Chapter XIV: Part 1: with Heywood, Dec. 1602–Jan. 1603; one payment had been made to (2)

Day was described as son of Walter Dey, husbandman, of Cawston, Norfolk, when at the age of eighteen he became a sizar of Gonville and Caius, Cambridge, on 24 Oct. 1592; on 4 May 1593 he was expelled for stealing a book (Venn, _Caius_, i. 146). He next appears in Henslowe’s diary, first as selling an old play for the Admiral’s in July 1598, and then as writing busily for that company in 1599–1603 and for Worcester’s in 1602–3. Most of this work was in collaboration, occasionally with Dekker, frequently with Chettle, Hathway, Haughton, or Smith. From this period little or nothing survives except _The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_. Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 126, doubts whether an acrostic on Thomas Downton signed ‘John Daye’, contributed by J. F. Herbert to _Sh. Soc. Papers_, i. 19, and now at Dulwich, is to be ascribed to the dramatist. Day’s independent plays, written about 1604–8, and his _Parliament of Bees_ are of finer literary quality than this early record would suggest. But Ben Jonson classed him to Drummond in 1619 amongst the ‘rogues’ and ‘base fellows’ who were ‘not of the number of the faithfull, i.e. Poets’ (Laing, 4, 11). He must have lived long, as John Tatham, who included an elegy on him as his ‘loving friend’ in his _Fancies Theater_ (1640), was then only about twenty-eight. He appears to have been still writing plays in 1623, but there is no trace of any substantial body of work after 1608. Fleay, i. 115, suggests from the tone of his manuscript pamphlet _Peregrinatio Scholastica_ that he took orders.

_Collection_

1881. A. H. Bullen, _The Works of John Day_.

_The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green. 1600_

_S. R._ 1657, Sept. 14. ‘A booke called The pleasant history of the blind beggar of Bednall Greene, declaring his life and death &c.’ _Francis Grove_ (Eyre, ii. 145).

1659. The Blind Beggar of Bednal-Green, with The merry humor of Tom Strowd the Norfolk Yeoman, as it was divers times publickly acted by the Princes Servants. Written by John Day. _For R. Pollard and Tho. Dring._

_Editions_ by W. Bang (1902, _Materialien_, i) and J. S. Farmer (1914, _S. F. T._).

The Prince’s men of the title are probably the later Prince Charles’s (1631–41), but these were the ultimate successors of Prince Henry’s, formerly the Admiral’s, who produced, between May 1600 and Sept. 1601, three parts of a play called indifferently by Henslowe _The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ and _Thomas Strowd_. Payments were made for the first part to Day and Chettle and for the other two to Day and Haughton. On the assumption that the extant play is Part i, Bullen, _Introd._ 8 and Fleay, i. 107, make divergent suggestions as to the division of responsibility between Day and Chettle. At l. 2177 is the s.d. ‘Enter Captain Westford, Sill Clark’; probably the performance in which this actor took part was a Caroline one.

_Law Tricks, or Who Would Have Thought It. 1604_

_S. R._ 1608, March 28 (Buck). ‘A booke called A most wytty and merry conceited comedie called who would a thought it or Lawetrykes.’ _Richard Moore_ (Arber, iii. 372).

1608. Law-Trickes or, who would have Thought it. As it hath bene diuers times Acted by the Children of the Reuels. Written by John Day. _For Richard More._ [Epistle by the Book to the Reader; Epilogue.]

The name given to the company suggests that the play was on the stage in 1605–6. But I think the original production must have been in 1604, as the dispute between Westminster and Winchester for ‘terms’, in which Winchester is said to have been successful, ‘on Saint Lukes day, coming shalbe a twelue-month’ (ed. Bullen, p. 61) can only refer to the term held at Winchester in 1603. An inundation in July is also mentioned (p. 61), and Stowe, _Annales_ (1615), 844, has a corresponding record for 1604, but gives the day as 3 Aug.

_The Isle of Gulls. 1606_

1606. The Ile of Guls. As it hath been often playd in the blacke Fryars, by the Children of the Reuels. Written by Iohn Day. _Sold by John Hodgets._ [Induction and Prologue.]

1606. _For John Trundle, sold by John Hodgets._

1633. _For William Sheares._

The play is thus referred to by Sir Edward Hoby in a letter of 7 March 1606 to Sir Thomas Edmondes (Birch, i. 59): ‘At this time (_c._ 15 Feb.) was much speech of a play in the Black Friars, where, in the “Isle of Gulls”, from the highest to the lowest, all men’s parts were acted of two divers nations: as I understand sundry were committed to Bridewell.’ A passage in iv. 4 (Bullen, p. 91), probably written with _Eastward Ho!_ in mind, refers to the ‘libelling’ ascribed to poets by ‘some Dor’ and ‘false informers’; and the Induction defends the play itself against the charge that a ‘great mans life’ is ‘charactred’ in Damoetas. Nevertheless, Damoetas, the royal favourite, ‘a little hillock made great with others ruines’ (p. 13) inevitably suggests Sir Robert Carr, and Fleay, i. 109, points out that the ‘Duke’ and ‘Duchess’ of the dramatis personae have been substituted for a ‘King’ and ‘Queen’. It may not be possible now to verify all the men whose ‘parts’ were acted; evidently the Arcadians and Lacedaemonians stand for the two ‘nations’ of English and Scotch. I do not see any ground for Fleay’s attempt to treat the play, not as a political, but as a literary satire, identifying Damoetas with Daniel, and tracing allusions to Jonson, Marston, and Chapman in the Induction. Hoby’s indication of date is confirmed by references to the ‘Eastward, Westward or Northward hoe’ (p. 3; cf. s.vv. Chapman, Dekker), to the quartering for treason on 30 Jan. 1606 (pp. 3, 51), and conceivably to Jonson’s _Volpone_ of 1605 or early 1606 (p. 88, ‘you wil ha my humor brought ath stage for a vserer’).

_The Travels of Three English Brothers. 1607_

_S. R._ 1607, June 29 (Buck). ‘A playe called the trauailles of the Three Englishe brothers as yt was played at the Curten.’ _John Wright_ (Arber, iii. 354).

1607. The Travailes of The three English Brothers.

Sir Thomas }
Sir Anthony } Shirley.
Mr. Robert }

As it is now play’d by her Maiesties Seruants. _For John Wright._ [Epistle to the Family of the Sherleys, signed ‘Iohn Day, William Rowley, George Wilkins’, Prologue and Epilogue.]

The source was a pamphlet on the Sherleys by A. Nixon (S. R. 8 June 1607) and the play seems to have been still on the stage when it was printed. Some suggestions as to the division of authorship are in Fleay, ii. 277, Bullen, _Introd._ 19, and C. W. Stork, _William Rowley_, 57. A scene at Venice (Bullen, p. 55) introduces Will Kempe, who mentions Vennar’s _England’s Joy_ (1602), and prepares to play an ‘extemporall merriment’ with an Italian Harlaken. He has come from England with a boy. The Epilogue refers to ‘some that fill up this round circumference’.

_Humour out of Breath. 1607–8_

_S. R._ 1608, April 12 (Buck). ‘A booke called Humour out of breathe.’ _John Helme_ (Arber, iii. 374).

1608. Humour out of breath. A Comedie Diuers times latelie acted, By the Children Of The Kings Reuells. Written by Iohn Day. _For John Helme._ [Epistle to Signior Nobody, signed ‘Iohn Daye’.]

_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1860), A. Symons in _Nero and Other Plays_ (1888, _Mermaid Series_).

The date must be taken as 1607–8, since the King’s Revels are not traceable before 1607. Fleay, i. 111, notes a reference in iii. 4 to the ‘great frost’ of that Christmas. The Epistle speaks of the play as ‘sufficiently featur’d too, had it been all of one man’s getting’, which may be a hint of divided authorship.

_The Parliament of Bees. 1608 < > 16_

[_MS._] _Lansdowne MS._ 725, with title. ‘An olde manuscript conteyning the Parliament of Bees, found in a Hollow Tree in a garden at Hibla, in a Strange Languadge, And now faithfully Translated into Easie English Verse by John Daye, Cantabridg.’ [Epistles to William Augustine, signed ‘John Day, Cant.’ and to the Reader, signed ‘Jo: Daye’.]

_S. R._ 1641, March 23 (Hansley). ‘A booke called The Parliam^t of Bees, &c., by John Day.’ _Will Ley_ (Eyre, i. 17).

1641. The Parliament of Bees, With their proper Characters. Or A Bee-hive furnisht with twelve Honycombes, as Pleasant as Profitable. Being an Allegoricall description of the actions of good and bad men in these our daies. By John Daye, Sometimes Student of Caius Colledge in Cambridge. _For William Lee._ [Epistle to George Butler, signed ‘John Day’, The Author’s Commission to his Bees, similarly signed, and The Book to the Reader. The text varies considerably from that of the manuscript.]

_Edition_ by A. Symons in _Nero and Other Plays_ (1888, _Mermaid Series_).

This is neither a play nor a mask, but a set of twelve short ‘Characters’ or ‘Colloquies’ in dialogue. The existence of an edition of 1607 is asserted in Gildon’s abridgement (1699) of Langbaine, but cannot be verified, and is most improbable, since the manuscript Epistle refers to an earlier work already dedicated by Day, as ‘an unknowing venturer’, to Augustine, and this must surely be the allegorical treatise _Peregrinatio Scholastica_ printed by Bullen (_Introd._ 35) from _Sloane MS._ 3150 with an Epistle by Day to William Austin, who may reasonably be identified with Augustine. But the _Peregrinatio_, although Day’s first venture in dedication, was not a very early work, for Day admits that ‘I boast not that gaudie spring of credit and youthfull florish of opinion as some other filde in the same rancke with me’. Moreover, it describes (p. 50) an ‘ante-maske’, and this term, so far as we know, first came into use about 1608 (cf. ch. vi). The _Bees_ therefore must be later still. On the other hand, it can hardly be later than about 1616, when died Philip Henslowe, whom it is impossible to resist seeing with Fleay, i. 115, in the Fenerator or Usuring Bee (p. 63). Like Henslowe he is a ‘broaker’ and ‘takes up’ clothes; and

Most of the timber that his state repairs,
He hew’s out o’ the bones of foundred players:
They feed on Poets braines, he eats their breath.

Now of the twelve Characters of the _Bees_, five (2, 3, 7, 8, 9) are reproduced, in many parts verbatim, subject to an alteration of names, in _The Wonder of a Kingdom_, printed as Dekker’s (q.v.) in 1636, but probably identical with _Come See a Wonder_, licensed by Herbert as Day’s in 1623. Two others (4, 5) are similarly reproduced in _The Noble Soldier_, printed in 1634 under the initials ‘S. R.’, probably indicating Samuel Rowley, but possibly also containing work by Dekker. The precise relation of Day to these plays is indeterminate, but the scenes more obviously ‘belong’ to the _Bees_ than to the plays, and if the _Bees_ was written but not printed in 1608–16, the chances are that Day used it as a quarry of material when he was called upon to work, as reviser or collaborator, on the plays. Meanwhile, Austin, if he was the Southwark and Lincoln’s Inn writer of that name (_D. N. B._), died in 1634, and when the _Bees_ was ultimately printed in 1641 a new dedicatee had to be found.

_Lost and Doubtful Plays_

For the Admiral’s, 1598–1603.

Day appears to have sold the company an old play _1 The Conquest of Brute_ in July 1598, and to have subsequently written or collaborated in the following plays:

1599–1600: _Cox of Collumpton_, with Haughton; _Thomas Merry_, or _Beech’s Tragedy_, with Haughton; _The Seven Wise Masters_, with Chettle, Dekker, and Haughton; _Cupid and Psyche_, with Chettle and Dekker; _1 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_, with Chettle; and the unfinished _Spanish Moor’s Tragedy_, with Dekker and Haughton.

1600–1: _2 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_, with Haughton; _Six Yeomen of the West_, with Haughton.

1601–2: _The Conquest of the West Indies_, with Haughton and Smith; _3 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_, with Haughton; _Friar Rush and The Proud Woman of Antwerp_, with Chettle and Haughton; _The Bristol Tragedy_; and the unfinished _2 Tom Dough_, with Haughton.

1602–3: _Merry as May Be_, with Hathway and Smith; _The Boss of Billingsgate_, with Hathway and another.

For Worcester’s men.

1602–3: _1 and 2 The Black Dog of Newgate_, with Hathway, Smith, and another; _The Unfortunate General_, with Hathway, Smith, and a third; and the unfinished _Shore_, with Chettle.

Of the above only _The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ and a note of _Cox of Collumpton_ (cf. ch. xiii, s.v. Admiral’s) survive; for speculations as to others see Heywood, _Pleasant Dialogues and Dramas_ (_Cupid and Psyche_), Marlowe, _Lust’s Dominion_ (_Spanish Moor’s Tragedy_), Yarington, _Two Lamentable Tragedies_ (_Thomas Merry_), and the anonymous _Edward IV_ (_Shore_) and _Fair Maid of Bristol_ (_Bristow Tragedy_).

Henslowe’s correspondence (_Henslowe Papers_, 56, 127) contains notes from Day and others about some of the Admiral’s plays and a few lines which may be from _The Conquest of the Indies_.

Day’s _Mad Pranks of Merry Mall of the Bankside_ (S. R. 7 Aug. 1610) was probably a pamphlet (cf. Dekker, _The Roaring Girl_). Bullen, _Introd._ 11, thinks the _Guy Earl of Warwick_ (1661), printed as ‘by B. J.’, too bad to be Day and Dekker’s _Life and Death of Guy of Warwick_ (S. R. 15 Jan. 1620). On 30 July 1623 Herbert licensed a _Bellman of Paris_ by Day and Dekker for the Prince’s (Herbert, 24). _The Maiden’s Holiday_ by Marlowe (q.v.) and Day (S. R. 8 April 1654) appears in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (_3 Library_, ii. 231) as Marlowe’s.

For other ascriptions to Day see _The Maid’s Metamorphosis_ and _Parnassus_ in ch. xxiv.

THOMAS DEKKER (_c._ 1572–_c._ 1632).

Thomas Dekker was of London origin, but though the name occurs in Southwark, Cripplegate, and Bishopsgate records, neither his parentage nor his marriage, if he was married, can be definitely traced. He was not unlettered, but nothing is known of his education, and the conjecture that he trailed a pike in the Netherlands is merely based on his acquaintance with war and with Dutch. The Epistle to his _English Villanies_, with its reference to ‘my three score years’, first appeared in the edition of 1632; he was therefore born about 1572. He first emerges, in Henslowe’s diary, as a playwright for the Admiral’s in 1598, and may very well have been working for them during 1594–8, a period for which Henslowe records plays only and not authors. The further conjecture of Fleay, i. 119, that this employment went as far back as 1588–91 is hazardous, and in fact led Fleay to put his birth-date as far back as 1567. It was based on the fact that the German repertories of 1620 and 1626 contain traces of his work, and on Fleay’s erroneous belief (cf. ch. xiv) that all the plays in these repertories were taken to Germany by Robert Browne as early as 1592. But it is smiled upon by Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 256) as regards _The Virgin Martyr_ alone. Between 1598 and 1602 Dekker wrote busily, and as a rule in collaboration, first for the Admiral’s at the Rose and Fortune, and afterwards for Worcester’s at the Rose. He had a hand in some forty-four plays, of which, in anything like their original form, only half a dozen survive. _Satiromastix_, written for the Chamberlain’s men and the Paul’s boys in 1601, shows that his activities were not limited to the Henslowe companies. This intervention in the _Poetomachia_ led Jonson to portray him as Demetrius Fannius ‘the dresser of plays’ in _The Poetaster_; that he is also Thersites in _Troilus and Cressida_ is a not very plausible conjecture. Long after, in 1619, Jonson classed him among the ‘rogues’ (Laing, 4). In 1604, however, he shared with Jonson the responsibility for the London devices at James’s coronation entry. About this time began his career as a writer of popular pamphlets, in which he proved the most effective successor of Thomas Nashe. These, and in particular _The Gull’s Hornbook_ (1609), are full of touches drawn from his experience as a dramatist. Nor did he wholly desert the stage, collaborating with Middleton for the Prince’s and with Webster for Paul’s, and writing also, apparently alone, for the Queen’s. In 1612 he devised the Lord Mayor’s pageant. In 1613 he fell upon evil days. He had always been impecunious, and Henslowe (i. 83, 101, 161) had lent him money to discharge him from the Counter in 1598 and from an arrest by the Chamberlain’s in 1599. Now he fell into the King’s Bench for debt, and apparently lay there until 1619. The relationship of his later work to that of Ford, Massinger, Day, and others, lies rather beyond the scope of this inquiry, but in view of the persistent attempts to find early elements in all his plays, I have made my list comprehensive. He is not traceable after 1632, and is probably the Thomas Decker, householder, buried at St. James’s, Clerkenwell, on 25 Aug. 1632. A Clerkenwell recusant of this name is recorded in 1626 and 1628 (_Middlesex County Records_, iii. 12, 19).

_Collections_

1873. [R. H. Shepherd], _The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker_. 4 vols. (_Pearson Reprints_). [Contains 15 plays and 4 Entertainments.]

1884–6. A. B. Grosart, _The Non-Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker_. 5 vols. (Huth Library). [Contains nearly all the pamphlets, with _Patient Grissell_. A better edition of _The Gull’s Hornbook_ is that by R. B. McKerrow (1904); a chapter is in App. H.]

1887. E. Rhys, _Thomas Dekker_ (_Mermaid Series_). [Contains _The Shoemaker’s Holiday_, _1, 2 The Honest Whore_, _Old Fortunatus_, _The Witch of Edmonton_.]

_Dissertations_: M. L. Hunt, _Thomas Dekker: A Study_ (1911, _Columbia Studies in English_); W. Bang, _Dekker-Studien_ (1900, _E. S._ xxviii. 208); F. E. Pierce, _The Collaboration of Webster with Dekker_ (1909, _Yale Studies_, xxxvii) and _The Collaboration of Dekker and Ford_ (1912, _Anglia_, xxxvi, 141, 289); E. E. Stoll, _John Webster_ (1905), ch. ii, and _The Influence of Jonson on Dekker_ (1906, _M. L. N._ xxi. 20); R. Brooke, _John Webster and the Elizabethan Drama_ (1916); F. P. Wilson, _Three Notes on Thomas Dekker_ (1920, _M. L. R._ xv. 82).

PLAYS

_Old Fortunatus. 1599_

_S. R._ 1600, Feb. 20. ‘A commedie called old Fortunatus in his newe lyuerie.’ _William Aspley_ (Arber, iii. 156).

1600. The Pleasant Comedie of Old Fortunatus. As it was plaied before the Queenes Maiestie this Christmas, by the Right Honourable the Earle of Nottingham, Lord high Admirall of England his Seruants. _S. S. for William Aspley_. [Prologue at Court, another Prologue, and Epilogue at Court; signed at end Tho. Dekker.]

_Editions_ by Dilke (1814, _O. E. P._ iii), H. Scherer (1901, _Münchener Beiträge_, xxi), O. Smeaton (1904, _T. D._).

The Admiral’s revived, from 3 Feb. to 26 May 1596, ‘the 1 parte of Forteunatus’. Nothing is heard of a second part, but during 9–30 Nov. 1599 Dekker received £6 on account of the Admiral’s for ‘the hole history of Fortunatus’, followed on 1 Dec. by £1 for altering the book and on 12 Dec. £2 ‘for the eande of Fortewnatus for the corte’. The company were at Court on 27 Dec. 1599 and 1 Jan. 1600. _The Shoemaker’s Holiday_ was played on 1 Jan.; _Fortunatus_ therefore on 27 Dec. The Prologue (l. 21) makes it ‘a iust yeere’ since the speaker saw the Queen, presumably on 27 Dec. 1598. The S. R. entry suggests that the 1599 play was a revision of the 1596 one. Probably Dekker boiled the old two parts down into one play; the juncture may, as suggested by Fleay, i. 126, and Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 179), come about l. 1315. The Court additions clearly include, besides the Prologue and the Epilogue with its reference to Elizabeth’s forty-second regnal year (1599–1600), the compliment of ll. 2799–834 at the ‘eande’ of the play. The ‘small circumference’ of the theatrical prologue was doubtless the Rose. Dekker may or may not have been the original author of the two-part play; probably he was not, if Fleay is right in assigning it to _c._ 1590 on the strength of the allusions to the Marprelate controversy left in the 1600 text, e.g. l. 59. I should not wonder if Greene, who called his son Fortunatus, were the original author. A Fortunatus play is traceable in German repertories of 1608 and 1626 and an extant version in the collection of 1620 owes something to Dekker’s (Herz, 97; cf. P. Harms, _Die deutschen Fortunatus-Dramen_ in _Theatergeschichtliche Forschungen_, v). But Dekker’s own source, directly or indirectly, was a German folk-tale, which had been dramatized by Hans Sachs as early as 1553.

_The Shoemaker’s Holiday. 1599_

_S. R._ 1610, April 19. Transfer from Simmes to J. Wright of ‘A booke called the shoomakers holyday or the gentle crafte’ subject to an agreement for Simmes to ‘haue the workmanshipp of the printinge thereof for the vse of the sayd John Wrighte duringe his lyfe, yf he haue a printinge house of his owne’ (Arber, iii. 431).

1600. The Shomakers Holiday. Or The Gentle Craft. With the humorous life of Simon Eyre, shoomaker, and Lord Maior of London. As it was acted before the Queenes most excellent Maiestie on New yeares day at night last, by the right honourable the Earle of Notingham, Lord high Admirall of England, his seruants. _Valentine Simmes_. [Epistle to Professors of the Gentle Craft and Prologue before the Queen.]

1610, 1618, 1624, 1631, 1657.

_Editions_ by E. Fritsche (1862), K. Warnke and E. Proescholdt (1886), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._), and A. F. Lange (1914, _R. E. C._ iii).

Henslowe advanced £3 ‘to bye a boocke called the gentle Craft of Thomas Dickers’ on 15 July 1599. Probably the hiatus in the Diary conceals other payments for the play, and there is nothing in the form of the entry to justify the suspicions of Fleay, i. 124, that it was not new and was not by Dekker himself. Moreover, the source was a prose tract of _The Gentle Craft_ by T. D[eloney], published in 1598. The Admiral’s were at Court on 1 Jan. 1600, but not on 1 Jan. 1601. A writer signing himself Dramaticus, in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 110, describes a copy in which a contemporary hand has written the names ‘T. Dekker, R. Wilson’ at the end of the Epistle, together with the names of the actors in the margin of the text. A few of these are not otherwise traceable in the Admiral’s. Fleay and Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 203) unite in condemning this communication as an obvious forgery; but I rather wish they had given their reasons.

_Patient Grissell. 1600_

_With_ Chettle and Haughton.

_S. R._ 1600, March 28. ‘The Plaie of Patient Grissell.’ _Cuthbert Burby_ (Arber, iii. 158).

1603. The Pleasant Comodie of Patient Grissill. As it hath beene sundrie times lately plaid by the right honorable the Earle of Nottingham (Lord high Admirall) his seruants. _For Henry Rocket._

_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1841, _Sh. Soc._), A. B. Grosart (1886, _Dekker_, v. 109), G. Hübsch (1893, _Erlanger Beiträge_, xv), J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._).--_Dissertations_ by A. E. H. Swaen in _E. S._ xxii. 451, Fr. v. Westenholz, _Die Griseldis-Sage in der Literaturgeschichte_ (1888).

Henslowe paid £10 10_s._ to Dekker, Chettle, and Haughton for the play between 16 Oct. and 29 Dec. 1599, also £1 for Grissell’s gown on 26 Jan. 1600 and £2 ‘to staye the printing’ on 18 March 1600. The text refers to ‘wonders of 1599’ (l. 2220) and to ‘this yeare’ as ‘leap yeare’ (l. 157). The production was doubtless _c._ Feb.–March 1600. Fleay, i. 271, attempts to divide the work amongst the three contributors; cf. Hunt, 60. I see nothing to commend the theory of W. Bang (_E. S._ xxviii. 208) that the play was written by Chettle _c._ 1590–4 and revised with Dekker, Haughton, and Jonson. No doubt the dandy’s duel, in which clothes alone suffer, of Emulo-Sir Owen resembles that of Brisk-Luculento in _Every Man Out of his Humour_, but this may be due to a common origin in fact (cf. Fleay, i. 361; Penniman, _War_, 70; Small, 43). Fleay, followed by Penniman, identifies Emulo with Samuel Daniel, but Small, 42, 184, satisfactorily disposes of this suggestion. There seems no reason to regard _Patient Grissell_ as part of the _Poetomachia_. A ‘Comoedia von der Crysella’ is in the German repertory of 1626; the theme had, however, already been dealt with in a play of _Griseldis_ by Hans Sachs (Herz, 66, 78).

_Satiromastix. 1601_

_With_ Marston?

_S. R._ 1601, Nov. 11. ‘Vppon condicon that yt be lycensed to be printed, A booke called the vntrussinge of the humorous poetes by Thomas Decker.’ _John Barnes_ (Arber, iii. 195).

1602. Satiromastix. Or The vntrussing of the Humorous Poet. As it hath bin presented publikely, by the Right Honorable, the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants; and priuately, by the Children of Paules. By Thomas Dekker. _For Edward White._ [Epistle to the World, note _Ad Lectorem_ of _errata_, and Epilogue. Scherer, xiv, distinguishes two editions, but T. M. Parrott’s review in _M. L. R._ vi. 398 regards these as only variant states of one edition.]

_Editions_ by T. Hawkins (1773, _O. E. D._ iii), H. Scherer (1907, _Materialien_, xx), J. H. Penniman (1913, _B. L._).

The Epistle refers to the _Poetomachia_ between ‘Horace’ and ‘a band of leane-witted Poetasters’, and on the place of _Satiromastix_ in this fray there is little to be added to Small, 119. Jonson is satirized as Horace. Asinius Bubo is some unknown satellite of his, probably the same who appears as Simplicius Faber in Marston’s _What You Will_ (q.v.). Crispinus, Demetrius, and Tucca are taken over from Jonson’s _Poetaster_ (q.v.). The satirical matter is engrafted on to a play with a tragic plot and comic sub-plot, both wholly unconcerned with the _Poetomachia_. Jonson must have known that the attack was in preparation, when he made Tucca abuse Histrio for threatening to ‘play’ him, and Histrio say that he had hired Demetrius [Dekker] ‘to abuse Horace, and bring him in, in a play’ (_Poetaster_, III. iv. 212, 339). But obviously Dekker cannot have done much of his satire until he had seen _Poetaster_, to many details of which it retorts. It is perhaps rather fantastic to hold that, as he chaffs Jonson for the boast that he wrote _Poetaster_ in fifteen weeks (_Satiromastix_, 641), he must himself have taken less. In any case a date of production between that of _Poetaster_ in the spring of 1601 and the S. R. entry on 11 Nov. 1601 is indicated. The argument of Scherer, x, for a date about Christmas 1601, and therefore after the S. R. entry, is rebutted by Parrott. It is generally held that Marston helped Dekker with the play, in spite of the single name on the title-page. No doubt Tucca in _Poetaster_, III. iv. 352, suggests to Histrio that Crispinus shall help Demetrius, and the plural is used in _Satiromastix_ (_Epistle_, 12, and _Epilogue_, 2700) and in Jonson’s own _Apologetical Dialogue_ to _Poetaster_ (l. 141) of the ‘poetasters’ who were Jonson’s ‘untrussers’. Small, 122, finds Marston in the plot and characterization, but not in the style.

_Sir Thomas Wyatt. 1602_

_With_ Webster, and possibly Chettle, Heywood, and Smith.

1607. The Famous History of Sir Thomas Wyat. With the Coronation of Queen Mary, and the coming in of King Philip. As it was plaied by the Queens Maiesties Seruants. Written by Thomas Dickers and Iohn Webster. _E. A. for Thomas Archer._

1612. _For Thomas Archer._

_Editions_ by J. Blew (1876), and J. S. Farmer (1914, _S. F. T._) and with _Works_ of Webster (q.v.).

Henslowe, on behalf of Worcester’s men, paid Chettle, Dekker, Heywood, Smith, and Webster, for _1 Lady Jane_ in Oct. 1602. He then bought properties for _The Overthrow of Rebels_, almost certainly the same play, and began to pay Dekker for a _2 Lady Jane_, which apparently remained unfinished, at any rate at the time. One or both of these plays, or possibly only the shares of Dekker and Webster in one or both of them, may reasonably be taken to survive in _Sir Thomas Wyatt_. Stoll, 49, thinks the play, as we have it, is practically Dekker’s and that there is ‘no one thing’ that can be claimed ‘with any degree of assurance’ for Webster. But this is not the general view. Fleay, ii. 269, followed in the main by Hunt, 76, gives Webster scc. i-ix, Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 233) scc. i-x and xvi (with hesitation as to iii-v), Pierce, after a careful application of a number of ‘tests’ bearing both on style and on matter, scc. ii, v, vi, x, xiv, xvi; but he thinks that some or all of these were retouched by Dekker. Brooke inclines to trace Webster in scc. ii, xvi, Heywood in scc. vi, x, and a good deal of Dekker. Hunt thinks the planning due to Chettle.

_The Honest Whore. 1604, c. 1605_

_With_ Middleton.

_S. R._ 1604, Nov. 9 (Pasfield). ‘A Booke called The humors of the patient man, The longinge wyfe and the honest whore.’ _Thomas Man the younger_ (Arber, iii. 275).

1608, April 29 (Buck). ‘A booke called the second parte of the conuerted Courtisan or honest Whore.’ _Thomas Man Junior_ (Arber, iii. 376). [No fee entered.]

1630, June 29 (Herbert). ‘The second parte of the Honest Hoore by Thomas Dekker.’ _Butter_ (Arber, iv. 238).

1604. The Honest Whore, With, The Humours of the Patient Man, and the Longing Wife. Tho: Dekker. _V. S. for John Hodgets._ [Part i.]

1605, 1615, 1616, N.D. [All Part i.]

1630. The Second Part of the Honest Whore, With the Humors of the Patient Man, the Impatient Wife: the Honest Whore, perswaded by strong Arguments to turne Curtizan againe: her braue refuting those Arguments. And lastly, the Comicall Passages of an Italian Bridewell, where the Scaene ends. Written by Thomas Dekker. _Elizabeth Allde for Nathaniel Butter._ [Part ii.]

1635. The Honest Whore, With, The Humours of the Patient Man, and the Longing Wife, Written by Thomas Dekker, As it hath beene Acted by her Maiesties Servants with great Applause. _N. Okes, sold by Richard Collins._ [Part i.]

_Editions_ by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ i) and W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).

Henslowe made a payment to Dekker and Middleton for ‘the pasyent man & the onest hore’ between 1 Jan. and 14 March 1604, on account of the Prince’s men, and the mention of Towne in a stage-direction to Part i (ed. Pearson, ii. 78) shows that it was in fact acted by this company. Fleay, i. 132, and Hunt, 94, cite some allusions in Part ii suggesting a date soon after that of Part i, and this would be consistent with Henslowian methods. There is more difference of opinion about the partition of the work. Of Part i Fleay gives scc. i, iii, and xiii-xv alone to Dekker, and Hunt finds the influence of Middleton in the theme and plot of both Parts. Bullen, however (_Middleton_, i. xxv), thinks Middleton’s share ‘inconsiderable’, giving him only I. v and III. i, with a hand in II. i and in a few comic scenes of Part ii. Ward, ii. 462, holds a similar view.

_Westward Ho! 1604_

_With_ Webster.

_S. R._ 1605, March 2. ‘A commodie called westward Hoe presented by the Children of Paules provided yat he get further authoritie before yt be printed.’ _Henry Rocket_ (Arber, iii. 283). [Entry crossed out and marked ‘vacat’.]

1607. Westward Hoe. As it hath beene diuers times Acted by the Children of Paules. Written by Tho: Decker, and Iohn Webster. _Sold by John Hodgets._

_Editions_ with _Works_ of Webster (q.v.).

The allusions cited by Fleay, ii. 269, Stoll, 14, Hunt, 101, agree with a date of production at the end of 1604. Fleay assigns Acts I-III and a part of IV. ii to Webster; the rest of Acts IV, V to Dekker. But Stoll, 79, thinks that Webster only had ‘some slight, undetermined part in the more colourless and stereotyped portions ... under the shaping and guiding hand of Dekker’, and Pierce, 131, after an elaborate application of tests, can only give him all or most of I. i and III. iii and a small part of I. ii and III. ii. Brooke finds traces of Webster in I. i and III. iii and Dekker in II. i, ii and V. iii, and has some useful criticism of the ‘tests’ employed by Pierce.

_Northward Ho! 1605_

_With_ Webster.

_S. R._ 1607, Aug. 6 (Buck). ‘A booke Called Northward Ho.’ _George Elde_ (Arber, iii. 358).

1607. North-Ward Hoe. Sundry times Acted by the Children of Paules. By Thomas Decker, and Iohn Webster. _G. Eld._

_Editions_ by J. S. Farmer (1914, _S. F. T._) and in _Works_ of Webster (q.v.).

The play is a reply to _Eastward Ho!_ which was itself a reply to _Westward Ho!_ and was on the stage before May 1605, and it is referred to with the other two plays in Day’s _Isle of Gulls_, which was on the stage in Feb. 1606. This pretty well fixes its date to the end of 1605. I do not think that Stoll, 16, is justified in his argument for a date later than Jan. 1606, since, even if the comparison of the life of a gallant to a squib is a borrowing from Marston’s _Fawn_, it seems probable that the _Fawn_ itself was originally written by 1604, although possibly touched up early in 1606. Fleay, ii. 270, identifies Bellamont with Chapman, one of the authors of _Eastward Ho!_ and Stoll, 65, argues in support of this. It is plausible, but does not carry with it Fleay’s identification of Jenkins with Drayton. Fleay gives Webster I. ii, II. i, III. i, and IV. i, but Stoll finds as little of him as in _Westward Ho!_ and Pierce, 131, only gives him all or most of I. i, II. ii, and the beginning of v and a small part of III. i. Brooke traces Webster in I. i and III. i and Dekker in IV. i.

_The Whore of Babylon 1605 < > 7_

_S. R._ 1607, April 20 (Buck). ‘A booke called the Whore of Babilon.’ _Nathanael Butter and John Trundell_ (Arber, iii. 347).

1607. The Whore of Babylon. As it was Acted by the Princes Seruants. Written by Thomas Dekker. _For N. Butter._ [Epistle to the Reader and Prologue.]

Fleay, i. 133, and Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 210) regard the play as a revision of _Truth’s Supplication to Candlelight_, for which Henslowe, on behalf of the Admiral’s, was paying Dekker in Jan. 1600 and buying a robe for Time in April 1600. Truth and Time, but not Candlelight, are characters in the play, which deals with Catholic intrigues against Elizabeth, represented as Titania, and her suitors. I do not feel sure that it would have been allowed to be staged in Elizabeth’s lifetime. In any case it must have been revised _c._ 1605–7, in view of the references, not only to the death of Essex (ed. Pearson, p. 246) and the reign of James (p. 234), but to the _Isle of Gulls_ of 1605 (p. 214). The Cockpit, alluded to (p. 214) as a place where follies are shown in apes, is of course that in the palace, where Henry saw plays. The Epistle and Prologue have clear references to a production in ‘Fortune’s dial’ and the ‘square’ of the Fortune, and the former criticizes players; but hardly proves the definite breach with the Prince’s suggested by Fleay and Greg.

_The Roaring Girl. c. 1610_

_With_ Middleton.

1611. The Roaring Girle. Or Moll Cut-Purse, As it hath lately beene Acted on the Fortune-stage by the Prince his Players. Written by T. Middleton and T. Dekkar. _For Thomas Archer._ [Epistle to the Comic Play-Readers, signed ‘Thomas Middleton’, Prologue and Epilogue.]

_Editions_ by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ ii), A. H. Bullen (1885, _Middleton_, iv. 1), and J. S. Farmer (1914, _S. F. T._).

Fleay, i, 132, thinks the play written about 1604–5, but not produced until 1610. This is fantastic and Bullen points out that Mary Frith, the heroine, born not earlier than _c._ 1584–5, had hardly won her notoriety by 1604. By 1610 she certainly had, and the ‘foule’ book of her ‘base trickes’ referred to in the Epilogue was probably John Day’s _Mad Pranks of Merry Mall of the Bankside_, entered on S. R. 7 Aug. 1610, but not extant. The Epilogue also tells the audience that, if they are dissatisfied,

The Roring Girle her selfe some few dayes hence,
Shall on this Stage, give larger recompence.

I think this can only refer to a contemplated personal appearance of Mary Frith on the stage; it has been interpreted as referring to another forthcoming play. Moll Cutpurse appears in Field’s _Amends for Ladies_, but this was not a Fortune play. Bullen (_Middleton_, i. xxxv) regards the play as an example of collaboration, and gives Dekker I. II. ii, and V; Middleton, with occasional hesitation, the rest. Fleay, i. 132, only gives Middleton II. ii, IV. i, V. ii.

_If It be not Good, the Devil is in It. 1610 < > 12_

1612. If It Be Not Good, the Diuel is in it. A New Play, As it hath bin lately Acted, with great applause, by the Queenes Maiesties Seruants: At the Red Bull. Written by Thomas Dekker. _For I. T. sold by Edward Marchant._ [Epistle to the Queen’s men signed Tho: Dekker, Prologue, and Epilogue. The running title is ‘If this be not a good Play, the Diuell is in it’.]

The Epistle tells us that after ‘Fortune’ (the Admiral’s) had ‘set her foote vpon’ the play, the Queen’s had ‘raised it up ... the Frontispice onely a little more garnished’. Fleay, i. 133, attempts to fix the play to 1610, but hardly proves more than that it cannot be earlier than 14 May 1610, as the murder on that day of Henri IV is referred to (ed. Pearson, p. 354). The Epistle also refers to a coming new play by Dekker’s ‘worthy friend’, perhaps Webster (q.v.). In the opening scene the devil Lurchall is addressed as Grumball, which suggests the actor Armin (cf. ch. xv). Daborne (q.v.) in the Epistle to his _Christian Turned Turk_ seems to claim a share in this play.

_Match Me in London_ (?)

_S. R._ 1630, 8 Nov. (Herbert). ‘A Play called Mach mee in London by Thomas Decker.’ _Seile_ (Arber, iv. 242).

1631. A Tragi-Comedy: Called, Match mee in London. As it hath beene often presented; First, at the Bull in St. Iohns-street; And lately, at the Priuate-House in Drury Lane, called the Phoenix. Written by Tho: Dekker. _B. Alsop and T. Fawcet for H. Seile._ [Epistle to Lodowick Carlell signed ‘Tho: Dekker’.]

Herbert’s diary contains the entry on 21 Aug. 1623, ‘For the L. Elizabeth’s servants of the Cockpit. An old play called Match me in London which had been formerly allowed by Sir G. Bucke.’ On this, some rather slight evidence from allusions, and a general theory that Dekker did not write plays during his imprisonment of 1613–19, Fleay, i. 134, puts the original production by Queen Anne’s men _c._ 1611 and Hunt, 160, in 1612–13. As there are some allusions to cards and the game of maw, Fleay thinks the play a revision of _The Set at Maw_ produced by the Admiral’s on 15 Dec. 1594. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 172) points out the weakness of the evidence, but finds some possible traces of revision in the text.

_The Virgin Martyr. c. 1620_

_With_ Massinger.

_S. R._ 1621, 7 Dec. (Buck). ‘A Tragedy called The Virgin Martir.’ _Thomas Jones_ (Arber, iv. 62).

1622. The Virgin Martir, A Tragedie, as it hath bin divers times publickely Acted with great Applause, By the seruants of his Maiesties Reuels. Written by Phillip Messenger and Thomas Deker. _B. A. for Thomas Jones._

1631, 1651, 1661.

The play is said to have been ‘reformed’ and licensed by Buck for the Red Bull on 6 Oct. 1620 (Herbert, 29). An additional scene, licensed on 7 July 1624 (_Var._ i. 424), did not find its way into print. Fleay, i. 135, 212, asserts that the 1620 play was a refashioning by Massinger of a play by Dekker for the Queen’s about 1611, itself a recast of _Diocletian_, produced by the Admiral’s on 16 Nov. 1594, but ‘dating from 1591 at the latest’. He considers II. i, iii, III. iii, and IV. ii of the 1620 version to be still Dekker’s. Ward, iii. 12, and Hunt, 156, give most of the play to Dekker. But all these views are impressionistic, and there is no special reason to suppose that Massinger revised, rather than collaborated with, Dekker, or to assume a version of _c._ 1611. As for an earlier version still, Fleay’s evidence is trivial. In any case 1591 is out of the question, as Henslowe marked the _Diocletian_ of 1594 ‘n.e.’ Nor does he say it was by Dekker. A play on Dorothea the Martyr had made its way into Germany by 1626, but later German repertories disclose that there was also a distinct play on Diocletian (Herz, 66, 103; Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 172). Greg, however, finds parts of _The Virgin Martyr_, ‘presumably Dekker’s’, to be ‘undoubtedly early’. Oliphant (_E. S._ xvi. 191) makes the alternative suggestion that _Diocletian_ was the basis of Fletcher’s _Prophetess_, in which he believes the latter part of IV. i and V. i to be by an older hand, which he cannot identify. All this is very indefinite.

_The Witch of Edmonton. 1621_

_With_ Ford and W. Rowley.

_S. R._ 1658, May 21. ‘A booke called The witch of Edmonton, a Tragicomedy by Will: Rowley, &c.’ _Edward Blackmore_ (Eyre, ii. 178).

1658. The Witch of Edmonton, A known true Story. Composed into a Tragi-Comedy By divers well-esteemed Poets; William Rowley, Thomas Dekker, John Ford, &c. Acted by the Princes Servants; often at the Cock-Pit in Drury Lane, once at Court, with singular Applause. Never printed till now. _J. Cottrel for Edward Blackmore._ [Prologue signed ‘Master Bird’.]

_Editions_ with _Works_ of John Ford, by H. Weber (1811), W. Gifford (1827), H. Coleridge (1840, 1848, 1851), A. Dyce (1869), A. H. Bullen (1895).

I include this for the sake of completeness, but it is based upon a pamphlet published in 1621 and was played at Court by the Prince’s men on 29 Dec. 1621 (Murray, ii. 193). It is generally regarded as written in collaboration. Views as to its division amongst the writers are summarized by Hunt, 178, and Pierce (_Anglia_, xxxvi. 289). The latter finds Dekker in nearly all the scenes, Ford in four, Rowley perhaps in five.

_The Wonder of a Kingdom. 1623_

_Possibly with_ Day.

_S. R._ 1631, May 16 (Herbert). ‘A Comedy called The Wonder of a Kingdome by Thomas Decker.’ _John Jackman_ (Arber, iv. 253).

1636, Feb. 24. ‘Vnder the hands of Sir Henry Herbert and Master Kingston Warden (dated the 7th of May 1631) a Play called The Wonder of a Kingdome by Thomas Decker.’ _Nicholas Vavasour_ (Arber, iv. 355).

1636. The Wonder of a Kingdome. Written by Thomas Dekker. _Robert Raworth for Nicholas Vavasour._

Herbert’s diary for 18 Sept. 1623 has the entry: ‘For a company of strangers. A new comedy called Come see a wonder, written by John Daye. It was acted at the Red Bull and licensed without my hand to it because they were none of the 4 companies.’ As _The Wonder of a Kingdom_ contains scenes which are obviously from Day’s _Parliament of Bees_ (_1608–16_) it is possible either to adopt the simple theory of a collaboration between Day and Dekker in 1623, or to hold with Fleay, i. 136, and Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 174, that Day’s ‘new’ play of 1623 was a revision of an earlier one by Dekker. The mention of cards in the closing lines seems an inadequate ground for Fleay’s further theory, apparently approved by Greg, that the original play was _The Mack_, produced by the Admiral’s on 21 Feb. 1595.

_The Sun’s Darling. 1624_

_With_ Ford.

1656. The Sun’s-Darling: A Moral Masque: As it hath been often presented at Whitehall, by their Majesties Servants; and after at the Cockpit in Drury Lane, with great Applause. Written by John Foard and Tho. Decker Gent. _J. Bell for Andrew Penneycuicke._

1657. Reissue with same imprint.

1657. Reissue with same imprint.... ‘As it hath been often presented by their Majesties Servants; at the Cockpit in Drury Lane’....

_Editions_ with _Works_ of John Ford, by H. Weber (1811), W. Gifford (1827), H. Coleridge (1840, 1848, 1851), A. Dyce (1869), A. H. Bullen (1895).

The play was licensed by Herbert for the Lady Elizabeth’s at the Cockpit on 3 March 1624 (Chalmers, _S. A._ 217; Herbert, 27) and included in a list of Cockpit plays in 1639 (_Variorum_, iii. 159). Fleay, i. 232, Ward, ii. 470, and Pierce (_Anglia_, xxxvi. 141) regard it as a revision by Ford of earlier work by Dekker, and the latter regards the last page of Act I, Acts II and III, and the prose of Acts IV and V as substantially Dekker’s. It is perhaps a step from this to the theory of Fleay and Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 190) that the play represents the _Phaethon_, which Dekker wrote for the Admiral’s in Jan. 1598 and afterwards altered for a Court performance at Christmas 1600. There are allusions to ‘humours’ and to ‘pampered jades of Asia’ (ed. Pearson, pp. 316, 318) which look early, but Phaethon is not a character, nor is the story his. A priest of the Sun appears in Act I: I am surprised that Fleay did not identify him, though he is not mad, with the ‘mad priest of the sun’ referred to in Greene’s (q.v.) Epistle to _Perimedes_. The play is not a ‘masque’ in the ordinary sense.

_The Noble Soldier > 1631_

_With_ Day and S. Rowley?

_S. R._ 1631, May 16 (Herbert). ‘A Tragedy called The noble Spanish Souldier by Thomas Deckar.’ _John Jackman_ (Arber, iv. 253).

1633, Dec. 9. ‘Entred for his Copy vnder the handes of Sir Henry Herbert and Master Kingston warden _Anno Domini_ 1631. a Tragedy called _The Noble Spanish soldior_ written by master Decker.’ _Nicholas Vavasour_ (Arber, iv. 310).

1634. The Noble Souldier, Or, A Contract Broken, justly reveng’d. A Tragedy. Written by S. R. _For Nicholas Vavasour._

_Editions_ by A. H. Bullen (1882, _O. E. P._ i) and J. S. Farmer (1913, _S. F. T._).

The printer tells us that the author was dead in 1634.

The initials may indicate Samuel Rowley of the Admiral’s and Prince Henry’s. Bullen and Hunt, 187, think that Dekker revised work by Rowley. But probably Day also contributed, for II. i, ii; III. ii; IV. i; V. i, ii, and parts of I. ii and V. iv are drawn like scenes in _The Wonder of a Kingdom_ from his _Parliament of Bees_ (1608–16). Fleay, i. 128, identifies the play with _The Spanish Fig_ for which Henslowe made a payment on behalf of the Admiral’s in Jan. 1602. This Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 220) thinks ‘plausible’, regarding the play as ‘certainly an old play of about 1600, presumably by Dekker and Rowley with later additions by Day’. He notes that the King is not, as Fleay alleged, poisoned with a Spanish fig, but a Spanish fig is mentioned, ‘and it is quite possible that such may have been the mode of poisoning in the original piece’. Henslowe does not name the payee for _The Spanish Fig_, and it was apparently not finished at the time.

_Lost and Doubtful Plays_

It will be convenient to set out all the certain or conjectured work by Dekker mentioned in Henslowe’s Diary.

(a) _Conjectural anonymous Work before 1598_

(i) _Philipo and Hippolito._

Produced as a new play by the Admiral’s on 9 July 1594. The ascription to Dekker, confident in Fleay, i. 213, and regarded as possible by Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 165), appears to be due to the entry of a _Philenzo and Hypollita_ by Massinger, who revised other early work of Dekker, in the S. R. on 29 June 1660, to the entry of a _Philenzo and Hipolito_ by Massinger in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (_3 Library_, ii. 231), and to the appearance of a _Julio and Hyppolita_ in the German collection of 1620. A copy of Massinger’s play is said (Collier, _Henslowe_, xxxi) to be amongst the _Conway MSS._

(ii) _The Jew of Venice._

Entered as a play by Dekker in the S. R. on 9 Sept. 1653 (_3 Library_, ii. 241). It has been suggested (Fleay, i. 121, and _Sh._ 30, 197; Greg in _Henslowe_, ii. 170) that it was the source of a German play printed from a Vienna MS. by Meissner, 131 (cf. Herz, 84). In this a personage disguises himself as a French doctor, which leads to the conjectural identification of its English original both with _The Venetian Comedy_ produced by the Admiral’s on 27 Aug. 1594 and with _The French Doctor_ performed by the same men on 19 Oct. 1594 and later dates and bought by them from Alleyn in 1602. The weakest point in all this guesswork is the appearance of common themes in the German play and in _The Merchant of Venice_, which Fleay explains to his own satisfaction by the assumption that Shakespeare based _The Merchant of Venice_ on Dekker’s work.

(iii) _Dr. Faustus._

Revived by the Admiral’s on 30 Sept. 1594. On the possibility that the 1604 text contains comic scenes written by Dekker for this revival, cf. s.v. Marlowe.

(iv) _Diocletian._

Produced by the Admiral’s, 16 Nov. 1599; cf. s.v. _The Virgin Martyr_ (_supra_).

(v) _The Set at Maw._

Produced by the Admiral’s on 14 Dec. 1594; cf. s.v. _Match Me in London_ (_supra_).

(vi) _Antony and Valia._

Revived by the Admiral’s, 4 Jan. 1595, and ascribed by Fleay, i. 213, with some encouragement from Greg in _Henslowe_, ii. 174, to Dekker, on the ground of entries in the S. R. on 29 June 1660 and in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (_3 Library_, ii. 231) of an _Antonio and Vallia_ by Massinger, who revised other early work by Dekker.

(vii) _The Mack._

Produced by the Admiral’s on 21 Feb. 1595; cf. s.v. _The Wonder of a Kingdom_ (_supra_).

(viii) _1 Fortunatus._

Revived by the Admiral’s on 3 Feb. 1596; cf. s.v. _Old Fortunatus_ (_supra_).

(ix) _Stukeley._

Produced by the Admiral’s on 11 Dec. 1596. On Fleay’s ascription to Dekker, cf. s.v. _Captain Thomas Stukeley_ (Anon.).

(x) _Prologue to Tamberlaine._

This rests on a forged entry in Henslowe’s Diary for 20 Dec. 1597; cf. s.v. Marlowe.

(b) _Work for Admiral’s, 1598–1602_

(i) _Phaethon._

Payments in Jan. 1598 and for alterations for the Court in Dec. 1600; cf. s.v. _The Sun’s Darling_ (_supra_).

(ii) _The Triplicity or Triangle of Cuckolds._

Payment in March 1598.

(iii) _The Wars of Henry I or The Welshman’s Prize._

Payment, with Chettle and Drayton, March 1598. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 192) speculates on possible relations of the plays to others on a Welshman and on Henry I.

(iv) _1 Earl Godwin._

Payment, with Chettle, Drayton, and Wilson, March 1598.

(v) _Pierce of Exton._

Payment, with Chettle, Drayton, and Wilson, April 1598. Apparently the play was not finished.

(vi) _1 Black Bateman of the North._

Payments, with Chettle, Drayton, and Wilson, May 1598.

(vii) _2 Earl Godwin._

Payments, with Chettle, Drayton, and Wilson, May–June 1598.

(viii) _The Madman’s Morris._

Payments, with Drayton and Wilson, July 1598.

(ix) _Hannibal and Hermes._

Payments, with Drayton and Wilson, July 1598.

(x) _2 Hannibal and Hermes._

Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 195) gives this name to (xiii).

(xi) _Pierce of Winchester._

Payments, with Drayton and Wilson, July–Aug. 1598.

(xii) _Chance Medley._

Payments to Dekker (or Chettle), with Munday, Drayton, and Wilson, Aug. 1598.

(xiii) _Worse Afeared than Hurt._

Payments, with Drayton, Aug.–Sept. 1598.

(xiv) _1 Civil Wars of France._

Payment, with Drayton, Sept. 1598.

(xv) _Connan Prince of Cornwall._

Payments, with Drayton, Oct. 1598.

(xvi) _2 Civil Wars of France._

Payment, with Drayton, Nov. 1598.

(xvii) _3 Civil Wars of France._

Payments, with Drayton, Nov.–Dec. 1598.

(xviii) _Introduction to Civil Wars of France._

Payments, Jan. 1599.

(xix) _Troilus and Cressida._

Payments, with Chettle, April 1599. A fragmentary ‘plot’ (cf. ch. xxiv) may belong to this play.

(xx) _Agamemnon or Orestes Furious._

Payments, with Chettle, May 1599.

(xxi) _The Gentle Craft._

Payment, July 1599; cf. _The Shoemaker’s Holiday_ (_supra_).

(xxii) _The Stepmother’s Tragedy._

Payments, with Chettle, Aug.–Oct. 1599.

(xxiii) _Bear a Brain._

Payment, Aug. 1599; cf. s.vv. _The Shoemaker’s Holiday_ (_supra_) and _Look About You_ (Anon.).

(xxiv) _Page of Plymouth._

Payments, with Jonson, Aug.–Sept. 1599.

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

Payments, with Chettle, Jonson, ‘& other Jentellman’ (? Marston, q.v.), Sept. 1599.

(xxvi) _Patient Grissell._

Payments, with Chettle and Haughton, Oct.–Dec. 1599; cf. _supra_.

(xxvii) _Fortunatus._

Payments, Nov.–Dec. 1599; cf. s.v. _Old Fortunatus_ (_supra_).

(xxviii) _Truth’s Supplication to Candlelight._

Payments, Jan. 1600. Apparently the play was not finished; cf. s.v. _The Whore of Babylon_ (_supra_).

(xxix) _The Spanish Moor’s Tragedy._

Payment, with Day and Haughton, Feb. 1600. Apparently the play was not finished; cf. s.v. _Lust’s Dominion_ (Marlowe).

(xxx) _The Seven Wise Masters._

Payments, with Chettle, Day, and Haughton, March 1600.

(xxxi) _The Golden Ass_ or _Cupid and Psyche_.

Payments, with Chettle and Day, April-May 1600; on borrowings from this, cf. s.v. Heywood, _Pleasant Dialogues and Dramas_.

(xxxii) _1 Fair Constance of Rome._

Payments, with Drayton, Hathway, Munday, and Wilson (q.v.), June 1600.

(xxxiii) _[1] Fortune’s Tennis._

Payment, Sept. 1600. A fragmentary plot (cf. ch. xxiv) is perhaps less likely to belong to this than to Munday’s _Set at Tennis_.

(xxxiv) _King Sebastian of Portugal._

Payments, with Chettle, April-May 1601.

(xxxv) _The Spanish Fig._

Payment, Jan. 1602. The payee is unnamed; cf. _The Noble Soldier_ (_supra_).