No More Learning

166
CHAPTER VIII
FORD AND SHIRLEY
By W. A. NEILSON, M. A. (Edinburgh), Ph. D. (Harvard),
Professor of English in Harvard University
Commencement of the literary period of English Drama. Ford's life
and early work. Romantic character of his non-dramatic work.
His collaboration with Dekker. His independent Dramas. His
lost Plays. Ford as typical of the period of decadence. His merits.
Shirley's life and career. His Poems. His Tragedies. His Comedies
of Manners and Romantic Comedies. His Entertainments. Origi-
nality of his plots. Conventionality of his style. Comparison of
Shirley with Ford .
188


## p. viii (#14) ############################################

viii
Contents
CHAPTER IX
LESSER JACOBEAN AND CAROLINE DRAMATISTS
By the Rev. RONALD BAYNE, M. A. , University College, Oxford
PAGE
General characteristics of the Jacobean and Caroline Drama; the
central position of Jonson. Belated Elizabethans: John Day's
later comedies; The Ile of Guls; evolution of The Parliament
of Bees; its merits and characteristics. Armin's Two Maids of
More-clacke. Sharpham's two Plays. The single Plays of Barry,
Cooke and Tailor. The Pupils of Jonson: Nathaniel Field: his
life and training. A Woman is a Weather-cocke. Field's debt to
Jonson; his romantic tendency and collaboration with Massinger.
Richard Brome's life and training: his fifteen extant Plays. The
Northern Lasse. Brome's debt to Dekker. The Sparagus Garden.
The City Witt; its briskness and humour. A Joviall Crew,
Brome's best Play. His romantic experiments; partial success of
The Queen and Concubine. Thomas Randolph's University train-
ing. His Aristippus and The Conceited Pedler. Aristotle's
Ethics dramatised in The Muses Looking-Glasse. Originality
of Randolph. May's Comedies. The anonymous Nero. Daven-
port's Revisions of older Plays. Thomas Nabbes's virtuous heroines.
Comedies of Cartwright and Mayne. Sir John Suckling's Plays:
Aglaura, The Goblins, Brennoralt. Marmion's The Antiquary.
Tragicomedy as exemplified in the Plays of Lodowick Carlell,
Henry Glapthorne and Sir William D'Avenant
210
CHAPTER X
THE ELIZABETHAN THEATRE
By HAROLD CHILD, sometime Scholar of Brasenose College,
Oxford
Early Companies of Players. Triumph of the Professional Actor and
Patronised Company over the Stroller. Grounds of objection to the
Drama. Royal patronage and its effect. Increasing control of
the production of Plays by the Master of the Revels. The
Chamberlain’s Company. The Queen's and Admiral's Companies.
Places of performance. Site and architectural features of the
Theater. The Curtain. The Newington Butts Playhouse. The
Rose. The Globe. The Blackfriars. The Swan. Other Play-
houses. Differences between the Elizabethan and the Modern
Stage. Value of John de Witt's drawing of the Swan. The
Alternation Theory. Differences in Construction. Stage Ap-
pliances and Properties. Performances at private Playhouses
and at Court. Costumes. The Audience. The Author and his
Company. Financial arrangements. Social position of the Actor 241


## p. ix (#15) ##############################################

Contents
ix
CHAPTER XI
PAGE
THE CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL ROYAL AND THEIR
MASTERS
By J. M. MANLY, M. A. , Ph. D. (Harvard), Professor of English in
the University of Chicago
Early history of the Chapel Children. Early Masters: John Plummer,
Henry Abyndon, William Newark, William Cornish and others.
Histrionic activity of the Children. Dramatic work of the Masters.
Plays of the University Wits acted by the Children. The Children
at the Blackfriars: profitable nature of the undertaking. The
Child-actors. Causes of their success. Royal patronage
. 279
.
CHAPTER XII
UNIVERSITY PLAYS.
By F. S. BOAS, M. A. , Balliol College, Oxford, LLD. (St Andrews),
late Professor of English Literature in Queen's College,
Belfast, and late Clark Lecturer, Trinity College
Medieval Drama at the Universities. The Senecan School of dramatists.
Grimald's Christus Redivivus and Archipropheta. Kirchmayer's
Pammachius. Gammer Gurtons Nedle. Effect of Queen Eliza-
beth's visits to the Universities. Halliwell's Dido and Udall's
Ezechias. Edwards's Palamon and Arcyte. Rickets's Byrsa
Basilica. Legge's Richardus Tertius. Perfidus Hetruscus.
Gager's Meleager and Dido. Fraunce's Victoria. Academic
Comedies. Hymenaeus. Laelia. Pedantius. Attack on Academic
Personages and on the Civic Authorities. Club-Law. The
Parnassus Trilogy. Tomkis's Lingua. Narcissus. King James
at Oxford. Daniel's The Queenes Arcadia. Thomas Tucker, the
Christmas Prince. King James at Cambridge. Ruggle's Ignora-
Barten Holiday's Technogamia. Allegorical and satirical
character of the later Plays. King Charles at Cambridge and
Oxford. Influence of the University Drama
293
mus.
CHAPTER XIII
MASQUE AND PASTORAL
By the Rev. RONALD BAYNE, M. A.
Popularity of the Masque in the age of Elizabeth. Its early history.
Mummings and Disguisings: development of these into the Masque.
The Masque in Spenser. Ben Jonson's Masques. Introduction
of the Antimasque. Development of the Presenter. Campion's
Masques. Chapman and Beaumont as Masque-writers. Rapid
increase of dramatic elements in Jonson's Masques. Jonson's
later work in this field. Pastoral Poetry: its history and develop-
ment. Pastoral drama of the University Wits. Daniel's Pastorals.
Fletcher's The Faithful Shepheardesse. Ben Jonson's The Sad
Shepherd. Randolph's Amyntas
:
328


## p. x (#16) ###############################################

X
Contents
CHAPTER XIV
THE PURITAN ATTACK UPON THE STAGE
By J. DOVER WILSON, M. A. , Gonville and Caius College, Lecturer
in English Literature at the Goldsmiths' College, University
of London
PAGE
The attitude of the Reformers towards the Stage. Theological and
moral objections. Beginnings of Puritan opposition in England.
Attitude of the Civic Authorities in London. Systematic persecu-
tion of Actors. Royal Patronage. Attacks on the Stage from
the Pulpit. Work of Pamphleteers. Gosson's Schoole of Abuse.
Lodge's Defence. Stubbes's Anatomie of Abuses. Waning
interest in the struggle. The Controversy at the Universities.
Effects of changes introduced under the Stewarte. Heywood's
Apology for Actors. Prynne's Histriomastix. General aspects
of the Controversy
373
410
.
.
Bibliographies .
Table of Principal Dates
Index of Names
502
507


## p. xi (#17) ##############################################

THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY
OF ENGLISH LITERATURE
VOLUME VI. THE DRAMA TO 1642
PART II
Second Impression, 1918, Corrections and Additions
The errata mentioned in volumes of the History published later than the first edition
of this volume have been corrected in the present impression. In addition, some mis-
prints noticed later have been corrected, and a few alterations made. A list of the more
important of these follows:
p. 166, 11. 17, 18 for nothing. . . Tourneur. read it is by these alone that Tourneur
survives.
p. 178, 11. 29–39 for Both innovations. . . took up the tale. read Both changes are
repeated—the latter, however, with sweeping modifications—in the next play of
Marston, The Malcontent (1604, or earlier), to which, indeed, it is quite possible that
the credit of innovation may belong rather than to Hoffman. The modifications are as
follows. The murderer of the original version is replaced by a usurper who drives the
rightful prince into exile. This, necessarily, involves the disappearance of the ghost.
And revenge, though retained, is retained in a form so softened that the avenger
contents himself with melting one of his enemies to at least outward repentance and
dismissing the other with magnanimous contempt.
It was at this point that Tourneur-or the author of The Revengers Tragoedie,
whoever he may have been—took up the tale.
p. 301, 1. 2 for another play of somewhat later date, read another, and better-known,
play,
p. 386, 1.
41 the following footnote has been added :
[Cf. Bacon, Apophthegms. "Galba succeeded Nero. . . . ']
p. 404, 1. 32 for high commission read Star-chamber
pp. 410–13 added to the General Bibliography:
Boyer, C. V. The villain as hero in Elizabethan tragedy. 1914.
Mod. Lang. Rev. General Index to volumes 1-X. Cambridge, 1915.
p. 420 added to the bibliography of chapter 1:
Suddard, M. Essais de litt. angl. Cambridge, 1912.
pp. 420-6 added to the bibliography of chapter II:
Robertson, J. M. Shakespeare and Chapman. A thesis of Chapman's authorship of
A Lover's Complaint and his origination of Timon of Athens, etc. 1917.
Crawford, C. Collectanea. 2nd series. Stratford-on-Avon, 1907.
Pierce, F. E. The Collaboration of Webster and Dekker. Yale Studies in English. 1909.
p. 441 added to the bibliography of chapter V:
Gayley, C. M. Francis Beaumont, Dramatist. 1914.
p. 446 added to the bibliography of chapter VII:
Brooke, R. John Webster and the Elizabethan Drama. 1916.
[TURN OVER


## p. xii (#18) #############################################

pter X:
p. 452 added to the bibliography of chapter VIII:
Forsythe, R. S. Shirley's Plays in their relation to the Elizabethan Drama. Columbia
Univ. Press, 1915.
Nason, A. H. James Shirley, Dramatist. A Biographical and Critical Study. New
York, 1915.
p. 453 added to the bibliography of chapter IX:
Andrews, C. E. Richard Brome. Yale Studies in English.
pp. 459-67 added to the bibl raphy of
Cowling, G. H. Music on the Shakespearian Stage. Cambridge, 1913. '
Murray, J. T. English Dramatic Companies, 1558–1642. 2 vols. 1910.
p. 463 the Stopes, C. C. entry now reads :
Stopes, C. C. Burbage and Shakespeare's Stage. 1913.
p. 464 the Lawrence, W. J. entry now reads:
Lawrence, W. J. The Elizabethan Playhouse and other studies. 2 vols. 1912.
p. 468 added to the bibliography of chapter XI:
Stopes, C. C. William Hunnis and the Revels of the Chapel Royal. Louvain and
London, 1910.
pp. 468–87 added to the bibliography of chapter XII:
Boas, F. S. University Drama in the Tudor Age. Oxford, 1914.
Recently recovered MSS at St John's college, Oxford. Mod. Lang. Rev. vol. XI.
1916.
Smith, G. C. Moore. The Parnassus Plays. Mod. Lang. Rev. vol. X. 1915.
Addenda to the present (2nd) impression.
p. 167, 1. 25 add to the present impression:
If The Revengers Tragoedie is not from the hand of Tourneur-and the grounds
for supposing it to be so are, when sifted, seen to be very far from conclusive-these
arguments manifestly fall to the ground. So, also, do all reasons for discussing the
play in the present chapter.
p. 180, 1. 16 add to the present impression:
The convention, which forms the soul of The Spanish Tragedy, or of Hamlet, has
left no more than a faint mark upon the outward framework of The Dutchesse.
p. 182, 11. 33, 34 for it may be Webster's. . . . Webster seems to have used read in the
present impression it may be the play in question. Even the attribution to Webster,
for which our only authority is the title-page of the first edition (1654) is by no means
certain ; and strong (though doubtless not conclusive) arguments have recently been
advanced for supposing that Heywood, if not the sole author, must at any rate have
had a large hand in its composition. For his materials, the author seems to have
used
1 See Brooke, R. , John Webster and the Elizabethan Drama, Appendix A, 1916.
p. 417 The following plays of Jonson are also in the series Yale Studies in English:
Cynthia's Revels, ed. Judson, A. C.
The Magnetic Lady, ed. Peek, H. W.
p. 469 to the bibliography of chapter XII, section II, should be added:
JOIN BLENCOWE,
Mercurius siue Literarum Lucta. MS in the library of St John's college, Oxford.
Boas, F. S. Recently recovered MSS at St John's college, Oxford. Mod. Lang. Rev.
vol. XI. 1916.
JOSEPH CROWTHER.
Cephalus et Procris. MS in the library of St John's college, Oxford.
Boas, F. S. Recently recovered MSS at St John's college, Oxford. Mod. Lang. Rev.
vol. XI. 1916.
7
.


## p. 1 (#19) ###############################################

CHAPTER I
BEN JONSON
6
BEN JONSON the man is better known to us than any of his
literary contemporaries. Drummond's record of his conversations
has preserved an unkindly but vivid picture of his manners
and opinions; and, indeed, his egoism made everything that he
wrote partly a portrait of himself. Almost every contemporary
reference to him has added something personal and characteristic.
We hear of his quarrels, his drinking-bouts, his maladies and his
imprisonments, as well as of his learning and his theories of
literary art. We know him as the huge galleon of Fuller's account,
'built far higher for learning, solid but slow in his performances,'
engaging in those memorable wit combats at the Mermaid tavern
with that English man-of-war,' Shakespeare, who took advantage
of all winds by the quickness of his wit and invention’; and, again,
as the autocrat of those later lyric feasts of Herrick’s reminiscence,
where each verse of his 'outdid the meat, outdid the frolic
wine. ' His humours, his dissipations, his prejudices make distinct
and human for us the main interests of his life. Huge of body,
bibulous and brawling, he yet loved Latin as heartily as canary,
and could write the tenderest epitaph as well as the grossest
epigram. Laborious and pertinacious, he rode his hobbies hard,
confusing his scholarship with pedantry and his verse with theory;
but few have ever served learning and poetry with so whole-hearted
a devotion.
Since the days of Fuller, Jonson's personality and work have
rarely been discussed or even mentioned without reference to his
* beloved master' Shakespeare. The myth of his devouring
jealousy of Shakespeare, supported by Chalmers and Malone, was
demolished by Gifford nearly a century ago. But the facts about
which the dispute was waged may be again recalled, because of the
light that they throw on Jonson's character and friendships.
That he criticised Shakespeare is known from the remark to
1
E. L. VI.
CH. I.


## p. 2 (#20) ###############################################

1. 2.
Ben Jonson
6
Drummond that Shakespeare wanted art and from the well known
passage in Discoveries. It also seems likely, from a reference
in The Returne from Pernassus', that, in the famous 'war of the
theatres,' Shakespeare and Jonson were on opposite sides. In
addition, there are scattered about the works of Jonson various
remarks directed against Shakespeare's plays—especially, the
ridicule of chronicle history plays, like Henry V, in the prologue
to Every Man in His Humour, the remark on 'tales, tempests,
and such like drolleries' in Bartholomew Fayre and the petulant
gird at Pericles in the Ode to Himself. In each of these in-
stances, Jonson is defending one of his own plays and censuring a
dramatic fashion contrary to his own practice and hostile, in his
opinion, to the best interests of the drama. While it would be
absurd to regard Jonson as representative of a dramatic theory and
practice at all points opposed to Shakespeare, we shall find his
plays representative of carefully considered views which imply
a close criticism of much in Shakespeare and the contemporary
drama? His criticism of Shakespeare was based on a definite
literary creed and methods, and not on jealousy or personal
feeling. On the contrary, we have abundant tradition of his
close friendship with Shakespeare, and we have the appreciative
as well as discriminating passage in Discoveries, together with
the generous eulogy prefixed to the folio, to testify to Jonson's
admiration of his friend's plays, as 'not of an age, but for all
time. ' No other of Shakespeare's contemporaries has left so
splendid and so enthusiastic an eulogy of the master.
Of Sidney, Spenser, Drayton, Beaumont and Donne, Jonson
has likewise left us words of sharp censure and of ardent praise.
With regard to Beaumont, Donne, Fletcher, Chapman, Bacon and
others, as in the case of Shakespeare, he has mingled praise of
their work with protestations of personal affection. With Marston,
to whom, for a time, he was most bitterly hostile, he came to a
full reconciliation. In all his relations with his literary rivals, we
see a man, vain, assertive, arrogant, quick to censure, strong
in his loves and hates and always ready for a fight, but also one
whose quarrels often ended in friendships, and who was loved and
admired by the worthiest of his time. His boasting and carping
could not conceal his sturdy honesty of intellect and heart, and
his generous admiration for high merit in either art or conduct.
i Part II, act iv, sc. 3.