No More Learning

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.
? Cf. Jusserand, J. J. , 'Ben Jonson's Views of Shakespeare's Art,' in Works of
Shakespeare, 1907, vol. x, pp. 297–321.


## p. 3 (#21) ###############################################

Early Life. Every Man in His Humour 3
The events of his life', apart from his writings, can here be
traced only in meagre outline. He was born in Westminster in 1572
or 1573, and 'poorly brought-up,' working, probably, at the trade of
his step-father, a bricklayer. In spite of poverty, however, he
was sent to Westminster school, where Camden, his life-long friend,
was master. He did not enter either university', although, later,
he received honorary degrees from both; and the details of his
life for a decade after he left school are unknown. He married,
possibly in 1592, a wife'curst but honest'; had several children,
none of whom survived him;
enlisted and served a time in
Flanders; and, in 1597, is found employed as both actor and play-
wright by Henslowe. He must have already won considerable
reputation as a dramatist, for, in 1598, Meres, in his Palladis
Tamia, mentions him as one of the six most excellent in tragedy.
On 22 September 1598, he killed a fellow actor, Gabriel Spencer,
in a duel. His goods were confiscated and he was branded with a
T; but he escaped capital punishment by pleading benefit of clergy.
While in prison, he became a Roman Catholic; but, twelve years
later, he returned to the church of England.
In the same year, 1598, and according to a letter of Sir Toby
Matthew to Dudley Carleton, just before the duel with Spencer,
Jonson's Every Man in His Humour was acted with great success
by the Chamberlain's men, Shakespeare's company. The tradi-
tion, preserved by Rowe, that the play was accepted through
Shakespeare's efforts, may be founded on truth, but, manifestly, is
erroneous in particulars. The play marks the beginning of a
revolutionary movement in dramatic methods and the institution
of a new species, the comedy of 'humours. ' It is an important
turning point in the course of the Elizabethan drama, and
furnishes an announcement of Jonson's programme for the rest of
his dramatic career. In the half-dozen years, however, which
immediately followed its production, Jonson failed to write any
comedy of comparable merit or of equal popular success. He
seems to have been a sort of free lance, writing now for one
1 The chief recent authorities for the life of Jonson are Fleay, F. G. , English
Drama, 1559—1642, 2 vols. 1891; Ward, A. W. , vol. II, pp. 298 ff. ; Herford, C. H. ,
art. in Dict. of Nat. Biogr. ; Castelain, M. , Ben Jonson, l'Homme et l'Euvre, 1907.
See, also, Small, R. A. , The Stage Quarrel between Ben Jonson and the so-called
Poetasters, 1899. A life by Gregory Smith is promised in the English Men of
Letters Series.
2 Certain indications—they cannot be called evidence-in favour of the supposition
that Jonson, about 1590, was resident for a short time at St John's college, Cambridge,
are discussed by J. Bass Mullinger in The Eagle, vol. xxv (1904).
&
1-2


## p. 4 (#22) ###############################################

4
Ben Jonson
company and now for another? ; and the carrying out of his
programme for reforming the drama was hindered both by the
necessity of suiting the immediate stage demand, and by quarrels
with his fellow dramatists, Munday, Marston, Dekker and, possibly,
Shakespeare. Every Man out of His Humour, acted 1599
by the Chamberlain's men, carries on the comedy of humours
without dramatic success; Cynthia's Revels and Poetaster, both
acted in 1600 by the children of the chapel, are interesting
as satires rather than as dramas. They were concerned with the
famous stage quarrel between Jonson and his foes. Probably,
there was some personal satire in the earlier of these plays, and its
successor attacked Marston and Dekker, calling forth Dekker's
rejoinder, Satiro-mastix. Jonson seems to have replied to
Dekker only in his Apologetical Dialogue, withdrawn after it had
been once on the stage, and appended to the first edition of
Poetaster. In this, Jonson refused to carry the quarrel further,
and promised to forsake comedy for tragedy. In 1598—9, he was
also writing for Henslowe's companies, both in collaboration and
alone, on plays not now extant, and, in 1600—1, he prepared for
Henslowe additions to The Spanish Tragedie, presumably those
of the edition of 1602. Two other plays, The Case is Altered
and A Tale of a Tub (in an early form), belong to this period.
In Sejanus, acted by Shakespeare's company in 1603, Jonson
carried his theories of dramatic art into tragedy. The 'war of the
theatres' was now over, and his reconciliations were made with his
enemies; furthermore, the accession of James I brought him
acceptable employment—for an entertainment at Althorp, and, in
collaboration with Dekker, for the royal progress in London.
Jonson seems to have been living at this time with lord d'Aubigny
and to have won the patronage of several men of prominence; but,
apparently, he had made enemies as well as friends at court. In
connection with Sejanus, he was accused by the earl of Northampton
of papacy and treason; and, in connection with Eastward Hoe,
1604/5, he was imprisoned with his collaborators, Marston and
Chapman. Letters by Jonson and Chapman, recently discovered
1 The attempt to trace him back and forth from one company to another has led
Fleay and his followers into many errors.
2 The most satisfactory account of this conflict is given by Small, R. A. , op. cit.
An interpretation opposed to Small's is held by Fleay, Penniman, J. H. , War of the
Theaters, 1897, and Schelling, F. E. They are in general agreement; especially in
giving Jonson's enmity for Daniel a large importance. Penniman and Schelling
identify Matthew in Every Man in His Humour with Daniel. (See also below as
to Bartholomew Fayre. )


## p. 5 (#23) ###############################################

Maturity. Prosperity
5
.
by Bertram Dobell", probably refer to this later imprisonment'.
Jonson, though fearing the loss of his ears, apparently escaped
without punishment.
The year 1605, moreover, marked not only the escape from
these difficulties but the beginning of Jonson's happiest days. His
Masque of Blacknesse was the first of the long series with which he
delighted the court of James; and his comedy Volpone achieved a
triumph both in London theatres and upon its presentation at
the two universities. The ensuing decade was Jonson's prime.
He produced his four masterly comedies: Volpone in 1605 or 1606*,
The Silent Women (Epicoene) in 1609, The Alchemist in 1610 and
Bartholomew Fayre in 1614; and his tragedy Catiline in 1611;
he wrote nearly all the important masques for the court, and won
increasing favour with his patrons and the king; and, at the
Mermaid tavern, which beheld his wit-combats with Shakespeare
and the meetings vividly described by Beaumont, he gained recog-
nition as a leader among London poets and wits. Of his occupa-
tions outside literature, we know little, except that he was employed
in connection with the discovery of the gunpowder treason, and,
in 1613, was tutor to Ralegh's son in France.
In 1616, there appeared a folio edition of his works, carefully
edited“, including his entertainments, masques and plays (except
The Case is Altered already produced, with collections of
poems
entitled Epigrams and The Forest. This edition set an example -
for the recognition of the drama as literature. In the same year,
his play The Divell is an Asse was acted; and, in 1618, he made a
pedestrian expedition to Scotland, where he was entertained by the
literati of Edinburgh, and was a guest of the poet Drummond of
Hawthornden, who proved an unadmiring Boswell. On his return,
he spent some time at Oxford, where he met with the welcome due
to him as a scholar and a poet. In 1616, he had been granted a
pension of a hundred marks, and, later, he received the reversion
to the mastership of the revels; but he did not live to enjoy the
benefits of that lucrative office. This was an era of great prosperity
for Jonson. James considered the question of making him a
knight; his masques continued to be received with great favour at
1 The Athenæum, March-April, 1901; reprinted in F. E. Schelling's ed. Eastward Hoe.
· For a different opinion and a summary of all the evidence, see Castelain, Ben
Jonson, appendix C, p. 901.
3 Fleay and Holt, L. H. , Jr. , Mod. Lang. Notes, 1905, find evidence for dating the
play early in 1606, probably in March.
* Probably edited by Jonson 1611–12. The later masques are edited less carefully.
See Fleay, vol. 1, p. 349; Castelain, p. 46.


## p. 6 (#24) ###############################################

6
Ben Jonson
successes.
court; and he was able to withdraw entirely from the public stage.
At the Apollo room in the Devil tavern he had established a
new court of wits, whither young poets thronged to hail him as
oracle. Outside literary circles as within, his friends included the
greatest and worthiest of the time—Camden, Selden, Clarendon,
Falkland, d'Aubigny, the Pembrokes and the Cecils? Clarendon
tells us that ‘his conversation was very good and with men of most
note. '
The later years of Jonson's life brought many misfortunes. All
his books and several manuscripts of unpublished works were
burnt in 1623? , the year in which the Shakespeare folio appeared,
introduced by Jonson's fine tribute. Within a few years, he
was suffering from paralysis and dropsy, and had become much
bed-ridden. After an interval of nine years he now again essayed
the public stage; but his comedies, The Staple of Newes, acted in
1625, The New Inne, in 1629, The Magnetick Lady, in 1632, and the
revised Tale of a Tub, in 1633, were either failures or only partial
With the accession of Charles I, Jonson seems, for a
time, to have lost favour at court; and, later, a quarrel with the
architect Inigo Jones led to loss of employment as a writer of
masques. Jonson’s appeals to the king, however, brought a gift of
one hundred pounds in 1629, and, later, the increase of his pension
from a hundred marks to a hundred pounds, together with the
grant of an annual butt of canary. He succeeded Middleton in the
office of city chronologer in 1628, and, when he was deprived of this
because of neglecting his duties, the king obtained his restoration
in 1635.