Chapter XVIII: Appendix: IX. “the Parliament of Love”

The MS. (No. 39 in the Dyce Collection, Victoria and Albert Museum) comprises nineteen leaves of the same size as those of _Believe as You List_. It has suffered much from damp, and is in a brittle, dilapidated state. In several passages the MS. has suffered since Gifford’s collation (_e.g._, II., 2, 15). The lacunae in the text—_e.g._, at I., 4, 55; I., 5, 7; and I., 5, 74—are all caused by the mutilation of the lower edge of the MS. The hand seems to be the same throughout, but bears no resemblance to that in which _Believe as You List_ is written, nor is it so easy to decipher. There are very few corrections in the text, and no marginal notes of any kind except the customary entrances and departures of the characters, which are duplicated as in _Believe as You List_, but in the same hand. The licence on folio 19_a_ has been cut off. On folio 19_b_ is written in a largish hand, _The Parliament of Love_, without any author’s name. Gifford believed that this MS. was in Massinger’s hand, and says “this has since been confirmed.” He does not say how. One thing is certain; the same hand did not write _The Parliament of Love_ and _Believe as You List_. One instance out of many can be give in proof of this: the letter C, small and capital, in _The Parliament of Love_ is constantly written thus, ⊕. A marked feature of the MS. is the doubling of consonants—_e.g._, tollerable, vallor, quallities, cullors. It looks as if, while it was in Gifford’s hands, ink had been used to restore letters here and there, and towards the end of the play there are several substitutions of words in a later ink. Gifford’s collation where I have tested it is correct in the main but I noted one or two mistakes—_e.g._:

I., 5, 87.—MS.: Sudainely.

G.: Speedily.

II., 3, 58.—MS.: The graces from the Idalian greene [_sic_].

G.: The Loves and Graces. This would make the line scan.

III., 2, 15.—MS.: If I compared it to an Indian slave’s.

G.: with.

V., 1, 158.—MS.: Have.

G.: Had.

V., 1, 292.—“To” in MS. begins line 293.

The sort of mistake which we find in this MS. lends support to two hypotheses, between which, as far as I can see, there is nothing to decide; either, as we saw there was ground for supposing in _Believe as You List_, the author altered his diction as he composed, or he was dictating to an amanuensis. The earlier corrections are all made in the same ink. In favour of the former hypothesis are such passages as the following:

I., 4, 84: “May you suc prosper.” “Succeed” was the original word, but cancelled for one which scans better.

I., 5, 23: “Clarindore” cancelled at end of line, “Cleremond” substituted. Clarindore is mentioned in the next line.

I., 5, 66: “Summer’s sunne”: “heate” substituted for “sunne.”

II., 1. 81: “That” deleted after “assurance”; the line thereby runs more smoothly.

II., 3, 5: “Thy selfe”: “selfe” deleted before “strengthe.”

III., 2, 16: “That with incessant labour to searche out.” After “labour” “searche” is deleted. In other words, the construction is changed: the main verb being “dives” in the next line, instead of the original intention, “searches.”

III., 3, 124: “Perform’d” deleted before “expir’d.”

V., 1, 111: “In hell’s most uglie cullors.” “Horrid coullors” is deleted before the last two words.

V., 1, 189: “Nor did I scorn”: “him” after “scorn” is deleted, as if the syntax had been changed.

V., 1, 206: “Acknowledged” deleted before “appointed.”

The sort of mistake that an amanuensis might make, either in copying or by dictation, occurs in:

II., 2, 12: “The scorne darts of scorne”; first “scorne” deleted.

II., 2, 111: After “Absolve me” “only can” deleted; it makes no sense, but had occurred in the previous line.

II., 3, 16: “But never thought: come, I must have thee mine.”

First three words deleted: they had occurred in the previous line.

III., 1, 120: “Blanque” deleted before “blanket.”

III., 3, 37: “A seeming courts”: “courts” deleted before “anger.” “Courtship” occurs at the end of the line.

V., 1, 46: “Weake weake men”; first “weake” underlined in later ink.(570)

V., 1, 190: “For truth is truth is truth.” All deleted. The sense requires: “for truth is truth.”

V., 1, 505: “Neglegt” deleted before “neglect.”

I add one or two notes of interest in correction of Cunningham’s edition.

II., 2, 156 should read thus, as in MS.:

“then to practise
To find some means that he deserves thee best.”(571)

C. reads in I., 157: “he that,” which makes no sense.

At III., 3, 8 (folio 8_b_) there is a considerable blank in the MS. scrabbled over, but line 8 is completed at the top of folio 9_a_.

V., 1, 116 should read thus, as in MS.: “And not to be replied to.” C. misprints: “replied be.”

V., 1, 129: The MS. reads thus:

For that deitie
(Such our affection makes him) whose dread power
Tooke forthe choicest arrows, headed with
Not loose but loyall flames, who aymed at mee
Ame with greedie haste to meete the shaft.

C. reads line 131: ... the choicest arrow, headed with.

line 133: Who came with greedy haste to meet the shaft.

In 131 “the” is obviously left out by homoeoteleuton. The grammar of the passage is defective. It is all cancelled in the old ink.

Similarly, 138 is cancelled: “Of gold, nor of pale lead that breeds disdain.”

178-185 down to the word “matter” are cancelled.

294-296 are cancelled in the old ink.

V., 1, 371: MS. “to whore me.” A modern hand has written above “abuse.”

V., 1, 531: There is an addition in the original hand which will not scan.

“And gratious spectators.”

Gifford in his note (II., 312) on _Parliament of Love_, V., 1, 129, refers to a corrected copy of _The Duke of Milan_, which proves the writing of the _Parliament of Love_ to be Massinger’s. _Cf._ also Advertisement to his second edition, Vol. I., and the facsimile of the dedication of _The Duke of Milan_ to Sir Francis Foljambe (IV., 593). Where is this copy now? It was at one time in Gifford’s possession.