A Select Collection of Old English Plays.
Vol. VI.
by Robert Dodsley.
FIVE PLAYS.
[These five dramas were originally edited for the Roxburghe Club in 1851 by Mr J. Payne Collier, and are now incorporated with the present Collection precisely as they stand in the Roxburghe Club volume, with Mr Collier's kind permission, his general introduction included. The only difference is that the notes, instead of occurring at the end of each Play, are placed at the foot of the page.]
[MR COLLIER'S GENERAL INTRODUCTION.]
Four of the five ensuing Plays belong to a peculiar class of our early dramatic performances never yet especially noticed, nor sufficiently illustrated.
Many specimens have of late years been printed, and reprinted, of Miracle-plays, of Moral-plays, and of productions written in the most matured period of our dramatic literature; but little or nothing has been done to afford information respecting a species of stage-representation which constitutes a link between Moral-plays on the one hand, and Tragedy and Comedy on the other, as Tragedy and Comedy existed at the period when Shakespeare and his contemporaries were writers for various theatres in the metropolis. This deficiency it has been our main object to supply.
The four pieces to which we refer are neither plays which enforce a moral lesson by means of abstract impersonations only, nor are they dramas which profess to consist merely of scenes drawn from life, represented by real characters: they may be said to form a class by themselves, where characters both abstract and individual are employed in the same performance. The most remarkable drama of this intermediate kind, and the only one to which particular attention has been directed in modern times, is called "The Tragical Comedy of Appius and Virginia,"
which originally came out in 1575, and is reprinted in the [former and present] edition of "Dodsley's Old Plays" from the sole existing copy.[1] In it an important historical event is commemorated, and the hero, heroine, and some other principal agents are known characters; but they are mixed up with allegorical abstractions, and the representatives of moral qualities, while the Vice of the older stage is introduced, for the sake of diversifying the representation, and amusing popular audiences. The plot of this production has no religious application, and it was not written with any avowed moral purpose. In this respect, as well as in some other peculiarities, it is unlike the drama which stands first in the following sheets. Still, the general character is the same in both: in both we have a mixture of fact and fable, of reality and allegory, of individuality and abstraction, with the addition, in the latter case, of the enforcement of a lesson, for the instruction of those to whom it was addressed.
"The Conflict of Conscience," by Nathaniel Woodes, "Minister in Norwich," was originally printed in 1581, 4to, and it is reprinted in our volume from a copy in the possession of the Editor, which has the advantage of a Prologue. This introductory address is wanting in the exemplar in the British Museum; but it unquestionably belonged to the piece, because it also precedes a third copy, in the library of the Duke of Devonshire. We know not that this drama was ever republished, but the Registers of the Company of Stationers contain an entry by John Charlwood, dated 15th June 1587, of "a ballad of Mr Fraunces, an Italian, a doctor of law, who denied the Lord Jesus,"[2] which, as will be seen presently, probably refers to the same story, and, though called "a ballad," may possibly have been a reprint of "The Conflict of Conscience." The names borne by the different characters are all stated upon the title-page, with such a distribution of the parts as would enable six actors to represent the piece; and looking merely at this list, which we have exactly copied, it does not appear in what way the performance bears even a remote resemblance to tragedy or comedy. The names read like an enumeration of such personages as were ordinarily introduced into the Moral-plays of an earlier period--indeed, one of them seems to be derived from the still more ancient form of Miracle-plays, frequently represented with the assistance of the clergy.
We allude to Satan, who opens the body of the drama by a long speech (so long that we can hardly understand how a popular audience endured it) but does not afterwards take part in the action, excepting through the agency of such characters as Hypocrisy, Tyranny, and Avarice, who may be supposed to be his instruments, and under his influence and direction.
Nevertheless, a real and, as he may be considered, an historical, personage is represented in various scenes of the play, and is, in truth, its hero, although the author, for reasons assigned in the Prologue, objected to the insertion of his name in the text. These reasons, however, did not apply to the title-page, where the apostacy of Francis Spira, or Spiera, is announced as the main subject, and of whom an account may be found in Sleidan's "Vingt-neuf Livres d'Histoire"
(liv. xxi. edit. Geneva, 1563). Spiera was an Italian lawyer, who abandoned the Protestant for the Roman Catholic faith, and in remorse and despair committed suicide about thirty years anterior to the date when "The Conflict of Conscience" came from the press. How long this event had occurred before Nathaniel Woodes wrote his drama upon the story, we have no means of knowing; but the object of the author unquestionably was to forward and fix the Reformation, and we may conclude, perhaps, that an incident of the kind would not be brought upon the stage until some years after Elizabeth had been seated on the throne, and until what was called "the new faith" was firmly settled in the belief, and in the affections, of the great majority of the nation.
We apprehend, therefore, that "The Conflict of Conscience" was not written until about 1570.
It is the introduction of this real person, under the covert name of Philologus, that constitutes the chief distinction between the drama we have reprinted and Moral-plays, which, though still sometimes exhibited, were falling into desuetude. As most persons are aware, they consisted, in their first and simplest form, entirely of allegorical or representative characters, although, as audiences became accustomed to such abstractions, attempts were from time to time made to give, even to such imaginary impersonations, individual peculiarities and interests.
Besides the hero of "The Conflict of Conscience," his friends Eusebius and Theologus may also have been intended for real personages; and Gisbertus and Paphinitius were, possibly, the true names of the sons of Francis Spiera.
It will he seen that the drama is divided into six acts; but the last act consists of no more than a short speech by a Nuntius, who comes forward, as it should seem, to give a false representation of an historical fact--so early did a dramatist feel himself warranted in deviating from received statements, if it better answered his purpose not to adhere to them. In the instance before us, Nathaniel Woodes thought fit to alter the catastrophe, for the sake of the moral lesson he wished to enforce; and he, therefore, represented that Spiera had not committed suicide, and had, to the great joy of his friends, before death been re-converted to the religion he had so weakly abandoned. It will he observed, also, that the divisions of acts and scenes are very irregularly made towards the conclusion of the performance. From one passage we learn that no less than thirty weeks are supposed to elapse between the exit of Philologus, and his death as announced on the next page.
Nearly the whole of the piece is written in the ordinary seven-line stanza, with here and there the insertion of a couplet, more, no doubt, for convenience than for variety. The author seems to have very little consulted the wishes and tastes of a popular assembly; for, independently of the wearisome introduction, the interlocutions are sometimes carried to the extreme of tediousness, and the comic scenes are few, and failures. Perhaps, if any exception can be made, it is in favour of the interview between Hypocrisy, Tyranny, and Avarice, where the first, in consistency with his character, succeeds somewhat humorously in imposing upon both his companions. The long address of Caconos and his subsequent dialogue with Hypocrisy, Tyranny, and Avarice, is recommended to notice as an ancient and accurate specimen of our northern dialect. The long passage, where Caconos describes his knowledge of his portas by its illuminations, has been imitated by other authors, and, very likely, was not new in this drama.
What we have to state regarding the text of this play applies strictly to all the others. We have given, as far as modern typography would allow, faithful representations of the original copies, with the close observation of spelling and other peculiarities. If, for the sake of mere intelligibility, we have rarely added a word or even a letter, we have always inserted it between brackets; and for the settlement of difficulties, and the illustration of obscure customs and allusions, we refer to the notes which succeed each play. We might have subjoined them at the foot of the page, but we thought they would be considered by many a needless interruption; while, if we had reserved the whole for the end of our volume, their bulk, and the numerous paginal references might have produced confusion and delay. We judged it best, therefore, to follow each separate production by the separate notes applicable to it; and the reader will thus have, as far as our knowledge extends, the ready means of required explanation, which we have endeavoured to compress into the smallest compass. We ought to add, that the only liberty we have taken is with the old and ill-regulated punctuation[3]
which it was often necessary to alter, that the sense of the author might be understood and appreciated.
The production which stands second in this volume may also be looked upon, in another sense, as intermediate with reference to stage-performances. It has for title "The rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune," and was probably designed by its unknown author for a court-show. The earliest information we possess regarding it establishes that it was represented before Queen Elizabeth between Christmas 1581 and February 1582. The following is the entry regarding it in the Accounts of the office of the Revels of that date:--
"A Historic of Love and Fortune, shewed before her Majestie at Wyndesor, on the sondaie at night next before new yeares daie. Enacted by the Earle of Derbies servauntes. For which newe provision was made of one Citty and one Battlement of Canvas, iij Ells of sarcenet, a [bolt] of canvas, and viij paire of gloves, with sondrey other furniture in this office."[4]
There exists in the same records a memorandum respecting "The play of Fortune" ten years earlier,[5] but the terms employed are so general, that we do not feel warranted in considering it "The rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune" which we have reprinted: the "History of Love and Fortune," mentioned in the preceding quotation from the Revels'
Accounts, was no doubt the drama under consideration; and we see that, besides sarcenet and gloves, the new properties (as they were then, and still are, called) necessary for the performance were a city and a battlement to be composed of, or represented on, canvas. We may perhaps conclude that the piece was not written long before it was acted at Windsor; but it did not come from the press until 1589, and the sole copy of it is preserved in the library of the Earl of Ellesmere, who, in his known spirit of liberal encouragement, long since permitted the Editor to make a transcript of it. We have met with no entry of its publication in the Registers of the Stationers' Company.
It will be observed that the foundation of the piece depends upon a contest for superiority between Venus and Fortune, and that the first act (for the drama is regularly divided into acts, though the scenes are not distinguished) is a species of induction to the rest. It is the more remarkable, because it contains some early specimens of dramatic blank-verse, although it may be questioned whether the piece was ever exhibited at a public theatre.
We discover no trace of it in "Henslowe's Diary,"[6] nor in any other authority, printed or manuscript, relating to plays exhibited before public audiences in the reign of Elizabeth; but it is nevertheless clear that it was "played before the Queen's most excellent Majesty" (as the title-page states) by the retainers of the Earl of Derby, a company of actors at that date engaged in public performances; and it was then, and afterwards, usual for the Master of the Revels to select dramas for performance at court, that were favourites with persons who were in the habit of frequenting the houses generally employed, or purposely erected, for dramatic representations. If "The rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune" were ever acted at a public theatre, the several shows in the first act, of Troilus and Cressida, of Alexander, of Dido, of Pompey and Caesar, and of Hero and Leander, would of course have been attractive.
It is not necessary to enter at all into the plot, which was composed to evince alternately the power of Venus and of Fortune in influencing the lives of a pair of faithful lovers: the man, with some singularity, being called Hermione, and the woman Fidelia. They are successively placed by the two goddesses in situations of distress and difficulty, from which they are ultimately released; and in the end Venus and Fortune are reconciled, and join in promoting the happiness of the couple they had exposed to such trials. The serious business is relieved by some attempts at comedy by a clownish servant, called Lentulo, and in the third act a song is introduced for greater variety, which, as was not unusual at a later period of our stage history, seems to have been left to the choice of the performer. The prayer for the Queen, at the conclusion of the drama, put into the mouth of Fortune, was a relic of a more ancient practice, and perhaps affords further proof, if it were wanted, that it was represented before Elizabeth.[7] It appears not unlikely that, if "The rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune" had been chosen by the Master of the Revels for representation at court on account of its popularity, the fact of its having been acted by a particular company at a known theatre would have been stated upon the title-page, as a testimony to its merits, and as an incentive to its purchasers.
We need not hesitate in stating that the third and fourth dramas in the present volume were "publicly played," and the title-page of one of them states the fact. Moreover, they were the authorship of a most distinguished individual, perhaps only second to Tarlton as an actor, and decidedly his superior as an author. Nothing that has come down to us leads us to suppose, that Tarlton had much beyond his lavish extemporal wit and broad drollery to recommend him; for although various productions were attributed to him, such as are extant do not warrant an opinion that, as a writer, he had much originality.[8] The reverse is the case with Robert Wilson, whose initials are on the title-pages of "The three Ladies of London," and of "The three Lords and three Ladies of London," and who, besides his well-attested talents as a public performer, was indisputably a dramatist of great ability. He, too, was famous for his extreme readiness of reply, when suddenly called upon; but we cannot help suspecting that some confusion has arisen between the Robert Wilson, the writer of the two dramas above-named (as well as of "The Cobbler's Prophecy," 1594, a production of a similar character), and the Robert Wilson who is mentioned in "Henslowe's Diary," and whom Meres, as late as 1598, calls "our worthy Wilson," adding that he was "for learning and extemporal wit, without compare or compeer."[9] The younger Robert Wilson was, perhaps, the son of the elder; but without here entering into the evidence on the point (with which we were not formerly so well-acquainted), we may state our persuasion generally, that the Robert Wilson who was appointed one of the leaders of one of Queen Elizabeth's two companies of players in 1583,[10] was not the same Robert Wilson who was a joint-author, with Munday, Drayton, and Hathway, in the drama on the story of Sir John Oldcastle, imputed to Shakespeare on the authority of some copies printed in 1600.
There are two old editions of "The three Ladies of London," one of them printed in 1584, the text of which we have followed, and the other in 1592, the various readings of which we have noted. Both of them have the initials R.W. on the title-page as those of the writer; but some doubt has been thrown upon the question of authorship, because, at the end of the piece, in both impressions, we read "Finis. Paul Bucke." The fact, however, no doubt is that Paul Bucke who, it has been recently ascertained, was an actor,[11] subscribed the transcript, which about 1584 he had procured for Roger Ward the printer, in order to authenticate it: hence the connection of his name with the production, in the performance of which he may also have had a share, and he may thus have had access to the prompter's book. The Paul Bucke, who in 1578 was the author of a "prayer for Sir Humphrey Gilbert," was in all probability the same individual.[12]
The second edition of 1592 would seem, from the many variations, to have been printed from a different manuscript to that used for the edition of 1584, and in some respects it was an improvement. Still, as we have stated, the name of Paul Bucke is at the termination of both; and it is a somewhat remarkable indication of the care displayed in bringing out the second edition, that whereas in the first edition an event is spoken of as having occurred in the reign of Queen Mary, "not much more than twenty-six years" before, in the second edition printed seven or eight years afterwards, the figures 26 are altered to 33. Such proofs of attention to comparative trifles were unusual in the reprints of old plays; and it may be doubted whether in this instance it would have been afforded, had not "The three Ladies of London" continued such a favourite with the town as to occasion its frequent repetition at the public theatre. A piece of evidence to show the popularity of the drama long after its original publication is to be found in Edward Guilpin's "Skialetheia, or a Shadowe of Truth," 8vo, 1598, where it is thus distinctly alluded to--
"The world's so bad that vertue's over-awde, And forst, poore soule, to become vices bawde; Like the old morall of the comedie, Where Conscience favours Lucar's harlotry."
These lines are contained in the first satire of this very curious and interesting work, and the readers of the drama will at once be aware of their application.[13]
"The three Ladies of London" recommended itself to our notice for the present volume, on account of the peculiarity of its construction: Guilpin, we see, speaks of it as "the old moral of the comedy," and this, in truth, is the exact description of it. It is neither entirely a "moral," nor entirely a "comedy," but a mixture of both, differing from the drama that stands first in our volume, because the real characters introduced are not known or historical personages. Most of the _dramatis personae_ are indisputably allegorical or representative, the embodiments of certain virtues and vices; but individuals are also employed, such as Gerontus a Jew, and Mercadore a merchant, besides a Judge who is called upon to determine a dispute between them. This portion of the piece may be said to belong to a more advanced period of our stage, and distinguishes it, as far as we are aware, from anything of the kind known anterior to the date when the production first came from the press. The name Gerontus can hardly fail to bring to mind that of the hero of the old ballad of "Gernutus, the Jew of Venice;"[14] but there is a remarkable difference between the two persons: in the play before us Gerontus is represented in a very favourable light, as an upright Jew, only anxious to obtain his own property by fair means, while his antagonist, a Christian merchant, endeavours to defeat the claim by fraud, perjury, and apostacy. So far the drama of "The three Ladies of London" contradicts the position, founded mainly upon Marlowe's Barabas[15] and Shakespeare's Shylock, that our early dramatists eagerly availed themselves of popular prejudices against the conscientious adherents to the old dispensation.
The construction of "The three Ladies of London" in other respects will speak for itself, but we may be allowed to give Wilson credit for the acuteness and political subtlety he evinces in several of his scenes; for the severity of many of his touches of satire; for his amusing illustrations of manners; for his exposure of the tricks of foreign merchants, and for the humour and drollery which he has thrown into his principal comic personage. The name of this character is Simplicity, who is the fool or clown of the performance, and who, in conformity with the practice, not only of our earlier but sometimes of our later stage, makes several amusing appeals to the audience. We may pretty safely conclude, although we are without any hint of the kind, that this arduous part was sustained by the author himself.
The original copy of this production, to which we have resorted, is among the Garrick Plays: we recollect to have met with no other copy of the edition of the year 1584; but at least three of the later impression have come under our notice: one is in the library of the Duke of Devonshire, another in that of the Earl of Ellesmere, and a third at Oxford. Of all these we have more or less availed ourselves in our reprint.
The fourth play in the ensuing pages, "The three Lords and three Ladies of London," is connected in subject with the third, and, as stated already, is by the same author, who placed his initials, R.W., upon the title-page. The reprint is made from a copy in the possession of the Editor, compared with two others of the same date which in no respect vary: it may be right to mention this fact, because, as all who have been in the habit of examining the productions of our early stage are aware, important alterations and corrections were sometimes introduced while the sheets were going through the press. Our title-page, including the wood-cut, may be considered a facsimile. It will be seen that it was printed in 1590, and it was probably written by Robert Wilson about two years before, as a sort of second part to his "Three Ladies of London,"
which had met with such decided success. That success was perhaps in some degree revived by the frequent performance of "The three Lords and three Ladies of London," and the consequence seems to have been the publication of the new edition of the former in 1592.
The author called his new effort "The pleasant and stately Moral of the three Lords and three Ladies of London," and it bears, in all its essential features, a strong resemblance to the species of drama known as a Moral or Moral-play. This resemblance is even more close and striking than that of "The three Ladies of London;" for such important characters as Gerontus and Mercadore are wanting, and as far as the _dramatis personae_ are concerned, there is little to take it out of the class of earlier dramatic representations, but the characters of Nemo and the Constable, the latter being so unimportant that Wilson did not include him in the list of "the Actor's names" which immediately follows the title. Had the piece, however, made a still more remote approach to comedy, and had it possessed fewer of the mixed features belonging to its predecessor, we should unhesitatingly have reprinted it as a necessary sequel.
Towards the conclusion of the drama, as well indeed as in the introductory stanzas, the allusions to the Armada and to the empty vaunts of the Spaniards are so distinct and obvious, that we cannot place the composition of it earlier than 1588; but it must have remained in manuscript for about two years, since it was not published until after July 1590, the following entry in the Stationers' Registers bearing date the 31st of that month:--
"Richard Jones. Entered for his copie, under thandes of doctor Wood and the wardens, a comedie of the plesant and statelie morrall of the Three lordes of London."[16]
Richard Jones, as will be seen from the imprint, was the publisher of the work; but the clerk who made the memorandum in the books blundered respecting the name, and, besides terming it "a comedy" as well as "a pleasant and stately moral," he omitted that portion of the title which immediately connects it with "The three Ladies of London." That connection is avowed in the Prologue (usually called a "Preface") which was spoken by "a Lady, very richly attired, representing London;" and it is evident that the author had every reason for making the fact prominent, inasmuch as it was his interest to prove the relationship between his new offspring and a drama that had for some years been established in public approbation. London, speaking in the poet's name, therefore, says--
"My former fruits were lovely Ladies three; Now of three Lords to talk is London's glee: Whose deeds I wish may to your liking frame, For London bids you welcome to the same."
Although, in its plot and general character, "The three Lords and three Ladies of London" is not so far advanced towards genuine comedy, the representation of life and manners, as its first part, "The three Ladies of London," in style and composition it makes a much nearer approach to what soon afterwards became the language of the stage, such as we find it in the works of Shakespeare, and of some of his most gifted contemporaries. Wilson, doubtless, saw the necessity, in 1588, of adopting some of those improvements of versification in which Marlowe had led the way; he therefore laid aside (excepting in a few comic scenes) his heavy, lumbering, and monotonous fourteen-syllable lines (sometimes carried to a greater length for the sake of variety) and not only usually employed ten-syllable lines, but introduced speeches of blank verse. His drama opens with this then uncommon form, and he avails himself of it afterwards, interspersing also prose in such situations as did not seem to require measured speech. This of itself was at that time a bold undertaking; for Marlowe had only just before 1588, when "The three Lords and three Ladies of London" must have been written, commenced weaning audiences at our public theatres from what, in the Prologue to his "Tamburlaine the Great," he ridicules as the "jigging veins of rhiming motherwits."[17] Robert Wilson is, on this account, to be regarded with singular respect, and his works to be read with peculiar interest. It is not easy to settle the question of precedency, but, as far as our knowledge at present extends, he seems entitled to be considered the second writer of blank verse for dramas intended for popular audiences. This is a point of view in which his productions have never yet been contemplated, and it renders the play we have reprinted, illustrating as it does so important and striking a change, especially worthy of notice and republication.
Something has been already said respecting the characters who figure in this representation, and we may add that although Simplicity, who here performs even a more prominent and important part than in "The three Ladies of London," must be reckoned the impersonation of a quality, and the representative of a class, so much individuality is given to him, particularly in his capacity of a ballad-singer, that it is impossible not to take a strong interest in all that he says, and in the incidents in which he is engaged. Richard Tarlton, the famous comedian, died on 3d Sept. 1588, rather more than a month after the entry of "The three Lords and three Ladies of London" at Stationers' Hall; and in this play it will be seen that Simplicity produces his "picture" before the audience, and gives a minute account of his habits, appearance, and employments.
It is clear, therefore, as Tarlton is spoken of as dead, that this part of the drama must have been written, and introduced, subsequent to the memorandum in the Stationers' Registers. This of itself is a curious circumstance, and it serves to show with what promptitude our old dramatists availed themselves of any temporary matter that could give attraction and popularity to their plays.
As we have supposed Wilson himself to have acted Simplicity in "The three Ladies of London," we may perhaps conclude that he sustained the same character in "The three Lords and three Ladies of London." The part was an excellent one for the display of comic humour and clownish drollery, and the enumeration of the old ballads he sings and sells needs no illustration here, where, in fact, it would be out of place.
The familiar manner in which Simplicity at times addresses the audience, for the sake of raising a laugh, is even more unlicensed in this play than in its predecessor, and we never before saw the words "To the audience" introduced, by way of stage-direction to the performer, that he might appeal to the spectators.[18]
The copy of this play most employed in the ensuing pages is the property of the Editor, but he has had an opportunity of comparing it with another in the library of the Duke of Devonshire.
The connection between the productions of our ancient and more modern stage, such as it existed at the close of the reign of Elizabeth, is even more slightly evidenced by the drama which conies last in our volume, the main features of which bear only a distant resemblance to our drama, while it was still under the trammels of allegorical impersonation. Nevertheless, the likeness is to be traced without difficulty; and when we find such a character as Honesty most prominently engaged from the beginning to the end of the performance (to say nothing of the introduction of the representative of the principle of evil in two passages), the mind is carried back to a period of our theatrical history when such characters were alone employed on our stage. Honesty has no necessary connection with the plot, nor with its development, beyond the exposure by his means of fraud, flattery, and hypocrisy: he bears no relation, however distant, to any of the parties engaged in the performance, and seems to have been designed by the unknown author as a sort of running commentator and bitter satirist upon the vices and follies of mankind. On the other hand, the chief characters among the _dramatis personae_ are real and historical, and King Edgar and Bishop Dunstan, with Ethenwald and Alfrida, may be said to figure prominently throughout. The Knight, the Squire, and the Farmer, who make their appearance further on, are clearly embodiments of the several classes of society to which they appertain. Thus, although the "Knack to know a Knave" makes a nearer approach to comedy than any of the four dramas which precede it, it still by no means entirely discards the use of personages of a description which, many years earlier, engrossed our stage. Characters and scenes of life and manners are blended with others supported only by conventional impersonations, in which the dialogue is not intended to advance the plot, but merely to enforce a lesson of morality, probity, or discretion.
It is not always easy to guess at the full meaning of the author in various scenes he introduces, but some of them were obviously inserted for the purpose of exciting the laughter of the audience, and of giving an opportunity of display to a favourite low comedian. One of the actors is expressly mentioned on the title-page, where "Kemp's applauded merriments of the men of Gotham, in receiving the King into Gotham" are made prominent; but unless much were left to the extemporaneous invention of the performer, or unless much has been omitted in the printed copy, which was inserted by the author in his manuscript, it is difficult at this time of day to discover in what the wit, if not the drollery, consisted. As this portion of the play has come down to us, it seems to be composed of mere ignorant and blundering buffoonery, unworthy of a comedian, who undoubtedly afterwards sustained important humorous characters in the plays of Shakespeare. Who was the Bailiff of Hexham, and why he was brought forward on his deathbed near the opening of the drama, we are unable to explain, unless the author's object were that the spectators, when the Bailiff was ultimately carried away by the devil, should have ocular proof of the condign punishment which followed his principles as explained to his sons, and his practices as avowed by himself.
We can establish, almost to a day, when the "Knack to know a Knave" was first represented, for we find it thus entered in "Henslowe's Diary:" it is in an account relating to the performances of the company acting under the name of Lord Strange, at the Rose Theatre, from 19th Feb.
1591-2 to the 22d June 1592--
R[eceive]d at Jeronimo, the 9 of June 1592 xxviij's.
Rd at a Knack to know a Knave, 1592, 1 day iij'li. xij's.