Chapter XII: Part II: , ‘The Tragedie of Charles Duke of Byron. By George Chapman.’

1625.... at the Blacke-Friers, and other publique Stages.... _N. O. for Thomas Thorpe._ [Separate t.p. to Part II.]

_Dissertation_: T. M. Parrott, _The Text of C.’s Byron_ (1908, _M. L. R._ iv. 40).

There can be no doubt (cf. vol. ii, p. 53) that this is the play denounced by the French ambassador, Antoine Lefèvre de la Boderie, in the following letter to Pierre Brulart de Puisieux, Marquis de Sillery, on 8 April 1608 (printed by J. J. Jusserand in _M. L. R._ vi. 203, from _Bibl. Nat. MS. Fr._ 15984):

‘Environ la micaresme ces certains comédiens à qui j’avois
fait deffendre de jouer l’histoire du feu mareschal de Biron,
voyant toutte la cour dehors, ne laissèrent de le faire, et non
seulement cela, mais y introduisirent la Royne et Madame de
Verneuil, la première traitant celle-cy fort mal de paroles,
et luy donnant un soufflet. En ayant eu advis de-là à quelques
jours, aussi-tost je m’en allay trouver le Comte de Salsbury
et luy fis plainte de ce que non seulement ces compaignons-là
contrevenoient à la deffense qui leur avoit esté faicte, mais
y adjoustoient des choses non seulement plus importantes, mais
qui n’avoient que faire avec le mareschal de Biron, et au partir
de-là estoient toutes faulses, dont en vérité il se montra
fort courroucé. Et dès l’heure mesme envoya pour les prendre.
Toutteffois il ne s’en trouva que trois, qui aussi-tost furent
menez en la prison où ilz sont encore; mais le principal qui
est le compositeur eschapa. Un jour ou deux devant, ilz avoient
dépêché leur Roy, sa mine d’Escosse et tous ses Favorits d’une
estrange sorte; [_in cipher_ car apres luy avoir fait dépiter
le ciel sur le vol d’un oyseau, et faict battre un gentilhomme
pour avoir rompu ses chiens, ilz le dépeignoient ivre pour le
moins une fois le jour. Ce qu’ayant sçu, je pensay qu’il seroit
assez en colère contre lesdits commédiens, sans que je l’y
misse davantage, et qu’il valoit mieux référer leur châtiment
à l’irrévérence qu’ilz lui avoient portée, qu’à ce qu’ilz
pourroient avoir dit desdites Dames], et pour ce, je me résolus
de n’en plus parler, mais considérer ce qu’ilz firent. Quand
ledit Sieur Roy a esté icy, il a tesmoigné estre extrèmement
irrité contre ces maraults-là, et a commandé qu’ilz soient
chastiez et surtout qu’on eust à faire diligence de trouver le
compositeur. Mesme il a fait deffense que l’on n’eust plus à
jouer de Comédies dedans Londres, pour lever laquelle deffense
quatre autres compagnies qui y sont encore, offrent desja
cent mille francs, lesquels pourront bien leur en redonner la
permission; mais pour le moins sera-ce à condition qu’ilz ne
représenteront plus aucune histoire moderne ni ne parleront des
choses du temps à peine de la vie. Si j’eusse creu qu’il y eust
eu de la suggestion en ce qu’avoient dit lesdits comédiens, j’en
eusse fait du bruit davantage; mais ayant tout subjet d’estimer
le contraire, j’ay pensay que le meilleur estoit de ne point le
remuer davantage, et laisser audit Roy la vengeance de son fait
mesme. Touttefois si vous jugez de-là, Monsieur; que je n’y aye
fait assez, il est encore temps.’

In _M. L. Review_, iv. 158, I reprinted a less good text from _Ambassades de M. De La Boderie_ (1750), iii. 196. The letter is often dated 1605 and ascribed to De La Boderie’s predecessor, M. de Beaumont, on the strength of a summary in F. L. G. von Raumer, _History of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries_, ii. 219. The text has been ruthlessly censored; in particular the peccant scene has been cut out of Act II of Part ii, and most of Act IV of Part i, dealing with Byron’s visit to England, has been suppressed or altered. The Epistle offers ‘these poor dismembered poems’, and they are probably the subject of two undated and unsigned letters printed by Dobell in _Ath._ (1901), i. 433. The first, to one Mr. Crane, secretary to the Duke of Lennox, inquires whether the writer can leave a ‘shelter’ to which ‘the austeritie of this offended time’ has sent him. The other is by ‘the poor subject of your office’ and evidently addressed to the Master of the Revels, and complains of his strictness in revising for the press what the Council had passed for presentment. Worcester’s men had an anonymous play of _Byron_ (_Burone_ or _Berowne_) in 1602, and Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 231) thinks that to this Chapman’s may have borne some relation. But Chapman’s source was Grimeston, _General Inventorie of the History of France_ (1607).

_The Revenge of Bussy D’Ambois. c. 1610_

_S. R._ 1612, Apr. 17 (Buck). ‘Twoo play bookes, th’ one called, The revenge of Bussy D’Amboys, beinge a tragedy, thother called, The wydowes teares, beinge a Comedy, bothe written by George Chapman.’ _Browne_ (Arber, iii. 481). [Only a 6_d._ fee charged for the two.]

1613. The Revenge of Bussy D’Ambois. A Tragedie. As it hath beene often presented at the priuate Play-house in the White-Fryers. Written by George Chapman, Gentleman. _T. S., sold by Iohn Helme._ [Epistle to Sir Thomas Howard, signed ‘Geo. Chapman’.]

_Edition_ by F. S. Boas (1905, _B. L._).

Boas has shown that Chapman used Grimeston, _General Inventorie of the History of France_ (1607). Probably the play was written for the Queen’s Revels to accompany _Bussy_. But whether it was first produced at Whitefriars in 1609–12, or at Blackfriars in 1608–9, can hardly be settled. The title-page and the probability that the _Byron_ affair would render it judicious to defer further plays by Chapman rather point to the Whitefriars. The Epistle commends the play because ‘Howsoever therefore in the scenical presentation it might meet with some maligners, yet considering even therein it passed with approbation of more worthy judgments’.

_Chabot Admiral of France, c. 1613_ (?)

_S. R._ 1638, Oct. 24 (Wykes). ‘A Booke called Phillip Chalbott Admirall of France and the Ball. By James Shirley. vj^d.’ _Crooke and William Cooke_ (Arber, iv. 441).

1639. The Tragedie of Chabot Admirall of France. As it was presented by her Majesties Servants, at the private House in Drury Lane. Written by George Chapman, and James Shirly. _Tho. Cotes for Andrew Crooke and William Cooke._

_Edition_ by E. Lehman (1906, _Pennsylvania Univ. Publ._).

The play was licensed by Herbert as Shirley’s on 29 April 1635 (_Variorum_, iii. 232). But critics agree in finding much of Chapman in it, and suppose Shirley to have been a reviser rather than a collaborator. Parrott regards I. i, II. iii, and V. ii as substantially Chapman; II. i and III. i as substantially Shirley; and the rest as Chapman revised. He suggests that Chapman’s version was for the Queen’s Revels _c._ 1613. Fleay, ii. 241, put it in 1604, but it cannot be earlier than the 1611 edition of its source, E. Pasquier, _Les Recherches de la France_.

_Caesar and Pompey, c. 1613_ (?)

_S. R._ 1631, May 18 (Herbert). ‘A Playe called Caesar and Pompey by George Chapman.’ _Harper_ (Arber, iv. 253).

1631. The Warres of Pompey and Caesar. Out of whose euents is euicted this Proposition. Only a iust man is a freeman. By G. C. _Thomas Harper, sold by Godfrey Emondson, and Thomas Alchorne._ [Epistle to the Earl of Middlesex, signed ‘Geo. Chapman’.]

1631.... Caesar and Pompey: A Roman Tragedy, declaring their Warres.... By George Chapman. _Thomas Harper_ [&c.]. [Another issue.]

1653.... As it was Acted at the Black Fryers.... [Another issue.]

Chapman says that the play was written ‘long since’ and ‘never touched at the stage’. Various dates have been conjectured; the last, Parrott’s 1612–13, ‘based upon somewhat intangible evidence of style and rhythm’ will do as well as another. Parrott is puzzled by the 1653 title-page and thinks that, in spite of the Epistle, the play was acted. Might it not have been acted by the King’s after the original publication in 1631? Plays on Caesar were so common that it is not worth pursuing the suggestion of Fleay, i. 65, that fragments of the Admiral’s anonymous _Caesar and Pompey_ of 1594–5 may survive here.

_Doubtful and Lost Plays_

Chapman’s lost plays for the Admiral’s men of 1598–9 have already been noted. Two plays, ‘The Fatall Love, a French Tragedy’, and ‘A Tragedy of a Yorkshire Gentlewoman and her sonne’, were entered as his in the _S. R._ by Humphrey Moseley on 29 June 1660 (Eyre, ii. 271). They appear, without Chapman’s name, in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (W. W. Greg in _3 Library_, ii. 231). The improbable ascriptions to Chapman of _The Ball_ (1639) and _Revenge for Honour_ (1654) on their t.ps. and of _Two Wise Men and All the Rest Fools_ (1619) by Kirkman in 1661 do not inspire confidence in this late entry, and even if they were Chapman’s, the plays were not necessarily of our period. But it has been suggested that _Fatal Love_ may be the anonymous _Charlemagne_ (q.v.). J. M. Robertson assigns to Chapman _A Lover’s Complaint_, accepts the conjecture of Minto and Acheson that he was the ‘rival poet’ of Shakespeare’s _Sonnets_, believes him to be criticized in the Holophernes of _L. L. L._ and regards him as the second hand of _Timon of Athens_, and with varying degrees of assurance as Shakespeare’s predecessor, collaborator or reviser, in _Per._, _T. C._, _Tp._, _Ham._, _Cymb._, _J. C._, _T. of S._, _Hen. VI_, _Hen. V_, _C. of E._, _2 Gent._, _All’s Well_, _M. W._, _K. J._, _Hen. VIII_. These are issues which cannot be discussed here. The records do not suggest any association between Chapman and the Chamberlain’s or King’s men, except possibly in Caroline days.

For other ascriptions to Chapman, see in ch. xxiv, _Alphonsus_, _Fedele and Fortunio_, _Sir Giles Goosecap_, _Histriomastix_, and _Second Maiden’s Tragedy_.

MASK

_Middle Temple and Lincoln’s Inn Mask. 15 Feb. 1613_

_S. R._ 1613, 27 Feb. (Nidd). ‘A booke called the [description] of the maske performed before the kinge by the gent. of the Myddle temple and Lincolns Inne with the maske of Grayes Inne and the Inner Temple.’ _George Norton_ (Arber, iii. 516).

N.D. The Memorable Maske of the two Honorable Houses or Inns of Court; the Middle Temple, and Lyncolnes Inne. As it was performed before the King, at White-Hall on Shroue Munday at night; being the 15. of February 1613. At the princely Celebration of the most Royall Nuptialls of the Palsgraue, and his thrice gratious Princesse Elizabeth, &c. With a description of their whole show; in the manner of their march on horse-backe to the Court from the Maister of the Rolls his house: with all their right Noble consorts, and most showfull attendants. Inuented, and fashioned, with the ground, and speciall structure of the whole worke, By our Kingdomes most Artfull and Ingenious Architect Innigo Iones. Supplied, Aplied, Digested, and Written, By Geo. Chapman. _G. Eld for George Norton._ [Epistle by Chapman to Sir Edward Philips, Master of the Rolls, naming him and Sir Henry Hobart, the Attorney-General, as furtherers of the mask; after text, _A Hymne to Hymen_. R. B. McKerrow, _Bibl. Evidence_ (_Bibl. Soc. Trans._ xii. 267), shows the priority of this edition. Parts of the description are separated from the speeches to which they belong, with an explanation that Chapman was ‘prevented by the unexpected haste of the printer, which he never let me know, and never sending me a proofe till he had past their speeches, I had no reason to imagine hee could have been so forward’.]

N.D. _F. K. for George Norton._

_Edition_ in Nichols, _James_ (1828), ii. 566.

The maskers, in cloth of silver embroidered with gold, olive-coloured vizards, and feathers on their heads, were Princes of Virginia; the torchbearers also Virginians; the musicians Phoebades or Priests of Virginia; the antimaskers a ‘mocke-maske’ of Baboons; the presenters Plutus, Capriccio a Man of Wit, Honour, Eunomia her Priest, and Phemis her Herald.

The locality was the Hall at Whitehall, whither the maskers rode from the house of the Master of the Rolls, with their musicians and presenters in chariots, Moors to attend their horses, and a large escort of gentlemen and halberdiers. They dismounted in the tiltyard, where the King and lords beheld them from a gallery. The scene represented a high rock, which cracked to emit Capriccio, and had the Temple of Honour on one side, and a hollow tree, ‘the bare receptacle of the baboonerie’, on the other. After ‘the presentment’ and the ‘anticke’ dance of the ‘ante-maske’, the top of the rock opened to disclose the maskers and torchbearers in a mine of gold under the setting sun. They descended by steps within the rock. First the torchbearers ‘performed another ante-maske, dancing with torches lighted at both ends’. Then the maskers danced two dances, followed by others with the ladies, and finally a ‘dance, that brought them off’ to the Temple of Honour.

For general notices of the wedding masks, see ch. xxiv and the account of Campion’s Lords’ mask. The German _Beschreibung_ (1613) gives a long abstract of Chapman’s (extract in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxix. 172), but this is clearly paraphrased from the author’s own description. It was perhaps natural for Sir Edward Philips to write to Carleton on 25 Feb. (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxii. 46) that this particular mask was ‘praised above all others’. But Chamberlain is no less laudatory (Birch, i. 226):

‘On Monday night, was the Middle Temple and Lincoln’s Inn mask
prepared in the hall at court, whereas the Lords’ was in the
banqueting room. It went from the Rolls, all up Fleet Street
and the Strand, and made such a gallant and glorious show,
that it is highly commended. They had forty gentlemen of best
choice out of both houses, and the twelve maskers, with their
torchbearers and pages, rode likewise upon horses exceedingly
well trapped and furnished, besides a dozen little boys, dressed
like baboons, that served for an antimask, and, they say,
performed it exceedingly well when they came to it; and three
open chariots, drawn with four horses apiece, that carried their
musicians and other personages that had parts to speak. All
which, together with their trumpeters and other attendants, were
so well set out, that it is generally held for the best show
that hath been seen many a day. The King stood in the gallery
to behold them, and made them ride about the Tilt-yard, and
then they were received into St. James’ Park, and so out, all
along the galleries, into the hall, where themselves and their
devices, which they say were excellent, made such a glittering
show, that the King and all the company were exceedingly
pleased, and especially with their dancing, which was beyond all
that hath been seen yet. The King made the masters [? maskers]
kiss his hand on parting, and gave them many thanks, saying, he
never saw so many proper men together, and himself accompanied
them at the banquet, and took care it should be well ordered,
and speaks much of them behind their backs, and strokes the
Master of the Rolls and Dick Martin, who were chief doers and
undertakers.’

Chamberlain wrote more briefly, but with equal commendation, to Winwood (iii. 435), while the Venetian ambassador reported that the mask was danced ‘with such finish that it left nothing to be desired’ (_V. P._ xii. 532).

The mask is but briefly noticed in the published records of the Middle Temple (Hopwood, 40, 42); more fully in those of Lincoln’s Inn (Walker, ii. 150–6, 163, 170, 198, 255, 271). The Inn’s share of the cost was £1,086 8_s._ 11_d._ and presumably that of the Middle Temple as much. A levy was made of from £1 10_s._ to £4, according to status, and some of the benchers and others advanced funds. A dispute about the repayment of an advance by Lord Chief Justice Richardson was still unsettled in 1634. An account of Christopher Brooke as ‘Expenditour for the maske’ includes £100 to Inigo Jones for works for the hall and street, £45 to Robert Johnson for music and songs, £2 to Richard Ansell, matlayer, £1 to the King’s Ushers of the Hall, and payments for a pair of stockings and other apparel to ‘Heminge’s boy’, and for the services of John and Robert Dowland, Philip Rosseter and Thomas Ford as musicians. The attitude of the young lawyer may be illustrated from a letter of Sir S. Radcliffe on 1 Feb. (_Letters_, 78), although I do not know his Inn: ‘I have taken up 30^s of James Singleton, which or y^e greater part thereof is to be paid toward y^e great mask at y^e marriage at Shrovetide. It is a duty for y^e honour of our Inn, and unto which I could not refuse to contribute with any credit.’

A letter by Chapman, partly printed by B. Dobell in _Ath._ (1901), i. 466, is a complaint to an unnamed paymaster about his reward for a mask given in the royal presence at a date later than Prince Henry’s death. While others of his faculty got 100 marks or £50, he is ‘put with taylors and shoomakers, and such snipperados, to be paid by a bill of particulars’. Dobell does not seem to think that this was the wedding mask, but I see no clear reason why it should not have been.

HENRY CHEKE (_c._ 1561).

If the translator, as stated in _D. N. B._, was Henry the son of Sir John Cheke and was born _c._ 1548, he must have been a precocious scholar.

_Free Will > 1561_

_S. R._ 1561, May 11. ‘ij. bokes, the one called ... and the other of Frewill.’ _John Tysdayle_ (Arber, i. 156).

N.D. A certayne Tragedie wrytten fyrst in Italian, by F. N. B. entituled, Freewyl, and translated into Englishe, by Henry Cheeke. _John Tisdale._ [Epistles to Lady Cheyne, signed H. C., and to the Reader. Cheyne arms on v^o of t.p.]

The translation is from the _Tragedia del Libero Arbitrio_ (1546) of Francesco Nigri de Bassano. It is presumably distinct from that which Sir Thomas Hoby in his _Travaile and Life_ (_Camden Misc._ x. 63) says he made at Augsburg in Aug.–Nov. 1550, and dedicated to the Marquis of Northampton.

HENRY CHETTLE (_c._ 1560–> 1607).

Chettle was apprenticed, as the son of Robert Chettle of London, dyer, to Thomas East, printer, on 29 Sept. 1577, and took up the freedom of the Stationers’ Company on 6 Oct. 1584. During 1589–91 he was in partnership as a printer with John Danter and William Hoskins. The partnership was then dissolved, and Chettle’s imprint is not found on any book of later date (McKerrow, _Dictionary_, 68, 84, 144). But evidently his connexion with the press and with Danter continued, for in 1596 Nashe inserted into _Have With You to Saffron Walden_ (_Works_, iii. 131) a letter from him offering to set up the book and signed ‘Your old Compositer, Henry Chettle’. Nashe’s _Strange News_ (1592) and _Terrors of the Night_ (1594) had come, like _Have With You to Saffron Walden_ itself, from Danter’s press. The object of the letter was to defend Nashe against a charge in Gabriel Harvey’s _Pierce’s Supererogation_ (1593) of having abused Chettle. He had in fact in _Pierce Penilesse_ (1592) called _Greenes Groats-worth of Wit_ ‘a scald triuial lying pamphlet’, and none of his doing. And of the _Groats-worth_ Chettle had acted as editor, as he himself explains in the Epistle to his _Kind Hearts Dream_ (cf. App. C, No. xlix), in which, however, he exculpates Nashe from any share in the book. By 1595 he was married and had lost a daughter Mary, who was buried at St. John’s, Windsor (E. Ashmole, _Antiquities of Berkshire_, iii. 75). By 1598 he had taken to writing for the stage, and in his _Palladis Tamia_ of that year Meres includes him in ‘the best for Comedy amongst vs’. Of all Henslowe’s band of needy writers for the Admiral’s and Worcester’s from 1598 to 1603, he was the most prolific and one of the neediest. Of the forty-eight plays in which he had a hand during this period, no more than five, or possibly six, survive. His personal loans from Henslowe were numerous and often very small. Some were on account of the Admiral’s; others on a private account noted in the margin of Henslowe’s diary. On 16 Sept. 1598 he owed the Admiral’s £8 9_s._ in balance, ‘al his boockes & recknynges payd’. In Nov. 1598 he had loans ‘for to areste one with Lord Lester’. In Jan. 1599 he was in the Marshalsea, and in May borrowed to avoid arrest by one Ingrome. On 25 Mar. 1602 he was driven, apparently in view of a payment of £3, to seal a bond to write for the Admiral’s. This did not prevent him from also writing for Worcester’s in the autumn. More than once his manuscript had to be redeemed from pawn (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 250). His _England’s Mourning Garment_, a eulogy of Elizabeth, is reprinted in C. M. Ingleby, _Shakespere Allusion-Books_, Part i (_N. S. S._ 1874), 77. Herein he speaks of himself as ‘courting it now and than’, when he was ‘yong, almost thirtie yeeres agoe’, and calls on a number of poets under fanciful names to sing the dead queen’s praise. They are Daniel, Warner, Chapman (Coryn), Jonson (our English Horace), Shakespeare (Melicert), Drayton (Coridon), Lodge (Musidore), Dekker (Antihorace), Marston (Moelibee), and Petowe (?). Chettle was therefore alive in 1603, but he is spoken of as dead in Dekker’s _Knight’s Conjuring_ (1607).

PLAYS

_The Downfall of Robert Earl of Huntingdon. 1598_

_The Death of Robert Earl of Huntingdon. 1598_

For Chettle’s relation to these two plays, see s.v. Munday.

_Patient Grissel. 1600_

With Dekker (q.v.) and Haughton.

_1 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green. 1600_

With Day (q.v.).

_Sir Thomas Wyatt. 1602_

With Dekker (q.v.), Heywood, Smith, and Webster, as _Lady Jane, or The Overthrow of Rebels_, but whether anything of Chettle’s survives in the extant text is doubtful.

_Hoffman_ or _A Revenge for a Father. 1602 <_

_S. R._ 1630, Feb. 26 (Herbert). ‘A play called Hoffman the Revengfull ffather.’ _John Grove_ (Arber, iv. 229).

1631. The Tragedy of Hoffman or A Reuenge for a Father, As it hath bin diuers times acted with great applause, at the Phenix in Druery-lane. _I. N. for Hugh Perry._ [Epistle to Richard Kiluert, signed ‘Hvgh Perry’.]

_Editions_ by H. B. L[eonard] (1852), R. Ackermann (1894), and J. S. Farmer (1913, _S. F. T._).--_Dissertations_: N. Delius, _C.’s H. und Shakespeare’s Hamlet_ (1874, _Jahrbuch_, ix. 166); A. H. Thorndike, _The Relations of Hamlet to Contemporary Revenge Plays_ (1902, _M. L. A._ xvii. 125).

Henslowe paid Chettle, on behalf of the Admiral’s, £1 in earnest of ‘a Danyshe tragedy’ on 7 July 1602, and 5_s._ in part payment for a tragedy of ‘Howghman’ on 29 Dec. It seems natural to take the latter, and perhaps also the former, entry as relating to this play, although it does not bear Chettle’s name on the title-page. But its completion was presumably later than the termination of Henslowe’s record in 1603. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 226) rightly repudiates the suggestion of Fleay, i. 70, 291, that we are justified in regarding _Hoffman_ the unnamed tragedy of Chettle and Heywood in Jan. 1603, for which a blank can of course afford no evidence. But ‘the Prince of the burning crowne’ is referred to in Kempe’s _Nine Daies Wonder_, 22, not as a ‘play’, but as a suggested theme for a ballad writer.

_Doubtful and Lost Plays_

Chettle’s hand has been suggested in the anonymous _Trial of Chivalry_ (_vide infra_) and _The Weakest Goeth to the Wall_.

The following is a complete list of the plays, wholly or partly by Chettle, recorded in Henslowe’s diary.

(_a_) _Plays for the Admiral’s, 1598–1603_

(i), (ii) _1, 2 Robin Hood._

With Munday (q.v.), Feb.–Mar. and Nov. 1598.

(iii) _The Famous Wars of Henry I and the Prince of Wales._

With Dekker (q.v.) and Drayton, Mar. 1598.

(iv), (v) _1, 2 Earl Godwin and His Three Sons._

With Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson, March-June 1598.

(vi) _Pierce of Exton._

With Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson, April 1598, but apparently not finished.

(vii), (viii) _1, 2 Black Bateman of the North._

With Wilson, and for Part 1, Dekker and Drayton, May–July 1598.

(ix) _The Funeral of Richard Cœur-de-Lion._

With Drayton, Munday, and Wilson, June 1598.

(x) _A Woman’s Tragedy._

July 1598, but apparently unfinished.

(xi) _Hot Anger Soon Cold._

With Jonson and Porter, Aug. 1598.

(xii) _Chance Medley._

By Chettle or Dekker, Drayton, Munday, and Wilson, Aug. 1598.

(xiii) _Catiline’s Conspiracy._

With Wilson, Aug. 1598, but apparently not finished.

(xiv) _Vayvode._

Apparently an old play revised by Chettle, Aug. 1598.

(xv) _2 Brute._

Sept.–Oct. 1598.

(xvi) _’Tis no Deceit to Deceive the Deceiver._

Nov. 1598, but apparently not finished.

(xvii) _Polyphemus, or Troy’s Revenge._

Feb. 1599.

(xviii) _The Spencers._

With Porter, March 1599.

(xix) _Troilus and Cressida._

With Dekker (q.v.), April 1599.

(xx) _Agamemnon, or Orestes Furious._

With Dekker, May 1599.

(xxi) _The Stepmother’s Tragedy._

With Dekker, Aug.–Oct. 1599.

(xxii) _Robert II or The Scot’s Tragedy._

With Dekker, Jonson, and possibly Marston (q.v.), Sept. 1599.

(xxiii) _Patient Grissell._

With Dekker (q.v.) and Haughton, Oct.–Dec. 1599.

(xxiv) _The Orphan’s Tragedy._

Nov. 1599–Sept. 1601, but apparently not finished, unless Greg rightly traces it in Yarington’s _Two Lamentable Tragedies_ (q.v.).

(xxv) _The Arcadian Virgin._

With Haughton, Dec. 1599, but apparently not finished.

(xxvi) _Damon and Pythias._

Feb.–May 1600.

(xxvii) _The Seven Wise Masters._

With Day, Dekker, and Haughton, March 1600.

(xxviii) _The Golden Ass_, or _Cupid and Psyche_.

With Day and Dekker, April-May 1600; on possible borrowings from this, cf. s.v. Heywood, _Pleasant Dialogues and Dramas_.

(xxix) _The Wooing of Death._

May 1600, but apparently not finished.

(xxx) _1 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green._

With Day (q.v.), May 1600.

(xxxi) _All Is Not Gold That Glisters._

March-April 1601.

(xxxii) _King Sebastian of Portingale._

With Dekker, April-May 1601.

(xxxiii), (xxxiv) _1, 2 Cardinal Wolsey._

Apparently Chettle wrote a play on _The Life of Cardinal Wolsey_ in June–Aug. 1601, to which was afterwards prefixed a play on _The Rising of Cardinal Wolsey_, by Chettle, Drayton, Munday, and Smith, written in Aug.–Nov. 1601 (cf. Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 218). Chettle was ‘mendynge’ _The Life_ in May–June 1602, and on 25 July Richard Hadsor wrote to Sir R. Cecil of the attainder of the Earl of Kildare’s grandfather ‘by the policy of Cardinal Wolsey, as it is set forth and played now upon the stage in London’ (_Hatfield MSS._ xii. 248).

(xxxv) _Too Good To Be True._

With Hathway and Smith, Nov. 1601–Jan. 1602; the alternative title ‘or Northern Man’ in one of Henslowe’s entries is a forgery by Collier (cf. Greg, _Henslowe_, i. xliii).

(xxxvi) _Friar Rush and the Proud Women of Antwerp._

Written by Day and Haughton in 1601 and mended by Chettle in Jan. 1602.

(xxxvii) _Love Parts Friendship._

With Smith, May 1602; identified by Bullen with the anonymous _Trial of Chivalry_ (q.v.).

(xxxviii) _Tobias._

May–June 1602.

(xxxix) _Hoffman._

July–Dec. 1602, but apparently not finished. _Vide supra._

(xl) _Felmelanco._

With Robensone (q.v.), Sept. 1602.

(xli), (xlii) _1, 2 The London Florentine._