Chapter XXX: Part 1: with Heywood, Dec. 1602–Jan. 1603; one payment had been made to (18)

[495] _E. Ho!_, I. i. 1, ‘Enter Maister Touchstone and Quick-silver at severall dores.... At the middle dore, enter Golding, discovering a gold-smiths shoppe, and walking short turns before it’; II. i. 1, ‘Touchstone, Quick-silver[cf above and below, but Touchstone diff]; Goulding and Mildred sitting on eyther side of the stall’.

[496] At the end of II. ii, which is before Security’s, with Winifred ‘above’ (241), Quick-silver remains on the stage, for II. iii, before Petronel’s. The tavern is first used in III. iii, after which III. iv, of one 7–line speech only, returns to Security’s and ends the act. Billingsgate should be at some little distance from the other houses.

[497] _E. Ho!_, IV. i. 1, ‘Enter Slitgut, with a paire of oxe hornes, discovering Cuckolds-Haven above’.

[498] Clearly IV. i. 346–64 (ed. Schelling) has been misplaced in the Q_{q}; it is a final speech by Slitgut, with his _Exit_, but without his name prefixed, and should come after 296. The new scene begins with 297.

[499] _E. Ho!_, IV. i. 92, ‘Enter the Drawer in the Taverne before [i.e. in III. iii], with Wynnyfrid’; he will shelter her at ‘a house of my friends heere in S. Kath’rines’ ... (297) ‘Enter Drawer, with Wynifrid new attird’, who says ‘you have brought me nere enough your taverne’ and ‘my husband stale thither last night’. Security enters (310) with ‘I wil once more to this unhappy taverne’.

[500] _Y. F. Gallants_ has (_a_) Frippery’s shop (I. i); (_b_) Katherine’s (I. ii; V. ii); (_c_) Mitre inn (II. iii); (_d_) Primero’s brothel (II. i; III. iv; V. i); (_e_) Tailby’s lodging (IV. i, ii); (_f_) Fitzgrave’s lodging (IV. iii); (_g_) Mrs. Newcut’s dining-room (IV. vii); (_h_) Paul’s (IV. vi). There is action within in all these, and in V. i, which is before (_d_), spies are concealed ‘overhead’ (124).

[501] In _Isle of Gulls_ the park or forest holds a lodge for the duke (I. i), a ‘queach of bushes’ (II. ii), Diana’s oak (II. ii; IV. iv), Adonis’ bower (II. ii; V. i), a bowling green with arbours (II. iii-v), and the house of Manasses (IV. iii).

[502] _Law Tricks_ has (_a_) the palace (I. i; II; IV. i, ii; V. ii), within which (p. 64, ed. Bullen) ‘Discover Polymetes in his study’, and (p. 78) ‘Polymetes in his study’; (_b_) an arrased chamber in Lurdo’s (III. i), entered by a vault (cf. p. 148, _supra_); (_c_) Countess Lurdo’s (III. ii); (_d_) the cloister vaults (V. i, ii) where (p. 90) ‘Countesse in the Tombe’. Action passes direct from (_a_) to (_d_) at p. 89.

[503] _Fleir_ has (_a_) the courtesans’ (I. 26–188; II; III. 1–193; IV. 1–193); (_b_) Alunio’s (IV. 194–287); (_c_) Ferrio’s (V. 1–54); (_d_) a prison (V. 55–87); (_e_) a law court (V. 178–end); (_f_) possibly Susan and Nan’s (I. 189–500). Conceivably (_c_), (_d_), (_e_) are in some way combined: there is action within at (_b_), ‘Enter Signior Alunio the Apothecarie in his shop with wares about him’ (194), (_d_) ‘Enter Lord Piso ... in prison’ (55), and (_e_); none above.

[504] The action of _F. Shepherdess_ needs a wood, with rustic cotes and an altar to Pan (I. ii, iii; V. i, iii), a well (III. i), and a bower for Clorin (I. i; II. ii; IV. ii, v; V. ii, v), where is hung a curtain (V. ii. 109).

[505] _K. B. P._ I. 230, ‘Enter Rafe like a Grocer in ’s shop, with two Prentices Reading Palmerin of England’; at 341 the action shifts to Merrithought’s, but the episode at Venturewell’s is said to have been ‘euen in this place’ (422), and clearly the two houses were staged together. Possibly the conduit head on which Ralph sings his May Day song (IV. 439) was also part of the permanent setting.

[506] _K. B. P._ II. 71–438; III. 1–524; IV. 76–151.

[507] The certain plays are _Epicoene_, _Woman a Weathercock_, _Insatiate Countess_, and _Revenge of Bussy_. I have noted two unusual s.ds.: _W. a W._ III. ii, ‘Enter Scudmore ... Scudmore passeth one doore, and entereth the other, where Bellafront sits in a Chaire, under a Taffata Canopie’; _Insatiate C._ III. i, ‘Claridiana and Rogero, being in a readiness, are received in at one anothers houses by their maids. Then enter Mendoza, with a Page, to the Lady Lentulus window’. There is some elaborate action with contiguous rooms in _Epicoene_, IV, V.

[508] Cf. pp. 98, 117.

[509] I have noted bedchamber scenes as ‘perhaps above’ at Paul’s in _A Mad World, my Masters_ and _A Trick to Catch the Old One_, but the evidence is very slight and may be due to careless writing. In _A Mad World_, III. ii. 181, Harebrain is said to ‘walke below’; later ‘Harebrain opens the door and listens’. In _A Trick_, III. iv. 72, Dampit is told that his bed waits ‘above’, and IV. v is in his bedchamber.

[510] Cf. p. 116.

[511] Cf. _Dr. Dodipoll_, _1 Antonio and Mellida_, _The Fawn_, and _Bussy d’Ambois_ for Paul’s, and _Sir Giles Goosecap_ and _Fleir_ for Blackfriars. The early Court plays had similar scenes; cf. p. 43.

[512] _C. Revels_, ind. 54, ‘First the Title of his Play is _Cynthias Revels_, as any man (that hath hope to be sau’d by his Booke) can witnesse; the Scene _Gargaphia_’; _K. B. P._ ind. 10, ‘Now you call your play, The London Marchant. Downe with your Title, boy, downe with your Title’. For _Wily Beguiled_, cf. p. 126.

[513] Duff, xi.

[514] Ch. ix; cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 221.

[515] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 2. ‘Cum priuilegio’ is in the colophons of Rastell’s 1533 prints of _Johan Johan_, _The Pardoner and the Friar_, and _The Wether_, and ‘Cum priuilegio regali’ in those of his undated _Gentleness and Nobility_ and _Beauty and Good Properties of Women_.

[516] _Procl._ 114, 122, 155, 176. The texts of 1529 and 1530 are in Wilkins, _Concilia_, iii. 737, 740; that of 1538 in Burnet, _Hist. of Reformation_, vi. 220; cf. Pollard, _Sh. F._ 6, and in _3 Library_, x. 57. I find ‘Cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum’ in the colophon of _Acolastus_ (1540) and in both t.p. and colophon of _Troas_ (1559); also ‘Seen and allowed &c.’ in the t.p. of Q_{2} of _Gorboduc_ (_c._ 1570), ‘Perused and Alowed’ at the end of _Gammer Gurton’s Needle_ (1575), and ‘Seen and allowed, according to the order appointed in the Queenes maiesties Injunctions’ in the t.p. of _The Glass of Government_ (1575). Otherwise these precautions became dead letters, so far as plays were concerned.

[517] _Procl._ 295 (part only in Wilkins, iv. 1; cf. Pollard, _Sh. F._ 7). The ‘daye of the printe’ is in the t.ps. of _Thyestes_ (1560), _Oedipus_ (1563), _Gordobuc_ (1565), _Four Ps_ (1569), and the colophon of _Promos and Cassandra_ (1578); the year and month in the t.p. of _King Darius_ (1565). Earlier printers had given the day in the colophons of _Mundus et Infans_ (1522), _Johan Johan_ (1533), and _The Pardoner and the Friar_ (1533).

[518] Dasent, ii. 312; _Procl._ 395 (text in Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 9; cf. Pollard, _Sh. F._ 8).

[519] _Procl._ 427 (cf. Pollard, _Sh. F._ 9); _Procl._ 461 (text in Wilkins, _Concilia_, iv. 128; Arber, i. 52); _Procl._ 488 (text in Arber, i. 92).

[520] Arber, i. xxviii, xxxii.

[521] Duff, xi.

[522] _1 Eliz._ c. 1 (_Statutes_, iv. 1. 350).

[523] App. D, No. ix.

[524] App. D, No. xii.

[525] App. D, No. xiii.

[526] _Procl._ 638, 656, 659, 687, 688, 702, 740, 752, 775; Arber, i. 430, 452, 453, 461, 464, 474, 502; cf. McKerrow, xiii. A draft Bill by William Lambarde prepared in 1577–80 for the establishment of a mixed body of ecclesiastics and lawyers as Governors of the English Print (Arber, ii. 751) never became law.

[527] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 15; _F. and Q._ 4. Mr. Pollard stresses the difficulty of obtaining the hands of six Privy Councillors. Perhaps this is somewhat exaggerated. Six was the ordinary quorum of that body, which sat several times a week, while many of its members resided in court, were available for signing documents daily, and did in fact sign, in sixes, many, such as warrants to the Treasurer of the Chamber, of no greater moment than licences (cf. ch. ii). The signatures were of course ministerial, and would be given to a licence on the report of an expert reader. In any case the _Injunction_ provides alternatives.

[528] Arber, iii. 690; Pollard, _Sh. F._ 23, ‘From 19^o Elizabethe [1576–7] till the Starre-chamber Decree 28^o Elizabeth [1586], many were licensed by the Master and Wardens, some few by the Master alone, and some by the Archbishop and more by the Bishop of London. The like was in the former parte of the Quene Elizabeth’s time. They were made a corporacon but by P. and M. Master Kingston, y^e now master, sayth that before the Decree the master and wardens licensed all, and that when they had any Divinity booke of muche importance they would take the advise of some 2 or 3 ministers of this towne’.

[529] The references in the following notes, unless otherwise specified, are to the vols. and pages of Arber’s _Transcript_.

[530] i. 106; ii. 879.

[531] i. 17, ‘No member or members of this Company shall hereafter knowingly imprint or cause to be imprinted any book, pamphlet, portraicture, picture or paper whereunto the law requires a license, without such license as by the law is directed for the imprinting of the same (1678)’; 22, ‘By ancient usage of this company, when any book or copy is duly entred in the register-book of this company, to any member or members of this company, such person to whom such entry is made, is, and always hath been reputed and taken to be proprietor of such book or copy, and ought to have the sole printing thereof (1681)’; 26, ‘It hath been the ancient usage of the members of this company, for the printer or printers, publisher or publishers of all books, pamphlets, ballads, and papers, (except what are granted by letters pattents under the great seal of England) to enter into the publick register-book of this company, remaining with the clerk of this company for the time being, in his or their own name or names, all books, pamphlets, ballads, and papers whatsoever, by him or them to be printed or published, before the same book, pamphlet, ballad, or paper is begun to be printed, to the end that the printer or publisher thereof may be known, to justifie whatsoever shall be therein contained, and have no excuse for the printing or publishing thereof (1682)’.

[532] Typical examples are i. 75 (1557–8), ‘To master John Wally these bokes called Welth and helthe, the treatise of the ffrere and the boy, stans puer ad mensam, another of youghte charyte and humylyte, an a. b. c. for cheldren in englesshe with syllabes, also a boke called an hundreth mery tayles ij^s’; 77 (1557–8), ‘To Henry Sutton to prynte an enterlude vpon the history of Jacobe and Esawe out of the xxvij chapeter of the fyrste boke of Moyses called Genyses and for his lycense he geveth to the howse iiij^d’; 128 (1559–60), ‘Recevyd of John Kynge for his lycense for pryntinge of these copyes Lucas urialis, nyce wanton, impaciens poverte, the proude wyves pater noster, the squyre of low degre and syr deggre graunted ye x of June anno 1560 ij^s’. The last becomes the normal form, but without the precise date.

[533] i. 155, 177, 204, 205, 208, 209, 231, 263, 268, 269, 272, 299, 302, 308, 312, 334, 336, 343, 378, 382, 385, 398, 399, 415. It is possible that the wardens, intent on finance, did not always transcribe into their accounts notes of authorizations. Only half a dozen of the above are ascribed to the archbishop, yet a mention of ‘one Talbot, servant of the archbishop of Canterbury, a corrector to the printers’ in an examination relative to the Ridolfi plot (Haynes-Murdin, ii. 30) shows that he had enough work in 1571 to justify the appointment of a regular deputy.

[534] ii. 35, 301. Collins remained clerk to 1613, when he was succeeded by Thomas Mountfort, who became a stationer (McKerrow, 196), and is of course to be distinguished from the prebendary of Paul’s and High Commissioner of a similar name, who acted as ‘corrector’ (cf. p. 168).

[535] i. 451 _sqq._

[536] ii. 302, 359, 371, 377, 378, 414, &c.

[537] ii. 440, 444.

[538] ii. 334, ‘vnder the hande of Master Recorder’; 341, ‘vnder thandes of Doctour Redman and the wardens’; 342, ‘master Recorder and the wardens’; 346, ‘the lord maiour and the wardens’; 357, ‘sub manibus comitum Leicester et Hunsdon’; 372, ‘master Crowley’; 375, ‘master Vaughan’; 386, ‘master Secretary Wilson’; 403, ‘master Thomas Norton [Remembrancer]’; 404, ‘the Lord Chancellor’; 409, ‘master Cotton’; 417, ‘by aucthoritie from the Counsell’; 434, 435, ‘pervsed by master Crowley’; 447, ‘master Recorder’. For Talbot, cf. _supra_.

[539] ii. 304; cf. ii. 447 (1586), ‘Entred by commaundement from master Barker in wrytinge vnder his hand. Aucthorised vnder the Archbishop of Canterbury his hand’. ‘Licenced’, as well as ‘authorised’ or ‘alowed’, now sometimes (ii. 307, 447) describes the action of a prelate or corrector.

[540] ii. 366.

[541] ii. 428.

[542] ii. 424, ‘alwaies provided that before he print he shall get the bishop of London his alowance to yt’; 424, ‘upon condicon he obtaine the ordinaries hand thereto’; 429, ‘provyded alwaies and he is enioyned to gett this booke laufully alowed before he print yt’; 431, ‘yt is granted vnto him that if he gett the card of phantasie lawfullie alowed vnto him, that then he shall enioye yt as his owne copie’; 431, ‘so it be or shalbe by laufull aucthoritie lycenced vnto him’; 444, ‘to be aucthorised accordinge to her maiesties Iniunctions’. The wardens’ hands are not cited to any of these conditional entries.

[543] ii. 307, 308, 336, 353, 430, 438, 439.

[544] App. D, No. lxxvii; cf. Strype, _Life of Whitgift_, i. 268; Pierce, _Introduction to Mar Prelate Tracts_, 74. Confirmations and special condemnations of offending books are in _Procl._ 802, 812, 1092, 1362, 1383 (texts of two last in G. W. Prothero, _Select Statutes_, 169, 395).

[545] ii. 459, ‘Master Hartwell certifying it to be tollerated’; 460, ‘authorised or alowed as good vnder thand of Doctour Redman &c.’; 461, ‘certified by Master Hartwell to be alowed leavinge out the ij staues yat are crossed’; 464, ‘master Crowleys hand is to yt, as laufull to be printed’; 475, ‘aucthorised by tharchbishop of Canterbury as is reported by Master Cosin’; 479, ‘which as master Hartwell certifyithe by his hande to the written copie, my Lordes grace of Canterbury is content shall passe without anie thinge added to yt before it be pervsed’; 487, ‘sett downe as worthie to be printed vnder thand of Master Gravet’; 489, ‘Master Crowleys hand is to yt testyfying it to be alowable to ye print’; 491, ‘vnder the Bishop of London, Master Abraham Fraunce, and the wardens hands’; 493, ‘Master Hartwells hand beinge at the wrytten copie testifyinge his pervsinge of the same’; 493, ‘alowed vnder D^r Stallers hand as profitable to be printed’, &c.

[546] Lambe notes (iii. 690) in 1636 that on 30 June 1588, ‘the archbishop gave power to Doctor Cosin, Doctor Stallard, Doctor Wood, master Hartwell, master Gravett, master Crowley, master Cotton, and master Hutchinson, or any one of them, to license books to be printed: Or any 2 of those following master Judson, master Trippe, master Cole and master Dickens’. It will be observed that most of the first group of these had already acted as ‘correctors’, together with William Redman and Richard Vaughan, chaplains respectively to Archbishop Grindal and Bishop Aylmer. William Hutchinson and George Dickens were also chaplains to Aylmer. Hutchinson was in the High Commission of 1601. Richard Cosin was Dean of the Arches and a High Commissioner. Abraham Hartwell was secretary and Cole chaplain (Arber, ii. 494) to Archbishop Whitgift. Hutchinson, William Gravett, William Cotton, and George Dickins were or became prebendaries of St. Paul’s. Thomas Stallard was rector of All Hallows’ and St. Mary’s at Hill; Henry Tripp of St. Faith’s and St. Stephen’s, Walbrook. Most of this information is from Hennessy. Crowley was presumably Robert Crowley, vicar of St. Giles, Cripplegate, and himself a stationer, although his activity as a Puritan preacher and pamphleteer makes his appointment an odd one for Whitgift. Moreover, he died on 18 June 1588. There may have been two Robert Crowleys, or the archbishop’s list may have been drawn up earlier than Lambe dates it.

[547] Amongst the correctors who appear later in the Register are Richard Bancroft, John Buckeridge, and Michael Murgatroyd, secretaries or chaplains to Whitgift, Samuel Harsnett, William Barlow, Thomas Mountford, John Flower, and Zacharias Pasfield, prebendaries of St. Paul’s, William Dix, Peter Lyly, chaplain of the Savoy and brother of the dramatist, Lewis Wager, rector of St. James’s, Garlickhithe, and dramatist, John Wilson, and Gervas Nidd. Mountford and Dix were in the High Commission of 1601. I have not troubled to trace the full careers of these men in Hennessy and elsewhere. Thomas Morley (Arber, iii. 93) and William Clowes (ii. 80) seem to have been applied to as specialists on musical and medical books respectively.

[548] ii. 463, 464, 508, 509, ‘Alowed by the Bishop of London vnder his hand and entred by warrant of Master [warden] Denhams hand to the copie’.

[549] A typical entry is now

‘xiii^{to} die Augusti [1590]. Richard Jones. Entred vnto him for his Copye The twooe commicall discourses of Tomberlein the Cithian shepparde vnder the handes of Master Abraham Hartewell and the Wardens. vj^d.’

[550] iii. 677. A number of satirical books were condemned by name to be burnt, and direction given to the master and wardens, ‘That no Satyres or Epigrams be printed hereafter; That noe Englishe historyes be printed excepte they bee allowed by some of her maiesties privie Counsell; That noe playes be printed excepte they bee allowed by suche as haue aucthoritie; That all Nasshes bookes and Doctor Harvyes bookes be taken wheresoeuer they maye be found and that none of theire bookes be euer printed hereafter; That thoughe any booke of the nature of theise heretofore expressed shalbe broughte vnto yow vnder the hands of the Lord Archebisshop of Canterburye or the Lord Bishop of London yet the said booke shall not be printed vntill the master or wardens haue acquainted the said Lord Archbishop or the Lord Bishop with the same to knowe whether it be theire hand or no’.

[551] _Hunting of Cupid_ (R. Jones, 26 July 1591), ‘provyded alwayes that yf yt be hurtfull to any other copye before lycenced, then this to be voyde’; _Merchant of Venice_ (J. Robertes, 22 July 1598), ‘prouided, that yt bee not prynted by the said James Robertes or anye other whatsoeuer without lycence first had from the Right honorable the lord chamberlen’; _Blind Beggar of Alexandria_ (W. Jones, 15 Aug. 1598), ‘vppon condition that yt belonge to noe other man’; _Spanish Tragedy_ (transfer from A. Jeffes to W. White, 13 Aug. 1599), ‘saluo iure cuiuscunque’; _Cloth Breeches and Velvet Hose_ (J. Robertes, 27 May 1600), ‘prouided that he is not to putt it in prynte without further and better aucthority’; _A Larum for London_ (J. Robertes, 29 May 1600), ‘prouided that yt be not printed without further aucthoritie’; _Antonio and Mellida_ (M. Lownes and T. Fisher, 24 Oct. 1601), ‘prouided that he gett laufull licence for yt’; _Satiromastix_ (J. Barnes, 11 Nov. 1601), ‘vppon condicon that yt be lycensed to be printed’; _Troilus and Cressida_ (J. Robertes, 7 Feb. 1603), ‘to print when he hath gotten sufficient aucthoritie for yt’; _When You See Me, You Know Me_ (N. Butter, 12 Feb. 1605), ‘yf he gett good alowance for the enterlude of King Henry the 8^{th} before he begyn to print it. And then procure the wardens handes to yt for the entrance of yt: He is to haue the same for his copy’; _Westward Hoe_ (H. Rocket, 2 March 1605), ‘prouided yat he get further authoritie before yt be printed’ (entry crossed out, and marked ‘vacat’); _Dutch Courtesan_ (J. Hodgets, 26 June 1605), ‘provyded that he gett sufficient aucthoritie before yt be prynted’ (with later note, ‘This is alowed to be printed by aucthoritie from Master Hartwell’); _Sir Giles Goosecap_ (E. Blount, 10 Jan. 1606), ‘prouided that yt be printed accordinge to the copie wherevnto Master Wilsons hand ys at’; _Fawn_ (W. Cotton, 12 March 1606), ‘provided that he shall not put the same in prynte before he gett alowed lawfull aucthoritie’; _Fleire_ (J. Trundle and J. Busby, 13 May 1606), ‘provided that they are not to printe yt tell they bringe good aucthoritie and licence for the doinge thereof’ (with note to transfer of Trundle’s share to Busby and A. Johnson on 21 Nov. 1606, ‘This booke is aucthorised by Sir George Bucke Master Hartwell and the wardens’).

[552] Buck’s hand first appears to _Claudius Tiberius Nero_ (10 Mar. 1607), and thereafter to all London (but not University) plays up to his madness in 1622, except _Cupid’s Whirligig_ (29 June 1607), which has Tilney’s, _Yorkshire Tragedy_ (2 May 1608), which has Wilson’s, some of those between 4 Oct. 1608 and 10 March 1609, which have Segar’s, who is described as Buck’s deputy, and _Honest Lawyer_ (14 Aug. 1615), which has Taverner’s.

[553] i. 45, 69, 93, 100, &c.; ii. 821, 843. In 1558–9, only, the heading is ‘Fynes for defautes for Pryntynge withoute lycense’.

[554] See the case of Jeffes and White in 1593 given in ch. xxiii, s.v. Kyd, _Spanish Tragedy_.

[555] i. 93, 100; ii. 853 (21 Jan. 1583), ‘This daye, Ric. Jones is awarded to paie x^s for a fine for printinge a thinge of the fall of the gallories at Paris Garden without licence and against commandement of the Wardens. And the said Jones and Bartlet to be committed to prison viz Bartlet for printing it and Jones for sufferinge it to be printed in his house’.

[556] ii. 824, 826, 832, 837, 849, 851.

[557] ii. 850.

[558] The testimony only relates strictly to the period 1576–86, which is nearly coincident with the slack ecclesiastical rule of Archbishop Grindal (1576–83). Parker (1559–75) may have been stricter, as Whitgift (1583–1604) certainly was.

[559] i. 95, ‘Master Waye had lycense to take the lawe of James Gonnell for a sarten dett due vnto hym’; 101, ‘Owyn Rogers for ... kepynge of a forren with out lycense ys fyned’.

[560] ii. 62.

[561] i. 322.

[562] v. lxxvi, ‘we do will and commande yowe that from hence forthe yowe suffer neither booke ballett nor any other matter to be published ... until the same be first seene and allowed either by us of her M^{tes} pryvie Counsell or by thee [_sic_] Commissioners for cawses ecclesyastical there at London’.

[563] The fee seems at first to have been 4_d._ for ‘entraunce’ (i. 94), with a further sum for books above a certain size at the rate of ‘euery iij leves a pannye’ (i. 97); plays ran from 4_d._ to 12_d._ But from about 1582 plays and most other books are charged a uniform fee of 6_d._, and only ballads and other trifles escape with 4_d._ Payments were sometimes in arrear; often there is no note of fee to a title; and in some of these cases the words ‘neuer printed’ have been added. On the other hand, the receipt of fees is sometimes recorded, and the title remains unentered; at the end of the entries for 1585–6 (ii. 448) is a memorandum that one of the wardens ‘brought in about iiij^s moore which he had receved for copies yat were not brought to be entred into the book this yere’. A similar item is in the wardens’ accounts for 1592–3 (i. 559). Fees were charged for entries of transferred as well as of new copies.

[564] Various formulae are used, such as ‘assigned vnto him’ (ii. 310, 351), ‘turned ouer to him’ (ii. 369), ‘putt ouer vnto him’ (ii. 431), ‘sold and sett ouer vnto him’ (ii. 350), ‘which he affyrmeth yat he bought of’ (ii. 351), ‘by assent of’ (ii. 415), ‘by thappointment of’ (ii. 667), ‘by the consent of’ (ii. 608), ‘which he bought of’ (ii. 325), &c. A transfer of ‘plaiebookes’ from Sampson Awdeley to John Charlewood on 15 Jan. 1582 (ii. 405) included, besides two plays, _Youth_ and _Impatient Poverty_, which had been formerly registered, four others, _Weather_, _Four Ps_, _Love_, and _Hickscorner_, which had been printed before the Register came into existence. I suppose that Charlwood secured copyright in these, but was there any copyright before the entry of 1582?

[565] ii. 377. ‘Tollerated vnto him but not vnder the wardens handes’, 472, ‘beinge broughte to enter by John Woulf without the wardens handes to the copy’. Even in the seventeenth century ballads are sometimes entered without any citation of hands, and in 1643 it was the clerk and not the wardens whom Parliament authorized to license ‘small pamphletts, portratures, pictures, and the like’ (v. liv).

[566] ii. 365, ‘Translated by a French copie whereat was the bishop of Londons hand and master Harrisons’; 440, ‘by commaundement from master warden Newbery vnder his own handwrytinge on the backside of ye wrytten copie’; 443, ‘vnder his hand to the printed copie’; 449, ‘by warrant of master warden Bisshops hand to the former copie printed anno 1584’; 449, ‘by warrant of master warden Bishops hand to the wrytten copie’; 457, ‘by warrant of the wardens handes to thold copie’; 521, ‘with master Hartwelles hand to the Italyan Booke’; 534, ‘alowed vnder master Hartwelles hand, entred by warrant of the subscription of the wardens’, &c.

[567] ii. 434, ‘entred vpon a special knowen token sent from master warden Newbery’; 437, ‘allowed by tharchbishop of Canterbury, by testymonie of the Lord Chenie’; 460, ‘by the wardens appointment at the hall’; 504, ‘by warrant of a letter from Sir Ffrauncis Walsingham to the master and wardens of the Cumpanye’; 523, ‘alowed by a letter or note vnder master Hartwelles hand’; 524, ‘reported by master Fortescue to be alowed by the archbishop of Canterbury’; 633, ‘The note vnder master Justice Ffenners hand is layd vp in the wardens cupbord’; iii. 160, ‘John Hardie reporteth that the wardens are consentinge to thentrance thereof’, &c.

[568] An inventory of 1560 (i. 143) records ‘The nombre of all suche Copyes as was lefte in the Cubberde in our Counsell Chambre at the Compte ... as apereth in the whyte boke for that yere ... xliiij. Item in ballettes ... vij^e iiij^x and xvj’. From 1576 to 1579 ‘and a copie’ is often added to the notes of fees. The wardens accounts from 1574 to 1596 (i. 470, 581) regularly recite that they had ‘deliuered into the hall certen copies which haue been printed this yeare, as by a particular booke thereof made appearithe’.

[569] ii. 452, ‘Receaved of him for printinge 123 ballades which are filed vp in the hall with his name to euerie ballad’. The order of 1592 about _Dr. Faustus_ (cf. ch. xxiii) suggests preliminary entry of claims in a Hall book distinct from the Clerk’s book.

[570] ii. 414, ‘Graunted by the Assistants’; 449, ‘entred in full court’; 462, ‘entred in plena curia’; 465, ‘intratur in curia’; 477, ‘by the whole consent of thassistantes’; 535, ‘aucthorysed to him at the hall soe that yt doe not belonge to any other of the Cumpanye’; 535, ‘This is allowed by the consent of the whole table’; 663, ‘in open court’; 344, ‘memorandum that this lycence is revoked and cancelled’; 457, ‘This copie is forbydden by the Archbishop of Canterbury’, with marginal note ‘Expunctum in plena curia’; 514, ‘so yat he first gett yt to be laufully and orderly alowed as tollerable to be printed and doo shewe thaucthoritie thereof at a Court to be holden’; 576, ‘Cancelled out of the book, for the vndecentnes of it in diuerse verses’; iii. 82, ‘Entred ... in full court ... vppon condicon that yt be no other mans copie, and that ... he procure it to be aucthorised and then doo shew it at the hall to the master and wardens so aucthorised’.

[571] The register indicates that even at the time of entry the fee sometimes remained unpaid. But probably it had to be paid before the stationer could actually publish with full security of copyright.

[572] Cf. p. 173.

[573] I note twenty-two cases (1586–1616) in which the earliest print known falls in a calendar year later than the next after that of entry: _Spanish Tragedy_, 1592–4 (N.D. probably earlier); _Soliman and Perseda_, 1592–9 (N.D. probably earlier); _James IV_, 1594–8; _Famous Victories_, 1594–8; _David and Bethsabe_, 1594–9; _King Leire_, 1594–1605 (re-entry 1605); _Four Prentices_, 1594–1615 (one or more earlier editions probable); _Jew of Malta_, 1594–1633 (re-entry 1632); _Woman in the Moon_, 1595–7; _George a Greene_, 1595–9; _Merchant of Venice_, 1598–1600 (conditional entry); _Alarum for London_, 1600–2 (conditional entry); _Patient Grissell_, 1600–3 (stayed by Admiral’s); _Stukeley_, 1600–5; _Dr. Faustus_, 1601–4; _Englishmen for my Money_, 1601–16; _Troilus and Cressida_, 1603–9 (re-entry 1609); _Westward Ho!_, 1605–7 (conditional entry cancelled); _Antony and Cleopatra_, 1608–23, (re-entry 1623); _2 Honest Whore_, 1608–30 (re-entry 1630); _Epicoene_, 1610–20 (earlier edition probable); _Ignoramus_, 1615–30 (re-entry 1630). The glutting of the book-market in 1594 accounts for some of the delays.

[574] ii. 829 (1599), 833 (1601), 835 (1602), 837 (1603).

[575] I find no entries of _Enough is as Good as a Feast_ (N.D.), _Thyestes_ (1560), _Hercules Furens_ (1561), _Trial of Treasure_ (1567), _God’s Promises_ (1577), perhaps reprints; of _Orestes_ (1567); or of _Abraham’s Sacrifice_ (1577) or _Conflict of Conscience_ (1581), perhaps entered in 1571–5. The method of exhaustions suggests that Copland’s _Robin Hood_ (N.D.) is the ‘newe playe called ---- ’ which he entered on 30 Oct. 1560, and that Colwell’s _Disobedient Child_ (N.D.) is the unnamed ‘interlude for boyes to handle and to passe tyme at christenmas’, which he entered in 1569–70.

[576] His plays were _Sir Thomas Wyat_ (1607), _Every Woman in her Humour_ (1609), _Two Maids of Moreclack_ (1609), _Roaring Girl_ (1611), _White Devil_ (1612), and _Insatiate Countess_ (1613).

[577] In _Nice Wanton_ a prayer for a king has been altered by sacrificing a rhyme into one for a queen. The prayer of _Impatient Poverty_ seems also to have been for Mary and clumsily adapted for Elizabeth. Wager’s _Enough is as Good as a Feast_ may be Elizabethan or pre-Elizabethan. _Jacob and Esau_ (1568), entered in 1557–8, is pre-Elizabethan.

[578] Reprints of 1559–85 include Heywood’s _Weather_ and _Four Ps_, printed in England before the establishment of the Stationers’ Register, and Bale’s _Three Laws_ and _God’s Promises_, printed, probably abroad, in 1538. John Walley, who seems to have printed 1545–86, failed to date his books. I cannot therefore say whether his reprints of the pre-Register _Love_ and _Hickscorner_, or the prints of _Youth_ and _Wealth and Health_ (if it is his), which he entered in 1557–8, are Elizabethan or not.

[579] Cf. App. L.

[580] Cf. App. B. I classify as follows: (a) COMPANIES OF MEN: (i) Morals (3), _Delight_, _Beauty and Housewifery_, _Love and Fortune_; (ii) Classical (7), _Tully_, _A Greek Maid_, _Four Sons of Fabius_, _Sarpedon_, _Telomo_, _Phillida and Corin_, _Rape of the Second Helen_; (iii) Romantic (17), _Lady Barbara_, _Cloridon and Radiamanta_, _Predor and Lucia_, _Mamillia_, _Herpetulus the Blue Knight and Perobia_, _Philemon and Philecia_, _Painter’s Daughter_, _Solitary Knight_, _Irish Knight_, _Cynocephali_, _Three Sisters of Mantua_, _Knight in the Burning Rock_, _Duke of Milan and Marquess of Mantua_, _Portio and Demorantes_, _Soldan and Duke_, _Ferrar_, _Felix and Philiomena_; (iv) Farce (1), _The Collier_; (v) Realistic (2), _Cruelty of a Stepmother_, _Murderous Michael_; (vi) Antic Play (1); (vii) Episodes (2), _Five Plays in One_, _Three Plays in One_; (b) COMPANIES OF BOYS: (i) Morals (6), _Truth, Faithfulness and Mercy_, ‘_Vanity_’, _Error_, _Marriage of Mind and Measure_, _Loyalty and Beauty_, _Game of Cards_; (ii) Classical (12), _Iphigenia_, _Ajax and Ulysses_, _Narcissus_, _Alcmaeon_, _Quintus Fabius_, _Siege of Thebes_, _Perseus and Andromeda_, ‘_Xerxes_’, _Mutius Scaevola_, _Scipio Africanus_, _Pompey_, _Agamemnon and Ulysses_; (iii) Romantic (4), _Paris and Vienna_, _Titus and Gisippus_, _Alucius_, _Ariodante and Genevora_; (c) UNKNOWN COMPANIES: (i) Morals (5), _As Plain as Can Be_, _Painful Pilgrimage_, _Wit and Will_, _Prodigality_, ‘_Fortune_’; (ii) Classical (2), _Orestes_, _Theagenes and Chariclea_; (iii) Romantic (1), _King of Scots_; (iv) Farces (2), _Jack and Jill_, _Six Fools_. The moral and romantic elements meet also in the list of pieces played by companies of men at Bristol from 1575 to 1579: _The Red Knight_, _Myngo_, _What Mischief Worketh in the Mind of Man_, _The Queen of Ethiopia_, _The Court of Comfort_, _Quid pro Quo_ (Murray, ii. 213).

[581] _Love and Fortune_ was printed in the next period.

[582] _Mary Magdalen_; _Conflict of Conscience_. ‘Compiled’ goes back to Bale, Heywood, and Skelton. Earlier still, _Everyman_ is not so much a play as ‘a treatyse ... in maner of a morall playe’.

[583] The prologue of _Mary Magdalen_ has ‘we haue vsed this feate at the uniuersitie’.

[584] Wynkyn de Worde calls _Mundus et Infans_ a ‘propre newe interlude’, and the advertising title-page is well established from the time of Rastell’s press.

[585] _Conflict of Conscience_; cf. _Damon and Pythias_, the prologue of which, though it had been a Court play, ‘is somewhat altered for the proper use of them that hereafter shall haue occasion to plaie it, either in Priuate, or open Audience’. The castings, for four, five, or six players, occur in _King Darius_, _Like Will to Like_, _Longer Thou Livest_, _Mary Magdalen_, _New Custom_, _Tide Tarrieth for No Man_, _Trial of Treasure_, _Conflict of Conscience_. I find a later example from the public stage in _Fair Maid of the Exchange_, which has ‘Eleauen may easily acte this comedie’, and a division of parts accordingly. There are pre-Elizabethan precedents, while _Jack Juggler_ is ‘for Chyldren to playe’, the songs in _Ralph Roister Doister_ are for ‘those which shall vse this Comedie or Enterlude’, and _The Four Elements_ has directions for reducing the time of playing at need from an hour and a half to three-quarters of an hour, and the note ‘Also yf ye lyst ye may brynge in a dysgysynge’. Similarly _Robin Hood_ is ‘for to be played in Maye games’. That books were in fact bought to act from is shown by entries in the accounts of Holy Trinity, Bungay, for 1558 of 4_d._ for ‘the interlude and game booke’ and 2_s._ for ‘writing the partes’ (_M. S._ ii. 343). A book costing only 4_d._ must clearly have been a print.

[586] There are prayers in _All for Money_, _Apius and Virginia_, _Common Conditions_, _Damon and Pythias_, _Disobedient Child_ (headed ‘The Players ... kneele downe’), _King Darius_, _Like Will to Like_, _Longer Thou Livest_, _New Custom_, _Trial of Treasure_ (epilogue headed ‘Praie for all estates’). _Mary Magdalen_ and _Tide Tarrieth for No Man_ substitute a mere expression of piety. I do not agree with Fleay, 57, that such prayers are evidence of Court performance. The reverence and epilogue to the Queen in the belated moral of _Liberality and Prodigality_ (1602), 1314, is different in tone. _The Pedlar’s Prophecy_, also belated as regards date of print, adds to the usual prayer for Queen and council ‘And that honorable T. N. &c. of N. chiefly: Whom as our good Lord and maister, found we haue’. No doubt any strolling company purchasing the play would fill up the blanks to meet their own case. Probably both the Queen and estates and the ‘lord’ of a company were prayed for, whether present or absent, so long as the custom lasted; cf. ch. x, p. 311; ch. xviii, p. 550.

[587] Cf. e. g. _Mary Magdalen_ (which refers on the title-page to those who ‘heare or read the same’), 56, 1479, 1743; _Like Will to Like_, sig. C, ‘He ... speaketh the rest as stammering as may be’, C ij, ‘Haunce sitteth in the chaire, and snorteth as though he were fast a sleep’, E ij^v, ‘Nichol Newfangle lieth on the ground groning’, &c., &c.

[588] _Three Ladies of London_ (1584), _Three Lords and Three Ladies of London_ (1590), _Pedlar’s Prophecy_ (1595), _Contention of Liberality and Prodigality_ (1602). _Lingua_ (1607) is a piece of academic archaism. I cannot believe that the manuscript fragment of _Love Feigned and Unfeigned_ belongs to the seventeenth century. Of course there are moral elements in other plays, such as _Histriomastix_, especially in dumb-shows and inductions.

[589] There is little evidence as to the price at which prints were sold; what there is points to 6_d._ for a quarto. A ‘testerne’ is given in the epistle as the price of _Troilus and Cressida_, and in Middleton, _Mayor of Quinborough_, v. i, come thieves who ‘only take the name of country comedians to abuse simple people with a printed play or two, which they bought at Canterbury for sixpence’. The statement that the First Folio cost £1 only rests on Steevens’s report of a manuscript note in a copy not now known; cf. McKerrow in _Sh. England_, ii. 229.

[590] Cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Shakespeare.

[591] Cf. App. L. In the above allocation _Leir_ and _Satiromastix_, to each of which two companies have equal claims, are counted twice.

[592] Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 148, gives a full list; cf. ch. xiii, s.vv. Queen’s, Sussex’s, Strange’s, Admiral’s, Pembroke’s, Worcester’s.

[593] Cf. App. M. Can Moseley have been trying in some way to secure plays of which he possessed manuscripts from being _acted_ without his consent? On 30 Aug. 1660 (_Variorum_, iii. 249; Herbert, 90) he wrote to Sir Henry Herbert, denying that he had ever agreed with the managers of the Cockpit and Whitefriars that they ‘should act any playes that doe belong to mee, without my knowledge and consent had and procured’.

[594] Printed from _Addl. MS._ 27632, f. 43, by F. J. Furnivall in _7 N. Q._ (1890), ix. 382. Harington died in 1612. An earlier leaf (30) has the date ‘29^{th} of Jan. 1609’. The latest datable play in the collection is _The Turk_ (1610, S. R. 10 Mar. 1609). There are four out of six plays printed in 1609, as well as _The Faithful Shepherdess_ (N.D.), of which on this evidence we can reasonably put the date of publication in 1609 or 1610.

[595] Cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Heywood.

[596] _M. S. C._ i. 364; _Variorum_, iii. 159. The King’s men played _The Malcontent_, probably after its first issue in 1604, as a retort for the appropriation of _Jeronimo_ by its owners, the Queen’s Revels. The earliest extant print of _1 Jeronimo_ is 1605, but the play, which is not in S. R., may have been printed earlier. The Chapel boys seem to have revived one at least of Lyly’s old Paul’s plays in 1601. The Chamberlain’s adopted _Titus Andronicus_, which had been Sussex’s, and Shakespeare revised for them _Taming of A Shrew_ and _The Contention_, which had been Pembroke’s, and based plays which were new from the literary, and in the case of the last also from the publisher’s, standpoint on the _Troublesome Reign of John_ and the _Famous Victories of Henry V_, which had been the Queen’s, and upon _King Leir_. But of course Sussex’s, Pembroke’s, and the Queen’s had broken.

[597] Henslowe, i. 119.

[598] A single printer, Thomas Creede, entered or printed ten plays between 1594 and 1599, all of which he probably acquired in 1594, although he could not get them all in circulation at once. These include four (_T. T. of Rich. III_, _Selimus_, _Famous Victories_, _Clyomon and Clamydes_) from the Queen’s; it is therefore probable that some of those on whose t.ps. no company is named (_Looking Glass_, _Locrine_, _Pedlar’s Prophecy_, _James IV_, _Alphonsus_) were from the same source. The tenth, _Menaechmi_, was not an acting play.

[599] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 44; cf. ch. ix.

[600] The Folio editors of Shakespeare condemn the Quartos, or some of them, as ‘stolne, and surreptitious copies’; ‘piratical’, although freely used by Mr. Pollard and others, is not a very happy term, since no piracy of copyright is involved. The authorized Q_{2} of _Roxana_ (1632) claims to be ‘a plagiarii unguibus vindicata’.

[601] Introduction, xxxvi of his edition.

[602] R. B. McKerrow in _Bibl. Soc. Trans._ xii. 294; J. D. Wilson, _The Copy for Hamlet 1603 and the Hamlet Transcript 1593_ (1918).

[603] C. Dewischeit, _Shakespeare und die Stenographie_ (_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxxiv. 170); cf. Lee, 113, quoting Sir G. Buck’s _Third Universitie of England_ (1612; cf. ch. iii), ‘They which know it [brachygraphy] can readily take a Sermon, Oration, Play, or any long speech, as they are spoke, dictated, acted, and uttered in the instant’.

[604] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 48; _F. and Q._ 64. More recently A. W. Pollard and J. D. Wilson have developed a theory (_T. L. S._ Jan.–Aug. 1919) that the ‘bad quartos’ rest upon pre-Shakespearian texts partly revised by Shakespeare, of which shortened transcripts had been made for a travelling company in 1593, and which had been roughly adapted by an actor-reporter so as to bring them into line with the later Shakespearian texts current at the time of publication. Full discussion of this theory belongs to a study of Shakespeare. The detailed application of it in J. D. Wilson, _The Copy for Hamlet 1603 and the Hamlet Transcript 1593_ (1918), does not convince me that Shakespeare had touched the play in 1593, although I think that the reporter was in a position to make some slight use of a pre-Shakespearian _Hamlet_. And although travelling companies were doubtless smaller than the largest London companies (cf. chh. xi and xiii, s.v. Pembroke’s), there is no external evidence that special ‘books’ were prepared for travelling. For another criticism of the theory, cf. W. J. Lawrence in _T. L. S._ for 21 Aug. 1919. Causes other than travelling might explain the shortening of play texts: prolixity, even in an experienced dramatist (cf. t.p. of _Duchess of Malfi_), the approach of winter afternoons, an increased popular demand for jigs.

[605] Cf. G. Wither, _Schollers Purgatory_ (_c._ 1625), 28, ‘Yea, by the lawes and Orders of their Corporation, they can and do setle upon the particuler members thereof a perpetuall interest in such Bookes as are Registred by them at their Hall, in their several Names: and are secured in taking the ful benefit of those books, better then any Author can be by vertue of the Kings Grant, notwithstanding their first Coppies were purloyned from the true owner, or imprinted without his leave’.

[606] Pollard, _F. and Q._ 10. Mr. Pollard seems to suggest (_F. and Q._ 3) that copyright in a printed book did not hold as against the author. He cites the case of Nashe’s _Pierce Pennilesse_, but there seems no special reason to assume that in this case, or in those of _Gorboduc_ and _Hamlet_, the authorized second editions were not made possible by an arrangement, very likely involving blackmail, with the pirate.

[607] Letter in Grosart, _Poems of Sidney_ (1877), i. xxiii. Pollard, _F. and Q._ 8, says that on other occasions Sidney’s friends approached the Lord Treasurer and the Star Chamber.

[608] Pollard, _F. and Q._ 7, 11. I am not sure that the appearance of Bacon’s name can be regarded as a recognition of the principle of author’s copyright. He may have been already in the High Commission; he was certainly in that of 1601.

[609] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 49, 51, speaks of Burby as ‘regaining the copyright’ by his publications, and as, moreover, saving his sixpences ‘as a license was only required for new books’. But surely there was no copyright, as neither Danter nor Burby paid for an entry. I take it that when, on 22 Jan. 1607, _R. J._ and _L. L. L._ were entered to Nicholas Ling, ‘by direccõn of a Court and with consent of Master Burby in wrytinge’, the entry of the transfer secured the copyright for the first time.

[610] Arber, iii. 37. The ink shows that there are two distinct entries.

[611] Fleay, _L. and W._ 40; Furness, _Much Ado_, ix.

[612] Pollard, _F. and Q._ 66; _Sh. F._ 44.

[613] Roberts did not print the 1603 _Hamlet_, although he did that of 1604; but it must have been covered by his entry of 1602, and this makes it a little difficult to regard him (or Blount in 1609) as the ‘agent’ of the Chamberlain’s.

[614] Pollard, _F. and Q._ 66; _Sh. F._ 45.

[615] There are analogies in _Taming of the Shrew_, _2, 3 Henry VI_, and _King John_, which were not entered in S. R. with the other unprinted plays in 1623, and were probably regarded as covered by copyright in the plays on which they were based, although, as a matter of fact, the _Troublesome Reign_ was itself not entered.

[616] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 53.

[617] They had risks to run. The Star Chamber fined and imprisoned William Buckner, late chaplain to the archbishop, for licensing Prynne’s _Histriomastix_ in 1633 (Rushworth, _Historical Collections_, ii. 234).

[618] _M. S. C._ i. 364; _Variorum_, iii. 159.

[619] Moseley’s _Epistle_ to F_{1} (1647) of Beaumont and Fletcher says, ‘When these _Comedies_ and _Tragedies_ were presented on the Stage, the _Actours_ omitted some _Scenes_ and Passages (with the _Authour’s_ consent) as occasion led them; and when private friends desir’d a Copy, they then (and justly too) transcribed what they Acted’.

[620] See _Epistles_ to Armin, _Two Maids of Moreclack_; Chapman, _Widow’s Tears_; Heywood, _Rape of Lucrece_, _Golden Age_; Marston, _Malcontent_; Middleton, _Family of Love_.

[621] Jonson, _E. M. O._ (1600), ‘As it was first composed by the Author B. I. Containing more than hath been publikely spoken or acted’; Barnes, _Devil’s Charter_ (1607), ‘As it was plaide.... But more exactly reuewed, corrected, and augmented since by the Author, for the more pleasure and profit of the Reader’; Webster, _Duchess of Malfi_ (1623), ‘with diuerse things Printed, that the length of the Play would not beare in the Presentment’.

[622] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 57; _F. and Q._ 117.

[623] The editors of the Shakespeare F_{1} claim that they are replacing ‘stolne, and surreptitious copies’ by plays ‘absolute in their numbers, as he conceiued them’, and that ‘wee haue scarse receiued from him a blot in his papers’; and those of the Beaumont and Fletcher F_{1} say they ‘had the Originalls from such as received them from the Authors themselves’ and lament ‘into how many hands the Originalls were dispersed’. The same name ‘original’ was used for the authoritative copy of a civic miracle-play; cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 143.

[624] The manuscripts of _Sir John Barnevelt_ (_Addl. MS._ 18653), _Believe As You List_ (_Egerton MS._ 2828), _The Honest Man’s Fortune_ (_Dyce MS._ 9), _The Faithful Friends_ (_Dyce MS._ 10), and _The Sisters_ (_Sion College MS._) appear to be play-house copies, with licensing corrections, and in some cases the licences endorsed, and some of them may be in the authors’ autographs; cf. Pollard, _Sh. F._ 59; Mönkemeyer, 72. Several of the copies in _Egerton MS._ 1994, described by F. S. Boas in _3 Library_ (July 1917), including that of _1 Richard II_, are of a similar type.

[625] Sir Henry Herbert noted in his office-book in 1633 (_Variorum_, iii. 208), ‘The Master ought to have copies of their new playes left with him, that he may be able to shew what he hath allowed or disallowed’, but it was clearly not the current practice. In 1640 (_Variorum_, iii. 241) he suppressed an unlicensed play, and noted, ‘The play I cald for, and, forbiddinge the playinge of it, keepe the booke’, which suggests that only one copy existed.

[626] Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 155, prints it; cf. _1 Antonio and Mellida_, ind. 1, ‘Enter ... with parts in their hands’; _Wily Beguiled_, prol. 1, ‘Where are these paltrie Plaiers? stil poaring in their papers and neuer perfect?’ By derivation, the words assigned to an actor became his ‘part’; cf. Dekker, _News from Hell_ (1606, _Works_, ii. 144), ‘with pittifull action, like a Plaier, when hees out of his part’.

[627] In 1623 Herbert re-allowed _The Winter’s Tale_, ‘thogh the allowed booke was missinge’, and in 1625 _The Honest Man’s Fortune_, ‘the originall being lost’ (_Variorum_, iii. 229).

[628] Cf. App. N.

[629] The handing over of ‘papers’ is referred to in several letters to Henslowe; cf. _Henslowe Papers_, 56, 69, 75, 76, 81, 82.

[630] He sends Henslowe an instalment ‘fayr written’, and on another occasion says, ‘I send you the foule sheet and y^e fayr I was wrighting as your man can testify’ (_Henslowe Papers_, 72, 78).

[631] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 62.

[632] _Birth of Hercules_, 3, ‘Notae marginales inseruiant dirigendae histrion[ic]ae’; Nashe, _Summer’s Last Will and Testament_, 1813, ‘You might haue writ in the margent of your play-booke, Let there be a fewe rushes laide in the place where _Back-winter_ shall tumble, for feare of raying his cloathes: or set downe, Enter _Back-winter_, with his boy bringing a brush after him, to take off the dust if need require. But you will ne’re haue any wardrobe wit while you live. I pray you holde the booke well, that we be not _non plus_ in the latter end of the play.’

[633] ‘Exit’ and ‘Exeunt’ soon became the traditional directions for leaving the stage, but I find ‘Exite omnes’ in Peele, _Edw. I_, 1263.

[634] Mönkemeyer, 73.

[635] _T. N. K._ I. iii. 69, ‘2 Hearses ready with Palamon: and Arcite: the 3 Queenes. Theseus: and his Lordes ready’, i.e. ready for I. iv, which begins 42 lines later; and again I. iv. 29, ‘3 Hearses ready’, for I. v, beginning 24 lines later. So too _Bussy D’Ambois_ (1641, not 1607 ed.), I. i. 153, ‘Table, Chesbord and Tapers behind the Arras’, ready for I. ii.

[636] _A Shrew_, ind. i, ‘San.’ for speaker; _The Shrew_ (F_{1}), ind. i. 88, ‘Sincklo’ for speaker; _3 Hen. VI_ (F_{1}), I. ii. 48, ‘Enter Gabriel’; III. i. 1, ‘Enter Sinklo, and Humfrey’; _R. J._ (Q_{2}), IV. v. 102, ‘Enter Will Kemp’; _M. N. D._ (F_{1}), V. i. 128, ‘Tawyer with a Trumpet before them’; _1 Hen. IV_ (Q_{1}), I. ii. 182 (text, not s.d.), ‘Falstaffe, Haruey, Rossill, and Gadshil, shall rob those men that we haue already waylaid’ (cf. II. ii); _2 Hen. IV_ (Q_{1}), V. iv. 1, ‘Enter Sincklo and three or foure officers’; _M. Ado_ (F_{1}), II. iii. 38, ‘Enter Prince, Leonato, Claudio and Iacke Wilson’; _M. Ado_ (Q and F), IV. ii, ‘Cowley’ and ‘Kemp’ for speakers; _T.N.K._ v. 3, ‘T. Tucke: Curtis’, IV. ii. 75, ‘Enter Messenger, Curtis’; _1 Antonio and Mellida_, IV. i. 30, ‘Enter Andrugio, Lucio, Cole, and Norwood’; for other examples, cf. pp. 227, 271, 285, 295, 330, and vol. iv, p. 43. The indications of speakers by the letters E. and G. in _All’s Well_, II. i; III. i, ii, vi, may have a similar origin. The names of actors are entered in the ‘plots’ after those of the characters represented (cf. _Henslowe Papers_, 127).

[637] _Alphonsus_, prol. 1, ‘after you haue sounded thrise’; 1938, ‘Exit Venus. Or, if you can conueniently, let a chaire come down from the top of the stage’; _James IV_, 1463, ‘Enter certaine Huntsmen, if you please, singing’; 1931, ‘Enter, from the widdowes house, a seruice, musical songs of marriages, or a maske, or what prettie triumph you list’; _Three Lords and Three Ladies of London_, sig. C, ‘Here Simp[licitie] sings first, and Wit after, dialoguewise, both to musicke if ye will’; _Locrine_, I. i. 1, ‘Let there come foorth a Lion running after a Beare or any other beast’; _Death of R. Hood_, III. ii, ‘Enter or aboue [Hubert, Chester]’; _2 Hen. VI_, IV. ii. 33, ‘Enter Cade [etc.] with infinite numbers’; IV. ix. 9, ‘Enter Multitudes with Halters about their Neckes’; _T. A._ I. i. 70, ‘as many as can be’; _Edw. I_, 50, ‘Enter ... and others as many as may be’; _Sir T. More_, sc. ix. 954, ‘Enter ... so many Aldermen as may’; _What You Will_, v. 193, ‘Enter as many Pages with torches as you can’.

[638] Mönkemeyer, 63, 91.

[639] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 79.

[640] e.g. _R. J._ (Q_{1}), III. i. 94, ‘Tibalt vnder Romeos arme thrusts Mercutio in and flyes’; III. ii. 32, ‘Enter Nurse wringing her hands, with the ladder of cordes in her lap’; IV. v. 95, ‘They all but the Nurse goe foorth, casting Rosemary on her and shutting the Curtens’.

[641] Cf. ch. xxi, pp. 133, 136.

[642] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 71; Van Dam and Stoffel, _William Shakespeare, Prosody and Text_, 274; _Chapters on English Printing, Prosody, and Pronunciation_.

[643] R. B. McKerrow, introd. xiv, to Barnes, _Devil’s Charter_.

[644] Pollard, _Sh. F._ 74; cf. his introd. to _A New Shakespeare Quarto_ (1916).

[645] Epistles to Heywood, _Rape of Lucrece_; Marston, _Malcontent_, _Fawn_; Middleton, _Family of Love_. In _Father Hubburd’s Tales_ Middleton says, ‘I never wished this book a better fortune than to fall into the hands of a truespelling printer’. Heywood, in an Epistle to _Apology for Actors_ (1612), praises the honest workmanship of his printer, Nicholas Okes, as against that of W. Jaggard, who would not let him issue _errata_ of ‘the infinite faults escaped in my booke of _Britaines Troy_, by the negligence of the Printer, as the misquotations, mistaking of sillables, misplacing halfe lines, coining of strange and neuer heard of words’.