Volume 3 / Book 5 — BOOK V PLAYS AND PLAYWRIGHTS (continued 4)

Geraldine. Why, then, we’ll go to the Red Bull: they say Green’s a good clown.

Bubble. Green! Green’s an ass.

Scattergood. Wherefore do you say so?

Bubble. Indeed I ha’ no reason; for they say he is as like me as ever he can look.

Chetwood’s assertion of a 1599 print is negligible. The Queen of Bohemia’s men revived the play at Court on 6 Jan. 1625 (Variorum, iii. 228).

AQUILA CRUSO (c. 1610).

Author of the academic Euribates Pseudomagus (cf. App. K).

ROBERT DABORNE (?-1628).

Daborne claimed to be of ‘generous’ descent, and it has been conjectured that he belonged to a family at Guildford, Surrey. Nothing is known of him until he appears with Rosseter and others as a patentee for the Queen’s Revels in 1610. Presumably he wrote for this company, and when they amalgamated with the Lady Elizabeth’s in 1613 came into relations with Henslowe, who acted as paymaster for the combination. The Dulwich collection contains between thirty and forty letters, bonds, and receipts bearing upon these relations. A few are undated; the rest extend from 17 April 1613 to 4 July 1615. Most of them were printed by Malone (Variorum, iii. 336), Collier (Alleyn Papers, 56), and Swaen (Anglia, xx. 155), and all, with a stray fragment from Egerton MS. 2623, f. 24, are in Greg, Henslowe Papers, 65, 126. There and in Henslowe, ii. 141, Dr. Greg attempts an arrangement of them and of the plays to which they relate, which seems to me substantially sound. They show Daborne, during the twelve months from April 1613, to which they mainly belong, writing regularly for the Lady Elizabeth’s, but prepared at any moment to sell a play to the King’s if he can get a better bargain. Lawsuits and general poverty made him constantly desirous of obtaining small advances from Henslowe, and on one occasion he was in the Clink. In the course of the year he was at work on at least five plays (vide infra), alone or in co-operation now with Tourneur, now with Field, Massinger, and Fletcher. Modern conjectures have assigned him some share in plays of the Beaumont and Fletcher series which there is no external evidence to connect with his name. However this may be, it is clear that, unless his activity in 1613–14 was abnormal, he must have written much of which we know nothing. He is still traceable in connexion with the stage up to 1616, giving a joint bond with Massinger in Aug. 1615, receiving an acquittance of debts through his wife Francisce from Henslowe on his death-bed in Jan. 1616 (Henslowe, ii. 20), and witnessing the agreement between Alleyn and Meade and Prince Charles’s men on the following 20 March. But he must have taken orders by 1618, when he published a sermon, and he became Chancellor of Waterford in 1619, Prebendary of Lismore in 1620, and Dean of Lismore in 1621. On 23 March 1628 he ‘died amphibious by the ministry’ according to The Time Poets (Choice Drollery, 1656, sig. B).

Collection

1898–9. A. E. H. Swaen in Anglia, xx. 153; xxi. 373.

Dissertation: R. Boyle, D.’s Share in the Beaumont and Fletcher Plays (1899, E. S. xxvi. 352).

A Christian Turned Turk. 1609 < > 12

S. R. 1612, Feb. 1 (Buck). ‘A booke called A Christian turned Turke, or the tragicall lyffes and deathes of the 2 famous pyrates Ward and Danseker, as it hath bene publiquely acted written by Robert Daborn gent.’ William Barrenger (Arber, iii. 476).

1612. A Christian turn’d Turke: or, The Tragicall Liues and Deaths of the two Famous Pyrates, Ward and Dansiker. As it hath beene publickly Acted. Written by Robert Daborn, Gentleman. For William Barrenger. [Epistle by Daborne to the Reader, Prologue and Epilogue.]

This may, as Fleay, i. 83, says, be a Queen’s Revels play, but he gives no definite proof, and if it is the ‘unwilling error’ apologized for in the epilogue to Mucedorus (1610), it is more likely to proceed from the King’s men. It appears to be indebted to pamphlets on the career of its heroes, printed in 1609. The Epistle explains the publishing of ‘this oppressed and much martird Tragedy, not that I promise to my selfe any reputation hereby, or affect to see my name in Print, vsherd with new praises, for feare the Reader should call in question their iudgements that giue applause in the action; for had this wind moued me, I had preuented others shame in subscribing some of my former labors, or let them gone out in the diuels name alone; which since impudence will not suffer, I am content they passe together; it is then to publish my innocence concerning the wrong of worthy personages, together with doing some right to the much-suffering Actors that hath caused my name to cast it selfe in the common rack of censure’. I do not know why the play should have been ‘martir’d’, but incidentally Daborne seems to be claiming a share in Dekker’s If It be not Good, the Devil is in It (1612).

The Poor Man’s Comfort, c. 1617 (?)

[MS.] Egerton MS. 1994, f. 268.

[Scribal signature ‘By P. Massam’ at end.]

S. R. 1655, June 20. ‘A booke called The Poore Mans comfort, a Tragicomedie written by Robert Dawborne, M^r of Arts.’ John Sweeting (Eyre, i. 486).

1655. The Poor-Mans Comfort. A Tragi-Comedy, As it was diuers times Acted at the Cockpit in Drury Lane with great applause. Written by Robert Dauborne Master of Arts. For Rob: Pollard and John Sweeting. [Prologue, signed ‘Per E. M.’]

The stage-direction to l. 186 is ‘Enter 2 Lords, Sands, Ellis’. Perhaps we have here the names of two actors, Ellis Worth, who was with Anne’s men at the Cockpit in 1617–19, and Gregory Sanderson, who joined the same company before May, 1619. But there is also a James Sands, traceable as a boy of the King’s in 1605. The performances named on the title-page are not necessarily the original ones and the play may have been produced by the Queen’s at the Red Bull, but 1617 is as likely a date as another, and when a courtier says of a poor man’s suit (l. 877) that it is ‘some suit from porters hall, belike not worth begging’, there may conceivably be an allusion to attempts to preserve the Porter’s Hall theatre from destruction in the latter year. In any case, Daborne is not likely to have written the play after he took orders.

Doubtful and Lost Plays

The Henslowe correspondence appears to show Daborne as engaged between 17 April 1613 and 2 April 1614 on the following plays:

(a) Machiavel and the Devil (17 April-c. 25 June 1613), possibly, according to Fleay and Greg, Henslowe, ii. 152, based on the old Machiavel revived by Strange’s men in 1592.

(b) The Arraignment of London, probably identical with The Bellman of London (5 June–9 Dec. 1613), with Cyril Tourneur, possibly, as Greg, Henslowe Papers, 75, suggests, based on Dekker’s tract, The Bellman of London (1608).

(c) An unnamed play with Field, Massinger, and Fletcher, the subject of undated correspondence (Henslowe Papers, 65 and possibly 70, 84) and possibly also of dated letters of July 1613 (H. P. 74).

(d) The Owl (9 Dec. 1613–28 March 1614). A comedy of this name is in Archer’s list of 1656, but Greg, Masques, xcv, thinks that Jonson’s Mask of Owls may be meant.

(e) The She Saint (2 April 1614).

Daborne has been suggested as a contributor to the Cupid’s Revenge, Faithful Friends, Honest Man’s Fortune, Thierry and Theodoret, and later plays of the Beaumont (q.v.) and Fletcher series, and attempts have been made to identify more than one of these with (c) above.

SAMUEL DANIEL (c. 1563–1619).

Daniel was born in Somerset, probably near Taunton, about 1563. His father is said to have been John Daniel, a musician; he certainly had a brother John, of the same profession. In 1579 he entered Magdalen Hall, Oxford, but took no degree. He visited France about January 1585 and sent an account of political affairs from the Rue St. Jacques to Walsingham in the following March (S. P. F. xix. 388). His first work was a translation of the Imprese of Paulus Jovius (1585). In 1586 he served Sir Edward Stafford, the English ambassador in Paris, and as a young man visited Italy. He was domesticated at Wilton, and under the patronage of Mary, Lady Pembroke, wrote his sonnets to Delia, the publication of which, partial in 1591 and complete in 1592, gave him a considerable reputation as a poet. The attempt of Fleay, i. 86, to identify Delia with Elizabeth Carey, daughter of Sir George Carey, afterwards Lord Hunsdon, breaks down. Nashe in The Terrors of the Night (1594, ed. McKerrow, i. 342) calls her a ‘second Delia’, and obviously the first was not, as Fleay suggests, Queen Elizabeth, but the heroine of the sonnets. Delia dwelt on an Avon, but the fact that in 1602 Lord Hunsdon took the waters at Bath does not give him a seat on the Avon there. Lady Pembroke’s Octavia (q.v.) inspired Daniel’s book-drama Cleopatra (1594). Other poems, notably The History of the Civil Wars (1595), followed. Tradition makes Daniel poet laureate after Spenser’s death in 1599. There was probably no such post, but it is clear from verses prefixed to a single copy (B.M.C. 21, 2, 17) of the Works of 1601, which are clearly addressed to Elizabeth, and not, as Grosart, i. 2, says, Anne, that he had some allowance at Court:

Possibly, however, this grant was a little later than 1599. Daniel acted as tutor to Anne Clifford, daughter of the Earl of Cumberland, at Skipton Castle, probably by 1599, when he published his Poetical Essays, which include an Epistle to Lady Cumberland. It might have been either Herbert or Clifford influence which brought him into favour with Lady Bedford and led to his selection as poet for the first Queen’s mask at the Christmas of 1603. No doubt this preference aroused jealousies, and to about this date one may reasonably assign Jonson’s verse-letter to Lady Rutland (The Forest, xii) in which he speaks of his devotion to Lady Bedford:

In 1619 Jonson told Drummond that he had answered Daniel’s Defence of Ryme (?1603), that ‘Samuel Daniel was a good honest man, had no children; but no poet’, and that ‘Daniel was at jealousies with him’ (Laing, 1, 2, 10). All this suggests to me a rivalry at the Jacobean, rather than the Elizabethan Court, and I concur in the criticisms of Small, 181, upon the elaborate attempts of Fleay, i. 84, 359, to trace attacks on Daniel in Jonson’s earlier comedies. Fleay makes Daniel Fastidious Brisk in Every Man Out of his Humour, Hedon in Cynthia’s Revels, and alternatively Hermogenes Tigellius and Tibullus in The Poetaster, as well as Emulo in the Patient Grissel of Dekker and others. In most of these equations he is followed by others, notably Penniman, who adds (Poetaster, xxxvii) Matheo in Every Man In his Humour and Gullio in the anonymous 1 Return from Parnassus. For all this the only basis is that Brisk, Matheo, and Gullio imitate or parody Daniel’s poetry. What other poetry, then, would affected young men at the end of the sixteenth century be likely to imitate? Some indirect literary criticism on Daniel may be implied, but this does not constitute the imitators portraits of Daniel. Fleay’s further identifications of Daniel with Littlewit in Bartholomew Fair and Dacus in the Epigrams of Sir John Davies are equally unsatisfactory. To return to biography. In 1604 Daniel, for the first time so far as is known, became connected with the stage, through his appointment as licenser for the Queen’s Revels by their patent of 4 Feb. Collier, New Facts, 47, prints, as preserved at Bridgewater House, two undated letters from Daniel to Sir Thomas Egerton. One, intended to suggest that Shakespeare was a rival candidate for the post in the Queen’s Revels, is a forgery, and this makes it impossible to attach much credit to the other, in which the writer mentions the ‘preferment of my brother’ and that he himself has ‘bene constrayned to live with children’. Moreover, the manuscript was not forthcoming in 1861 (Ingleby, 247, 307). Daniel evidently took a part in the management of the Revels company; the indiscretion of his Philotas did not prevent him from acting as payee for their plays of 1604–5. But his connexion with them probably ceased when Eastward Ho! led, later in 1605, to the withdrawal of Anne’s patronage. The irrepressible Mr. Fleay (i. 110) thinks that they then satirized him as Damoetas in Day’s Isle of Gulls (1606). Daniel wrote one more mask and two pastorals, all for Court performances. By 1607 he was Groom of Anne’s Privy Chamber, and by 1613 Gentleman Extraordinary of the same Chamber. In 1615 his brother John obtained through his influence a patent for the Children of the Queen’s Chamber of Bristol (cf. ch. xii). He is said to have had a wife Justina, who was probably the sister of John Florio, whom he called ‘brother’ in 1611. The suggestion of Bolton Corney (3 N. Q. viii. 4, 40, 52) that this only meant fellow servant of the Queen is not plausible; this relation would have been expressed by ‘fellow’. He had a house in Old Street, but kept up his Somerset connexion, and was buried at Beckington, where he had a farm named Ridge, in Oct. 1619.

Collections

1599. The Poeticall Essayes of Sam. Danyel. Newly corrected and augmented. P. Short for Simon Waterson. [Includes Cleopatra.]

1601. The Works of Samuel Daniel Newly Augmented. For Simon Waterson. [Cleopatra.]

1602. [Reissue of 1601 with fresh t.p.]

1605. Certaine Small Poems Lately Printed: with the Tragedie of Philotas. Written by Samuel Daniel. G. Eld for Simon Waterson. [Cleopatra, Philotas.]

1607. Certain Small Workes Heretofore Divulged by Samuel Daniel one of the Groomes of the Queenes Maiesties priuie Chamber, and now againe by him corrected and augmented. I. W. for Simon Waterson. [Two issues. Cleopatra, Philotas, The Queen’s Arcadia.]

1611. Certain Small Workes.... I. L. for Simon Waterson. [Two issues. Cleopatra, Philotas, The Queen’s Arcadia.]

1623. The Whole Workes of Samuel Daniel Esquire in Poetrie. Nicholas Okes for Simon Waterson. [Cleopatra, Philotas, The Queen’s Arcadia, Hymen’s Triumph, The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses. This was edited by John Daniel.]

1635. Drammaticke Poems, written by Samuel Danniell Esquire, one of the Groomes of the most Honorable Privie Chamber to Queene Anne. T. Cotes for John Waterson. [Reissue of 1623 with fresh t.p.]

1718. For R. G. Gosling, W. Mears, J. Browne.

1885–96. The Complete Works in Verse and Prose of Samuel Daniel. Edited by A. B. Grosart. 5 vols. [Vol. iii (1885) contains the plays and masks.]

PLAYS

Cleopatra > 1593

S. R. 1593, Oct. 19. ‘A booke intituled The Tragedye of Cleopatra.’ Symond Waterson (Arber, ii. 638).

1594. Delia and Rosamond augmented. Cleopatra. By Samuel Daniel. James Roberts and Edward Allde for Simon Waterson. [Two editions. Verse Epistle to Lady Pembroke.]

1595. James Roberts and Edward Allde for Simon Waterson.

1598. Peter Short for Simon Waterson.

Also in Colls. 1599–1635.

Edition by M. Lederer (1911, Materialien, xxxi).

The play is in the classical manner, with choruses. The Epistle speaks of the play as motived by Lady Pembroke’s ‘well grac’d Antony’; the Apology to Philotas shows that it was not acted. In 1607 it is described as ‘newly altered’, and is in fact largely rewritten, perhaps under the stimulus of the production of Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra. The 1607 text is repeated in 1611, and the Epistle to Lady Pembroke is rewritten. But the text of 1623 is the earlier version again.

Philotas. 1604

S. R. 1604, Nov. 29 (Pasfield). ‘A Booke called the tragedie of Philotus wrytten by Samuel Daniell.’ Waterson and Edward Blunt (Arber, iii. 277).

1605. [Part of Coll. 1605. Verse Epistle to Prince Henry, signed ‘Sam. Dan.’; Apology.]

1607. The Tragedie of Philotas. By Sam. Daniel. Melch. Bradwood for Edward Blount. [Shortened version of Epistle to Henry.]

Also in Colls. 1607–35.

The play is in the classical manner, with choruses. From the Apology, motived by ‘the wrong application and misconceiving’ of it, I extract:

‘Above eight yeares since [1596], meeting with my deare friend D. Lateware, (whose memory I reverence) in his Lords Chamber and mine, I told him the purpose I had for Philotas: who sayd that himselfe had written the same argument, and caused it to be presented in St. John’s Colledge in Oxford; where as I after heard, it was worthily and with great applause performed.... And living in the Country, about foure yeares since, and neere halfe a yeare before the late Tragedy of ours (whereunto this is now most ignorantly resembled) unfortunately fell out heere in England [Sept., 1600], I began the same, and wrote three Acts thereof,—as many to whom I then shewed it can witnesse,—purposing to have had it presented in Bath by certaine Gentlemens sonnes, as a private recreation for the Christmas, before the Shrovetide of that unhappy disorder [Feb. 1601]. But by reason of some occasion then falling out, and being called upon by my Printer for a new impression of my workes, with some additions to the Civill Warres, I intermitted this other subject. Which now lying by mee, and driven by necessity to make use of my pen, and the Stage to bee the mouth of my lines, which before were never heard to speake but in silence, I thought the representing so true a History, in the ancient forme of a Tragedy, could not but have had an unreproveable passage with the time, and the better sort of men; seeing with what idle fictions, and grosse follies, the Stage at this day abused mens recreations.... And for any resemblance, that thorough the ignorance of the History may be applied to the late Earle of Essex, it can hold in no proportion but only in his weaknesses, which I would wish all that love his memory not to revive. And for mine owne part, having beene perticularly beholding to his bounty, I would to God his errors and disobedience to his Sovereigne might be so deepe buried underneath the earth, and in so low a tombe from his other parts, that hee might never be remembered among the examples of disloyalty in this Kingdome, or paraleld with Forreine Conspirators.’

The Apology is fixed by its own data to the autumn of 1604, and the performance was pretty clearly by the Queen’s Revels in the same year. Daniel was called before the Privy Council on account of the play, and used the name of the Earl of Devonshire in his defence. The earl was displeased and a letter of excuse from Daniel is extant (Grosart, i. xxii, from S. P. D. Jac. I, 1603–10, p. 18) in which, after asserting that he had satisfied Lord Cranborne [Robert Cecil], he says:

‘First I tolde the Lordes I had written 3 Acts of this tragedie the Christmas before my L. of Essex troubles, as diuers in the cittie could witnes. I saide the maister of the Revells had pervsed it. I said I had read some parte of it to your honour, and this I said having none els of powre to grace mee now in Corte & hoping that you out of your knowledg of bookes, or fauour of letters & mee, might answere that there is nothing in it disagreeing nor any thing, as I protest there is not, but out of the vniuersall notions of ambition and envie, the perpetuall argumentes of books or tragedies. I did not say you incouraged me vnto the presenting of it; yf I should I had beene a villayne, for that when I shewd it to your honour I was not resolud to haue had it acted, nor should it haue bene had not my necessities ouermaistred mee.’

The Queen’s Arcadia. 1605

S. R. 1605, Nov. 26 (Pasfield). ‘A book called The Quenes Arcadia. Presented by the university of Oxon in Christchurch.’ Waterson (Arber, iii. 305).

1606. The Queenes Arcadia. A Pastorall Trage-comedie presented to her Maiestie and her Ladies, by the Vniuersitie of Oxford in Christs Church, In August last. G. Eld for Simon Waterson. [Dedicatory verses to the Queen.]

See Collections.

The performance was by Christ Church men on 30 Aug. 1605 during the royal visit to Oxford (cf. ch. iv). The original title appears to have been Arcadia Reformed. Chamberlain told Winwood (ii. 140) that the other plays were dull, but Daniel’s ‘made amends for all; being indeed very excelent, and some parts exactly acted’.

Hymen’s Triumph. 1614

[MS.] Drummond MS. in Edinburgh Univ. Library. [Sonnet to Lady Roxborough, signed ‘Samuel Danyel’. The manuscript given to the library by William Drummond of Hawthornden, a kinsman of Lady Roxborough, in 1627, is fully described by W. W. Greg in M. L. Q. vi. 59. It is partly holograph, and represents an earlier state of the text than the quarto of 1615. A letter of 1621 from Drummond to Sir Robert Ker, afterwards Earl of Ancrum, amongst the Lothian MSS. (Hist. MSS. i. 116), expresses an intention of printing what appears to have been the same manuscript.]

S. R. 1615, Jan. 13 (Buck). ‘A play called Hymens triumphes.’ Francis Constable (iii. 561), [The clerk first wrote ‘Hymens pastoralls’.]

1615. Hymens Triumph. A Pastorall Tragicomaedie. Presented at the Queenes Court in the Strand at her Maiesties magnificent intertainement of the Kings most excellent Maiestie, being at the Nuptials of the Lord Roxborough. By Samuel Daniel. For Francis Constable. [Dedicatory verses to the Queen, signed ‘Sam. Daniel’, and Prologue.]

See Collections.

Robert Ker, Lord Roxborough, was married to Jean Drummond, daughter of Patrick, third Lord Drummond, and long a lady of Anne’s household. The wedding was originally fixed for 6 Jan. 1614, and the Queen meant to celebrate it with ‘a masque of maids, if they may be found’ (Birch, i. 279). It was, however, put off until Candlemas, doubtless to avoid competition with Somerset’s wedding, and appears from the dedication also to have served for a house-warming, to which Anne invited James on the completion of some alterations to Somerset House. Finett (Philoxenis, 16), who describes the complications caused by an invitation to the French ambassador, gives the date as 2 Feb., which is in itself the more probable; but John Chamberlain gives 3 Feb., unless there is an error in the dating of the two letters to Carleton, cited by Greg from Addl. MS. 4173, ff. 368, 371, as of 3 and 10 Feb. In the first he writes, ‘This day the Lord of Roxburgh marries M^rs. Jane Drummond at Somerset House, whither the King is invited to lie this night; & shall be entertained with shews & devices, specially a Pastoral, that shall be represented in a little square paved Court’; and in the second, ‘This day sevennight the Lord of Roxburgh married M^rs. Jane Drummond at Somerset House or Queen’s Court (as it must now be called). The King tarried there till Saturday after dinner. The Entertainment was great, & cost the Queen, as she says, above 3000£. The Pastoral made by Samuel Daniel was solemn & dull; but perhaps better to be read than represented.’ Gawdy, 175, also mentions the ‘pastoral’. There is nothing to show who were the performers.

Doubtful Play

Daniel has been suggested as the author of the anonymous Maid’s Metamorphosis.

MASKS

The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses. 8 Jan. 1604

1604. The true discription of a Royall Masque. Presented at Hampton Court, vpon Sunday night, being the eight of Ianuary, 1604. And Personated by the Queenes most Excellent Majestie, attended by Eleuen Ladies of Honour. Edward Allde.

1604. The Vision of the 12. Goddesses, presented in a Maske the 8 of Ianuary, at Hampton Court: By the Queenes most Excellent Maiestie, and her Ladies. T. C. for Simon Waterson. [A preface to Lucy, Countess of Bedford, is signed by Daniel, who states that the publication was motived by ‘the unmannerly presumption of an indiscreet Printer, who without warrant hath divulged the late shewe ... and the same very disorderly set forth’. Lady Bedford had ‘preferred’ Daniel to the Queen ‘in this imployment’.]

See Collections.

Editions by Nichols, James, i. 305 (1828), E. Law (1880), and H. A. Evans (1897, English Masques).

The maskers, in various colours and with appropriate emblems, were twelve Goddesses, and were attended by torchbearers (cf. Carleton, infra); the presenters, ‘for the introducing this show’, Night, Sleep, Iris, Sibylla, and the Graces; the cornets, Satyrs.

The locality was the Hall at Hampton Court. At the lower end was a mountain, from which the maskers descended, and in which the cornets played; at the upper end the cave of Sleep and, on the left (Carleton), a temple of Peace, in the cupola of which was ‘the consort music’, while viols and lutes were ‘on one side of the hall’.

The maskers presented their emblems, which Sibylla laid upon the altar of the temple. They danced ‘their own measures’, then took out the lords for ‘certain measures, galliards, and corantoes’, and after a ‘short departing dance’ reascended the mountain.

This was a Queen’s mask, danced, according to manuscript notes in a copy of the Allde edition (B.M. 161, a. 41) thought by Mr. Law to be ‘in a hand very like Lord Worcester’s’ (vide infra), and possibly identical with the ‘original MS. of this mask’ from which the same names are given in Collier, i. 347, by the Queen (Pallas), the Countesses of Suffolk (Juno), Hertford (Diana), Bedford (Vesta), Derby (Proserpine), and Nottingham (Concordia), and the Ladies Rich (Venus), Hatton (Macaria), Walsingham (Astraea), Susan Vere (Flora), Dorothy Hastings (Ceres), and Elizabeth Howard (Tethys).

Anticipations of masks at Court during the winter of 1603–4 are to be found in letters to Lord Shrewsbury from Arabella Stuart on 18 Dec. (Bradley, ii. 193), ‘The Queene intendeth to make a Mask this Christmas, to which end my Lady of Suffolk and my Lady Walsingham hath warrants to take of the late Queenes best apparell out of the Tower at theyr discretion. Certain Noblemen (whom I may not yet name to you, because some of them have made me of theyr counsell) intend another. Certain gentlemen of good sort another’; from Cecil on 23 Dec. (Lodge, iii. 81), ‘masks and much more’; and from Sir Thomas Edmondes on 23 Dec. (Lodge, iii. 83):

‘Both the King’s and Queen’s Majesty have a humour to have some masks this Christmas time, and therefore, for that purpose, both the young lords and chief gentlemen of one part, and the Queen and her ladies of the other part, do severally undertake the accomplishment and furnishing thereof; and, because there is use of invention therein, special choice is made of Mr. Sanford to direct the order and course for the ladies’;

also in the letters of Carleton to Chamberlain on 27 Nov. (Birch, i. 24; Hardwicke Papers, i. 383), ‘many plays and shows are bespoken, to give entertainment to our ambassadors’, and 22 Dec. (S. P. D. Jac. I, v. 20; Law, 9):

‘We shall have a merry Christmas at Hampton Court, for both male and female maskes are all ready bespoken, whereof the Duke [of Lennox] is rector chori of th’ one side and the La: Bedford of the other.’

I suppose Mr. Sanford to be Henry Sanford, who, like Daniel, had been of the Wilton household (cf. Aubrey, i. 311) and may well have lent him his aid.

The masks of lords on 1 Jan. and of Scots on 6 Jan. are not preserved. The latter is perhaps most memorable because Ben Jonson and his friend Sir John Roe were thrust out from it by the Lord Chamberlain (cf. ch. vi). Arabella Stuart briefly told Shrewsbury on 10 Jan. that there were three masks (Bradley, ii. 199). Wilbraham’s Journal (Camden Misc. x), 66, records:

‘manie plaies and daunces with swordes: one mask by English and Scottish lords: another by the Queen’s Maiestie and eleven more ladies of her chamber presenting giftes as goddesses. These maskes, especialli the laste, costes 2000 or 3000^l, the aparells: rare musick, fine songes: and in jewels most riche 20000^l, the lest to my judgment: and her Maiestie 100,000^l. After Christmas was running at the ring by the King and 8 or 9 lordes for the honour of those goddesses and then they all feasted together privatelie.’

But the fullest description was given by Carleton to Chamberlain on 15 Jan. (S. P. D. Jac. I, vi. 21, printed by Law, 33, 45; Sullivan, 192).

‘On New yeares night we had a play of Robin goode-fellow and a maske brought in by a magicien of China. There was a heaven built at the lower end of the hall, owt of which our magicien came downe and after he had made a long sleepy speech to the King of the nature of the cuntry from whence he came comparing it with owrs for strength and plenty, he sayde he had broughte in cloudes certain Indian and China Knights to see the magnificency of this court. And theruppon a trauers was drawne and the maskers seen sitting in a voulty place with theyr torchbearers and other lights which was no vnpleasing spectacle. The maskers were brought in by two boyes and two musitiens who began with a song and whilst that went forward they presented themselves to the King. The first gave the King an Impresa in a shield with a sonet in a paper to exprese his deuice and presented a jewell of 40,000£ valew which the King is to buy of Peter Van Lore, but that is more than euery man knew and it made a faire shew to the French Ambassadors eye whose master would have bin well pleased with such a maskers present but not at that prise. The rest in theyr order deliuered theyr scutchins with letters and there was no great stay at any of them saue only at one who was putt to the interpretacion of his deuise. It was a faire horse colt in a faire greene field which he meant to be a colt of Busephalus race and had this virtu of his sire that none could mount him but one as great at lest as Alexander. The King made himself merry with threatening to send this colt to the stable and he could not breake loose till he promised to dance as well as Bankes his horse. The first measure was full of changes and seemed confused but was well gone through with all, and for the ordinary measures they tooke out the Queen, the ladies of Derby, Harford, Suffolke, Bedford, Susan Vere, Suthwell th’ elder and Rich. In the corantoes they ran over some other of the young ladies, and so ended as they began with a song; and that done, the magicien dissolved his enchantment, and made the maskers appear in theyr likenes to be th’ Erle of Pembroke, the Duke, Mons^r. d’Aubigny, yong Somerset, Philip Harbert the young Bucephal, James Hayes, Richard Preston, and Sir Henry Godier. Theyr attire was rich but somewhat too heavy and cumbersome for dancers which putt them besides ther galliardes. They had loose robes of crimsen sattin embrodered with gold and bordered with brood siluer laces, dublets and bases of cloth of siluer; buskins, swordes and hatts alike and in theyr hats ech of them an Indian bird for a fether with some jewells. The twelfe-day the French Ambassador was feasted publikely; and at night there was a play in the Queens presence with a masquerado of certaine Scotchmen who came in with a sword dance not vnlike a matachin, and performed it clenly.... The Sunday following was the great day of the Queenes maske.’

This Carleton describes at length; I only note points which supplement Daniel’s description.

‘The Hale was so much lessened by the workes that were in it, so as none could be admitted but men of apparance, the one end was made into a rock and in several places the waightes placed; in attire like savages. Through the midst from the top came a winding stayre of breadth for three to march; and so descended the maskers by three and three; which being all seene on the stayres at once was the best presentacion I have at any time seene. Theyre attire was alike, loose mantles and petticotes but of different colors, the stuffs embrodered sattins and cloth of gold and silver, for which they were beholding to Queen Elizabeth’s wardrobe.... Only Pallas had a trick by herself for her clothes were not so much below the knee, but that we might see a woman had both feete and legs which I never knew before.’

He describes the torchbearers as pages in white satin loose gowns, although Daniel says they were ‘in the like several colours’ to the maskers. The temple was ‘on the left side of the hall towards the upper end’. For the ‘common measures’ the lords taken out were Pembroke, Lennox, Suffolk, Henry Howard, Southampton, Devonshire, Sidney, Nottingham, Monteagle, Northumberland, Knollys, and Worcester.

‘For galliardes and corantoes they went by discretion, and the yong Prince was tost from hand to hand like a tennis bal. The Lady Bedford and Lady Susan tooke owt the two ambassadors; and they bestirred themselfe very liuely: speceally the Spaniard for the Spanish galliard shewed himself a lusty old reueller.... But of all for goode grace and goode footmanship Pallas bare the bell away.’

The dancers unmasked about midnight, and then came a banquet in the presence-chamber, ‘which was dispatched with the accustomed confusion’.

Carleton also mentions the trouble between the Spanish and French ambassadors, which is also referred to in a letter of O. Renzo to G. A. Frederico (S. P. D. Jac. I, vi. 37; cf. Sullivan, 195), and is the subject of several dispatches by and to the Comte de Beaumont (King’s MSS. cxxiv, ff. 328, 359^v, 363, 373, 381, 383^v, 389; cf. Reyher, 519, Sullivan, 193–5). was the object of the Court not to invite both ambassadors together, as this would entail an awkward decision as to precedence. Beaumont was asked first, to the mask on 1 Jan. He hesitated to accept, expressing a fear that it was intended to ask De Taxis to the Queen’s mask on Twelfth Night, ‘dernier jour des festes de Noël selon la facon d’Angleterre et le plus honnorable de tout pour la cérémonie qui s’y obserue de tout temps publiquement’. After some negotiation he extracted a promise from James that, if the Spaniard was present at all, it would be in a private capacity, and he then dropped the point, and accepted his own invitation, threatening to kill De Taxis in the presence if he dared to dispute precedence with him. On 5 Jan. he learnt that Anne had refused to dance if De Taxis was not present, and that the promise would be broken. He protested, and his protest was met by an invitation for the Twelfth Night to which he had attached such importance. But the Queen’s mask was put off until 8 Jan., a Scottish mask substituted on 6 Jan., and on 8 Jan. De Taxis was present, revelling it in red, while Anne paid him the compliment of wearing a red favour on her costume.

Reyher, 519, cites references to the Queen’s mask in the accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber and of the Office of Works. E. Law (Hist. of Hampton Court, ii. 10) gives, presumably from one of these, ‘making readie the lower ende with certain roomes of the hall at Hampton Court for the Queenes Maiestie and ladies against their mask by the space of three dayes’.

Allde’s edition must have been quickly printed. On 2 Feb. Lord Worcester wrote to Lord Shrewsbury (Lodge, iii. 87): ‘Whereas your Lordship saith you were never particularly advertised of the mask, I have been at sixpence charge with you to send you the book, which will inform you better than I can, having noted the names of the ladies applied to each goddess; and for the other, I would likewise have sent you the ballet, if I could have got it for money, but these books, as I hear, are all called in, and in truth I will not take upon me to set that down which wiser than myself do not understand.’

Tethys’ Festival. 5 June 1610

1610. Tethys Festiual: or the Queenes Wake. Celebrated at Whitehall, the fifth day of June 1610. Deuised by Samuel Daniel, one of the Groomes of her Maiesties most Honourable priuie Chamber. For John Budge. [Annexed with separate title-page to The Creation of Henry Prince of Wales (q.v.). A Preface to the Reader criticizes, though not by name, Ben Jonson’s descriptions of his masks.]

Edition in Nichols, James (1828), ii. 346.

The maskers, in sky-blue and cloth of silver, were Tethys and thirteen Nymphs of as many English Rivers; the antimaskers, in light robes adorned with flowers, eight Naiads; the presenters Zephyrus and two Tritons, whom with the Naiads Daniel calls ‘the Ante-maske or first shew’, and Mercury. Torchbearers were dispensed with, for ‘they would have pestered the roome, which the season would not well permit’.

The locality was probably the Banqueting Room at Whitehall. The scene was supplemented by a Tree of Victory on a mount to the right of ‘the state’. A ‘travers’ representing a cloud served for a curtain, and was drawn to discover, within a framework borne on pilasters, in front of which stood Neptune and Nereus on pedestals, a haven, whence the ‘Ante-maske’ issued. They presented on behalf of Tethys a trident to the King, and a sword and scarf to Henry, and the Naiads danced round Zephyrus. The scene was then changed, under cover of three circles of moving lights and glasses, to show five niches, of which the central one represented a throne for Tethys, with Thames at her feet, and the others four caverns, each containing three Nymphs.

The maskers marched to the Tree of Victory, at which they offered their flowers, and under which Tethys reposed between the dances. Of these they gave two; then took out the Lords for ‘measures, corantos, and galliardes’; and then gave their ‘retyring daunce’. Apparently as an innovation, ‘to avoid the confusion which usually attendeth the desolve of these shewes’, the presenters stayed the dissolve, and Mercury sent the Duke of York and six young noblemen to conduct the Queen and ladies back ‘in their owne forme’.

This was a Queen’s mask, and Daniel notes ‘that there were none of inferior sort mixed among these great personages of state and honour (as usually there have been); but all was performed by themselves with a due reservation of their dignity. The maskers were the Queen (Tethys), the Lady Elizabeth (Thames), Lady Arabella Stuart (Trent), the Countesses of Arundel (Arun), Derby (Darwent), Essex (Lee), Dorset (Air), and Montgomery (Severn), Viscountess Haddington (Rother), and the Ladies Elizabeth Gray (Medway), Elizabeth Guilford (Dulesse), Katherine Petre (Olwy), Winter (Wye), and Windsor (Usk). The antimaskers were ‘eight little Ladies’. The Duke of York played Zephyrus, and two gentlemen ‘of good worth and respect’ the Tritons. ‘The artificiall part’, says Daniel, ‘only speakes Master Inago Jones.’

On 13 Jan. 1610 Chamberlain wrote to Winwood (iii. 117, misdated ‘February’) that ‘the Queen would likewise have a mask against Candlemas or Shrovetide’. Doubtless it was deferred to the Creation, for which on 24 May the same writer (Winwood, iii. 175) mentions Anne as preparing and practising a mask. Winwood’s papers (iii. 179) also contain a description, unsigned, but believed by their editor to be written by John Finett, as follows:

‘The next day was graced with a most glorious Maske, which was double. In the first, came first in the little Duke of Yorke between two great Sea Slaves, the cheefest of Neptune’s servants, attended upon by twelve [eight] little Ladies, all of them the daughters of Earls or Barons. By one of these men a speech was made unto the King and Prince, expressing the conceipt of the maske; by the other a sword worth 20,000 crowns at the least was put into the Duke of York’s hands, who presented the same unto the Prince his brother from the first of those ladies which were to follow in the next maske. This done, the Duke returned into his former place in midst of the stage, and the little ladies performed their dance to the amazement of all the beholders, considering the tenderness of their years and the many intricate changes of the dance; which was so disposed, that which way soever the changes went the little Duke was still found to be in the midst of these little dancers. These light skirmishers having done their devoir, in came the Princesses; first the Queen, next the Lady Elizabeth’s Grace, then the Lady Arbella, the Countesses of Arundell, Derby, Essex, Dorset, and Montgomery, the Lady Hadington, the Lady Elizabeth Grey, the Lady Windsor, the Lady Katherine Peter, the Lady Elizabeth Guilford, and the Lady Mary [Anne] Wintour. By that time these had done, it was high time to go to bed, for it was within half an hour of the sun’s, not setting, but rising. Howbeit, a farther time was to be spent in viewing and scrambling at one of the most magnificent banquets that I have seen. The ambassadors of Spaine, of Venice, and of the Low Countries were present at this and all the rest of these glorious sights, and in truth so they were.’

Brief notices in Stowe’s Annales (902, paged 907 in error) and in letters by Carleton to Sir Thomas Edmondes (Birch, i. 114) and by John Noies to his wife (Hist. MSS. Various Colls. iii. 261) add nothing to Finett’s account. There were no very serious ambassadorial complications, as the death of Henri IV put an invitation to the French ambassador out of the question (cf. Sullivan, 59). Correr notes with satisfaction that, as ambassador from Venice, he had as good a box as that of the Spanish ambassador, while, to please Spanish susceptibilities, that of the Dutch ambassador was less good (V. P. xi. 507).

The mask was ‘excessively costly’ (V. P. xii. 86). Several financial documents relating to it are on record (Reyher, 507, 521; Devon, 105, 127; Sullivan, 219, 221; S. P. D. Jac. I, liii. 4, 74; lix. 12), including a warrant of 4 March, which recites the Queen’s pleasure that the Lord Chamberlain and Master of the Horse ‘shall take some paines to look into the emptions and provisions of all things necessarie’, another of 25 May for an imprest to Inigo Jones, an embroiderer’s bill for £55, and a silkman’s for £1,071 5s., with an endorsement by Lord Knyvet, referring the prices to the Privy Council, and counter-signatures by the Lord Chamberlain and the Master of the Horse. In this case the dresses of the maskers seem to have been provided for them. An allusion in a letter of Donne to Sir Henry Goodyere (Letters, i. 240) makes a sportive suggestion for a source of revenue ‘if Mr. Inago Jones be not satisfied for his last masque (because I hear say it cannot come to much)’.

JOHN DAVIDSON (1549?-1603).

A Regent of St. Leonard’s College, St. Andrew’s, and afterwards minister of Liberton and a bitter satirist on behalf of the extreme Kirk party in Scotland.

The Siege of Edinburgh Castle. 1571

James Melville writes s.a. 1571: ‘This yeir in the monethe of July, Mr. Jhone Davidsone an of our Regents maid a play at the mariage of Mr. Jhone Coluin, quhilk I saw playit in Mr. Knox presence, wherin, according to Mr. Knox doctrine, the castell of Edinbruche was besiged, takin, and the Captan, with an or two with him, hangit in effigie.’[656]

This was in intelligent anticipation of events. Edinburgh Castle was held by Kirkcaldy of Grange for Mary in 1571. On 28 May 1573 it was taken by the English on behalf of the party of James VI, and Kirkcaldy was hanged.

Melville also records plays at the ‘Bachelor Act’ of 1573 at St. Andrews.

SIR JOHN DAVIES (1569–1626).

Davies was a Winchester and Queen’s College, Oxford, man, who entered the Middle Temple on 3 Feb. 1588, served successively as Solicitor-General (1603–6) and Attorney-General (1606–19) in Ireland, and was Speaker of the Irish Parliament in 1613. His principal poems are Orchestra (1594) and Nosce Teipsum (1599). He was invited by the Earl of Cumberland (q.v.) to write verses for ‘barriers’ in 1601, and contributed to the entertainments of Elizabeth by Sir Thomas Egerton (cf. ch. xxiv) and Sir Robert Cecil (q.v.) in 1602.

Collections

Works by A. B. Grosart (1869–76, Fuller Worthies Library. 3 vols.).

Poems by A. B. Grosart (1876, Early English Poets. 2 vols.).

Dissertation: M. Seemann, Sir J. D., sein Leben und seine Werke (1913, Wiener Beiträge, xli).

R. DAVIES (c. 1610).

Contributor to Chester’s Triumph (cf. ch. xxiv, C).

FRANCIS DAVISON (c. 1575–c. 1619).

He was son of William Davison, Secretary of State, and compiler of A Poetical Rapsody (1602), of which the best edition is that of A. H. Bullen (1890–1). He entered Gray’s Inn in 1593: for his contribution to the Gray’s Inn mask of 1595, see s.v. Anon. Gesta Grayorum.

JOHN DAY (c. 1574–c. 1640).

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

Collection

1881. A. H. Bullen, The Works of John Day.

The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green. 1600

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

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

Editions by W. Bang (1902, Materialien, i) and J. S. Farmer (1914, S. F. T.).

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

Law Tricks, or Who Would Have Thought It. 1604

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

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

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

The Isle of Gulls. 1606

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

1606. For John Trundle, sold by John Hodgets.

1633. For William Sheares.

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

The Travels of Three English Brothers. 1607

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

1607. The Travailes of The three English Brothers.

Sir Thomas Sir Anthony Mr. Robert Shirley.

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

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

Humour out of Breath. 1607–8

S. R. 1608, April 12 (Buck). ‘A booke called Humour out of breathe.’ John Helme (Arber, iii. 374).

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

Editions by J. O. Halliwell (1860), A. Symons in Nero and Other Plays (1888, Mermaid Series).

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

The Parliament of Bees. 1608 < > 16

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

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

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

Edition by A. Symons in Nero and Other Plays (1888, Mermaid Series).

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

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

Lost and Doubtful Plays

For the Admiral’s, 1598–1603.

Day appears to have sold the company an old play 1 The Conquest of Brute in July 1598, and to have subsequently written or collaborated in the following plays:

1599–1600: Cox of Collumpton, with Haughton; Thomas Merry, or Beech’s Tragedy, with Haughton; The Seven Wise Masters, with Chettle, Dekker, and Haughton; Cupid and Psyche, with Chettle and Dekker; 1 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green, with Chettle; and the unfinished Spanish Moor’s Tragedy, with Dekker and Haughton.

1600–1: 2 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green, with Haughton; Six Yeomen of the West, with Haughton.

1601–2: The Conquest of the West Indies, with Haughton and Smith; 3 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green, with Haughton; Friar Rush and The Proud Woman of Antwerp, with Chettle and Haughton; The Bristol Tragedy; and the unfinished 2 Tom Dough, with Haughton.

1602–3: Merry as May Be, with Hathway and Smith; The Boss of Billingsgate, with Hathway and another.

For Worcester’s men.

1602–3: 1 and 2 The Black Dog of Newgate, with Hathway, Smith, and another; The Unfortunate General, with Hathway, Smith, and a third; and the unfinished Shore, with Chettle.

Of the above only The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green and a note of Cox of Collumpton (cf. ch. xiii, s.v. Admiral’s) survive; for speculations as to others see Heywood, Pleasant Dialogues and Dramas (Cupid and Psyche), Marlowe, Lust’s Dominion (Spanish Moor’s Tragedy), Yarington, Two Lamentable Tragedies (Thomas Merry), and the anonymous Edward IV (Shore) and Fair Maid of Bristol (Bristow Tragedy).

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

Day’s Mad Pranks of Merry Mall of the Bankside (S. R. 7 Aug. 1610) was probably a pamphlet (cf. Dekker, The Roaring Girl). Bullen, Introd. 11, thinks the Guy Earl of Warwick (1661), printed as ‘by B. J.’, too bad to be Day and Dekker’s Life and Death of Guy of Warwick (S. R. 15 Jan. 1620). On 30 July 1623 Herbert licensed a Bellman of Paris by Day and Dekker for the Prince’s (Herbert, 24). The Maiden’s Holiday by Marlowe (q.v.) and Day (S. R. 8 April 1654) appears in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (3 Library, ii. 231) as Marlowe’s.

For other ascriptions to Day see The Maid’s Metamorphosis and Parnassus in ch. xxiv.

THOMAS DEKKER (c. 1572–c. 1632).

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

Collections

1873. [R. H. Shepherd], The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker. 4 vols. (Pearson Reprints). [Contains 15 plays and 4 Entertainments.]

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

1887. E. Rhys, Thomas Dekker (Mermaid Series). [Contains The Shoemaker’s Holiday, 1, 2 The Honest Whore, Old Fortunatus, The Witch of Edmonton.]

Dissertations: M. L. Hunt, Thomas Dekker: A Study (1911, Columbia Studies in English); W. Bang, Dekker-Studien (1900, E. S. xxviii. 208); F. E. Pierce, The Collaboration of Webster with Dekker (1909, Yale Studies, xxxvii) and The Collaboration of Dekker and Ford (1912, Anglia, xxxvi, 141, 289); E. E. Stoll, John Webster (1905), ch. ii, and The Influence of Jonson on Dekker (1906, M. L. N. xxi. 20); R. Brooke, John Webster and the Elizabethan Drama (1916); F. P. Wilson, Three Notes on Thomas Dekker (1920, M. L. R. xv. 82).

PLAYS

Old Fortunatus. 1599

S. R. 1600, Feb. 20. ‘A commedie called old Fortunatus in his newe lyuerie.’ William Aspley (Arber, iii. 156).

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

Editions by Dilke (1814, O. E. P. iii), H. Scherer (1901, Münchener Beiträge, xxi), O. Smeaton (1904, T. D.).

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

The Shoemaker’s Holiday. 1599

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

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

1610, 1618, 1624, 1631, 1657.

Editions by E. Fritsche (1862), K. Warnke and E. Proescholdt (1886), W. A. Neilson (1911, C. E. D.), and A. F. Lange (1914, R. E. C. iii).

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

Patient Grissell. 1600

With Chettle and Haughton.

S. R. 1600, March 28. ‘The Plaie of Patient Grissell.’ Cuthbert Burby (Arber, iii. 158).

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

Editions by J. P. Collier (1841, Sh. Soc.), A. B. Grosart (1886, Dekker, v. 109), G. Hübsch (1893, Erlanger Beiträge, xv), J. S. Farmer (1911, T. F. T.).—Dissertations by A. E. H. Swaen in E. S. xxii. 451, Fr. v. Westenholz, Die Griseldis-Sage in der Literaturgeschichte (1888).

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

Satiromastix. 1601

With Marston?

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

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

Editions by T. Hawkins (1773, O. E. D. iii), H. Scherer (1907, Materialien, xx), J. H. Penniman (1913, B. L.).

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

Sir Thomas Wyatt. 1602

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

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

1612. For Thomas Archer.

Editions by J. Blew (1876), and J. S. Farmer (1914, S. F. T.) and with Works of Webster (q.v.).

Henslowe, on behalf of Worcester’s men, paid Chettle, Dekker, Heywood, Smith, and Webster, for 1 Lady Jane in Oct. 1602. He then bought properties for The Overthrow of Rebels, almost certainly the same play, and began to pay Dekker for a 2 Lady Jane, which apparently remained unfinished, at any rate at the time. One or both of these plays, or possibly only the shares of Dekker and Webster in one or both of them, may reasonably be taken to survive in Sir Thomas Wyatt. Stoll, 49, thinks the play, as we have it, is practically Dekker’s and that there is ‘no one thing’ that can be claimed ‘with any degree of assurance’ for Webster. But this is not the general view. Fleay, ii. 269, followed in the main by Hunt, 76, gives Webster scc. i-ix, Greg (Henslowe, ii. 233) scc. i-x and xvi (with hesitation as to iii-v), Pierce, after a careful application of a number of ‘tests’ bearing both on style and on matter, scc. ii, v, vi, x, xiv, xvi; but he thinks that some or all of these were retouched by Dekker. Brooke inclines to trace Webster in scc. ii, xvi, Heywood in scc. vi, x, and a good deal of Dekker. Hunt thinks the planning due to Chettle.

The Honest Whore. 1604, c. 1605

With Middleton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editions by W. Scott (1810, A. B. D. i) and W. A. Neilson (1911, C. E. D.).

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

Westward Ho! 1604

With Webster.

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

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

Editions with Works of Webster (q.v.).

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

Northward Ho! 1605

With Webster.

S. R. 1607, Aug. 6 (Buck). ‘A booke Called Northward Ho.’ George Elde (Arber, iii. 358).

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

Editions by J. S. Farmer (1914, S. F. T.) and in Works of Webster (q.v.).

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

The Whore of Babylon 1605 < > 7

S. R. 1607, April 20 (Buck). ‘A booke called the Whore of Babilon.’ Nathanael Butter and John Trundell (Arber, iii. 347).

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

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

The Roaring Girl. c. 1610

With Middleton.

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

Editions by W. Scott (1810, A. B. D. ii), A. H. Bullen (1885, Middleton, iv. 1), and J. S. Farmer (1914, S. F. T.).

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

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

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

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

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

Match Me in London (?)

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

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

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

The Virgin Martyr. c. 1620

With Massinger.

S. R. 1621, 7 Dec. (Buck). ‘A Tragedy called The Virgin Martir.’ Thomas Jones (Arber, iv. 62).

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

1631, 1651, 1661.

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

The Witch of Edmonton. 1621

With Ford and W. Rowley.

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

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

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

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

The Wonder of a Kingdom. 1623

Possibly with Day.

S. R. 1631, May 16 (Herbert). ‘A Comedy called The Wonder of a Kingdome by Thomas Decker.’ John Jackman (Arber, iv. 253).

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

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

Herbert’s diary for 18 Sept. 1623 has the entry: ‘For a company of strangers. A new comedy called Come see a wonder, written by John Daye. It was acted at the Red Bull and licensed without my hand to it because they were none of the 4 companies.’ As The Wonder of a Kingdom contains scenes which are obviously from Day’s Parliament of Bees (1608–16) it is possible either to adopt the simple theory of a collaboration between Day and Dekker in 1623, or to hold with Fleay, i. 136, and Greg, Henslowe, ii. 174, that Day’s ‘new’ play of 1623 was a revision of an earlier one by Dekker. The mention of cards in the closing lines seems an inadequate ground for Fleay’s further theory, apparently approved by Greg, that the original play was The Mack, produced by the Admiral’s on 21 Feb. 1595.

The Sun’s Darling. 1624

With Ford.

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

1657. Reissue with same imprint.

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

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

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

The Noble Soldier > 1631

With Day and S. Rowley?

S. R. 1631, May 16 (Herbert). ‘A Tragedy called The noble Spanish Souldier by Thomas Deckar.’ John Jackman (Arber, iv. 253).

1633, Dec. 9. ‘Entred for his Copy vnder the handes of Sir Henry Herbert and Master Kingston warden Anno Domini 1631. a Tragedy called The Noble Spanish soldior written by master Decker.’ Nicholas Vavasour (Arber, iv. 310).

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

Editions by A. H. Bullen (1882, O. E. P. i) and J. S. Farmer (1913, S. F. T.).

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

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

Lost and Doubtful Plays

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

(a) Conjectural anonymous Work before 1598

(i) Philipo and Hippolito.

Produced as a new play by the Admiral’s on 9 July 1594. The ascription to Dekker, confident in Fleay, i. 213, and regarded as possible by Greg (Henslowe, ii. 165), appears to be due to the entry of a Philenzo and Hypollita by Massinger, who revised other early work of Dekker, in the S. R. on 29 June 1660, to the entry of a Philenzo and Hipolito by Massinger in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (3 Library, ii. 231), and to the appearance of a Julio and Hyppolita in the German collection of 1620. A copy of Massinger’s play is said (Collier, Henslowe, xxxi) to be amongst the Conway MSS.

(ii) The Jew of Venice.

Entered as a play by Dekker in the S. R. on 9 Sept. 1653 (3 Library, ii. 241). It has been suggested (Fleay, i. 121, and Sh. 30, 197; Greg in Henslowe, ii. 170) that it was the source of a German play printed from a Vienna MS. by Meissner, 131 (cf. Herz, 84). In this a personage disguises himself as a French doctor, which leads to the conjectural identification of its English original both with The Venetian Comedy produced by the Admiral’s on 27 Aug. 1594 and with The French Doctor performed by the same men on 19 Oct. 1594 and later dates and bought by them from Alleyn in 1602. The weakest point in all this guesswork is the appearance of common themes in the German play and in The Merchant of Venice, which Fleay explains to his own satisfaction by the assumption that Shakespeare based The Merchant of Venice on Dekker’s work.

(iii) Dr. Faustus.

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

(iv) Diocletian.

Produced by the Admiral’s, 16 Nov. 1599; cf. s.v. The Virgin Martyr (supra).

(v) The Set at Maw.

Produced by the Admiral’s on 14 Dec. 1594; cf. s.v. Match Me in London (supra).

(vi) Antony and Valia.

Revived by the Admiral’s, 4 Jan. 1595, and ascribed by Fleay, i. 213, with some encouragement from Greg in Henslowe, ii. 174, to Dekker, on the ground of entries in the S. R. on 29 June 1660 and in Warburton’s list of burnt plays (3 Library, ii. 231) of an Antonio and Vallia by Massinger, who revised other early work by Dekker.