Note 1 — INTRODUCTION

Fleay (Chron. Eng. Dra., I, 208) thinks that the otherwise lost Massinger play, The Judge, licensed by Herbert in 1627, and included in the list of Warburton’s collection, may have been The Fatal Dowry. He declares, moreover, that “the decree in favor of creditors in I, ii a was a statute made in 1623,” and suggests that Massinger after this date made over an independent play of Field’s, now lost. But I think that any one who surveys in The Fatal Dowry the respective hands of its authors will incline strongly to the conviction that this drama is the offspring of joint effort rather than the re-handling of one man’s work by another. The decree to which Fleay has reference appears to be that to be found in Statutes of the Realm, IV, ii, 1227–9, recorded as 21º Jac I, 19. This is an act passed by the parliament of 1623–4; it somewhat increases the stringency of the already-existing severe laws in regard to bankrupts, but contains nothing which even faintly suggests the decree in our play, by which the creditors are empowered to withhold the corpse of their debtor from burial; and, indeed, it is obviously impossible that a statute permitting any such practice could have been passed in Christian England of the seventeenth century. The fact is that this feature of the plot is taken direct from a classical author (see under Sources), and it would be gratuitous to assume in it a reference to contemporaneous legislation. As for the hypothesis that The Fatal Dowry and The Judge are the same play, in the utter absence of any supporting evidence it must be thrown out of court. This sort of identification is a confirmed vice with Fleay. The Judge is, moreover, listed as a comedy (see reprint of Warburton’s list in Fleay’s The Life and Work of Shakespeare, p. 358). [↩]