Chapter XXIV: Anonymous Work 1 (1)

A. Plays 1
B. Masks 55
C. Receptions and Entertainments 60

APPENDICES

A. A Court Calendar 75
B. Court Payments 131
C. Documents of Criticism 184
D. Documents of Control 259
E. Plague Records 345
F. The Presence-Chamber at Greenwich 351
G. Serlio’s _Trattato sopra le Scene_ 353
H. _The Gull’s Hornbook_ 365
I. Restoration Testimony 369
K. Academic Plays 373
L. Printed Plays 379
M. Lost Plays 398
N. Manuscript Plays 404

INDEXES

I. Plays 409
II. Persons 425
III. Places 445
IV. Subjects 454

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Design for Cockpit Theatre at Whitehall. By
Inigo Jones. From Library of Worcester
College, Oxford _Frontispiece_

The _Profilo_ or Section of a Stage. From
Sebastiano Serlio, _Architettura_ (1551) p. 354

The _Pianta_ or Ground-Plan of a Stage (_ibid._) p. 357

Elevation of a _Scena Comica_ (_ibid._) p. 359

Elevation of a _Scena Tragica_ (_ibid._) p. 361

Elevation of a _Scena Satyrica_ (_ibid._) p. 362

NOTE

I have found it convenient, especially in Appendix A, to use the symbol < following a date, to indicate an uncertain date not earlier than that named, and the symbol > followed by a date, to indicate an uncertain date not later than that named. Thus 1903 < > 23 would indicate the composition date of any part of this book. I have sometimes placed the date of a play in italics, where it was desirable to indicate the date of production rather than publication.

The documents from J. R. Dasent, _Acts of the Privy Council_ (1890–1907), are reprinted by permission of the Controller of His Majesty’s Stationery Office.

XXIV

ANONYMOUS WORK

[Here I bring together, giving them the same treatment as the individual works in ch. xxiii, pieces of which the authorship, as regards the whole or a large part, is unknown or conjectural. They are grouped as (A) Plays, (B) Masks, (C) Receptions and Entertainments. It has been convenient, for the sake of classification, to include in the third group a few which might alternatively have been brought into ch. xxiii under the name of a part-author or describer.]

A. PLAYS

_An Alarum for London > 1600_

_S. R._ 1600, May 27. ‘Allarum to London’ is included in a memorandum of ‘my lord chamberlens menns plaies Entred’ and noted as entered on this day to J. Roberts (Arber, iii. 37).

1600, May 29. ‘The Allarum to London, provided that yt be not printed without further Aucthoritie.’ _John Roberts_ (Arber, iii. 161).

1602. A Larum for London, or The Siedge of Antwerpe. With the ventrous actes and valorous deeds of the lame Soldier. As it hath been playde by the right Honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants. _For William Ferbrand._ [Prologue and Epilogue.]

_Editions_ by R. Simpson (1872), J. S. Farmer (1912, _T.F.T._), and W. W. Greg (1913, _M.S.R._).

The play has been ascribed to Shakespeare by Collier, to Shakespeare and Marston by Simpson, and to Lodge by Fleay, _Shakespeare_, 291, but no serious case has been made out for any of these claims. Bullen, _Marlowe_, 1, lxxiv, says that Collier had a copy with doggerel rhymes on the t.p. including the line,

Our famous Marloe had in this a hand,

which Bullen calls ‘a very ridiculous piece of forgery’.

_Albion Knight > 1566_

_S. R._ 1565–6. ‘A play intituled a merye playe bothe pytthy and pleasaunt of Albyon knyghte.’ _Thomas Colwell_ (Arber, i. 295).

Fragment in Devonshire collection.

[The t.p. is lost, but the seventeenth-century play lists (Greg, _Masques_, xlvii) include an interlude called _Albion_. A fragment on Temperance and Humility, conjecturally assigned by Collier, i. 284, to the same play, is of earlier printing by thirty years or so (_M.S.C._ i. 243).]

_Editions_ by J. P. Collier (1844, _Sh. Soc. Papers_, i. 55) and W. W. Greg (1910, _M. S. C._ i. 229).--_Dissertations_: M. H. Dodds, _The Date of A. K._ (1913, 3 _Library_, iv. 157); G. A. Jones, _The Political Significance of A. K._ (1918, _J. G. P._ xvii. 267).

Collier suggests that this was the play disliked at court on 31 Dec. 1559, but, as Fleay, 66, points out, that would hardly have been licensed for printing. Dodds thinks it motived by the Pilgrimage of Grace (1536–7) and written shortly after.

_Alice and Alexis_

A fragment (to iii. 1) of a play on the loves of Alice and Alexis, thwarted by Tanto, with an argument of the whole, is in _Douce MS._ 171 (_Bodl._ 21745), f. 48^v. The date ‘1604’ is scribbled amongst the pages. The manuscript also contains sixteenth-century accounts. There seems nothing to connect this with Massinger’s _Alexius, or the Chaste Lover_, licensed by Herbert on 25 Sept. 1639 and apparently included in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (3 _Library_, ii. 232, 249).

_Alphonsus, Emperor of Germany > 1636_

_S. R._ 1653, Sept. 9. ‘A play called Alphonso, Emperor of Germany, by John Poole.’ _H. Moseley_ (Eyre, i. 428).

1654. The Tragedy of Alphonsus Emperour of Germany. As it hath been very often Acted (with great applause) at the Privat house in Black-Friers by his late Maiesties Servants. By George Chapman Gent. _For Humphrey Moseley._ [Epistle to the Reader. The B.M. copy of the play is dated ‘Novemb. 29, 1653’.]

_Editions_ by K. Elze (1867) and H. F. Schwarz (1913), and in collections of Chapman (q.v.).

_Alphonsus_ may reasonably be identified with the _Alfonso_ given before the Queen and the Elector Palatine at the Blackfriars on 5 May 1636 (Cunningham, xxiv). The ascription on the title-page to Chapman is repeated therefrom by Langbaine who rejects that of Kirkman in 1661 and 1671 (Greg, _Masques_, xlviii) to Peele, but the intimate knowledge of German shown in the dialogue has led Elze and Ward, ii. 428, to give Chapman a German collaborator, conceivably one Rudolf Weckerlin of Würtemberg, who after a preliminary visit before 1614 settled permanently in England about 1624 and obtained political employment, which he varied with literary exercises. Later critics are inclined to reject Chapman’s authorship altogether, and the case against it has been effectively put by E. Koeppel, _Quellen-Studien zu den Dramen Chapman’s_, 78, and Parrott. The ascription to Peele has been revived by Robertson, _T. A._ 123, and though Parrott does not accept the full argument, he agrees in regarding the play as originally of Peele’s date, possibly by him, with or without a collaborator, and drastically revised at a later period, perhaps by Weckerlin in 1636. Fleay, ii. 156, 311, also accepts Peele and identifies the play with _Harry of Cornwall_, revived by Strange’s for Henslowe on 25 Feb. 1592, but, as Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 151) points out, the character in _Alphonsus_ is not Henry, but Richard of Cornwall. It must be observed that no critic has noticed the _S. R._ ascription to John Poole, which may quite well be the origin of Kirkman’s ‘Peele’. Who John Poole was, I do not know.

_Apius and Virginia > 1567–8_

_S. R._ 1567–8. ‘A Tragedy of Apius and Virgine.’ _Richard Jones_ (Arber, i. 357).

1575. A new Tragicall Comedie of Apius and Virginia, Wherein is liuely expressed a rare example of the vertue of Chastitie, by Virginias constancy, in wishing rather to be slaine at her owne Fathers handes, then to be deflowred of the wicked Iudge Apius. By R. B. _William How for Richard Jones._ [Prologue and Epilogue.]

_Editions_ in Dodsley^{3, 4} (1825–76), and by J. S. Farmer (1908, _T. F. T._) and R. B. McKerrow (1911, _M. S. R._).

‘Haphazard, the Vice’ is a character. The stage-directions name ‘the stage’, ‘the scaffold’. A prologue addresses ‘lordings’; an epilogue has a prayer for the queen, nobles, and commons. The play is not controversial, but the tone is Protestant. Fleay, 61, thinks it a Westminster play of 1563–4; but no Westminster play of 1563–4 is on record. If Fleay means 1564–5, the Westminster play of that Christmas was _Miles Gloriosus_. There is nothing but the initials to identify the author with Richard Bower of the Chapel (q.v.), but the suggestion is more plausible than that of Wallace, i. 108, who gives the play to Richard Edwardes (q.v.), finding that the ‘R. E.’ subscribed to some of his manuscript poems is capable of being misread ‘R. B.’.

_Arden of Feversham > 1592_

_S. R._ 1592, April 3 (Bishop of London). ‘The tragedie of Arden of Feuersham and Blackwall.’ _Edward White_ (Arber, ii. 607). [See s.v. Kyd, _Spanish Tragedy_, for the record of a piracy of the play in 1592 by Abel Jeffes.]

1592. The Lamentable and True Tragedie of M. Arden of Feuersham in Kent. Who was most wickedlye murdered, by the meanes of his disloyall and wanton wyfe, who for the love she bare to one Mosbie, hyred two desperat ruffins Blackwill and Shakbag, to kill him. Wherin is shewed the great mallice and discimulation of a wicked woman, the vnsatiable desire of filthie lust and the shamefull end of all murderers. _For Edward White._ [Epilogue.]

1599. _J. Roberts for Edward White._

1633. _Eliz. Allde._

_Editions_ by E. Jacob (1770), A. H. Bullen (1887), R. Bayne (1897, _T. D._), J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._), and in _Sh. Apocrypha_.--_Dissertations_: C. E. Donne, _Essay on the Tragedy of A. of F._ (1873); C. Crawford, _The Authorship of A. of F._ (1903, _Jahrbuch_, xxxix. 74; _Collectanea_, i. 101); W. Miksch, _Die Verfasserschaft des A. of F._ (1907, Breslau diss.); K. Wiehl, _Thomas Kyd und die Autorschaft von ... A. of F._ (1912, _E. S._ xliv. 356); H. D. Sykes, _Sidelights upon Shakespeare_, 48 (1919); L. Cust, _A. of F._ (1920, _Arch. Cant._ xxxiv. 101).

Jacob first claimed the authorship for Shakespeare. In spite of the advocacy of Swinburne (_Study of Sh._, 129) modern criticism remains wholly unconvinced. The play has tragic merit, but it is not of a Shakespearian character, and it is impossible to fit its manner, before 1592, into any coherent theory of Shakespeare’s development. More plausible is the case for Kyd, suggested by Fleay, ii. 28, who puts the date as far back as 1585 on quite unreliable grounds of improbable guess-work, and supported by Robertson, _T. A._ 151, and elaborately argued by Crawford and Sykes. But Boas, _Kyd_, lxxxix, thinks that the author was more likely an imitator of Kyd, and opinion remains divided. Oliphant (_M. P._ viii. 420) suggests Kyd and Marlowe, possibly with a third. The theme may also have been that of the _Murderous Michael_ played at court by Sussex’s in 1579.

_The Birth of Hercules. 1597 <_

[_MS._] _B.M. Add. MS._ 28722. ‘The birthe of hercules.’ [Prologus Laureatus; Mercurius Prologus; after text, ‘Testamentum poetae, ad peleum. Comoedarum pariter et histrionum princeps Peleu, tuo pro iudicio, volo hanc meam Comoediam, vel recitari, vel reticeri: hoc est: aut vivere aut mori. Scripsi, nec poeta, nec moriens: et tamen poeta moriens’. Written in one hand, with stage-directions by a second and corrections by a third and possibly a fourth, on paper datable by the watermark in 1597.]

_Editions_ by M. W. Wallace (1903) and R. W. Bond (1911, _M. S. R._).

This is pretty clearly a University play, and any connexion with the _Hercules_ of the Admiral’s men in 1595 is highly improbable. As George Peele died in 1596, it seems difficult to identify him with the Peleus of the MS. Bond thinks that ‘the styles of composition and writing agree in placing a date before 1600 out of the question’.

_Caesar’s Revenge > 1606_

_S. R._ 1606, June 5. ‘A booke called Julius Caesars reuenge.’ _J. Wright and N. Fosbrook_, licensed by Dr. Covell and the wardens (Arber, iii. 323).

N.D. The Tragedie of Caesar and Pompey Or Caesars Reuenge. _G. E. for Iohn Wright._

1607.... Priuately acted by the Studentes of Trinity Colledge in Oxford. _For Nathaniel Fosbrook and Iohn Wright._ [Re-issue with cancel t.p.]

_Editions_ by F. S. Boas (1911, _M. S. R._) and W. Mühlfeld (1911, 1912, _Jahrbuch_, xlvii. 132; xlviii. 37), and J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._).--_Dissertations_: T. M. Parrott, _The Academic Tragedy of C. and P._ (1910, _M. L. R._ v. 435); H. M. Ayres, _C. R._ (1915, _M. L. A._ xxx. 771); G. C. Moore Smith, _The Tragedy of C. R._ (1916, 12 _N. Q._ ii. 305).

There is no traceable connexion between this and any other of the several plays on Caesar, extant and lost, which are upon record. C. Crawford (_M. S. C._ i. 290) indicates some parallels which suggest a date of authorship between 1592 and 1596.

_Charlemagne or The Distracted Emperor c. 1600_

[_MS._] _Egerton MS._ 1994. At the end is the note, ‘Nella Φ δ Φ ν ρ la B’ = ‘Nella fedeltà finirò la vita’.

_Editions_ by A. H. Bullen (1884, _O. E. P._ iii) and F. L. Schoell (1920).--_Dissertation_: F. L. Schoell, _Un Drame Élisabéthain Anonyme C_ (1912, _Revue Germanique_, viii. 155).

Bullen suggests that the author was Chapman, and also thinks Tourneur or Marston conceivable. He quotes Fleay’s opinion in favour of Field. Fleay, ii. 319, withdraws Field and substitutes Dekker. He identifies the play with the ‘King Charlemagne’ of Peele’s _Farewell_ of 1589 (cf. s.v. Peele, _Battle of Alcazar_). Schoell makes an elaborate case for Chapman, and thinks that the play might be _The Fatall Love, a French Tragedy_, entered as his in _S. R._ on 29 June 1660, and included, without author’s name, in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (3 _Library_, ii. 231). A date later than 1584 is indicated by the use of Du Bartas’s _Seconde Semaine_ of that year. It may be added that the style points to _c._ 1600 rather than _c._ 1590.

_Claudius Tiberius Nero > 1607_

_S. R._ 1607, April 10 (Buck). ‘A booke called the tragicall Life and Death of Claudius Tiberius Nero.’ _Francis Burton_ (Arber, iii. 346).

1607. The Tragedie of Claudius Tiberius Nero, Rome’s greatest Tyrant. Truly represented out of the purest Records of those Times. _For Francis Burton._ [Epistle to Sir Arthur Mannering, son of Sir George of Eithfield, Shropshire; Verses _Ad Lectores_.]

1607. The Statelie Tragedie of Claudius Tiberius Nero.... _For Francis Burton_. [Another issue.]

_Edition_ by J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._).

The play, which is on Tiberius, not Nero, is to be distinguished from _Nero_ (1624). The epistle, not apparently by the author, says that the play’s ‘Father was an Academician’.

_Club Law. 1599–1600_

[_MS._] St. John’s College, Cambridge, MS. S. 62. [Without t.p. and imperfect; probably identical with a MS. of the play owned by Richard Farmer.]

_Edition_ by G. C. Moore Smith (1907). [Epilogue.]--_Dissertation_: G. C. Moore Smith, _The Date of C. L._ (1909, _M. L. R._ iv. 268).

The play is described by Fuller, _Hist. of Cambridge_ (1655), 156, as given at Clare Hall in 1597–8. But J. S. Hawkins, in his edition of Ruggle’s _Ignoramus_ (1787), xvi, gives the alternative date 1599, and this has now been confirmed by the discovery of manuscript annals of Cambridge, probably by Fuller himself, with the entry, under the academic year 1599–1600, ‘Aula Clarensis. Club Law fabula festivissima data multum ridentibus Academicis, frustra Oppidanis dolentibus’. The play is a satire on the townsmen, and especially the anti-gown mayor of 1599–1600, John Yaxley. Fuller says that the townsmen were invited to the performance and made to sit it through, and that they complained to the Privy Council, who first ‘sent some slight and private check to the principall Actors therein’, and then, when pressed, said that they would come to Cambridge, and see the comedy acted over again in the presence of the townsmen. The fact that there is no record of these letters in the extant register of the Council hardly disproves the substance of Fuller’s story. Hawkins ascribed the play to Ruggle (q.v.) on the authority of an eighteenth-century memorandum.

_Sir Clyomon and Clamydes c. 1570_

1599. The Historie of the two valiant Knights, Syr Clyomon knight of the Golden Sheeld, sonne to the King of Denmarke: And Clamydes the White Knight, sonne to the King of Suauia. As it hath been sundry times Acted by her Maiesties Players. _Thomas Creede._ [Prologue.]

_Editions_ by W. W. Greg (1913, _M. S. R._) and J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._), and in collections of Peele.

Subtle Shift ‘the vice’, Providence, and Rumour are among the characters.

Dyce ascribed the play to George Peele on the strength of a manuscript note ‘in a very old hand’ on a copy of the 1599 edition. Bullen thinks it of earlier date than Peele. Greg agrees, regarding it as about contemporary with _Common Conditions_. L. Kellner, in _Englische Studien_, xiii. 187, compares the language and style at great length with Peele’s and concludes against his authorship, unless indeed he wrote it in a spirit of parody. His arguments are challenged by R. Fischer in _Englische Studien_, xiv. 344. Fleay, 70, assigned it, with _Common Conditions_, to R. Wilson. Later (ii. 295), he substituted R[ichard] B[ower]. He noted a parallel to Thomas Preston’s _Cambyses_, and suggested as a date 1570 or 1578, the years, according to him, of the original production and of a revival of _Cambyses_. G. L. Kittredge, in _Journal of Germanic Philology_, ii. 8, suggests that Preston himself was the author of _Sir Clyomon and Clamydes_. If the ‘her Maiesties Players’ of the title-page means the later company of that name, the play, if not written, must have been revived 1583–94. Fleay, ii. 296, further identifies it with _The Four Kings_ licensed for Henslowe (i. 103) in March 1599; but an old Queen’s play would not have needed a licence. An Anglo-German repertory of 1626 includes a ‘Tragikomödie vom König in Dänemark und König in Schweden’ (Herz, 66, 72).

_Common Conditions > 1576_

_S. R._ 1576, July 26. ‘A newe and pleasant comedie or plaie after the maner of common condycons.’ _John Hunter_ (Arber, ii. 301). [Clearly ‘maner’ is a misreading of the ‘name’ of the t.p.]

Q_{1}, N.D. An excellent and pleasant Comedie, termed after the name of the Vice, Common Condicions, drawne out of the most famous historie of Galiarbus Duke of Arabia, and of the good and eeuill successe of him and his two children, Sedmond his sun, and Clarisia his daughter: Set foorth with delectable mirth, and pleasant shewes. _William How for John Hunter._ [T.p. adds ‘The Players names’ and ‘Six may play this Comedie’; Prologue.]

Q_{2}. Fragment, without t.p. or date, under r.t. ‘A pleasant Comedie called Common Conditions’.

_Editions_ in Brandl, 597 (1898), and by J. S. Farmer (1908, _Five Anonymous Plays_) from Q_{2}, and by Tucker Brooke (1915, _Yale Elizabethan Club Reprints_, i) from Q_{1}.

The prologue refers to the audience ‘that sit in place’ and the ‘actours’ that ‘redy stand’. Fleay, ii. 296, suggests the authorship of Richard Bower, on grounds of style.

_The Contention of York and Lancaster > 1592_

_S. R._ 1594, March 12. ‘A booke intituled, the firste parte of the Contention of the twoo famous houses of York and Lancaster with the deathe of the good Duke Humfrey and the banishement and Deathe of the Duke of Suffolk and the tragicall ende of the prowd Cardinall of Winchester, with the notable rebellion of Jack Cade and the Duke of Yorkes ffirste clayme vnto the Crowne. _Thomas Millington_ (Arber, ii. 646). [Part i.]

1602, April 19. Transfer from T. Millington to T. Pavier, ‘The first and Second parte of Henry the Vj^t, ij bookes’ (Arber, iii. 204). [Parts i and ii.]

1594. The First Part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the death of the good Duke Humphrey: And the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolke, and the Tragicall end of the proud Cardinall of Winchester, with the notable Rebellion of Iacke Cade: And the Duke of Yorkes first claime vnto the Crowne. _Thomas Creede for Thomas Millington._ [Part i.]

1595. The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and the death of good King Henrie the Sixt, with the whole contention betweene the two Houses Lancaster and Yorke, as it was sundrie times acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke his seruants. _P. S. for Thomas Millington._ [Part ii.]

1600. _Valentine Simmes for Thomas Millington._ [Part i.]

1600. _W. W. for Thomas Millington._ [Part ii.]

[1619] N.D. The Whole Contention betweene the two Famous Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. With the Tragicall ends of the good Duke Humfrey, Richard Duke of Yorke, and King Henrie the sixt. Diuided into two Parts: And newly corrected and enlarged. Written by William Shakespeare, Gent. _For T. P._ [Parts i and ii, printed continuously with _Pericles_, 1619 (q.v.).]

_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1843, _Sh. Soc._), Wright and Clark (1863–6, 1893, _Cambridge Shakespeare_), W. C. Hazlitt (1875, _Sh. Libr._ v, vi), F. J. Furnivall and T. Tyler (1886, 1889, 1891, _Sh. Q_), and J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._).--_Dissertations_: E. Malone, _On the Three Parts of Hen. 6_ (1821, _Variorum_, xviii. 553); R. Grant White, _On the Authorship of Hen. 6_ (_Works of Sh._ 1859–65, vii); J. Lee, _On the Authorship of 2, 3 Hen. vi and their Originals_ (_N. S. S. Trans._ 1875–6, 219); C. F. T. Brooke, _The Authorship of 2, 3 Hen. 6_ (1912, _Trans. of Connecticut Academy_, xvii. 141).

The various claims of Marlowe, Kyd, Greene, Peele, Lodge, and Shakespeare himself to the _Contention_ can only be discussed in relation to Shakespeare’s revision of them as _2, 3 Henry VI_, which probably belongs approximately to the date of _1 Henry vi_, produced by Strange’s on 3 March 1592.

_Thomas Lord Cromwell > 1602_

_S. R._ 1602, Aug. 11 (Jackson). ‘A booke called the lyfe and Deathe of the Lord Cromwell, as yt was lately Acted by the Lord Chamberleyn his servantes.’ _William Cotton_ (Arber, iii. 214).

1602. The True Chronicle Historie of the whole life and death of Thomas Lord Cromwell. As it hath beene sundrie times publikely Acted by the Right Honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants. Written by W. S. _For William Jones._

_S. R._ 1611, Dec. 16. Transfer from William Jones to John Browne of a ‘booke called the lyfe and death of the Lord Cromwell, by W: S.’ (Arber, iii. 474).

1613.... As it hath been sundry times publikely Acted by the Kings Maiesties Seruants. Written by W. S. _Thomas Snodham._

1664; 1685. [Parts of F_{3} and F_{4} of Shakespeare.]

_Editions_ printed by R. Walker (1734) and by T. E. Jacob (1889, _Old English Dramas_), J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._), and in _Sh. Apocrypha._--_Dissertation_: W. Streit, _The L. and D. of T. L. C._ (1904, Jena diss.).

The W. S. of the title-page was interpreted as William Shakespeare in Archer’s play-list of 1656 (Greg, _Masques_, lx). No modern critic accepts the attribution, except Hopkinson, who thinks that the original author was Greene, and that Shakespeare revised his work. Heywood was suggested by R. Farmer, and Drayton by Fleay, _Shakespeare_, 298; _B.C._ i. 152, 160. The guesses at Wentworth Smith and William Sly rest merely on their initials.

_King Darius > 1565_

_S. R._ 1565–6. ‘A playe intituled of the story of kyng Daryous beyinge taken oute of the iij^{de} and iiij^{th} chapeter of the iij^{de} boke of Esdras &c.’. _Thomas Colwell_ (Arber, i. 298).

1565, October. A Pretie new Enterlude both pithie & pleasaunt of the Story of Kyng Daryus, Beinge taken out of the third and fourth Chapter of the thyrd booke of Esdras. _Colwell._ [On t.p. ‘Syxe persons may easely play it’.]

1577. _Hugh Jackson._ [B.M. C. 34, i. 21, from Irish sale of 1906.]

_Editions_ by J. O. Halliwell (1860), A. Brandl (1898), 359, J. S. Farmer (1907, 1909, _T. F. T._).

The characters, other than Darius and Zorobabell, are mainly abstract, and include Iniquitie, ‘the Vyce’. There is a Prolocutor.

_The Dead Mans Fortune > 1591_

[_MS._] _Add. MS._ 10449. ‘The plotte of the deade mans fortune.’ [Probably from Dulwich.]

The text is given by Steevens, _Variorum_ (1803), iii. 414; Boswell, _Variorum_ (1821), iii. 356; Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 133; and a facsimile by Halliwell, _The Theatre Plats of Three Old English Dramas_ (1860).

The names of actors who took part in the play point to a performance by the Admiral’s, about 1590–1 (cf. ch. xiii).

_The Reign of King Edward the Third > 1595_

_S. R._ 1595, Dec. 1. ‘A book Intitled Edward the Third and the Blacke Prince their warres with kinge John of Fraunce.’ _Burby_ (Arber, iii. 55).

1596. The Raigne of King Edward the third: As it hath bin sundrie times plaied about the Citie of London. _For Cuthbert Burby._

1599. _Simon Stafford for Cuthbert Burby._

_Editions_ with Shakespeare _Apocrypha_, and by E. Capel (1759–60, _Prolusiones_), F. J. Furnivall (1877, _Leopold Sh._), J. P. Collier (1878, _Shakespeare_), G. C. Moore Smith (1897, _T. D._), J. S. Farmer (1910, _T. F. T._).--_Dissertations_: H. von Friesen, _Ed. iii, angeblich ein Stück von Sh._ (1867, _Jahrbuch_, ii. 64); J. P. Collier, _K. Edw. III, a Historical Play by W. Sh._ (1874); A. Teetgen, _Sh’s. K. Edw. iii, absurdly called, and scandalously treated, as a ‘Doubtful Play’: an Indignation Pamphlet_ (1875); A. C. Swinburne, _On the Historical Play of K. Edw. iii_ (1879, _Gent. Mag._, 1880, &c., _Study of Sh._); G. von Vincke, _K. Edw. iii, ein Bühnenstück?_ (1879, _Jahrbuch_, xiv. 304); E. Phipson, _Ed. iii_ (1889, _N. S. S. Trans._ 58*); G. Liebau, _K. Ed. iii von England und die Gräfin von Salisbury_ (1900, 1901), _K. Ed. iii von England im Lichte europäischer Poesie_ (1901); R. M. Smith, _Edw. III_ (1911, _J. G. P._ x. 90).

The authorship was first ascribed to Shakespeare (with that of _Edw. IV_ and _Edw. II_!) in Rogers and Ley’s play-list of 1656 (Greg, _Masques_, lxiv). The theory was advocated by Capell, and has received much support, largely owing to the assent of Tennyson, against whose authority, however, may be set that of Swinburne. In its latest and not altogether unplausible form, Shakespeare is regarded as the author, not of the whole play, but of i. 2 and ii, which deal with the episode of the wooing of Lady Salisbury by the king, and are possibly, although by no means certainly, due to another hand than that of the chronicle narrative, to which they are only slightly linked. The style of these scenes is not demonstrably un-Shakespearian, and they, and in less degree the play as a whole, contain many parallels with _Hen. V_ and other works of the ‘nineties, of which the repetition in II. i. 451 and in Sonnet XCIV of the line

Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds

is the most striking. The controversy cannot be dealt with in detail here. Shakespeare’s contribution, if any, may with most probability be assigned to the winter of 1594–5; but it does not follow that the original play may not have been of earlier date. No importance is to be attached to the argument of Fleay (ii. 62; _Shakespeare_, 282) that the use of the phrase ‘Ave, Caesar’ in I. i. 164 caused its use in Greene’s _Francesco’s Fortunes_ of 1590 (cf. App. C, no. xliii), but it is noteworthy that a play on the subject was produced, apparently under Anglo-German influence, at Danzig in 1591 (Herz, 5). Of non-Shakespearian authors, for the whole or a part of the play as extant, Marlowe is preferred by Fleay, Greene by Liebau and Robertson, and Kyd by Sarrazin.

_Edward the Fourth > 1599_

_S. R._ 1599, Aug. 28. ‘Twoo playes beinge the ffirst and Second parte of Edward the iiij^{th} and the Tanner of Tamworth With the history of the life and deathe of master Shore and Jane Shore his Wyfe as yt was lately acted by the Right honorable the Erle of Derbye his seruantes.’ _John Oxonbridge and John Burby_ (Arber, iii. 147).

1600, Feb. 23. Transfer of Busby’s interest to Humphrey Lownes (Arber, iii. 156).

1600. The First and Second Parts of King Edward the Fourth. Containing His mery pastime with the Tanner of Tamworth, as also his loue to faire mistrisse Shoare, her great promotion, fall and miserie and lastly the lamentable death of both her and her husband. Likewise the besieging of London, by the Bastard Falconbridge, and the valiant defence of the same by the Lord Maior and the Citizens. As it hath diuers times beene publikely played by the Right Honorable the Earle of Derbie his seruants. _F. K. for Humfrey Lownes and John Oxenbridge._

1605; 1613; 1619; 1626.

_Edition_ by B. Field (1842, _Sh. Soc._).--_Dissertation_: A. Sander, _T. Heywood’s Historien von König Edward iv und ihre Quellen_ (1907, Jena diss.).

Sander and others date the play 1594, by an identification with the anonymous _Siege of London_ revived by the Admiral’s on 26 Dec. 1594. Greg (Henslowe, ii. 173) more cautiously says that the play of 1594 ‘may underlie’ certain scenes of _1 Edward iv_. He regards _Edward iv_, ‘on internal evidence, as unquestionably Heywood’s’. This is the usual view, but Fleay, ii. 288, had doubted it. There is no external evidence for Heywood’s authorship, or for any connexion between him and Derby’s men. Moreover, in May 1603, he authorized Henslowe, on behalf of Worcester’s, to pay Chettle and Day for ‘the Booke of Shoare, now newly to be written’, also described as ‘a playe wherein Shores wiffe is writen’. If this was a revision of his own play, he would hardly have left it to others. It is fair to add that in the previous January he had himself received payment with Chettle for an unnamed play, which might be the same (Henslowe, ii. 234). The ‘three-mans song’ on Agincourt in iii. 2 of Part I closely resembles Drayton’s _Ballad of Agincourt_ (ed. Brett, 81), and must, I think, be his. _Jane Shore_ is mentioned as a play visited by citizens in _The Knight of the Burning Pestle_ (1607), ind. 57, and ‘the well-frequented play of Shore’ in _Pimlyco or Runne Redcap_ (1609). A play, apparently on the same subject, was performed by English actors at Graz on 19 Nov. 1607 (Herz, 98).

_Every Woman in Her Humour. 1607–8?_

1609. Everie Woman in her Humor. _E. A. for Thomas Archer._ [Prologue.]

_Editions_ by A. H. Bullen (1885, _O. E. P._ iv) and J. S. Farmer (1913, _S. F. T._).--_Dissertation_: J. Q. Adams, _E. W. I. and The Dumb Knight_ (1913, _M. P._ x. 413).

Fleay, ii. 321, suggests a date _c._ 1602 on the ground of apparent reference to the _Poetomachia_. But this is not conclusive, and Adams points to the use of a song (p. 335) from Bateson’s _Madrigals_ (1604). He thinks that Lewis Machin was the author, as the style resembles that of the comic part of _The Dumb Knight_ (vide s. Markham), and two passages are substantially reproduced in the latter. If so, this also may be a King’s Revels play. Allusions on p. 270 to the ‘babones’ (cf. s.v. _Sir Giles Goosecap_) and on p. 316 to the Family of Love (cf. s.v. Middleton) are consistent with a date of 1603–8.

_Fair Em c. 1590_

N.D. _For T. N. and I. W._

[In Bodleian. Greg says that this is ‘considerably earlier’ than 1631. The t.p. is as in 1631. Chetwood mentions three early editions, including one undated and one of 1619. This is not now known.]

1631. A Pleasant Comedie of Faire Em, the Millers Daughter of Manchester. With the loue of William the Conqueror. As it was sundry times publiquely acted in the Honourable Citie of London, by the right Honourable the Lord Strange his Seruants. _For John Wright._

_Editions_ by R. Simpson (1878, _S. of S._ ii), J. S. Farmer (1911, _T. F. T._), and in collections of _Sh. Apocrypha._--_Dissertations_: R. Simpson, _Some Plays Attributed to Sh._ (1875–6, _N. S. S. Trans._ 155); K. Elze, _Nachträgliche Bemerkungen zu Mucedorus und F. E._ (1880, _Jahrbuch_, xv. 339); P. Lohr, _Le Printemps d’Yver und die Quelle zu F. E._ (1912).

The play has a double plot. One theme is the contest of William the Conqueror and the Marquess Lubeck for the loves of Princess Blanch of Denmark and of Mariana, a Swedish captive; the other is the contest of Manvile, Mountney and Valingford for Em, daughter of the Miller of Manchester. A ‘ballad intituled The Miller’s daughter of Manchester’ was entered on the Stationers’ Register by Henry Carr on 2 March 1581 (Arber, ii. 390). _Fair Em_ has been included in the Shakespeare _Apocrypha_ on the strength of a volume formerly in the collection of Charles II, and then in that of Garrick, in which it was bound up with _Mucedorus_ and _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_ and lettered ‘Shakespeare, vol. i’. On the other hand, Edward Phillips, in his _Theatrum Poetarum_ (1675), assigned it to Greene. Clearly Greene is not the author, although there are certain resemblances of situation between the play and _Friar Bacon_; for he satirizes it in the preface to _Farewell to Folly_ (_Works_, ix. 232), quoting one or two of its expressions and blaming them as borrowed out of Scripture. Of the author he says, ‘He that cannot write true English without the help of clerks of parish churches will needs make himself the father of interludes’, and, ‘The sexton of St. Giles without Cripplegate would have been ashamed of such blasphemous rhetoric’. _Farewell to Folly_ seems to have appeared in 1591 (cf. s.v. Greene), and _Fair Em_ may perhaps therefore be dated between this pamphlet and _Friar Bacon_ (_c._ 1589). Simpson adopts the theory, which hardly deserves serious discussion, of Shakespeare’s authorship. He finds numerous (but impossible) attacks by Greene upon Shakespeare from the _Planetomachia_ (1585) onwards, and thinks that Shakespeare retorted in _Fair Em_, satirizing Greene as Manvile and Marlowe as Mountney, and depicting himself as Valingford. ‘Fair Em’ herself is the Manchester stage. In the story of William the Conqueror he finds an allusion to the travels of William Kempe and other actors in Denmark and Saxony. Fleay, _Shakespeare Manual_ (1878), 281, adopts much of this fantasy, but turns ‘Fair Em’ into the Queen’s company and Valingford into Peele. In 1891 (ii. 282) he makes ‘Fair Em’ Strange’s company. His minor identifications, whether of 1878 or of 1891, may be disregarded. More plausible is his suggestion that the author of the play may be Robert Wilson (q.v.), which would explain the attack upon Greene (q.v.) for his _Farewell to Folly_ in R. W.’s _Martin Mar-sixtus_ (1591). The suggestion that the play was the _Sir John Mandeville_ revived by Strange’s for Henslowe in 1592 rests on a confusion between Mandeville and Manvile, but it may have been the _William the Conqueror_ similarly revived by Sussex’s on 4 Jan. 1594 (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 151, 158).

_The Fair Maid of Bristow > 1604_

_S. R._ 1605, Feb. 8. ‘A commedy called “the fayre Mayd of Bristoe” played at Hampton Court by his Maiesties players.’ _Thomas Pavier_ (Arber, iii. 283).

1605. The Faire Maide of Bristow. As it was plaide at Hampton, before the King and Queenes most excellent Maiesties. _For Thomas Pavier._

_Editions_ by A. H. Quinn (1902, _Pennsylvania Univ. Publ._) and J. S. Farmer (1912, _T. F. T._).

The court performance must have been during the Christmas of 1603–4, which was at Hampton Court. Bullen, _Works of Day_, 10, rejects the theory of Collier that this was Day’s _Bristol Tragedy_, written for the Admiral’s in May 1602, on the grounds that it is not a tragedy and does not resemble the known work of Day. Moreover, the King’s men are not likely to have acquired an Admiral’s play.

_The Fair Maid of the Exchange c. 1602_

_S. R._ 1607, April 24 (Buck). ‘A booke called the faire Mayde of the Exchaunge.’ _Henry Rocket_ (Arber, iii. 347).

1607. The Fayre Mayde of the Exchange. With the pleasaunt Humours of the Cripple of Fanchurch. Very delectable, and full of mirth. _For Henry Rockit._ [Dramatis Personae headed ‘Eleauen may easily acte this Comedie’, and Prologue.]

1525. _I. L._

1637. _A. G._

_Edition_ by B. Field (1845, _Sh. Soc._).--_Dissertations_: L. A. Hibberd, _The Authorship and Date of the Fair Maid of the Exchange_ (_M. P._ vii. 383); P. Aronstein, _Die Verfasserschaft des Dramas The Fair Maid of the Exchange_ (1912, _E. S._ xlv. 45).

Heywood’s authorship was asserted by Kirkman in 1671 (Greg, _Masques_, lxvii), denied by Langbaine in 1687, accepted by Charles Lamb and out of respect to him by Ward, ii. 572, and is still matter of dispute. Fleay, ii. 329, assigned it to Machin on quite inadequate grounds. Hibberd argues the case for Heywood, and Aronstein attempts a compromise by giving ii. I, iv. I, and V to Heywood and the rest to some young academic student of Shakespeare and Jonson. The imitations of these point to a date _c._ 1602. I do not offer an opinion.

_Fedele and Fortunio or Two Italian Gentlemen c. 1584_

_S. R._ 1584, Nov. 12. ‘A booke entituled Fedele et Fortuna. The deceiptes in love Discoursed in a Commedie of ij Italyan gent and translated into Englishe.’ _Thomas Hackett_ (Arber, ii. 437).

1585. Fedele and Fortunio. The deceites in Loue: excellently discoursed in a very pleasaunt and fine conceited Comoedie, of two Italian Gentlemen. Translated out of Italian, and set downe according as it hath beene presented before the Queenes moste excellent Maiestie. _For Thomas Hacket._

[In the Mostyn sale (1919). Epistle ‘To the Woorshipfull, and very courteous Gentleman, Maister M. R. M.A. commendeth this pleasaunt and fine conceited comœdie’, signed M.A.; Prologue before the Queene; Epilogue at the Court, signed M.A. The compiler of the Mostyn sale catalogue says that this differs from the imperfect print in the Chatsworth collection, containing sheets B to G only, without t.p., epistle, prologue, or epilogue, which is the basis of the modern editions. Both have the running title, ‘A pleasant Comœdie of two Italian Gentlemen’. Collier, iii. 60, had seen a copy with the epistle as found in the Mostyn print, but addressed to John Heardson and signed A.M. This has been recently found in the Huntington collection.

_Editions_ by P. Simpson (1909, _M. S. R._) and F. Flügge (1909, _Archiv_, cxxiii, 45), and extracts by _Halliwell_ (1852, _Literature of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries_, 15).--_Dissertations_: W. W. Greg, _Notes on Publications_ (1909, _M. S. C._ i. 218); F. Flügge, _Fidele und Fortunio_ (1912, Breslau diss.).

The epistle says ‘I commende to your freendly viewe this prettie Conceit, as well for the inuention, as the delicate conueiance thereof: not doubting but you will so esteeme thereof, as it dooth very well deserue, and I hartely desire’. This praise of the ‘conueiance’ (which I take to mean either ‘style’ or possibly ‘translation’) does not suggest that M. A. (or A. M.) was the translator. It is true that ll. 224–41 appear in _England’s Helicon_ (1600) signed ‘Shep. Tonie’, and that this signature is often taken to indicate Munday. On the other hand, two lines of this passage also appear in _England’s Parnassus_ (1600, ed. Crawford, 306) over the initials S. G., which suggest Gosson. Another passage in _E. P._ (231) combines ll. 661–2 and 655–6 of the play over the signature G. Chapman. This has led Crawford (_E. S._ xliii. 203), with some support from Greg, to suggest Chapman’s authorship. I do not think the suggestion very convincing, in view of the inconsistency and general unreliability of _E. P._ and the fact that Chapman’s first clear appearance as a writer is ten years later, in 1594. The evidence is quite indecisive, but of Munday, Chapman, Gosson, I incline to think Gosson the most likely candidate. On the other hand, if M. R. is Matthew Roydon, he was the dedicatee of poems by Chapman in 1594 and 1595. For M. A. I hardly dare guess Matthew Arundel. In any case, the play is only a translation from L. Pasqualigo’s _Il Fedele_ (1576).

_2 Fortune’s Tennis c. 1602_

[_MS._] _Add. MS._ 10449. ‘The [plott of the sec]ond part of fortun[s Tenn]is.’ [A fragment, probably from Dulwich.]

The text is given by Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 143. The actors named show that it belonged to the Admiral’s, and Greg suggests that it may be Dekker’s ‘fortewn tenes’ of Sept. 1600. Is it not more likely to have been a sequel to that, possibly Munday’s _Set at Tennis_ of Dec. 1602?

_Frederick and Basilea. 1597_

[_MS._] _Add. MS._ 10449. ‘The plott of Frederick & Basilea.’ [Probably from Dulwich.]

The text is given by Steevens, _Variorum_ (1803), iii. 414; Boswell, _Variorum_ (1821), iii. 356; Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 135; and a facsimile by Halliwell, _The Theatre Plats of Three Old English Dramas_ (1860).

The play was produced by the Admiral’s on 3 June 1597, and the actors named represent that company at that date (cf. ch. xiii).

_George a Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield > 1593_

_S. R._ 1595, April 1. ‘An Enterlude called the Pynder of Wakefeilde.’ _Cuthbert Burby_ (Arber, ii. 295).

1599. A Pleasant Conceyted Comedie of George a Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield. As it was sundry times acted by the seruants of the right Honourable the Earle of Sussex. _Simon Stafford for Cuthbert Burby._

_Editions_ in Dodsley^{1–3} (1744–1825), by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ i), F. W. Clarke (1911, _M. S. R._), and J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._), and in collections of Greene.--_Dissertation_: O. Mertins, _Robert Greene and the Play of G. a G._ (1885, Breslau diss.).

Sussex’s men revived the play for Henslowe on 29 Dec. 1593 (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 158). The Chatsworth copy has on the title-page the following notes in two early seventeenth-century hands: ‘Written by ... a minister, who ac[ted] the piñers p̄t in it himself. Teste W. Shakespea[re]’, and ‘Ed Iuby saith that the play was made by Ro. Gree[ne]’. These, though first produced by Collier, appear (_M. S. C._ i. 288) to be genuine. Greene’s authorship has been very commonly accepted. Fleay, i. 264, ii. 51, supposed first Greene and Peele, then added Lodge, but, although the text has been abridged, there is no evidence of double authorship. Oliphant’s suggestion (_M. P._ viii. 433) of revision by Heywood only rests on the inclusion of the play next his in the Cockpit list of 1639 (_Variorum_, iii. 159). R. B. McKerrow thinks (_M. S. C._ i. 289) that the ‘by Ro. Greene’ of the note may mean ‘about Ro. Greene’ as a leading incident is apparently based on an episode of Greene’s life. An allusion in I. i. 42 to _Tamburlaine_ gives an anterior limit of date.

_Sir Giles Goosecap. 1601 < > 3_

_S. R._ 1606, Jan. 10. (Wilson). ‘An Comedie called Sir Gyles Goosecap Provided that yt be printed accordinge to the Copie wherevnto master Wilson’s hand ys at.’ _Edward Blount_ (Arber, iii. 309).

1606. Sir Gyles Goosecappe. Knight. A Comedie presented by the Chil: of the Chappell. _John Windet for Edward Blount._

1636....A Comedy lately Acted with great applause at the private House in Salisbury Court. _For Hugh Perry, sold by Roger Bell._ [Epistle to Richard Young of Woolley Farm, Berks. Signed ‘Hugh Perry’.]

_Editions_ by A. H. Bullen (1884, _O. E. P._ iii), W. Bang and R. Brotanek (1909, _Materialien_, xxvi), J. S. Farmer (1912, _T. F. T._), and T. M. Parrott (1914, _Chapman_, ii).--_Dissertations_: G. L. Kittredge, _Notes on Elizabethan Plays_ (1898, _J. G. P._ ii. 10); T. M. Parrott, _The Authorship of S. G. G._ (1906, _M. P._ iv. 25).

Bullen thought the author, who is stated in Perry’s epistle to be dead in 1636, might be some imitator of Chapman. Fleay, ii. 322, suggests Chapman himself. This view receives elaborate support from Parrott, and appears very plausible. As ‘your greatest gallants, for men, in France were here lately’ (III. i. 47) the date is after the visit of Biron in Sept. 1601 and possibly after that of Nevers in April 1602. It cannot be later than the beginning of 1603, as ‘She is the best scholar of any woman, but one, in Europe’ (I. i. 140) points to Elizabeth’s lifetime. Moreover, Dekker, in his _Wonderful Year_ of 1603 (Grosart, i. 116), has ‘Galen could do no more good, than Sir Giles Goosecap’, and though ‘goosecap’ is a known term for a booby, e.g. in Nashe’s _Four Letters Confuted_ of 1592 (_Works_, i. 281), the play seems to be responsible for the ‘Sir Giles’. The phrase ‘comparisons odorous’ in IV. ii. 64 echoes _Much Ado_, III. v. 18. The later part of the period 1601–3 would perhaps best fit the allusions to the Family of Love (II. i. 263), as to which cf. s.v. Middleton’s play of that name, and to the baboons (I. i. 11), the memory of which is still alive in _Volpone_ (1606) and _Ram Alley_ (1607–8). Probably these had already amused London before 1605, as on Oct. 5 of that year the Norwich records (Murray, ii. 338) note that ‘This day John Watson ironmonger brought the Kyngs maiesties warrant graunted to Roger Lawrence & the deputacion to the seid Watson to shewe two beasts called Babonnes’. So, too, Kelly, 247, has a Leicester payment of 1606 ‘to the M^r of the Babons, lycensed to travell by the Kings warrant’. There is a story of a country fellow who wanted to go to a market town ‘to haue seene the Baboones’ as late as J. Taylor’s _Wit and Mirth_ in 1629 (Hazlitt, _Jest Books_, iii. 43). Fleay’s identifications of Chapman himself with Clarence and Drayton with Goosecap hardly deserve consideration.

_Grim the Collier of Croydon. 1600_

[Alleged prints of 1599 (Chetwood), 1600 (Ward, i. 263), and 1606 (Jacob) probably rest on no authority.]

1662. Grim the Collier of Croyden; Or, The Devil and his Dame: With The Devil and Saint Dunston. [Part of Gratiae Theatrales, or, A choice Ternary of English plays. Composed upon especial occasions by several ingenious persons; viz.... Grim the Collier ... a Comedy, by I. T. Never before published: but now printed at the request of sundry ingenious friends. R. D. 1662, 12^{mo}.]

_Editions_ by W. Scott (1810, _A. B. D._ iii), in Dodsley^4, viii (1876), and by J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._).--_Dissertation_: H. D. Sykes, _The Authorship of G. the C. of C._ (1919, _M. L. R._ xiv. 245).

Of I. T. nothing is known. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 213) regards the play as clearly of the sixteenth century on internal evidence, and points out that Henslowe, on behalf of the Admiral’s, paid Haughton 5s. on 6 May 1600, ‘in earneste of a boocke which he wold calle the devell & his dame’. The entry was subsequently cancelled, and presumably Haughton transferred the play to another company. Sykes calls attention to analogies with _Englishmen for my Money_, which confirm the probability of Haughton’s authorship. It is only the ascription of 1662 to I. T. which causes hesitation. Farmer (_Hand List_, 19) suggests that this was John Tatham. Grim and the Devil both appear in the _Like Will to Like_ of Ulpian Fulwell (q.v.), but I do not understand what kind of indirect connexion Greg thinks may have existed between Haughton’s play and a possible revival of Fulwell’s by Pembroke’s men in Oct. 1600.

_The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth > 1588_

_S. R._ 1594, May 14. ‘A booke intituled, The famous victories of Henrye the Fyft, conteyninge the honorable battell of Agincourt.’ _Thomas Creede_ (Arber, ii. 648).

1598. The Famous Victories of Henry the fifth: Containing the Honourable Battell of Agincourt: As it was plaide by the Queenes Maiesties Players. _Thomas Creede._

1617.... as it was Acted by the Kinges Maiesties Seruants. _Bernard Alsop._ [Another issue of the same sheets.]

_Editions_ by J. Nichols (1779, _Six Old Plays_, ii. 317), W. C. Hazlitt (1875, _Shakespeare’s Library_, v. 321), P. A. Daniel (1887, _Sh. Q._), and J. S. Farmer (_S. F. T._).

In _Tarlton’s Jests_ (ed. Halliwell for _Sh. Soc._ 24) is a story of Knell acting Henry V and Tarlton doubling the parts of the judge and the clown, which clearly refers to this play. The performance took place ‘at the Bull in Bishopsgate’. Tarlton died in 1588. Fleay, 67; ii. 259, suggests that Tarlton was the author. Nashe in _Pierce Penilesse_ (1592, _Works_, i. 213) speaks of ‘_Henrie_ the fifth represented on the stage’. This is obviously too early to be the new play of ‘harey the V’, given thirteen times for Henslowe between 28 Nov. 1595 and 15 July 1596 by the Admiral’s, in whose inventories of March 1598 Harry the Fifth’s doublet and gown appear. An earlier Henslowe entry on 14 May 1592, sometimes quoted as ‘harey the v^{th}’ by Collier, is really ‘harey the 6’ (Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 152, 177; _Henslowe Papers_, 121). Sykes thinks the author S. Rowley (q.v.).

_Histriomastix. 1589 (?), 1599_

_S. R._ 1610, Oct. 31 (Buck). ‘A booke called, Histriomastix or the player whipte.’ _Thomas Thorpe_ (Arber, iii. 447).

1610. Histrio-Mastix. Or, the Player whipt. _For Thomas Thorp._

_Editions_ by R. Simpson (1878, _S. of S._ ii. 1) and J. S. Farmer (1912, _T. F. T._).--_Dissertation_: F. Hoppe, _Histriomastix-Studien_ (1906, Breslau diss.).