. C., i, 120.
Stow, John, i, 12, 74, 189, 298, 346; ii,

458.

Strada, Famianus, ii, 330.
Strafford, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of,

ii, 88, 361.

Strange Discovery, ii, 48, 359, 360.
Strange, Ferdinando, Lord, his players,

i, 144, 145, 3 "45 ", 377, 37&, 41 1-

Straparola, i, 324.

Stratford, i, 324; ii, 92, 380.

Stratton, C., i, 604.

Strode, William, ii, 81, 82, 89, 374, 520.

Struijs, Jacob, i, 570.

Strylius, ii, 56.

Stubbs, Philip, i, xxrviii, 151.

Studentes, i, 65.

Stuhlweissenburg, a play on the capture
of, i, 447.

Stukeley, Captain Thomas, Famous
History of, i, xxxix, 227, 285-287,
43i;ii, 479.

Stymmelius, i, 65.

Suckling, Sir John, i, 606; ii, 275, 364,
374, 385; his Brennoralt, i, 423, 442;
the pseudo-romantic art of Aglaura,
449, 450; his Aglaura, ii, 182; His
Platonic letters to "Aglaura," 346;
spendthrift and riotous career of, 361;
the romantic dramas of, 361-364;
conspiracy and exile of, 361, 362;
friendship with Charles I, 361; sui-
cide of, in Paris, 362; bibliography of,
536.

Suetonius, ii, 35, 41.

Suffolk, Earl of, ii, 105.

Suffolk, Life of the Duchess of, i, 304,

594! ", 481-
Summer's Last Will and Testament, i,

138-139, 245; ii, 137.
Sun's Darling, i, 175, 396; ii, 43, 137,

297, 327-

INDEX

679

Supernatural, the, in the drama, i, 244,

2S9. 299> 32I» 3S3-365» 385-396» 403,

569; ii, 191, 486, 493, 508. See Devil,

Legends, Myth, Witches.
Supposes, i, 104, 105, no, izi, 196, 210,

341,457; ii, 58,92,401,453.
Suppositi, i, 104, 196, 457.
Surrey, Henry Howard, Earl of, i, nil,

129, 286.
Susanna, Comedy of the Most Virtuous, i,

38.

Suscitatio Lazari, i, 8.
Sussex, Bridget, Lady Fitzwalter, Count-
ess of, ii, 7.

Sussex, Earl of, his players, i, 146, 314.
Swaen, A. E. H., i, 292.
Swaggering Damsel, ii, 303.
Swan theater, the, i, xxxiv, 146, 153, 161,

162, 1 66, 174; ii, 241, 459.
Swarte, Martin, i, 252.
Swetnam the Woman Hater Arraigned,

ii, 237, 238, 532.
Swinburne, Algernon Charles, i, xlii, 344,

345,419,461; ii, 34, 1 68.
Swinerton, Sir John, i, 521.
Swinhoe, Gilbert, i, 449.
Swiner, i, 410, 427; ii, 338, 339, 535.
Swoboda,W., i, 78.
Sword dance, the, i, 49; ii, 448.
Sylla Dictator, ii, 17.
Symbolism, of the Elizabethan stage, i,

179; hostile to art, 309.
Symmes, H. S., i, 14, 149.
Symonds, John, i, 144.
Symonds, J. A., i, 94, 202; ii, 166.

Tacitus, ii, 26, 35.

Tailor, Robert, i, 350, 521.

Talbots, the, i, xxiv.

Tale of a Tub, i, 326; ii, 267.

Tambercame, i, 229.

Tamburlaine, i, rxvi, 84, 122, 180, 226-

231, 238, 239, 268, 269, 407, 429, 447,

552; ii, 17, 19, 191, 405, 406, 467.
Tamer Tamed, i, 341-343, 525; ii, 251,

282, 413.

Taming of a Shrew, i, 234, 340; ii, 485.
Taming of the Shrew, i, 105, 170, 323,

372, 377, 457, 458, 572; ii, 92, 326,

340, 341. 4°8, 413, 438, 485, 486.
Tamora, i, 573, 585.
Tancred and Gismunda, i, 106, 109, 193

209,210,239,401,403,553,571; ii,4,

453, 462.
Tanger, G., {,217.

Tarlton, Richard, i, 84, 187-189, 200,
257, 261, 262, 281; ii, 375, 377; The
Famous Victories of Henry V, i, 188;
The Seven Deadly Sins, 1 88; con-
trasted with other actor playwrights,
192; News Out of Purgatory, 324;
Seven Deadly Sins, 401; an "actor
playwright," ii, 375; a writer for the
Queen's company, 377; his Seven
Sins of London, a medley play, 404;
The Famous Victories of Henry V
probably by, 404; bibliography of,

458> 4?i-

Tarrarantantara, ii, 6l.
Tasso, Torquato, ii, 139, 142, 143, 147,

151, 175, 178, 179, 205, 223, 230, 409,

5H, 5*5-

Tatham, John, i, 606; ii, 172, 365.
Tavern, the, i, 368.
Taylor, John, i, 85, 112; ii, 360.
Taylor, Joseph, ii, 122, 243.
Taylor, Tom, i, xlii.
Technogamia, ii, 81.
Tell Tale, ii, 239.
Tempt Restored, ii, 130.
Tempest^ i, 377, 380, 386, 392, 394; ii,

129, 202, 203, 416, 528, 529.

Temple, Sir William, ii, 367.
Temple of Love, ii, 135, 345, 522.
Temptation of our Lord, i, 33.
Ten Brink, B., i, 9, 18, 29, 48.
Tennyson, Alfred, Lord, i, xlii.
Terence, i, 82, 95, 104, in, 127, 457,

461, 464; ii, i, 497, 518.
Terens in English, i, 82.
Terminus et non Terminus, i, 138; ii,

60, 374-

Terrill, Sir William, i, 486.
Tethys" Festival, ii, 106, 111-113, 126.
Textor, J. Ravisius, i, 65, 87, 89; ii, 137,

400, 451.
Theagines and Chariclea (by Hunnis),

i, 115; (by Gosson), ii, 48.
Theater, the, i, xxv, xxvi, 143-146, 149,

153-155, 159, 160, 182, 216, 299, 312-

3i4, 3'7,365» 368» 385; >'» 369» 458»

460.

Thebais, i, 425.
Theobald, Lewis, ii, 212.
Theobald" s, Entertainment of the Two

Kings at, ii, 94.
Theocritus, i, 386; ii, 165.
Theomachia, ii, 75, 81.
Thersites, i, 83, 87-89, 91, 92; ii, 400,

45'-

68o

INDEX

Thesmophoriazusa, ii, 46.
Thibaldus, ii, 81, 402, 520.
Thierry and Theodoret, i, 408, 423-425,
453, 590, 601, 603; ii, 193, 341, 419,

4*5. 495-

Thomas Dough, i, 521.
Thomas Strowde. See Blind Beggar of

Bednal Green.

Thomas, Lord Cromwell. See Cromwell.
Thompson, E. N. S., i, 21, 149, 151, 475;

ii, 60, 89, 90, 174.
Thorns, W. J., i, 347.
Thorndike, A. H., i, 206, 212, 217, 401,

4°2, 4H, 5*5! »» I28» '3°, H5» H6,

1S°> '93, '97. «», 203, 416, 553, 556,

557, 565, 566.

Thou, Jacque Auguste de, i, 417, 418.
Thracian Wonder, i, 170, 204, 205, 433;

ii, 153, 156, 236, 462.
Three Estates, Satire of the, i, 60, 69, 70,

79-

Three Ladies of London, i, 68, 189, 372.

Three Laws of Nature, i, 55, 56; ii, 446.

Three Lords and Three Ladies of Lon-
don, i, 68, 1 89,. 372.

Three Plays in One, i, 401.

Three Sisters of Mantua, i, 119.

Three to One, i, 293.

Thyestes, i, 213, 577.

Tibbals, K. W., i, 364; ii, 224.

Tiberius, ii, 26.

Ticknor, G., i, 431.

Tieck, L., i, 190, 323.

Time 7 indicated, ii, 124.

Time's Complaint, ii, 74.

Timoclea, i, 85.

Timoclea at the Siege of Thebes, i, 1 1 8.

Timon, ii, 92, 515, 516, 528.

Timon of Athens, i, 569; ii, 29-32, 92,
198, 199, 414.

Timour Khan, i, 552.

TH Pity She's a Whore, ii, 312, 328-

33°. 335-337, 33?' 4"' 535-

Titus Andronicus, i, 179, 219-222, 229,
344, 369» 4*8, 429, 434, 449, 552, 570,
573, 576, 585, 594; it, 19, 406, 465-

Titus and Gisippus, i, 118, 199.

Titus and Ondronicus, i, 221.

Titus and Vespacia, i, 220.

Tobias, i, 42.

Tofte, Robert, ii, 178.

Tolman, A. H., i, 105, 165, 340, 341,

458, 559-

Tomkins, John, ii, 70.
Tomlinson, J., ii, 390.

Tom Tyler and His Wife, i, 8 1, 310, 312,
340; ii, 402, 451, 485.

Tomumbeius, i, 447; ii, 496.

Too Good to be True, i, 521.

Tooly, i, 119.

Tourneur, Cyril, i, 497, 597, 598, 602,
604; his life and literary work, 564;
his tragedies of revenge, 564-568; his
alleged part in Timon of Athens, ii, 31;
the masque in the plays of, 128; his
lost play, The Nobleman, 237; his
effort to outdo the horrors of Hoffman
in his Atheist's Tragedy, 413; his
Revenger's Tragedy, the ne plus ultra
of its kind, 413 ; bibliography of, 507.

Towneley Plays, the, i, rrviii, 17-23, 46,

775 », 444-

Townsend, Aurelian, ii, 104, 130.

Tragedy, Elizabethan, possibility of
indigenous, indicated in the domestic
drama, i, 345; supernatural in, 386;
of revenge, 401, 410-413, 553, 555-
568, 600-602, ii, 3; romantic nature
of, i, 549; range and variety of, 549;
550, 551; historical personages not
always distinguishable from imagir
nary in, 551; the two early vital plays
of, 551; the conqueror plays, 552;
the revenge type of, set by The Span-
ish Tragedy, 553; the revenge type
of, 553-568; other tragic themes,
rarity of the supernatural as a chief
motive of, 569; the fall of princes as a
motive in, 569; the passion of love in,
569-574; Cleopatra in, 572-574; the
passion of jealousy in, 574-576; the
ghost in, 576-584; motives of, in
Jacobean times, 584, 585; the noble
harlot as a theme for, 585-587; Web-
ster in, 587-594; the trial of woman's
chastity as a theme in, 595-600; in-
fluence of Beaumont and Fletcher in,
600-602; decrease in popularity of,
600, 601 ; less affected than comedy
by the ideals of tragicomedy, 601;
indeterminate scene and stock situa-
tions and personages in, 602; con-
fusion of comedy with, ii, 313; steps
in the ethical decline in, exemplified,
422; bibliography of, 505.

Tragicomedy, the rise of the, i, 400;
Fletcherian, contrasted with Shake-
spearean "romance," 416; defined,
i, 182-184; Jacobean use of the term,
182; its characteristics, 182, 183; both

INDEX

68 1

realistic and romantic, 184; origin
of, 184; contrasted with Elizabethan
romantic drama, 192; ingenious plots
of, 192; its method of surprise and
variety, 192; its unreality, 192; typical
personages in, 195, 197; contrasted
with Shakespearean " romance,"
197, 198; of Fletcher, 203-227 ; vari-
ety in kind and source, 204-206; in-
determinateness of scene, 205; Spanish
sources in the, 205-216 ; wholly de-
rived from Spanish romances, 215; not
directly affected by contemporary
Spanish drama, 216; Shakespearean
reminiscences in, 220; moral taint in
the, 222, 225; bibliography of, 526-

53.2-
Traitor, i, 410, 452, 595; ii, 313, 323,

3*4-

Trapolin Supposed a Prince, ii, 281.
Trappolaria, ii, 77, 78.
Travails of the Three English Brothers,

i, 178, 291, 292, 433.
Travel and adventure, plays dealing

with, i, 291-293; ii, 191.
Traverse, the, i, 162-164, J66, 168-171.
Tret Reges. See Stella.
Tres Sibylla, ii, 92.
Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge, i, 1 5.
Trial of Chivalry, i, 379, 398, 413.
Trick to Catch the Old One, i, 512, 515,

526, 546; ii, 254.
Triplicity of Cuckolds, i, 504.
Tristram of Lyons, i, 203.
Triumph of Beauty, ii, 137.
Triumph of Death, i, 401, 568, 569.
Triumph of Honor, i, 401.
Triumph of Love, i, 401.
Triumph of Peace, ii, 131, 132, 285.
Triumph of Time, i, 401.
Triumphs of Truth, i, 510.
Troas, i, 97.
Troilus and Cressida, i, xxzii, 383-385,

463, 480, 484, 490, 543, 572; ii, 16,

21, 29, 198, 491, 492, 502.
Troilus ex Chaucero, i, 37, 198.
Troparia. See Tropes of the Mass.
Tropes of the Mass, i, 2-5, 10, 17, 46;

», 443-
Troubles of Queen Elizabeth. See //

Tou Know Not Me.
Troublesome Reign of King John. See

John, Troublesome Reign of.
Troylous and Pandor, i, 198.
Troy's Revenge, ii, 20.

True Tragedy of Richard III. See

Richard III.
Truth, i, 85, 118.
Truths Supplication to Candlelight, i,

289, 504.

Tudor, Owen, i, 252.
Tudors, the, i, 74, 98, 100, 263; ii, 205;

plays on the, 287-291, 479, 480.
Tully'i Love, i, 472.
Tupper, J. W., ii, 350.
Tu Quoque, i, 497, 519.
Turks, the, i, 408, 445, 446, 451.
Turkish Mahomet and Hiren the Fair

Greek, i, 228, 447.
Turner, William, 61.
Turner, W. H., ii, 391.
Twelfth Night, i, niv, ravi, 54, 197,

374, 375> 377, 399, 4S6, 463, 464, 4^8,

572; ii, 77, 205, 416, 489, 491, 530.
Twelve Months, Masque of the, ii, 114,

127.

Twine, Laurence, ii, 30.
Twins, ii, 237.
Two Angry Women of Abington, i, 321-

323, 326; ii, 408, 482.
Two Gentlemen of Verona, i, 239, 371,

372, 378, 391, 569; ii, 194, 205, 206.
Two Italian Gentlemen, i, 196.
Two Lamentable Tragedies, i, 346, 347,

550; ii, 486.

Two Maids of Mortlake, i, 499, 519.
Two Merry Milkmaids, i, 389, 439, 440.
Two Merry Women of Abington, i, 322.
Two Murders in One, i, 346, 347, 55°,

ii, 486.
Two Noble Kinsmen, i, xzxii, 569; ii,

129, 198, 229, 336, 383, 522, 528.
Two Noble Ladies, ii, 239.
Two Shapes, i, 509.
Two Sins of King David, i, 37.
Two Tragedies in One, i, 346, 347, 500;

ii, 486.
Two Wise Men and the Rest Fools, ii,

257.

Tyler, John, i, 258.

Tylney, Sir Edmund, i, 102, 498; ii, 453.
Tyrant, i, 598; ii, 234.

Udall, Nicholas, i, mi, 59, 77, 83-86,
91, 94, 112, 311, 375; raised funds
by performance of Placidas, 25; his
career, 94-96; Placidas assigned to,
by Chambers, 94; helped translate
Erasmus's Paraphrase of The New
Testament, 95; Ezechias, 95; published

682

INDEX

an anthology of Latin authors, 95; and

Ochino's Tragcedia de Papatu, 95;

his Ezechias at Cambridge, ii, 56;

bibliography of, 451, 452.
Ulrici, H., i, 384.
( Ulysses and Circe, ii, 120, 126.
Ulysses Redux, ii, 3, 59, 404.
Una Causa Dos Efectos, De, ii, 249.
Underbill, J. G., ii, 206, 209.
Understanding, i, 56.
Unfortunate General, i, 413.
Unfortunate Lovers, ii, 342, 348.
Unfortunate Mother, ii, 365, 537.
Unfortunate Piety, ii, 234.
Ungemach, H., i, 13, 19, 131, 193.
Unhappy Fair Irene, i, 449.
Unities, the, i, 469.
Universities, plays at the. See College

drama.
Unnatural Combat, i, 578, 583, 604; ii,

226, 511, 532.
Urban IV, Pope, i, 14.
Urf6, Honor6 D', ii, 346, 351.
Usurping Tyrant, i, 598.
Uter Pendragon, i, 296, 510.

Valenciennes Passion, i, 30.

Valentinian, ii, 38, 40, 41, 417, 595.

Valetudinarium, ii, 84.

Valiant Scot, i, 253, 306; ii, 481.

Valiant Welshman, i, 295, 302; ii, 481.

Vallia and Antonio, i, 379; ii, 229.

Valteger, i, 296.

Vanbrugh, Sir John, i, xxxiii, xlii; ii,

416.

Vandyke, Sir Anthony, ii, 251, 252.
Van Gundy, J. L., ii, 78.
Variety, ii, 283, 284.
Vaughan, Henry, i, 237, 238.
Vega, Lope de, i, 336; ii, 205, 208-211,

Venesyon comodey, i, 328.

Venus, the White Tragedy, i, 203.

Vergil, i, 213; ii, 18, 43, 139, 142, 286.

Verity, A. W., ii, 58, 59.

Verneuil, Mile. d'Entragues, the Mar-

quise de, i, 416, 421.
Versipellis, ii, 84.
Vertumnus, ii, 73, 74.
Very Woman, i, 586; ii, 206, 232, 233,

235, 238.

Vestal Virgin, ii, 362.
Vice, the, i, 53-54, 79.
Victoria, ii, 62, 82, 520.
Viehoff, H., ii, 29.

Villains of the Elizabethan drama, i, 576.

Vincent, Thomas, ii, 83, 520.

Virgin Martyr, i, 43, 297, 328, 569, 603,

604; ii, 37-40. "9> Z34-
Virgin Widow, ii, 366, 537.
Virtuous Octavia, i, 573.
Vision of Delight, ii, 120.
Vision of the Twelve Goddesses, ii, 102,

103.

Vita Sancti Thomte, i, 12.
Vitoria Corombona. See White Devil.
Vives, J. L., i, 90, 93.
Vocacyon, i, 33.
Vogel, E., i, 68.

Voider, William de, i, 35, 63-65, 81, 94.
Volpone, i, 524, 529, 532, 533, 536; ii,

52»91>4i5>499» S°°-
Von Raumer, F., i, 416.
Vortigern, i, 296.
Voss, Jan, i, 220.
Vow Breaker, or the Fair Maid of Clifton,

i> 348, 349-

Wadeson, Anthony, i, 279, 280.
Wager, Lewis, 1,38, 39; ii,4O2.
Wager, William, i, 208, 209.
Wagner, A., i, 231.
Wagnerian opera, ii, 107.
Wakefield, i, 18.
Walker, H., i, 389.
Walks of Islington, ii, 303.
Wallace, M. W., i, 82, 83, 458; ii, 53.
Wallace, Sir William, i, 253, 306.
Wallenstein, i, 442, 452, 553.
Waller, Edmund, ii, 10, 342, 346.
Walsingham, Sir Francis, i, 115, 224,

225.

Walsingham, Thomas, i, 237.
"War of the theaters," the, i, xl, 385,

476-491; ii, 410, 501, 502.
War Without Blows and Love Without

Suit. See Thracian Wonder.
Warburton, John, and the Warburton

MSS., i, 37, 234, 254, 333, 379, 421;

ii, 39, 229, 234, 238, 249, 262, 276.
Ward, the pirate, i, 292.
Ward, A. W., i, 14, 19,31, 130, 148, 201,

208, 231, 244; ii, 67, 86, and passim.
Ward, John, ii, 380.
Ward, ii, 84.
Warlamchester, i, 261.
Warner, G. F., i, 179, 328, 411, 430; ii,

239-

Warner, Walter, i, 225.
Warner, William, i, 250, 294.

INDEX

683

Warning for Fair Women, i, 346, 347,

366, 486.

Warnke, K., i, 241, 273, 345.
Wan of Cyrus, i, 127; ii, 17, 18, 406,

5I3-

Wars of the Commonwealth, i, xriv.
Wars of the Roses, i, 63.
Warton, T., i, 25, 31, 32^ 37, 47, 68;

"> 55-

Warwick, John, Earl of, i, 79; his play-
ers, 144, 263.

Wasps, ii, 265.

Waters, W. E., i, 364.

Watson, Edward, ii, 53.

Watson, John, ii, 55, 56, 374.

Watson, Thomas, i, 37; ii, 2, 144, 147.

Way to Content all Women, ii, 238, 262.

Weakest Goeth to the Wall, i, 378, 412,

453 »496-

Wealth and Health, ii, 449.
Weather, Play of the, i, 79.
Weber, H., ii, 211, 249.
Webster, John, i, 230, 409, 412, 423, 433,

493. 497. 5OZ> 5°9, 587J », ", *36>
237, 312, 328, 333, 376, 377, 379, 382,
420; and The Thracian Wonder, i,
204; and The Famous Victories of Sir
Thomas Wyatt, 287, 288; and the
Late Murder of a Son, 349; the name,
forged in Henslowe, 411; his collabo-
ration with Dekker in comedies of
London life, 502, 503; his employ
with Henslowe, 587; his collaboration
with Marston, Dekker, and others,
587-589; his sources and use of ma-
terial, 590, 591; as a tragic dramatist,
592-594, 597, 603; his Appius and
Virginia, ii, 38; his part in civic pa-
geants and like entertainments, 128;
in later comedies of manners, 244; esti-
mate of the literary labors of his con-
temporaries in the drama by, 382;
Heywood's verse on, 382; The Duchess
of Malf by, written for the King's
company, 384; bibliography of, 494,
502, 507, 509-511, 513.

Wedding, ii, 296, 315.

Weeding of Covent Garden, ii, 272.

Welbeck, Love's Welcome to, ii, 131.

Wendell, B., ii, 200.

Westcott, Sebastian, i, 1 1 2.

Westminster, i, 465.

Westward for Smelts, i, 324.

Westward Hoe, i, 502, 503, 587; ii,
502.

Wever, Thomas, i 62.

Whalley, P., ii, 25.

What You Will, i, 488, 544; ii, 501.

Wheatley, H. B., i, 146; ii, 284.

When You See Me You Know Me, i,
288-290, 422; ii, 480.

Whetstone, George, i, 180, 195, 382, 478,
ii, 403; Promos and Cassandra, i, 121,
181, 209, 210; Heptameron of Civil

• Discourses, 210; bibliography of, 463.

Whitaker, Lemuel, i, 316, 380.

White, Robert, ii, 121.

White Devil, i, 330, 568, 583, 585, 587-
589, 592, 594; ii, 414, 494, 510.

Whitefriars theater, the, i, 154, 437, 497,
521.

Whitelocke, B., ii, 132.

Whitgift, John, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, i, 474.

Whittington, Sir Richard, i, 499.

Whore of Babylon, i, 289, 359.

Widow, i, 520; ii, 244, 266, 503.

Widow of Watting Street, i, 498.

Widow's Prize, ii, 262.

Widow's Tears, i, 352, 462, 463.

Wife, the faithful, as a dramatic theme,
i, 329-339; ii, 484. See, also, Patient
Grissil.

Wife for a Month, i, 430; ii, 205, 219.

Wiggin, P. G., i, 433, 51 1, 515, 517, 599.

Wilcocks, Thomas, i, 149.

Wild Goose Chase, ii, 246, 247.

Wilde, George, ii, 83, 170.

Wilkins, George, i, 291, 334, 335, 347,
433; ii, 31,484-

Will, i, 56.

Will of a Woman, i, 399, 461.

William I, i, 259.

William II, i, 262, 486.

William Longbeard, i, 253.

William the Conqueror, i, 259, 261.

William the Silent, i, 104.

Williams, R. F., ii, 174.

Willis, R., ii, 390.

Wilmot, Robert, i, 106, 209; ii, 4.

Wilson, Arthur, i, 200, 410; ii, 336, 338,
339. 385; Plavs °f, 338, 3395 Observa-
tions of my Life, by, 338; History of
Great Britain by, 338; bibliography
of, 486, 535, 536.

Wilson, R., i, 68, 84, 187, 189, 233, 244,
252» *53» 278, 349. 357, 37*5 », 3*»
375» 377, 397, 404, 486.

Wiltshire, possible origin of "Ludui
Coventria" in, i, 202.

684

INDEX

Wily Beguiled, i, 136-137, 312, 319,

320.
Winchester, Bishop of. See Gardiner,

Stephen.

Wingfield, Anthony, ii, 62, 519.
Winstanley, William, ii, 71, 173,436.
Winter''! Tale, i, 54, 180, 204, 205, 330,

575? »> 32> I29» !3°' l6l« l6z» *75>

198-202, 416, 469, 528.
Winwood, Sir Ralph, i, 307; ii, 113.
Wirth, L., i, 4.
Wisdom of Doctor Dodypoll, i, 136, 330,

386, 394, 398, 435.
Wisdom of Solomon, i, 509.
Wise man. See Magician.
Wise Man of Westchester, i, 284, 360.
Wise woman, the, i, 386.
Wist Woman of Hogsdon, i, 335, 359;

4995 "» 4'3-
Wit and Will, i, 1 1 8.
Wit and Science, ii, 395, 450.
Wit at Several Weapons, i, 526, 546.
Wit in a Constable, ii, 278.
Wit in a Madness, ii, 270.
Wit of a Woman, i, 458.
Wit Without Money, i, 353, 354, 358-

365> 4°3» 527, 546; ", 109, 246, 251.
Witch, the, ii, 109.
Witch, i, 299, 361, 511; ii, 245, 487,

5°3-

Witch and witchcraft, the, i, 299, 300.
Witch of Edmonton, i, 348, 362, 363; ii,

297,327,419.
Witch of Islington, i, 360.
Witch Traveller, i, 360.
Wither, George, ii, 139, 164.
Wits, ii, 300, 301, 341.
Wit's Misery, i, 41, 216, 554.
Witty and Witless, i, 79.
Witty Fair One, i, 544; ii, 282, 288-290,

296.

Wizard, i, 360.
Wolsey, Cardinal, i, 69, 83, 93, 252, 287,

569; ii, 1 8, 95.

Wolsey, Life of Cardinal, i, 253.
Wolsey, Rising of Cardinal, i, 253.
Woman Hater, i, 525, 526; ii, 190.
Woman in the Moon, i, no, 169; ii, 137,

150.
Woman is a Weathercock, i, 519; ii, 128,

5°3-

Woman's Mistaken, ii, 261, 262.
Woman Killed with Kindness, i, 204,

283,336, 337,343. 363> 445! ">4i3-
Woman Never Vexed. See New Wonder.

Woman's Plot. See Very Woman.

Woman's Prize. See Tamer Tamed,

Woman Will Have Her Will. See Eng-
lishmen for My Money.

Women at the public theaters, i, xxxviii;
on the stage, 199, 200.

Women Beware Women, i, 409, 586, 589;
ii, 128, 325, 414, 422, 494.

Women Pleased, ii, 209, 210, 251, 505.

"Women's plays," ii, 218, 219, 237,
238.

Wonder of a Kingdom, ii, 235.

Wonder of Women, i, 176, 578; ii, 26, 27,
410, 414, 516.

Wood, Anthony a, i, 438; ii, 53, 170,
277, 283, 284, 286.

Wood, H., i, 480.

Woodberry, G. E., i, 243.

Woodbridge, Elizabeth, i, 461, 468, 469,

53 5> 536.

Woodes, Nathaniel, ii, 402.
Worcester, the "playhouse" at, ii, 391.
Worcester, Earl of, his players, i, 146,

314,332,365,413,495; ii, 243.
Wordsworth, William, i, xl; ii, 141.
Work for Cutlers, ii, 84.
World and the Child, ii, 449, 450.
World Runs on Wheels, i, 461.
World Well Tost at Tennis, ii, 137.
World's Folly, i, 522.
Worse A feared than Hurt, i, 504.
Worth, R. M., ii, 390.
Wotton, Sir Henry, 1,214, 521; ii, 134.
Wounds of Civil War, i, 241; ii, 16, 17.
Wright, James, ii, 122, 302.
Wright, W. A., i, 102, 299; ii, 94, 107.
Wroth, Lady Mary, ii, 318.
WUlker, R. P., i, 48.
Wyatt, Sir Thomas, i, xxix, 129, 587.
Wyatt, Famous History of Sir Thomas,

i, 252, 261, 287, 288; ii, 480.
Wycherley, William, i, xlii; ii, 273,

298.

Wyclif, John, i, 52.
Wylley, Thomas, i, 59, 75.
Wyndham, G., i, 574.

Xenophon, i, 227.

Yarrington, Robert, i, 346.
Yelverton, Christopher, i, 105.
Yonge, Bartholomew, ii, 194.
York, the royal house of, i, rriv.
York, Charles, Duke of, his players, i,
297, 495-

INDEX

685

Tork and Lancaster, Contentions, i, 261,

264, 265, 267; ii, 471.
Tork Plays, i, 10, 15-18, 2O, 13, 16, 43,

46, 52; ii, 444, 445.
Yorkshire Tragedy, i, 330, 335, 347, 352,

366, 550; ii, 412, 484.
Young Admiral, ii, 3'5~3I7» 321.
Young, K., i, 80.

Your Five Gallants, i, 106, 513.
Youth, i, 62; ii, 450.

Zeno, ii, 84.
Zenobia, ii, 18.
Zouche, Richard, ii, 82-84.
Zulziman, i, 447.

THE END

CAMBRIDGE . MASSACHUSETTS
U . S . A

.

11

Schelling, Felix Emmanuel
Elizabethan drama. v02

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY