S5 
 
Ss'T/c 
 
 OJacttcU mnitteraitg ffiihrarg 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE 
 
 JACOB H. SCHIFF 
 
 ENDOWMENT FOR THE PROMOTION 
 
 OF STUDIES IN 
 
 HUMAN CIVILIZATION 
 
 1916 
 
/^ 
 
 *B»pft«IJ?**S*^»* 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 PR2411.S5T16 
 
 "The booke of Sir Thomas Moore" (a biblj 
 
 3 1924 013 127 257 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013127257 
 
"THE BOOKE OF SIR THOMAS MOORE." 
 
 With Twenty-two Facsimiles and a Portrait of Lord Strange 
 
FERDINANDO STANLEY, LORD STRAXGE. 
 
"THE BOOKE OF 
 
 SIR THOMAS MOORE" 
 
 (A Bibliotk Study) 
 
 By 
 SAMUEL A. TANNENBAUM 
 
 'Speak J hands, for me!" 
 
 JUUUS CAESAR, III. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 THE TENNY 'PRESS 
 
 33-35 West 17th Street 
 

 ~'f 
 
 Privately Printed 
 
 4^; 777 
 
 COPYRIGHT, 1927, BY SAMUEL A. TANNENBAUM 
 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 
 
 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 -0/ 
 
To My Friends 
 
By Way of Preface 
 
 I have not the sHghtest doubt that the small group of 
 scholars who will read my little book will agree with 
 me that in the chronicle play of Sir Thomas Moore, 
 written in the last decade of the sixteenth century, we 
 have one of the most valuable and interesting relics of 
 the Age of Shakspere. This play, preserved to us in 
 manuscript form, is unique in many respects. Not only 
 was it never acted, though it has some very effective and 
 affecting scenes, but it was not printed until almost the 
 middle of the nineteenth century. Of the three thousand 
 plays which it has been estimated were written during 
 the reigns of Elizabeth and Jlames, this is the only one 
 that is known to have been written by six authors, one 
 more than its nearest rival in regard to the number 
 of authors engaged in the writing of a single play : Web- 
 ster's Caesar's Fall. 
 
 Of these six authors, of whom only two — Anthony 
 Mundy and Thomas Dekker — have hitherto been identi- 
 fied, one is by many competent scholars believed to have 
 been no less a man than William Shakspere himself. 
 The identity of the other three, one of whom is gen- 
 erally — and wrongly — regarded as having been only a 
 copyist, has not heretofore even been guessed at. I 
 think I may claim to have demonstrated in the follow- 
 ing pages not only the identity of these three poets but 
 also the exact date when the play was written, the pur- 
 pose for which it was written and why it was never 
 completed, as well as the reason why Sir Edmund Tyll- 
 ney, the official censor of plays, refused to permit it to 
 
 [V] 
 
be acted. As a corollary to these conclusions, I have, I 
 believe, established that, contrary to the generally re- 
 ceived opinion, Thomas Kyd, the most popular tragedian 
 before Marlowe and Shakspere, and the writer of the 
 first Hamlet, had not ceased writing for the stage in 
 1587, and, furthermore, that the hitherto unidentified 
 Lord whom he served was none other than Ferdinando 
 Stanley, the fifth Earl of Derby. From this it follows 
 that in the early nineties Thomas Kyd, Marlowe and 
 Dekker were writing for Lord Strange's Company, the 
 company to which Shakspere is by many considered to 
 have been attached. The significance of this will be real- 
 ized when it is remembered that three pages of the play 
 of Sir Thomas Moore are by some regarded as being in 
 Shakspere's own hand. 
 
 The other contributors to this play I have identified as 
 Henry Chettle, who has not hitherto been known to have 
 written for the stage prior to 1596, and Thomas Hey- 
 wood, who was not known to have written drama prior 
 to 1598. Here, then, we have specimens of very early 
 work by two of Shakspere's best known and most pro- 
 lific contemporaries — and in their own handwritings! 
 The scholar acquainted with the works of these poets 
 will have no difficulty in recognizing their peculiar quali- 
 ties in their contributions to this play. 
 
 In the preparation and publication of this book I have 
 been greatly assisted in various ways by Professor Ash- 
 ley H. Thorndike, who not only read the book and recom- 
 mended it for publication, but gave me excellent and sound 
 criticism concerning many of the matters discussed; by 
 Professor E. H. C. Oliphant, who read and discussed 
 the manuscript with me almost from the first word to 
 the last, and but for whose great learning and critical 
 acumen this would undoubtedly have been a very dif- 
 
 [vi] 
 
ferent book from what it is; by Professor Joseph Q. 
 Adams, who was no less generous in his suggestions and 
 criticisms than the forementioned scholars; and by Mr. 
 Alexander Green who, notwithstanding the limited time 
 at his disposal, made time to consider the argument's and 
 the language very carefully and to make valuable sugges- 
 tions as to both. To Professor Joseph V. Crowne and 
 Mr. Harris J. Griston I am also indebted for numerous 
 valuable hints and suggestions. Others who have as- 
 sisted me in a more material way in enabling me to bring 
 this book out af this time are Miss Lucy Maverick, Dr. 
 Samuel Lang, Mr. Morris Gintzler, Mr. Louis S. Lewis 
 and, above all, my brother Edward. To all these I 
 hereby express my most heartfelt thanks. 
 
 S. A. T. 
 April, 1927. 
 
 [vii] 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 By way of preface v 
 
 Chapter I — The number of penmen in Sir Thomas Moore. 9 
 
 //—The authors of the play 13 
 
 " /// — Conjectural dates of composition 17 
 
 " IV — ^Anthony Mund^s authorship 23 
 
 " V — Thomas Kyd and his share in the play 35 
 
 F/— Henry Chettle's (A's) hand in the play S3 
 
 " VII — Thomas Heywood's (B's) hand in the play... 56 
 
 VIII— D's (Shakspere's ?) hand in the play 69 
 
 " IX — When was the play revised ? 79 
 
 " X — Chettle's contribution to the play 82 
 
 " XI — Hejrwood's contribution to the play 85 
 
 XII— Kyd' s contribution to the play 89 
 
 " XIII — Thomas Dekker's contribution to the play 92 
 
 " XIV — When the play was written 95 
 
 Appendix /4— The Treatise on Atheism 102 
 
 " B — Kyd's accusations against Marlowe 106 
 
 C— Kyd's letter to Sir John Puckering 108 
 
 " D — Transcripts of Facsimiles Nos. 1, 7, 10, IS, 16, 
 
 17, 18, 19 112 
 
 Bibliography 124 
 
 Index 131 
 
ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 Ferdinando Stanley, Lord Strange \Frontispiece 
 
 Facsimile I — Anthony Mund/s hand in Sir Thomas Moore. 28 
 
 2— "Plot" of The Seven Deadly Sins 29 
 
 3 — Thomas Kyd's accusations against Christopher 
 
 Marlowe 42 
 
 4— Page 2 of Kyd's "Treatise on Atheism" 43 
 
 5 — Table of letters in the Kyd documents 44 
 
 6 — Table of letters in the Kyd documents 45 
 
 7 — Thomas Kyd's (C's) hand in Sir Thomas Moore 46 
 
 8 — Part of Kyd's letter to Sir John Puckering 47 
 
 9 — Autographs in The Murder of John Brewen SI 
 
 10 — D's hand in Sir Thomas Moore 70 
 
 Facsimiles ii, I2 and 13 — Fragments of "the Addition" 71 
 
 Facsimile 14 — D's letters compared with Shakspere's 72 
 
 " IS — ^A receipt in Henry Chettle's handwriting 73 
 
 " 16 — Chettle's (A's) hand in Sir Thomas Moore 73 
 
 " 17 — Thomas Heywood's (B's) hand in Sir Thomas 
 
 Moore 86 
 
 " 18 — Fragments of Heywood's The Captives and 
 
 of The Escapes of Jupiter 87 
 
 " jp — Thomas Dekker's hand in Sir Thomas Moore. . 94 
 
 " 20 — Sir Edmund Tyllneys injunction 95 
 
 " 21 — Part of the "plot" of Fortune's Tennis (?).... 106 
 
 22— Part of the "plot" of Troilus and Cressida (?).107 
 
"THE BOOKE OF SIR THOMAS MOORE" 
 (A Bibliotic^ Study) 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 The Number of Penmen 
 
 When (in 1844) Alexander Dyce edited The Booke of 
 Sir Thomas Moore (MS. Had. 7368), under the title of 
 Sir Thomas More, a Play, it does not seem to have 
 occurred to him to attempt to identify the author of what 
 is beyond a doubt one of the most interesting of the few 
 manuscripts to have come down to us from the age of 
 Shakspere. He was content to dismiss the subject {op. 
 cit., p. V.) with the remark that "Concerning the author 
 of this tragedy nothing is known." Beyond saying that 
 the manuscript "is written in several hands," he did not 
 even trouble to ascertain the exact number of penmen 
 who had been engaged on the work. 
 
 But what is still more astonishing is John Payne 
 Collier's failure to add to his laurels by ascertaining the 
 identity of the writers of this play. While Dyce was pre- 
 paring Sir Thomas More for the press, Collier was at 
 work on Henslowe's Diary (published in 1845), and thus 
 had the opportunity to familiarize himself with the hand- 
 writing of some sixty-odd of Shakspere's contemporaries. 
 Halliwell-Phillipps, too, missed his opportunity, notwith- 
 
 ^ "Bibliotics" may be defined as the science which studies the 
 characteristics of a document ifor the purpose of determining its 
 genuineness or spuriousness and of establishing the identity of 
 the person who wrote it. The best books dealing with this subject 
 are Mr. Albert S. Osborn's Questioned Documents (Rochester, 
 1910), The Problem of Proof (N. Y., 1922), and Dr. Persifor 
 Frazer's Bibliotics, or the Study of Documents (Phila., 1894). 
 
 [9] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 standing the fact that he published (?) a facsimile of this 
 justly famous and invaluable Diary? 
 
 In 1871 Richard Simpson announced^ his belief that 
 several sections of the play (folios 8 and 9, dealing with 
 the insurrection of the London apprentices, as well as 
 folios 7^, 11, 12, 13^ half of 13^ and 14) were not only 
 composed by Shakspere but that they have come down to 
 us in his own handwriting. He based this belief on the 
 literary and calligraphic characteristics of the manuscript. 
 The following year James Spedding announced* his agree- 
 ment with Simpson as to folios 8 and 9, but not as to the 
 rest. Though Spedding was able to distinguish five other 
 handwritings in the play and corresponding differences 
 in style, it apparently did not occur to him to seek to 
 identify the writers by a comparison of the handwritings 
 with any published facsimiles of the autographs of 
 Elizabethan playwrights. 
 
 Professor C. F. T. Brooke, having studied the play^ 
 rather carefully, described the manuscript as "written in 
 five different hands," evidently (and correctly) leaving 
 the injunction of Sir Edmund Tyllney, the Master of the 
 Revels, out of consideration. But he was not quite sure, 
 for in a footnote he says that "possibly only four" pen- 
 men were engaged on the work. Furnivall, according to 
 
 2 The only reference to this facsimile that I have ever seen 
 occurs in Jaggard's Bibliography, where we read (p. 148) : 
 "Henslowe (Philip) : Diary. Facsimile by J. O. HalHwell. Fo, 
 pp. 109," but no date of publication is given, nor is a single copy 
 located. But, of course, Mr. HalHwell was well acquainted with 
 the Diary. 
 
 ^ Notes and Queries, July 1, 1871, pp. 1-3. 
 '^ Notes and Queries, Sept. 21, 1872, pp. 227-8; also in his 
 Reviews and Discussions, 1879, pp. 376-84. 
 5 The Shakespeare Apocrypha, 1908, p. xlvn. 
 
 [10] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Brooke,* clearly recognized six handwritings, and per- 
 haps seven. 
 
 Brooke dismissed the subject of "the authorship of Sir 
 Thomas More in its first form" with the statement that 
 it had been assigned to Lodge, "whose doubtful claim is 
 favored by Fleay and Hopkinson." But when we turn to 
 Fleay we find^ that — at any rate in 1886 — ^he assigned the 
 play to two authors, to Lodge and ("Scene 2 with Lifter, 
 and Scenes 9, 10, with Faulkner and the players") to the 
 author of The Life and Death of Thomas Lord Cromwell, 
 whom, notwithstanding the initials "W. S." on the 1602 
 title-page, he identified as Michael Drayton. Sir Edmund 
 K. Chambers^ rightly dismisses Fleay's argument as 
 "flimsy." 
 
 In 1911 Dr. W. W. Greg, editing the play for the 
 Malone Society, not only distinguished clearly and pre- 
 cisely' the six hands in the play — we leave the hand of 
 Tyllney out of consideration — but assigned almost every 
 word, letter, and stroke to the pen that wrote it. To 
 
 6 Sir George F. Warner, according to the same authority 
 (op. cif., p. xlix), was "not sure" whether folios 8 and 9— the 
 only pages which anyone now assigns to Shakspere — "are in a 
 different hand" from that which Simpson attributed to the Bard 
 of Avon. 
 
 ^A Chronide History of the Life and Work of William 
 Shakespeare, pp. 292-4. 
 
 8 The Elizabethan Stage, 1923, IV, 34. 
 
 9 It must, however, be pointed out that not only Dr. Greg but 
 also Sir Edward M. Thompson and Mr. J. A. Herbert and others 
 who studied the manuscript committed a serious blunder in failing 
 to recognize that the word "seriant" in the left margin of folio 
 8a in the stage-direction "Enter seriant" is not in the hand- 
 writing of the penman who wrote the text and whom they seek to 
 identify as Shakspere. For proof of this statement cf. my essay, 
 "Shakspere's Unquestioned Autographs and the Addition to 'Sir 
 Thomas Moore,'" in Studies in Philology, April, 1925, 22:133-60, 
 Cf. facs. no. 11. 
 
 [11] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 facilitate reference he designated the "scrivener" (as he 
 thought him) in whose hand the bulk of the play is 
 written as S; the writer of folia 6* (71 lines of verse), 
 as A; of folios 7* (65 lines) and 16* (62 lines), as B; 
 of 7b (55 lines), 11* (22 lines), 12* (60 lines), 12'> 
 (61 lines), 13» (60 lines), 13i> (30 lines), and 13* (26 
 lines), as C; of 8% &>, and 9* (147 lines) as D; and part 
 of 13'> (31 lines), as E. 
 
 [12] 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 The Authors of the Play 
 
 As might have been expected of so well-equipped and 
 so thoroughgoing a scholar, Dr. Greg entered into a 
 detailed discussion of the authorship of the play. Though 
 he did not then regard the additions made by D (folios 
 8*, S** and 9*) "with the admiration they have aroused in 
 some critics," the view that would assign these pages to 
 Shakspere {i.e., "the writer who, as I believe, foisted 
 certain of the Jack Cade scenes into the second part of 
 Henry VI") seemed to him "eminently reasonable." From 
 the occurrence of a peculiar error in line 1847 ("fashis" 
 for "fashion") he drew the unfortunate inference — an 
 inference which misled many scholars after him — that the 
 original text of the play (all that part which is in the 
 handwriting of S) is not the author's autograph, that, in 
 other words, S was only a scribe. He was also convinced 
 that C was "not an original author but a copyist," and 
 that to him (C) had been assigned the task of the dra- 
 matic revision of the play for the stage. 
 
 From a comparison of the handwriting on the lower 
 half of fol. U^ with MS. Add. 30262, fol. 66'' (in the 
 British Museum) and with Henslowe's Diary (fols. 101 
 and 114) he felt that E was Thomas Dekker. This 
 identification of E with Dekker has since been corrob- 
 orated on bibliotic grounds by Sir Edward Thompson 
 and on literary grounds by Mr. E. H. Oliphant,* and is 
 undoubtedly correct. 
 
 1 E. H. Oliphant, "Sir Thomas More," Journal of English and 
 Germanic Philology. April, 1919, 18:226-235. 
 
 [13] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moor^' 
 
 "A," says Dr. Greg, "is unquestionably an independent 
 writer and not a copyist. The alterations in his draft of 
 More's speech on fol. 6 prove that beyond question." 
 Regarding the contribution to the play made by A, whom 
 he left otherwise unidentified, Dr. Greg says that it 
 seems "unlikely that we have in A a writer who was con- 
 cerned in more than the single passage [fol. 6^] preserved 
 in his own hand." 
 
 Having concluded that S and C were only copyists, 
 though the latter unquestionably also functioned as dra- 
 matic reviser and editor ; that A wrote only one folio page 
 (dealing with More's arrest, scene xiii in Dr. Greg's 
 edition of the play) ; that D (the contributor alleged to 
 be Shakspere) wrote only a part of the insurrection scene 
 (scene vi) ; and that E wrote no more than the few lines 
 on fol. 13^ Dr. Greg was forced to attribute the bulk of 
 the original text of the play to B. He says : "Supposing 
 the original to be the work of a single author, and 
 supposing that author's hand to occur anywhere in the 
 extant manuscript, then the evidence points to that hand 
 being B. There is this to be said in favour of this claim, 
 that he is the only one of the writers in question who 
 [because of his execrable penmanship] was manifestly 
 incapable of making his own fair copy" (op. cit., p. xviii). 
 In support of this theory Dr. Greg justly points out that 
 B is the only one of the multiple scribes who makes 
 marginal additions to the original text, and that his con- 
 tributions show him to have "entered fully into the spirit 
 of that original." As to the identity of S, A, B, and C, 
 Dr. Greg had nothing to say. 
 
 A great step forward was made the following year 
 when, following the publication of Farmer's facsimile of 
 
 [14] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Anthony Mundy's signed manuscript play of John a Kent 
 and John a Cumber, Dr. Greg conclusively showed that 
 the man he had designated as S (the scribe in whose 
 handwriting the original text of Sir Thomas Moore is 
 written) was Anthony Mundy, though he still maintained 
 that the curious mistake of "fashis" for "fashio" 
 (fashion) proved S (Mundy) to have been only a copyist,^ 
 at least for some of the thirteen leaves in his handwriting. 
 
 In 1916 Sir Edward Thompson published his now well- 
 known book, Shakespeare's Handwriting, in which he 
 argued stoutly and impressively, exclusively on calli- 
 graphic grotmds, for Shakspere's authorship of the so- 
 called "Addition" {i.e., folios 8 and 9). Concerning the 
 authorship of the rest of the play and the identity of any 
 of the other penmen he had not a word to say. 
 
 Three years later Oliphant announced {op. cit.) his dis- 
 covery that "three different [Hterary] styles were dis- 
 cernible in the original version of the play," though no 
 less than five authors (Mundy, Dekker, Shakspere, and 
 two others) were at work on the alterations. The orig- 
 inal authors, he said, were Mundy and Dr. Greg's B 
 and A (the last being the master of a much finer and more 
 impressive verse than either of his associates). Mundy, 
 according to Mr. Oliphant, was the original author of 
 everything up to the end of III 2 (adopting the divisions 
 given in Brooke's very serviceable edition of the play), 
 B of IV 1 and the whole of V, and A of the balance of 
 IV. Concerning the additions and alterations he has this 
 
 2 Muudys writing "fashis" was only an instance of a very com- 
 mon kind of slip of the pen, and was in all probability determined 
 by the fact that no less than six j's occur in the line ("as it is 
 neuer out of fashion : sits as faire") and that the word following 
 "fashion" begins and ends with an s. 
 
 [IS] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 to say (/. c, p. 229) : "A provided the part of IV 5 that 
 is in his handwriting [i.e., fol. 6*] ; Mundy wrote II 3 ; 
 and B is to be credited with the additions to II 2, the 
 insertion in II 4, the insertions in III 1, III 3, the alter- 
 ations and additions to IV 1, and the revised version of a 
 portion of V 4. Of the other two writers, whose touch 
 is not discernible in the original draft, Shakspere [i.e., DJ 
 is responsible only for the revised version of II 4 that is 
 in his hand; and the other [E], for all the added por- 
 tions of III 2, whether in his hand or the hand of C." 
 
 Mundy's interest in the play, according to Oliphant, 
 was that of co-author of the original version, perhaps of 
 the larger part of it, and the transcriber of some of the 
 work of his "lazier colleagues." It is worthy of note that 
 though Oliphant could "detect the presence of only three 
 authors in [the] first draft," he believed that "four were 
 concerned in it, though the work of the fourth, Dekker, 
 exists only in his revised version of it" [i.e., of part of 
 III 2] . "It is unlikely," said he, "that Dekker would have 
 a hand in the revision ... if he were not one of the 
 original authors." 
 
 [16] 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 Conjectural Dates of Composition 
 
 The date of Moore has been a much disputed question, 
 some scholars assigning it to so early a date as 1587 and 
 others to one or another year between this and 1608. 
 The imagined recognition of Shakspere's hand and mind 
 (or influence) in the play has not tended to simplify the 
 matter. Some felt — so uncertain is merely aesthetic 
 criticism — that the character of Shakspere's work called 
 for an early date; whereas others thought they recog- 
 nized in it the characteristics of such careless work as 
 Shakspere might have been capable of — when doing 
 hackwork — even in his best period. Oliphant argues for 
 a date not earlier than 1598-9, on the grounds that 
 "Dekker as a dramatic writer cannot with certainty be 
 traced back beyond 1597-8" and that "he would hardly 
 have been taken into partnership with Mtmdy and two 
 other presumably established dramatists, until he had 
 proved his quality" (/. c, p. 231). 
 
 In the same paper (p. 235) Mr. Oliphant announced 
 that Sir Edward Thompson had written him to the effect 
 that, having studied Mundy's extant autographs, he saw 
 "no reason why the year 1592 or 1593 should not still be 
 accepted as approximately the date of the MS. of More." 
 Nothwithstanding his high regard for the authority of 
 Sir Edward, Mr. Oliphant insisted that if Mundy's 
 John-a-Kent was written in 1596, and if Sir Edward was 
 right in thinking that the handwriting of Moore was two 
 or three years later than Kent, then Moore was written 
 in 1598-9. 
 
 [17] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moored' 
 
 After having considered all the evidence and arguments 
 published prior to 1923, Sir Edmund Chambers^ dates the 
 play as "c. 1600." 
 
 The dating of the play has been based on one or more 
 of the following considerations: The handwriting has 
 been declared by no less an authority than Sir George 
 Warner to be unquestionably that of the sixteenth cen- 
 tury. The presence of Tyllney's autograph annotations 
 and signature proves that the manuscript was submitted 
 to him prior to 1610, the date of his death. 
 
 The fact that the play, dealing with the tragic fate of 
 Sir Thomas More, assiduously avoids the slightest hint 
 as to the cause of Sir Thomas's fall — his refusal to 
 concur in his libidinous monarch's plans regarding Anne 
 Boleyn — a subject displeasing to Queen Elizabeth's ear 
 — ^may be regarded as a fairly certain indication that the 
 play was written prior to 1603, the Virgin Queen's death. 
 
 Inasmuch as, owing to Tyllney's illness, his nephew. 
 Sir George Buc, was appointed Deputy-Master of the 
 Revels in 1597, "and gradually took over all the onerous 
 duties of the ofiSce" (Adams), it seems eminently reason- 
 able to infer, from the presence of Tyllney's spirited an- 
 notations and firm signature, that the play was submitted 
 to and read by him prior to 1597. Cj. facs. No. 20. 
 
 Thompson is confident that the handwriting character- 
 istics of Moore fit it somewhere between Mundy's 
 John-a-Kent (which belongs somewhere between 1590 
 and 1600) and his autograph dedication to his The Heaven 
 of the Mynde, which is dated 1602. 
 
 In line 1151 of Moore (Greg's numeration) there is a 
 reference to "Mason among the King's players" which 
 
 i£.5'.,1.320. 
 
 [18] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 might indicate that the play was written after James' 
 ascent to the English throne, but as nothing is known of 
 an actor named Mason among the ICing's Players (unless 
 the king meant was Henry VIII.) or in any other con- 
 temporary company, the allusion (if it is one) proves 
 nothing. 
 
 The reference (in lines 1006 and 1148 of Moore) to 
 Ogle, a maker of theatrical properties, was up to recently 
 regarded as an indication of an early date, inasmuch as 
 no reference had been found to Ogle subsequent to the 
 Revels Accounts of 1584-5; but the argument from the 
 references to him was withdrawn by Professor Pollard 
 when he published^ E. K. Chambers' discovery of an 
 entry in Henslowe's Diary of a payment to Ogle in 1600. 
 
 One of the most interesting and significant hints for 
 the early dating of this play was the mention (in the 
 margin of fol. 14% in the handwriting of C) of the actor 
 "T. Goodal" in the role of Messenger, for we know that 
 a Thomas Goodal or Goodale was a member of Lord 
 Strange's company, and that he acted the role of a Coun- 
 cillor in the second part of The Seven Deadly Sins, of 
 which a "plot"^ and cast ("dating most probably from 
 1591" — Greg) is preserved at Dulwich College among the 
 Alleyn papers. Another reason for assigning Moore to 
 
 2 "The Date of 'Sir Thomas More,' " The Times Literary Sup- 
 plement, November 8, 1923, p. 851. 
 
 ^ These "'plots" are "skeleton outlines 6f the action, with notes 
 of entrances and exits, and of the points at which properties and 
 music are required" (E. K. Chambers). For a minute study of 
 the seven extant "plots," their bearing on the theatrical history 
 of the time and on some of the problems dealt with in this book, 
 see Dr. Greg's essay, "The Evidence of Theatrical Plots for the 
 History of the Elizabethan Stage," in The Review of English 
 Studies, July, 192S, 1: 257-274. 
 
 [19] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 the early nineties was a certain alleged similarity between 
 the revised insurrection scene (written by D, the alleged 
 Shakspere) and the JIack Cade scenes in 2 Henry VI, 
 published in 1594 but acted in 1592. 
 
 Percy Simpson suggested a date in or soon after 1595 
 on the ground that in one of Jack Faukner's speeches 
 ("Moore had bin better a scowrd More ditch, than a 
 notcht mee thus") there was probably an allusion to a 
 cleansing which was begun in May 1595.'* Fleay and 
 others had suggested the same date "because of riots by 
 apprentices and unruly youths in June of that year." As 
 early as 1871 Richard Simpson had assigned Moore to the 
 "last months of 1586 or the early months of 1587" on 
 the score of the mention of an anti-alien plot which was 
 frustrated by the arrest of the youthful conspirators in 
 September 1586. 
 
 Mr. W. J. Lawrence, attaching no value to the paleo- 
 graphic argument's of Sir Edward, argued^ that the 
 absence of the Master of the Revels' license at the end 
 of the play, the call for "waites" (town musicians) in 
 one of the stage-directions, the occurrence of a ringed 
 cross in front of the name of one of the actors, and the 
 presence of certain stage-directions indicated that the 
 major portion of the surviving manuscript of Moore was 
 a prompt-copy and that the original play must therefore 
 have been written and acted in or very shortly before 
 1589, especially as after 1590 no company of actors would 
 have dared to trifle with the Privy Council by deliberately 
 
 4 From what will follow it will be apparent that Faukner was 
 referring to the fact that "More ditch" was notoriously in need 
 of a scouring, not that it had been cleansed. 
 
 5 (London) Times Literary Supplement, July 10, 1920, p. 421 ; 
 id., p. 456. 
 
 [20] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 disregarding the Master's instructions and veto. Dr. 
 Greg and Miss M. St. Clare Byrne had no great difficulty 
 in showing^ Mr. Lawrence's position to be quite un- 
 tenable. 
 
 Professor Pollard has recently argued' for a date late 
 in 1593 or early in 1594. He points out that "in May 
 1593 there were complaints and libels against the Flem- 
 ings and French which were seriously engaging the atten- 
 tion of the Queen's advisers . . . 'Libels' were posted up 
 both in prose and verse, the former bidding the strangers 
 depart out of the realm between this arid the 9th of July 
 next, and ending 'Apprentices will rise, to the number 
 of 2336, and all the Apprentices and Journeymen will 
 down with the Flemings and strangers' . . . 'The Court 
 upon these seditious Motions, took the most prudent 
 Measures to protect the poor strangers and prevent any 
 Riot or Insurrection. Several young men were taken up 
 and examined about the confederacy to rise and drive out 
 the strangers, and some of these rioters were put into 
 the stocks, carted and whipt; for a terror to other 
 Apprentices and Servants.' But the precautions taken 
 were mostly secret and only the Lord Mayor "and dis- 
 creetest Aldermen' were informed of the real nature of 
 the trouble. On the other hand, the complaints of the 
 tradesmen, the counting of the aliens and the fact of 
 the discovery of the libels must all have been common 
 talk in May 1593, and if the secrecy with which precau- 
 tions against a rising were taken led to a belief that no 
 very serious view was taken of the matter, here, I submit. 
 
 6 Times Literary Supplement, July 8, 1920 (p. 440) ; July 29 
 (p. 488) ; August 12 (pp. 520-1). 
 
 7 Shakespeare's Hand in the Play of Sir Thomas More, Cam- 
 bridge, 1923, pp. 26-29. 
 
 [21] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 was just the combination of events and popular feeling 
 which playwrights might try to exploit by reviving the 
 memory of the famous riots of 1517, without seeming to 
 themselves to run any exceptional risk." 
 
 How near to, and yet how far from, the truth Professor 
 Pollard was in this conjecture the sequel will show. For 
 the present it is sufficient to point out that the theatres 
 were closed during the time when he supposes the play 
 to have been written, and remained closed for a year, the 
 theatrical companies (including some of the playwrights) 
 were touring the provinces, and that it is extremely im- 
 probable that after the repressive measures adopted by 
 the government in the spring of 1593 any dramatist would 
 have dared to make anti-alien agitation the central theme 
 of a play. 
 
 This account of the play we are studying would be 
 incomplete did it not include a brief statement of the 
 ingenious Mr. Arthur Acheson's views on the subject. 
 In a long paper, entitled "Shakespeare, Chapman et 'Sir 
 Thomas More,' " and published in the Revue Anglo- 
 Americaine (Nos. 5 and 6, 1926, vol. 3, pp. 428-439, 514- 
 531), he contends that Moore was originally written in 
 1586-7 by Anthony Mundy and George Chapman, was 
 subsequently revised several times (in 1595, again in 
 1597-8), and that in 1589-90 Shakspere freely revised 
 Chapman's and Mundy's original version of the celebrated 
 insurrection scene — a piece of presumption for which the 
 embittered and envious Chapman never forgave Shakspere 
 and for which he thereafter ever pursued him with his 
 hate. 
 
 [22] 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 Anthony Mundy's Authorship 
 
 Returning to the subject of the authorship of the play, 
 I need add only that after (and because of) the publica- 
 tion of Oliphant's essay, following the identification of 
 S's handwriting with Mundy's, Dr. Greg modified his 
 former position* (published in 1911 and in 1913) to the 
 extent of regarding S (Mundy) not as a copyist merely 
 or as the sole author of the original text, but as having 
 been "at least part author." Notwithstanding what he 
 had previously said about the significance of the scribe's 
 error of writing "fashis," a meaningless neologism, where 
 the text required "fashion," he was now willing to accept 
 Mundy as one of the original authors of Moore for no 
 better reason, apparently, than that Mundy "was well- 
 known as a dramatic author."^ That a person with a 
 reputation as an author might, under certain circum- 
 stances, act as a scribe does not seem to have previously 
 occurred to him. With this change of opinion concern- 
 ing S, Dr. Greg also dismissed his former conclusion that 
 B wrote the bulk of the original text, presumably because 
 he knew that S (Mundy) was a well-known dramatic 
 author, whereas B was an unknown entity. According 
 to his latest published utterances on the subject, he now 
 credits (op. cit., p. 46) B with having transcribed on folio 
 7* (scene iv), with small original additions, the work of 
 another writer and with having added to folio 16 (scene 
 ix) part of a scene originally written by himself. To E 
 
 1 "Autograph Plays by Anthony Mundy," in Modern Language 
 Review, Jan. 1913, pp. 89-90. 
 
 2 Shakespeare's Hand, p. 48. 
 
 [23] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 he now assigns the role of a writer who made "an addi- 
 tion to his own revision (transcribed by C) of another 
 author's original scene viii." 
 
 Before we proceed to identify the hitherto unidentified 
 writers and authors of Moore, let us consider (1) whether 
 the manuscript affords evidence that Mundy was the 
 author of some of the material of which he was making 
 a fair copy, and (2) whether all of this play in his hand- 
 writing is his own composition. 
 
 That Mundy was the author of part of what he was 
 transcribing can be proved by the occurrence of certain 
 passages in which the text was obviously altered currente 
 calamo. (The theory that these corrections might have 
 been dictated to him by an author standing at his side may 
 be dismissed as grossly improbable.') These passages are 
 the following: 
 
 1. L.44 (fo. 3*, sc. 1). — "wilt thou so neglectly suflfer 
 thine owne shame?" Originally this line read: 
 "will he so neglectly suffer his owne shame?" (1. 1, 
 70. Brooke's numeration.) 
 
 2. L. 474 (fo. 10*, sc. vi.) — "his highnesse in merde 
 will moste graciously pardon." The word "will" is 
 an alteration from "wise," indicating that Mtmdy 
 originally may have intended to write: "his high- 
 nesse in mercie wisely will pardon." (II. 4, 176.) 
 
 'If such an improbable assumption were made in his case, 
 it could obviously also be made in the case of each of the other 
 revisers and that would defeat the calligraphic argtmient for 
 Shakspere's authorship of part of II 4. 
 
 [24] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moored' 
 
 3. LI. 538-540 (fo. 10», sc. vi).— "My Lord, for to* 
 denye my Soueraignes bountie,/ were to drop preci- 
 ous stones into the heapes/whence first they came, 
 from whence they'd nere returne,". The last five 
 words are deleted and the line is left with only two 
 feet. This, be it remembered, is the page on which 
 there is a marginal addition (a speech assigned to 
 the clown) by B. (II. 4, 246-8.) 
 
 4. LI. 598-599 (fo. 10'>, sc. vii).— "they cannot bring 
 the Cartes vnfo the stayres/ to bring the prisoners 
 in." Just as he was about completing the word 
 "bring" the author changed his mind, struck out 
 the l^etters "brin" and wrote "take." The reason 
 for the change was probably the occurrence of the 
 word "bring" in the line above. Just a few lines 
 below this we have another marginal addition 
 (another Clown speech) in B's handwriting! (III. 
 1, 32-3.) But the scene may be A's or B's. 
 
 5. L. 740 (fo. ll'', sc. viii*). — "Is it your honors 
 pleasure that I should be proude now ?" Here the 
 word "be" was struck out after the sentence was 
 completed and the word "growe" substituted for it 
 in an interlineation. (First draft of III. 2, 4-5. 
 Brooke, p. 418.) 
 
 *Mr. Oliphant {op. cit., p. 229) called attention to the locution 
 "for to" as being peculiar to A only, but, as a matter of fact, 
 this "for to" construction (which is generally associated with 
 Robert Greene) occurs five times in Act IV of this play (IV. 
 ii, 92; iii, 1; v, 33, 134, 143,— all in Mund/s handwriting) and, 
 with the above exception, nowhere else. It occurs once in 
 Chettle's The Tragedy of Hoffman (in 1. 1104, a prose passage) ; 
 once in Mund/s Fidele and Fortunio (at 1. 1230) ; not at all in 
 John-a-Kent, The Blind Beggar, or in The Captives. 
 
 [25] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 6. LI. 785-6 (fo. ll^ sc. viii»).— "The Princes safetie; 
 and the peace,/ that shines vppon our c5mon 
 weale, is forgde." Here the word "is" was deleted 
 as soon as written and "are" written above it. Con- 
 siderations of grammar determined the change. 
 (First draft of III. 2, 47-8. Not in Brooke.) 
 
 7. LI. 842-3 (fo. 14», sc. viii'').— "he hath cut his haire, 
 and dooth conforme him selfe/ to honest decencie 
 in his attire." The words "to honest decencie" are 
 deleted for no apparent reason, possibly because the 
 idea is implied in the word "conforme" or because 
 it is tautologous per se. (First draft of IIL 2, 
 49-50. Brooke, p. 419.) 
 
 8. LI. 857-59 (fo. 14% sc. viifi).— "Faulk. I humbly 
 thanke your honor. 
 
 Moris. And my selfe/ shall rest moste thankful! 
 for this gracious favour." The words "shall rest 
 moste" are deleted, thus leaving the sentence in- 
 complete. Mundy evidently intended to put his 
 predicate last, making his sentence read somewhat 
 as follows : "And myself, thankful for this graci- 
 ous favor, shall" etc., but he never finished it, pos- 
 sibly to indicate that More interrupts Morris's pro- 
 testations of gratitude with the following words: 
 "wilt please your honors now to keepe your way :"^ 
 (First draft of III. 2, 64-66. Not in Brooke.) 
 
 9. L. 1458 (fo. 19», sc. xiii).— "they [i.e.. Great men] 
 leame lowe noates after the noates that rise." Prob- 
 ably, being dissatisfied with the repetition of the 
 word "noates," Mundy struck it out after "lowe" 
 
 5 The deletion converts two lines into one iambic pentameter. 
 [26] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 and wrote above it the proper word "straines" as 
 an interlineation. (IV. 5, 46.) Cf. no. 14. 
 
 10. LI. 1588-91 (fo. 19b, sc. xiii.)— More, under arrest, 
 says : "Gramercies, f reend, and let vs now on,/ To 
 a great prison, to discharge the strife,/ commenc'de 
 twixte conscience and my frailer life/ Moore now 
 must marche," Here the words "and let vs now 
 on" (as Dr. Greg ingeniously and probably cor- 
 rectly reads this line) are heavily deleted. It seems 
 fairly clear that Mundy, having finished the first 
 line of More's speech, decided to change the struc- 
 ture of his sentence, to put his predicate at the 
 end; hence he struck out the aforesaid words and 
 ended his sentence with "Moore now must marche." 
 (IV. 5, 175-8.) 
 
 11. L. 1731 (fo. 20b, sc. xvi).— "If it be so [i.e., if the 
 warrant is come], ... let vs see it." Here the 
 word "see" is crossed out and "knowe" written 
 after it. The change was made before the sentence 
 was completed. More does not even care to see 
 the warrant; it is enough for him to know his 
 grateful monarch has signed it. (V. 3, 2.) 
 
 12. L. 1826 (fo. 21^ sc. xvi).— "I thought to haue had 
 a Barber for my beard". In this simple sentence 
 Mundy had originally written "had" before 
 "thought," but not liking the construction struck 
 it out; absorbed in this grammatical problem, he 
 forgot the word "had" and had to add it as an 
 interlineation before "a Barber." (V. 3, 100.) 
 
 13. LI. 1956-64 (fol. 22^, sc. xvii).— "Come, let's to the 
 block. 
 
 [27] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Hang. My Lord, I pray ye put off your doublet. 
 
 Moore. No my good f reend, I haue a great colde 
 alreadie, and I would be lothe to take/ 
 more, point me meete the block, for I 
 was nere heere before 
 
 Hang. To the Easfe side my Lord. 
 
 Moore. Then to the Easte, 
 
 We goe to sighe, that ore, to sleep in rest. 
 No eye salute my trunck with a sad teare, 
 Our birth to heauen should be thus: 
 voyde of feare. — exit [ !]." 
 All this is marked for omission and crossed out and in 
 its place (and following it immediately) the author sub- 
 stitutes the following (cf. facs. No. 1) : 
 
 "Stay, ist not possible to make a scape 
 from all this strong guarde ? it is 
 There is a thing within me, that will raise 
 and eleuate my better parte boue sight of 
 these same weaker eyes. And M*' 
 Shreeues, for all this troupe of Steele that 
 tends my death, 
 
 I shall breake from you, and flye vp 
 to heauen, 
 Lets seeke the meanes for this. 
 
 Hang. My Lord, I pray ye put off your doublet. 
 
 Moore. Speake not so coldely to me, I am hoarse 
 alreadie, 
 
 I would be lothe good fellowe to take 
 more, 
 
 Point me the block, I nere was heere 
 before. 
 
 Hang. To the Easte side my Lord. 
 
 [28] 
 
■f^ 
 
 o*^ - 
 n <■ 
 
 
 
 3, 
 

 
 
 
 J/'^'^ryyfn. 
 
 
 k!r<f tin ok stfir^drrej^ ffferr /f ^ei^^nxiiif 
 
 \yfi ,^ woman K^ ■^^"h'a. :^^i>l>i. J^inyaui-- 
 
 
 
 
 
 1-^; ^^^-i ' ■ 1 ■ ■L >^ ^y -— ... 
 
 1 ^ >«Ar 
 
 ' ': ■•fC^^!iSntcCt • 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 c^ 
 
 
 
 "?/'"' 
 
 /.■c^^ ^^rr-a.L^^"/'^ ■^^C'^'>^'"•^'^^'^"'- 
 
 
 
 No. 2— Plot of The Seven Deadly Sins. Greatly Reduced. 
 
 ,<f^s^u/^' ie>JKJ^n: 
 
 C^<<hr 2''/i'/7rKc/l ^"i < ySr^ lifAJftn ff^'u 
 
 ^nHt- ^ni^ntr J^antfia. •fh'fa^'i'^s'S/'-yhii-Ar— 
 
 ^2j'^r^^f/ --^ 
 
 "f- 
 
 fine fir ■ i^ /fcm. ^pUV'arnr^J''- ■ m'^n'oyi. 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 . Moore. Then to the Easte. 
 
 we goe to sigh, that ore, to sleepe in rest. 
 Heere Moore forsakes all mirthe, good 
 reason why-f/the f oole of fleshe must with 
 her fraile life dye. 
 
 No eye salute my trunck with a sad teare. 
 Our birfhe to heauen should be thus: 
 voide of feare.— ^ATJf." (V. 4, 115-34.) 
 
 14. It is more than likely, too, that the deletion of 11. 
 1457-8 (IV. 5, 45-6: "Great men are still 
 Musitians, else the worlde lyes,/ they leame lowe 
 straines after the noates that rise.") and 1. 1571 
 (IV. I, 157) : "the bell (earths thunder) soone shall 
 toale my knell." is the work of the author-scribe 
 dissatisfied (Justly) with his work, rather than of 
 a collaborator. 
 
 From what has just preceded, it is reasonably certain 
 that Anthony Mundy was the sole or part author of at 
 least the following scenes: Act I, sc. 1 ; Act II, sc. 4 (11. 
 173-273, except 11. 209-10 by B and spoken by "Clown") ; 
 Act III, sc. 1 (except 11. 44, 74-5, 86-93, by B and spoken 
 by "Clown") ; sc. 2 (subsequently rewritten and revised 
 by two other penmen, C and E) ; Act IV, sc. 1 (except 
 II. 310-67 by B), sc. 5 (partly revised by A) ; Act V, scs. 
 3 and 4. In addition to these eight scenes we have the 
 following eight scenes in his handwriting : I 2 ; I 3 ; II 2 
 (deleted, — revised and rewritten by B) ; IV 2, 3, 4; V, 
 1, 2. It follows, then, that we have almost the whole of 
 sixteen scenes in his handwriting; of seven (possibly 
 eight) of these he was certainly co-author, if not the sole 
 author. 
 
 [29] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Whether he was the author, in whole or in part, of the 
 other nine scenes in his handwriting and of the other 
 scenes of the play, original and revised, can be determined 
 only — if at all — by internal evidence, i.e., by the evi- 
 dence of style. But the probabilities all are, of course, 
 that his coadjutors contributed some scenes to the play, 
 that their share in its composition consisted of more than 
 merely discussing and plotting it among themselves, leav- 
 ing the actual writing to Mundy. Unfortunately the fact, 
 if it be a fact, that Mundy fair-copied the play — and was 
 therefore in a position to introduce some of his own pecu- 
 liarities {e.g., his way of using thou, ye and you^) into the 
 work of his coadjutators — makes it impossible to say with 
 certainty what scenes were or were not composed by him. 
 
 From a study of the seven or eight scenes herein 
 attributed to Mundy, if appears that he may be credited 
 with the following literary characteristics, which in the 
 main are to be found also in John-a-Kent : ( 1 ) a fond- 
 ness for alliteration in the prose speeches of the London 
 citizens (e.g., "Thou art my prize and I pleade purchase," 
 "What soeuer is mine scornes to stoupe to a straunger," 
 "Beefe and brewes may serve," "a coorse Carpenter," 
 "cost thy best cappe, were I not curbd," "mens milkie 
 harts dare not strike a straunger," "allow such coorse 
 cates to Carpenters," "courage in the cause," "preachers 
 shall there openly publishe in the Pulpit," etc.) ; (2) a 
 fairly large percentage of feminine verses (in John-a^Kent 
 slightly less than 17%); (3) a marked concern for his 
 verse structure, which causes him frequently to indicate 
 elisions (e.g., you'r for you are, then's for then is, on't for 
 on it, therms for there is, Th'art for Thou art, for't for 
 
 6 See p. 32. 
 
 130] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 for it, th'enf arced for the enforced, had't for had it, 
 f abuse for to abuse, etc.) and to guard the reader against 
 giving syllabic value to final ed (hence he writes obseru'de, 
 punish' de, enforc'de, etc.) though he shows a marked 
 tendency to give final ed the value of a syllable; (4) a 
 careful avoidance of the use of a monosyllabic word as 
 the eleventh syllable of a feminine verse; (5) a frequent 
 and pointless indulgence in one or more rhymed couplets 
 anywhere within a speech; (6) an excessive employment 
 of luinecessary stage-direct'ions {e.g.. Lord Maior and 
 Moore whisper, aside, action, shrugging gladly, he sits 
 downe, they lay by their weapons, he leapes off, he kisses 
 her on the ladder, flinging up cappes, flourishing his dag- 
 ger, with great reuerence, etc.) ; (7) a not infrequent use 
 of a colon at the end of the penultimate line of speeches 
 written in verse; (8) a very rare employment of anapests 
 in any part of the line (when such do occur they can 
 almost always be cured by an obvious elision, e.g., it is 
 doone, I am glad, seu/erall wardes, hon/oring me) ; (9) 
 a rather frequent employment of into and unto in the 
 fourth foot; and (10) a not very common elongation of 
 words for metrical considerations {houres as a dissyllable, 
 execution as a pentasyllable, bestowne and children as 
 trisyllables, conclusion and commotion as quadrisyllables). 
 Mundy's verse lacks sustained dignity and sounds more 
 like versified prose than poetry; his poetry is uninspired 
 and lacking in imagination ; his figures are few and usually 
 either of an obvious nature or extremely far-fetched; 
 his humor is paltry and commonplace; his few attempts 
 at generalizations are well-nigh puerile in their triviality ; 
 the psychology of his characters is irritatingly naive and 
 unnatural; his dramatis personae lack sense, dignity, 
 
 [31] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 manners, distinction, and character; his dialogue is stiff 
 and stilted. His prose is much better than his verse. 
 
 A striking peculiarity of his which may be used as a 
 touch-stone in determining his presence or absence in a 
 dramatic scene in which he may have had a hand, is his 
 peculiar and to some extent haphazard use of the pro- 
 nouns thou, ye, and you. Unlike his associates and collab- 
 orators in this play he observes no nice distinctions in the 
 use of thou and you in dialogue between persons of dif- 
 ferent ranks, and uses ye (both in the singular and plural) 
 nominatively as well as objectively, but almost never uses 
 you as the object of a transitive verb, though he does use 
 it as the object of prepositions. It is not at all unusual 
 for him to use thou, ye and you indiscriminately within the 
 limits of a single sentence {e.g., avfoy ye Rascall, . . . 
 hand off then when I bid thee," — "you shall have your 
 longing ere ye goe ;" — "You shall breake mine too and ye 
 can;" — "you knowe that you are knowne to me/ And I 
 haue often sau'de ye from this place/ . . . Thou seest 
 besides" etc.). 
 
 Applying to Sir Thomas Moore the several kinds of 
 tests named above, I conclude, tentatively but with a con- 
 siderable degree of assurance, that Mundy was the author 
 or co-author not only of the seven or eight scenes I have 
 previously attributed to him but also of the following 
 six scenes : Act I, scs. 2 and 3 ; Act II, sc. 2 (deleted by 
 Tyllney and subsequently revised by B) ; Act IV, scs. 3 
 and 4; Act V, sc. 2; the rest being the work of his 
 associates. 
 
 If these conclusions are warranted we must assign to 
 Mundy all of this play except II 1, some lines in II 2, 
 
 [32] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 all of II 3 and III 3 (both in C's handwriting), that part 
 of II 4 which is in D's handwriting, III 1 and parts of 
 
 III 2 which must be attributed to C and E, III 3, part of 
 
 IV 1 (11. 310-361 by B), IV 2, 71 lines in Act IV, sc. 5 
 (by A), and V 1. This being so, it follows that Mundy 
 was the original author of the larger part of the play, 
 though he may have been assisted in plotting it by some of 
 the "army of revisers" whose hands we find in the manu- 
 script version that has come down to us. 
 
 Concerning Mundy's theatrical affiliations we know only 
 that about 1580 he was "servant" ( ? secretary) to the 
 Earl of Oxford and that he was probably one of the 
 actors ("servants") in that Earl's company. Later on, 
 during various periods between 1594 and 1602, he was 
 writing for the Admiral's Men (linked with Lord 
 Strange 's Men between 1590 and 1594). He may there- 
 fore have written Moore for any one of these three com- 
 panies : Oxford's, the Admiral's, or Strange's. The fact 
 that the play was to be produced by Strange's Men is not 
 proof that the play was written for them : it might have 
 been written for one of the first two and sold to the last 
 after it had been submitted to the Censor, or, less probably, 
 after it had been refused a license. We can only speculate 
 why the manager for whom the play had been written, 
 whoever he was, should have sold it before he knew 
 whether the censor would "allow" it. He may have been 
 short of funds owing to the closure of his theatre because 
 of the plague, he may have thought it inadvisable to med- 
 dle with a play calculated to arouse the hostility of the 
 government, he may have thought the play unsuited for 
 his company, he may have lost confidence in the play's 
 drawing powers, etc. It was not at all unusual for a man- 
 
 [33] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 ager to buy a play and even to pay for it, in whole or in 
 part, before he knew whether it would be "allowed ;" and 
 there is no reason why a manager, knowing that he had 
 skilled poets at his beck and call, might not buy a play 
 even after it had been refused a license. 
 
 [34] 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 Thomas Kyd and His Share in the Play 
 
 Inasmuch as the penman whom Dr. Greg designated 
 as C is generally regarded as having discharged important 
 functions, probably those of playhouse reviser for Lord 
 Strange's Men, about the years 1591 and 1592, and prob- 
 ably even earlier, it will be advisable to establish his 
 identity before we proceed to consider several interesting 
 problems connected with this play, to wit : the date of its 
 composition and the probable purpose for which it was 
 written. We know by the test of handwriting that C was 
 the penman who prepared the stage "plot" of the second 
 part of Tarlt'on's Seven Deadly Sitis^ (revised by the 
 Admiral's or, more probably, by Strange's Men, about 
 1590) as well as the now fragmentary "plot" {B. M., 
 Additional MS. 10449, f°^'^° 4) oi a play which Dr. Greg 
 in 1907 identified,^ with justifiable caution, as Dekker's 
 lost play of Fortune's Tennis,^ a play which may have be- 
 longed to the Admiral's Company. That the writer of 
 these "plots" and of the portion of Moore assigned to C 
 by Dr. Greg was the distinguished and "industrious" 
 Thomas Kyd, the author of the tremendously successful 
 
 1 This "plot" is Dulwich MS. xix and is shown in slightly 
 reduced facsimile in W. Young's History of Dulvixch College, 
 1889, II. S. Cf. facs. no. 2. 
 
 2 Henslowe Papers, London, p. 144. 
 
 "Shakespeare's Hand, p. 55. The date of this "'plot" is even 
 more uncertain than its title. Chambers (£. S., II. 127; IV. 14) 
 guesses it was written in 1602, and Greg (Review of English 
 Studies, I. 270) thinks it was "almost certainly" written after 
 October 1597 and "cannot possibly be as late as 1600." The 
 handwriting test disproves both these dates. Cf. facs. no. 21. 
 
 [35] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Spanish Tragedy and of the first dramatic version of the 
 Hamlet-saga, I shall show in the following pages. 
 
 "C," says Dr. Greg,"* "approaches more nearly than any 
 other of the revisers to the professional type both in 
 calligraphic style and in the distinctive use of the Italian 
 script." Judged by his penmanship, C might very well 
 have been a professional scrivener. Kyd, the biographers 
 say, was the son of a London scrivener and may possibly 
 have "followed his father's profession before he drifted 
 into literature" (E. K. Chambers). Greg thinks it "most 
 likely" that Thomas supported himself by acting as a 
 scrivener for a while after leaving Merchant Taylors' 
 School (which he had entered in 1565, at the age of 
 seven). 
 
 Owing to Kyd's unfortunate experiences — arrest, tor- 
 ture and disgrace — in 1593, we are the fortunate possessors 
 of no less than three documents in his handwriting, two 
 almost wholly in a very fine old English script and one in 
 a fine Italian script. The first of these (MS. Harl. 6849, 
 fol. 2 18),^ discovered by Professor F. S. Boas, is the 
 pathetic letter, undated, but in all probability written in 
 1593 and after May 30, addressed by him to Sir John 
 Puckering, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England 
 (and presiding officer of the Court of Star Chamber), 
 explaining away his relations with Marlowe and entreat- 
 
 4 Shakespeare's Hand, p. 44. 
 
 5 The whole of this long letter is beautifully facsimiled in The 
 Works of Thomas Kyd by Professor Boas (Oxford, 1901) — but 
 the type transcript contains a few errors. Cf. Appendix C for 
 correct transcript. 
 
 [36] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 ing Sir John to intercede in his behalf with "my Lord, 
 whom I haue servd almost theis vj yeres^ nowe," but who 
 had withdrawn his protection upon a suspicion of 
 "Atheisme." This petition, we shall remind the reader, 
 grew out of Kyd's arrest on May 12, 1593, on a charge 
 of having been concerned in the setting up of certain 
 "lewd and mutinous libells" in various parts of the city. 
 
 For the proper understanding of what is to follow we 
 give the following abstract of Boas' excellent account of 
 "sporting" Kyd's painful experiences with the Privy 
 Council. On May 11, 1593, the Council authorized the 
 Commissioners appointed by the Lord Mayor of London 
 to "make search and apprehend" all persons suspected of 
 having a hand in the circulation of seditious libels attack- 
 ing and threatening the foreign residents, Flemish and 
 other refugees who had settled in London. One of the 
 most offensive of the libels was a rhyme which had been 
 set up on the wall of the Dutch Churchyard a week be- 
 fore; its first quatrain, all that has come down to us, 
 read: 
 
 "You Strangers, that inhabit in this land. 
 Note this same writing, do it understand; 
 Conceive it well, for safe-guard of your lives, 
 Your goods, your children, and your dearest wives." 
 The "rhyme" probably went on to threaten the foreigners 
 with violence if they remained in the city. On May 12 
 Kyd was arrested and thereafter subjected to torture, in 
 
 6 Boas {op. cit., p. xxiv) erroneously read "three yeres.'' The 
 error was first pointed out by Professor T. W. Baldwin, who 
 also showed its bearing on Kyd's biography, in his essay "On 
 the Chronology of Thomas Kyd's Plays," in Modern Language 
 Notes. June 1925, 40: 343-9. 
 
 [37] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 accordance with the instructions of the Council, for the 
 purpose of wringing a confession from him. Refusing to 
 confess himself guilty, he was several times put to the 
 torture in Bridewell and in this way he was compelled to 
 make certain depositions, in one of which, also in his own 
 handwriting {MS. Harl. 6848, fol. 134), but unsigned, 
 he defends himself against the more serious charge of 
 atheism by asserting that a certain "disputation" on 
 atheism, which had been discovered in his apartment at 
 the time of his arrest was in reality Christopher Marlowe's 
 and had got mixed up with his own papers "by some 
 occasion of or wrytinge in one chamber twoe yeares 
 synce." (An order for Kit Marlowe's arrest was issued on 
 May 18th ; two days later he was examined by the Privy 
 Council but was not imprisoned ; two weeks later he was 
 stabbed to death in a quarrel under circumstances which 
 Mr. Hotson's brilliant work' on the subject has not 
 succeeded in clarifying.) 
 
 After his release, the date of which is not known, Kyd 
 found that though he had not been found guilty of the 
 charges preferred against him, his former employer (a 
 noble lord who has not heretofore been identified) refused 
 to retain him longer in his service without the Lord 
 Keeper's (Sir John Puckering's) "former pryuitie." 
 "Worn out and utterly broken by his 'bitter times and 
 priuie passions'," says Boas, Kyd died towards the close 
 of the year 1594. 
 
 In what capacity, if not as private secretary, Kyd 
 served his unnamed employer it is impossible to say, but 
 
 7 The Death of Christopher Marlowe, by J. L. Hotson ; Lon- 
 don, 1925. 
 
 [38] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 one thing is certain: whoever his Lordship may have 
 been, and I shall advance reasons for thinking that it was 
 Ferdinando Stanley, Lord Strange, "the noblest swain 
 that ever piped on an oaten quill," he was the patron of a 
 company of players for whom Marlowe, as it seems now, 
 was writing in 1591 and 1592 and which included among 
 its members one Thomas Goodale, who, we may recall, 
 was cast for the role of Messenger in III. 3 of Moore. 
 
 That Kyd and Marlowe, the most popular writers of 
 tragedy of the day, were serving the same Lord, and that 
 his Lordship was, very probably, Ferdinando Stanley, is 
 to be inferred from what the distressed Kyd says in his 
 letter to Puckering (see Appendix C) and from our 
 knowledge that Moore (in whose making he was both 
 copyist and reviser) was being prepared for production 
 by Strange's Men. In his letter he says: "My first 
 acquaintance w* this Marlowe, rose vpon his bearing 
 name to/ serve my Lo : although his D* never knewe his 
 service, but in writing for/ his plaie", ffor never cold 
 my L. endure his name, or sight when he had heard / of 
 his conditions."^ In this connection we must not overlook 
 the possible significance of the fact that in 1592 and in 
 1593 Strange's Men produced Kyd's Spanish Tragedy as 
 
 8 It may be objected that Kyd might have been a member of 
 Lord Strange's Men and at the same time secretary to Henry 
 Herbert, second Earl of Pembroke. That little weight is to be con- 
 ceded to this objection will be granted when it is considered that 
 we have no adequate reason for assuming that Pembroke's Men 
 were in existence prior to the last quarter of 1592 (Chambers, 
 The Elizabethan Stage, II, 128) and that Kyd tells us that 
 Marlowe had been writing for his (Kyd's) lord's players two 
 years anterior to May 1593. 
 
 [39] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 well as Marlowe's Jew of Malta. {Cf. E. K. Chambers, 
 op. cit., II, 122-3). 
 
 As tending to confirm our deduction that Kyd was re- 
 ferring to Lord Strange, fifth Early of Derby, we may 
 cite the fact that the latter is known to have maintained 
 a pious household ;' and Kyd, we know, assures Sir John 
 that Marlowe had no personal contact with Lord Strange 
 inasmuch as "the forme of devyne praiers vsed duelie in 
 his LP' house" would not "have quadred [=squared] w* 
 such reprobates." 
 
 The identification of Lord Strange as Kyd's master 
 serves also to explain why the dramatist was not re- 
 instated into his forfeited post after his release. From the 
 Dictionary of National Biography we learn that "from 
 1591 some of the catholics cast their eyes on [Ferdinando 
 lord Strange] as successor to the crown [of England] 
 in the right of his mother, Margaret Clifford." In 1593 
 ( !) Roman Catholic conspirators on the continent sent 
 one Richard Hesketh to persuade him to set up his claim 
 
 9 Canon F. R. Raines informs us (in his additions to T. W. 
 King's Lancashire Funeral Certificates, 1869, p. 67) that Mr. 
 William Leigh, the learned rector of Standish, was the Earl's 
 domestic chaplain and had been his tutor in his early life. The 
 Stanley Papers (vol. 31 of the Chetham Society's Publications) 
 and the Lancashire Funeral Certificates (pp. 63-69) offer sig- 
 nificant evidences of Stanley's piety. On April IS, 1S94, the day be- 
 fore he died — ^possibly as the result of poisoning by Catholic con- 
 spirators — he said to one of his physicians : "I am resolved pres- 
 ently to die, and to take away with me only one part of my [coat 
 of] arms, I mean the Eagle's Wings, so will I fly swiftly into the 
 bosom of Christ, my only Saviour." — The Earle of Pembroke, 
 if we may judge from the available evidence, never uttered a 
 pious sentiment or listened to a sermon. 
 
 [40] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 to the crown on the anticipated death of Elizabeth (though 
 she was not sick at this time)^° and to rely on Spanish 
 assistance ; his loyalty, however, was such that he imme- 
 diately rejected this proposal, and, at the risk of being 
 assassinated for divulging the plot, delivered Hesketh to 
 justice. (Hesketh was executed at St. Albans on Novem- 
 ber 29, 1593.) A man of such piety and integrity would 
 not be likely to continue t'o harbor in his household one 
 who had probably not completely cleared himself of the 
 charges that had been preferred against him. His dis- 
 missal of Kyd would be strictly in keeping with his com- 
 manding his secretary (?) to terminate his relations with 
 Marlowe. In his memorandum of accusations against 
 Marlowe Kyd says : "by my lords comaundm' as in hatred 
 of his life & thoughts J [ = I] left & did refraine his 
 companie." In view of these facts it is not impossible 
 that his lordship would also have required Marlowe's 
 discharge from all relations whatsoever with the theatrical 
 company bearing his name, — and this would explain why 
 Kyd refers to Marlowe as an "outcast;" although the 
 probabilities all are, of course, that he was referring only 
 to his atheism. That Kyd refers to Marlowe as an 
 "Ishmaelite" ("one whose hand was against every man") 
 is probably explained by what he says in his memorandum 
 to the Council concerning "his other rashnes In attempting 
 soden pryvie injuries to men." 
 
 It may not be superfluous to add that, notwithstanding 
 the city's visitation by the plague. Lord Strange's company 
 had not left London during the early months of 1593, and 
 that it was therefore in a position to produce the play of 
 
 IOC/. The Private Character of Queen Elizabeth, by Fred- 
 erick Chamberlin, 1922, pp. 98-104. 
 
 [41] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Sir Thomas Moore just as soon as the death-rate would 
 fall to the point where the Rose Theatre might be re- 
 opened, as had been done the previous December. On 
 May 6, 1593, the Privy Council issued a license to Lord 
 Strange's Men permitting them to play in any city or 
 town free from the plague "so it be not within seven miles 
 of London or of the Coort." How soon after this they 
 went on tour we do not know, but they had ample time to 
 cast the play prior to. May 6th. 
 
 The second of the Kyd documents referred to above 
 (MS. Harl. 684.8, fol. 154) is a single sheet of paper 
 which was first discovered and published in 1921.1' jj 
 consists of twenty-seven lines of fine old English script, 
 considerably less carefully engrossed than the letter to 
 Puckering, was evidently addressed to one or more Lords 
 of the Council, and accuses Marlowe, his former room- 
 mate, of atheism and blasphemy. A very fine facsimile of 
 it appears in English Literary Autographs (cf. Ap- 
 pendix B and facs. No. 3). 
 
 When, undoubtedly as the result of an information laid 
 against him by "some outcast Ismael," to use Kyd's own 
 words, his study was searched by the authorities, on May 
 12, 1593, the day following the Council's order ( !), there 
 was discovered among his papers a document consisting of 
 three pages {MS. Harl. 6848, folios 187-9), one. ^olio 
 and two octavo, of a "vile hereticall" disputation'^ which 
 
 11 F. K. Brown, "Marlowe and Kyd," The Times Literary 
 Supplement, June 2, 1921, p. 355. 
 
 12 Professor W. D. Briggs has shown ("On a Document Con- 
 cerning Christopher Marlowe," Studies in Philology, April 1923, 
 20; 153-9) that the alleged "disputation" is virtually a transcript 
 of material contained in John Proctor's The Fall of the Late 
 Arrian, published in 1549, and that Professor Boas (op. cit., pp. 
 
 [42] 
 
~Tr 
 
 o 
 
 u> 
 
 t-i 
 
 '"1 
 
 
 
 s^ 
 
 9. % I 
 
 \ s 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 ^.. 
 
 f^ 
 
 ci 
 
 ''. . f 
 
 r 
 
 I. 
 
 1/ ,? 
 
 / 
 
 
 "/> ^ 
 

 
 /- *,'.-" ^ . /-- \, - ^ ^-^^^ ,■■/-• rr 
 
 -m^n%-fsj:t yntrad/t >:^Je -ftrrtA /i,s j-s a^eut r£.£sAr-c£.t/. 
 
 
 i 
 
 O'' 
 
 eS '>^ot~ O-e'lf. jrff co!^pr~t h.L7P<£ r^vr tizi u:''^^ 
 
 7US 
 
 
 r U. -J 
 
 No. 4 — Page 2 of Kyd's alleged Treatise on Atheism. 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Kyd affirmed he had from Marlowe. Kyd's statement 
 ("I did deliver up . . . some fragments of a disputation, 
 toching that opinion, affirmed by Marlowe to be his") has 
 been interpreted as meaning that Marlowe had claimed 
 the papers as his property or as the product of his pen, 
 although his words may mean only that the papers related 
 to opinions shared by Marlowe. 
 
 It is rather singular that prior to Professor Briggs no 
 one had suggested that the "treatise" might "quite pos- 
 sibly be in Marlowe's handwriting." In what follows I 
 shall try to show that, as a matter of fact, the disputation, 
 written in a neat, professional script, is in Kyd's hand- 
 writing. Fortunately for our investigation, Kyd's letter, 
 his accusation, and the pages of Moore written by C, con- 
 tain a sufficient admixture of Italian letters to enable us 
 to say with positiveness that the hand which wrote the 
 letter — and there is no valid reason for doubting that 
 it is a Kyd holograph — also wrote the incriminating dis- 
 putation. If Kyd meant to imply that the latter was in 
 Marlowe's hand he was lying. To make our demonstra- 
 tion more complete and convincing we must include in our 
 study an analysis of the penmanship of the "plot" of 
 The Seven Deadly Sins (prepared in 1591 or earlier, and 
 the property of Lord Strange's players) and of the frag- 
 mentary "plot" preserved at the British Museum (Addi- 
 tional MS. I044P, folio 4) which Dr. Greg and others 
 are convinced, rightly, are in the handwriting of C. 
 
 cxi-cxiii) reprinted in reverse order the three pages constituting 
 it. A fine facsimile of the first page of this document is given in 
 Professor Boas' book between pp. cxii and cxiii, but his tran- 
 scription contains many errors. See Appendix A for correct 
 transcript. Facs. no. 4 presents the reader with the second page 
 of this document. 
 
 [43] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Because of the relatively large amount of material at 
 our disposal it will probably be best to present the evidence 
 to the eye by means of a Table showing in parallel rows 
 the forms of some of the letters occurring in the docu- 
 ments under discussion. In studying the Tables (facss. 
 nos. 5 and 6) the reader is bound to notice that Kyd was 
 the master of several styles of penmanship ; that the nature 
 of the document determined his selection of the style of 
 lettering for that particular document and the precision 
 and ornateness with which it was written; that forms of 
 letters which appear commonly in one document may not 
 appear at all in others ; that each page bristles with letter 
 forms which do not occur in other pages; and that each 
 document contains a sufficient number of identical forms 
 to establish its calligraphic identity with the others. Such 
 a phenomenon as this would not be rare in the penmanship 
 of any fluent and cultured Elizabethan penman, and pre- 
 sents nothing to be wondered at in the penmanship of one 
 who, in addition, had probably for some time earned his 
 living as a scrivener. 
 
 In document 1, the letter to Puckering, which was evi- 
 dently written in the scrivener's best manner, the letters 
 being formed clearly, correctly and beautifully, — as if the 
 penman had wished thereby to symbolize his correctness 
 of behavior, as well as his deference, — ^we note a large 
 sprinkling of italic letters among the English, a slight 
 deterioration in the penmanship towards the bottom of the 
 long folio page, and the introduction of new forms on 
 the back of the page. The writing in the document 
 accusing Marlowe of extreme heresies was also written 
 deliberately but much less formally; it therefore comes 
 near to being a specimen of Kyd's ordinary handwriting. 
 
 [44] 
 
r XT 
 
 
 
 
 ,y^ ^/ / y^ 
 
 
 
 '^•.^ I :J: '^ 
 
 
 t-ir^' 
 
 
 zr 
 
 ^ 
 
 /' 
 
 
 c 
 
 No. 5 — C's and Kyd's handwriting compared. 
 

 
 TTj'^y 
 
 4.r.^^^ ^WmQC 'J" ' ^ 
 
 Q^^ ^P 
 
 -. 
 
 /./ 
 
 Mf>. 
 
 :^ . c^^"^^:.,;^ -^ 
 
 J' 
 
 ■ 
 
 ^-^ ' "^^ 'V / V ■^<-'^ J' > •! /.^^ ^> ' ^"^-^ '^ n.' 
 
 ,.^'l 
 
 '^^[un\P^/C^ / ^Y , ^ %,,x. ^ 
 
 
 
 1 1 '■ ■ 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 "'^^C 
 
 L'^icve ,,^^'c " ^""" J' ^i V c^" 
 
 > 
 
 /'XV^ S^-f: y 'Z 
 
 c^ ^"^ 
 
 I'M . ._. , -. __^..-..» 
 
 <^ f -^ 
 
 
 No. 6^C's and Kyd's handwriting compared. 
 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moored' 
 
 Examination of the rows of letters marked "Lr & Ac" in 
 facss. 5 and 6 will show that though these documents 
 were written within a short time of each other each con- 
 tains forms of letters not found in the other. In the 
 facsimiles (nos. 5 and 6) I have indicated the characters 
 occurring only in the letter to Puckering by a tiny circle 
 under them and those occurring only in the accusation by 
 a tiny x under them. Those who will take the time to 
 examine the facsimile of the Puckering letter (in Pro- 
 fessor Boas' book) may be surprised to discover that on 
 page 1 Kyd employed a variety of capital I which he 
 avoids on page 2. The point is mentioned here only as 
 illustrating the fact that in the presence of a sufficient 
 number of identities the presence of a number of specific 
 differences in two calligraphic specimens does not pre- 
 clude a common source. 
 
 The second row in facss. nos. 5 and 6, marked "Moore," 
 calls for especial attention, for it depicts tracings of C's 
 letters in the pages of the play that are in his handwriting. 
 Here we undoubtedly have the writer's ordinary pen- 
 manship. The particular letters which serve to identify 
 C with Kyd are especially the following: the A, the 
 italic /, the initial and medial English f, the g, the italic H, 
 the I, the italic R, the English initial j and especially the 
 English .j^digraph, and the italic T. Points of identity 
 in the above letters are too numerous to require specific 
 mention. But it must not be overlooked that these writ- 
 ings reproduce each other not only as regards the forms 
 of individual letters but as to writing habits, shading, 
 slant, pen-pressure, rh)rthm, etc. 
 
 That C's writing is identical with that of the "plots" of 
 The second parte of the Seuen Deadlie sinns and of the 
 
 [45] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 alleged Fortune's Tennis is apparent at a glance, even 
 though careful scrutiny reveals the occurrence of a few 
 specific variations. Convincing points of identity, appar- 
 ent even to casual observation, are to be found in the A, 
 the D, the E, the italic /, the G, the H, the I, the P, the R, 
 the italic j and S, the T, and the italic y. Doubt on this 
 score is impossible. Examination of facss. nos. 5 and 6 
 will show numerous equally significant identities between 
 Kyd's letter and accusation, on the one hand, and the 
 "plots," on the other. 
 
 The fourth item in our investigation {Harl. MS. 6848, 
 ff. iS^-iSg^) is the surviving remnant of an essay or 
 "disputation" on atheism (cf. Appendix A), as it is com- 
 monly called, which was discovered among Kyd's "waste 
 and idle papers" at the time of his arrest and which, he 
 said, he voluntarily handed over to the officers. This con- 
 sists of three pages of commentary written in a neat 
 Italian hand and bears the following endorsement (in all 
 probability written by the officer who made the arrest) 
 in old English script: "12 may 1593/ vile hereticall 
 Conceipt/ denyinge the deity of Jhesus/ Christ o"^ Savior 
 fownd/ emongest the pap''s of Thos/ kydd prisoner."/ 
 Just beneath this memorandum are the following words, 
 also in old English script: "w* he affirmethe that he/ 
 had fiFrom Marlowe."i^ In the pages of this disputation 
 
 13 After Marlowe's death Kyd made the statement that the 
 papers on which the "fragments of [the] disputation" are written 
 got "shouffled w* some of myne (vnknown to me) by some 
 occasion of o"" wrs^inge in one chamber twoe yeares synce." It 
 does not appear that any other of Marlowe's papers got shuffled 
 with some of Kyd's. If Kyd and Marlowe wrote in one room 
 on only one occasion it is highly incredible that some of the 
 latter's papers got among the former's without either one noticing 
 
 [46] 
 
,1 
 
 v 
 
 
 
 ±1 i.M^i^A::^:> 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 ^4* cfu J^ ^ 
 
 
 9 2<»<T Jw^f-**'; i 
 
 }rHi 
 
 
 
 ' V 
 
 '-.2 
 
 ■5^ 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 '."^ 
 
 
 ^rtnmt 
 
 ~:> 
 
 
 bo 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 
 
 Pu 
 
 Iz; 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 the letters are not so varied as in the other documents, as 
 our facsimiles show, but there is yet no great difficulty 
 in finding such and so many connecting links between it 
 and the other papers as to prove identity of scrivenership. 
 The most obvious of these connecting links are the follow- 
 ing letters: A, B, C, D, E, F, f, G, H, M, N, 
 P, p, R, T, W and y. 
 
 Another link connecting Kyd with Sir Thomas Moore 
 and tending to confirm the opinion that he had a hand in 
 penning it, is the presence of his autograph and what is 
 probably a half signature of his on the velliun wrapper of 
 the John-a-Kent manuscript.^* At the top of the wrapper, 
 enclosed within an ornamental border, is the title, The 
 Book of John/ A kent & John a/ Cumber, in large Gothic 
 letters. This title was undoubtedly written by the same 
 hand that wrote the title and made the exactly similar 
 
 it; if they shared a room in common for a considerable period, 
 we would expect other papers, too, to get in among Kyd's. And 
 it is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that in two years Kyd 
 would not have discovered his associate's papers among his own 
 and either destroyed them or returned them. Marlowe's hand- 
 writing may have resembled Kyd's as much, for example, as 
 Kyd's resembled that of the writer of the Addition; and, if so, 
 Kyd might venture to attribute the incriminating papers to the 
 dead Marlowe. We may recall in this connection that Sir Walter 
 Raleigh, at his trial for treason, had the effrontery to deny having 
 written a certain document which was unquestionably in his own 
 handwriting. 
 
 l"* This manuscript is now in the Henry E. Huntington Library 
 and Art Gallery in San Marino, California. A collotype facsimile 
 of this play was published by John S. Farmer among his Tudor 
 Facsimile Texts in 1912. Miss M. St. Clare Byrne edited the 
 play for the Malone Society in 1923. J. P. Collier edited it, with 
 the addition of many fraudulent readings, in 1851. 
 
 [47] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 ornamental border in Moore. Dr. Greg had noticed 
 {Shakespeare's Hand, p. 56) that a few hasty stage direc- 
 tions in the margins of John-a-Kent are in the hand- 
 writing of C. What he had not noticed (but Miss Byrne 
 had) is the fact that just about the middle of the wrapper 
 bearing the title there is what Miss Byrne has described, 
 not quite accurately, as the "scribble of a name, apparently 
 V thomas." The writing, except the unusually tall English 
 capital V, is now very pale and reads I g V thomas 
 Thomas in a penmanship which is unquestionably that of 
 C. It is not vuireasonable to assume that these words, 
 being in the handwriting of C and of the writer of the 
 Puckering letter, are the Christian name of Thomas Kyd, 
 done in an idle moment or while trying out his pen.^^ 
 
 John P. Collier thought'^ that the handwriting of the 
 penman whom Dr. Greg designated as C, and whom 1 
 identify as Thomas Kyd, is very like that of George Peele 
 in his letter to Burleigh {MS. Lansd. gp, fol. 151) and his 
 autographic description of a tilt {MS. Addit. 21432, 
 fol. p"), "the only surviving examples of Peele's hand" 
 (Greg), both of which are excellently facsimiled in 
 English Literary Autographs. On a first glance, and only 
 then, there are a few striking superficial resemblances 
 between Peele's A, M, E, P, f, I, p, and y, and the same 
 letters in Kyd's documentary remains ; but careful inspec- 
 tion shows that the writing differs essentially from Kyd's 
 in the more important matters of size, spacing, pen- 
 pressure, shading, proportions, slant, and rhythm. 
 
 15 Inasmuch as the signature ("Th. Kydd") to the letter to 
 Puckering is written in Roman letters, the Kent and Puckering 
 signatures cannot be compared. 
 
 16 J. P. Collier, English Dramatic Poetry. 1879, 3: \97. 
 
 [481 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Spedding's opinion that hands C and D are not one and 
 the same and can be distinguished from each other has 
 not yet been universally accepted, nothwit'hstanding even 
 the opinion of more recent students and the authority of 
 modern paleographers. It is true that some of the letters 
 and even certain words {e.g.^ the, in, an) in the writing 
 of C do bear a striking resemblance to the corresponding 
 letters and words in the writing of D, but just this sort of 
 resemblance is to be expected in documents written in the 
 same calligraphic system in any given period. Most minus- 
 cules admit of so little variation that, as far as their mere 
 form is concerned, they furnish a very inadequate standard 
 of comparison. Likeness among them is of much less 
 value than imlikeness. With the majuscules the case is 
 wholly different because, by virtue of their position, size, 
 and complexity, they permit of great variations in form 
 and ornamentation. That hands C and D present suffi- 
 ciently marked differential characteristics as regards the 
 forms of the letters and the position and degree of the 
 shadings — the two most important elements entering into 
 a handwriting — to enable one to say positively that they 
 were not the handiwork of one person will be evident 
 on a careful examination of facss. nos. 2, 3, 7 and 8, and 
 a comparison of these with facss. 10, 11, 12 and 13. C 
 separates his speeches by a short horizontal stroke, three- 
 fourths of an inch or less in length; D separates his 
 speeches by a long horizontal stroke often extending up 
 to and even beyond the last word of the speakers' last 
 lines and commencing with a characteristic serif re- 
 sembling a "2." (To enable the student to form his own 
 opinion as regards D's supposed identity with Shakspere, 
 I have placed traced facsimiles of the letters occurring in 
 
 [49] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Shakspere's signatures under the corresponding letters by 
 D in facs. no. 14.) 
 
 Only one other extant autograph purports to be 
 Thomas Kyd's signature. It is mentioned and facsimiled 
 in English Literary Autographs and discussed in Pro- 
 fessor Boas' work on Kyd (p. Ixv) . It constitutes one of 
 two "autographs" occurring in an anonymous prose pam- 
 phlet, The Murder of John Brewen, which was published 
 by the stationer John Kyd (not known to have been 
 related to Thomas), in 1592, and of which only one copy 
 is extant. One of these autographs, reading Jho [ ? Tho\ 
 Kyde [ ? Kyds], occurs at the foot of the title-page of 
 this unique tract; the other, reading Tho. kydde, occurs 
 at the close of the pamphlet.^' "The names," says Dr. 
 Greg, "appear to be in different hands" and the one at the 
 end "bears no resemblance" to the signature appended to 
 the letter to Puckering. From the marked similarity be- 
 tween the English h's and y's in these two putative sig- 
 natures, I am strongly inclined to think them the work 
 of one person, and from certain indications which I shall 
 discuss elsewhere I consider them both forgeries. It 
 would be interesting to know whether this unique tract, 
 the property of the Lambeth Palace Library, bore these 
 names before 1863 when it was reprinted, for the first 
 time, by Collier.i^ Cf. facs. no. 9. 
 
 17 Collier unblushingly says (Notes and Queries, March 29, 
 1862, p. 21) that the name is spelt "John Kyd" on the title-page 
 and "Thomas Kydde" at the end. There is nothing but Collier's 
 word for attributing this pamphlet to Thomas Kyd. The author's 
 name is not mentioned in the entry at Stationer's Hall, June 28, 
 1592. The argument as to Kyd's authorship of Arden of 
 ^Feversham on the basis of certain similarities between the play 
 and the pamphlet strikes me as exceedingly weak. 
 
 [50] 
 
'The Booke of Sir Thomas Moort" 
 
 Jjri^ 
 
 No. 9— Putative "Kyd" autographs (x2). 
 
 Before dismissing the subject of Kyd's identification 
 with C, the copyist and author of part of Sir Thomas 
 Moore as well as the writer of several of the extant 
 "plots" of Lord Strange's Company, it may perhaps be as 
 well to meet a possible objection. The general assumption, 
 based, I am sure, on a misinterpretation of Kyd's letter 
 to Puckering, is that he had ceased to write for the stage 
 about 1587, six years prior to his arrest. But, I submit, 
 his reference to "some occasion of o"' wrytinge in one 
 
 18 Inasmuch as "John" was very often written "Jho" and 
 "Thomas" "Tho," and inasmuch as a T was often, as in the case 
 we are now considering, made like a J, there is room for legiti- 
 mate difference of opinion as to whether the Christian name on 
 the title-page of Brewen should be read "John" or "Thomas." 
 Mr. Boas at first read it as "Thomas" but subsequently, on re- 
 examining the manuscript, interpreted it as "John." I have been 
 told that the presence of a stroke above the o indicates the 
 omission of an n and proves the correct reading to be "John;" 
 but, as a matter of fact, "Thomas" was often written "Tho," 
 e.g., in the signatures ctf Sir Thomas Fairfax {B. M., Add. MS. 
 1S979, fo. 204; Harl. MS. 7503, fo. 10), of Thomas Dekker {Bod. 
 Lib., Malone 235), etc. 
 
 [51] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Mooref' 
 
 chamber twoe yeares synce" may much more plausibly be 
 regarded as an indication that he and Marlowe were 
 writing in collaboration (and most probably on a play) 
 in 1591.19 
 
 In 192020 Mr. W. T. Smedley expressed it as his 
 opinion that the Puckering letter was written by the scribe 
 who wrote The Conference of Pleasure in the famous 
 Northumberland Manuscript and that the "dissertation" 
 was written by the scribe who wrote a letter to King 
 James I. on March 23, 1623, and is signed by Francis 
 St. Alban. Having given the Northumberland Manuscript 
 very careful study in another connection, I am prepared 
 to say that no part of it is in the handwriting of the 
 letter to Sir John; as to Mr. Smedley's second item, of 
 which I have not seen a facsimile, I can say only that he 
 must be mistaken. 
 
 19 We cannot sufficiently censure such obvious bias in the dis- 
 cussion of matters of fact as is betrayed by Mr. J. H. Ingram 
 (^Christopher Marlowe and his Associates, 1904, p. 262) who, in 
 attempting to whitewash Marlowe's character, pretends to ques- 
 tion tlie genuiiiesness o± the letter to Puckering and yet speaks of 
 the Brewen "autograph" as Kyd's "authentic signature." That 
 Mr. Ingram was guilty of other unpardonable transgressions is 
 sfiown by Mr. Hotson {op. cit., pp. 21-2). In attempting to cast 
 doubt on the genuineness of these documents (the letter to 
 Puckering, the theological treatise, and the two versions of 
 Baines' Note), Mr. Ingram makes the utterly unwarranted asser- 
 tion (o/i. cit., p. 262) that "the watermarks in the paper of all 
 four of these documents bear a suspicious family resemblance 
 to each other . . . and indicates that they are all on paper belong- 
 ing to one individual." There is no watermark on the first page 
 of the Puckering letter (fo. 218) ; the watermark on the second 
 page (fo. 219) is nothing like the globe on iff. 187 and 188 of the 
 theological treatise (there is no watermark on fo. 189) ; the 
 watermark in the Baines document is a jug which resembles that 
 in fo. 217 {Harl. 6849) but differs from it in containing the 
 letters B S ( ?) instead of A I. 
 
 20 Times Literary Supplement, Jiily 22, p. 472. 
 
 [52] 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 Henry Chettle's (A's) Hand in the Play 
 
 The identification, which I now make, of the pen- 
 manship of Dr. Greg's A on foHo 6^ of Moore as that of 
 the seven autographs of Henry Chettle^ in Henslowe's 
 Diary at Dulwich College is a comparatively simple mat- 
 ter. A comparison of the facsimiles of Chettle's receipts, 
 published in Dr. Greg's English Literary Autographs from 
 1 550- 1650 (Plates VI and VII), with the facsimile of 
 folio 6* by A in John S. Farmer's facsimile of the play, 
 shows "an English hand, almost devoid of Italian mix- 
 ture, clear and legible, with a good deal of individual 
 character" (so Dr. Greg described A's handwriting in 
 1911). The hand is by no means elegant; the letters are 
 small; the lines are close together; the words are not 
 linked to one another; the loops of the letters on one line 
 fairly collide with the loops of the letters in the line 
 above or below; the writing is heavy and rather slow; 
 the proportions of the letters are the same in both; the 
 forms of the individual letters are the same; the lines do 
 not run uphill or downhill ; there are no fancy flourishes ; 
 the writing habits as to joining certain letters to each 
 other and separating certain letters from others are the 
 same; the shading habits are the same; the j-dots are 
 heavy and slightly to the right and only a little above the 
 letter; the virgule is the same; the habit of terminating 
 
 ^ Chettle "was bom presumably about 1560 . . . became a 
 compositor and took up his freedom in 1584." Between 1598 and 
 1603 he wrote for the Admiral's as well as for the Earl of 
 Worcester's Men. 
 
 [53] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 the n with a heavy elongated second minim is the same; 
 certain combinations of letters, e.g., of, the, sho, ct, all, 
 pla, doo, and, present(s), make an identical visual im- 
 pression (c/. facss. nos. IS and 16). 
 
 In addition to Chettle's unique n and heavy vertical 
 Italian S and striking ci-digraph, we find in two of his 
 receipts (for May 9, 1603, and February 16, 1599) a 
 remarkable calligraphic peculiarity which occurs fre- 
 quently in his holographic contribution to Sir Thomas 
 Moore: it is the way in which the final stroke of the 
 minuscule i runs up above the line to join with the i-dot, 
 thus making the i look somewhat like an old English d. 
 This is strikingly shown in the words "Receiued," 
 "Pythias," "Philip," and "written," in the receipts, and 
 in the words "will (1. 1), "like" (1. 1), "seeming" (1. 8), 
 "Prince" (1. 13), "fraile" (1. 14), "shines" (1. 14), "if" 
 (I. 16), etc. The relative scarcity of this characteristic 
 in the receipts (1598-1603) and its frequency in Moore 
 may be an indication that the Moore page was written 
 several years before the receipts.^ This is probably also 
 shown by the fact that by the time he was writing receipts 
 for Henslowe he seems to have very largely discarded his 
 habits of writing indubitable w's for m's and of prolonging 
 the final minim of his n's and m's downward and ter- 
 minating them below the line. 
 
 2 Dr. Greg (.The Book of Sir T. M., p. viii) thought that "the 
 interest of the hand [lay] in the fact that the writer was 
 accustomed to the old convention with regard to the use of u 
 and V, but was trying to adopt the new" and therefore twice 
 changed consonantal u in the middle of a word to a v. That this 
 cannot be right is shown by two facts: in his receipts Chettle 
 always writes an n-like u for a z' in the middle of a word 
 {e.g., Receined, hane), and in Moore he writes heanen (heauen), 
 prone (proue), senen (seuen), enen (euen), greende (greeude), 
 leaning (leaning), etc. In 1. 9 he originally wrote tnoone for 
 mooue and changed it to moove, probably to make it clear that 
 he did not mean the moon. Why he corrected the n in innited 
 (inuited) I cannot guess. 
 
 [54] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 It may possibly be objected that Chettle is not known to 
 have written dramatic literature much before February 
 1598 (when he was collaborating with Mundy on the 
 Second Part of Robin Hood), but that he had been so 
 employed considerably before this date is evident from 
 Meres' mention of him (in 1598) as "among the best 
 for Comedy." 
 
 That in September 1592 Henry Chettle and D (if D 
 was Shakspere) were not acting in and writing for the 
 same company would seem to be clear from what the 
 former has to say of the latter in his Kind-Harts Dreame 
 (entered in the Stationers' Register on December 8, 
 1592). In defending himself against the charge of having 
 wronged two of his contemporaries in the publication of 
 Greene's tirade, Groats-worth of Wit, which he edited 
 and printed, he says : "With neither of them [Marlowe 
 and Shakspere] that take offence was I acquainted, and 
 with one of them [Marlowe] I care not if I neuer be: 
 The other, whome at that time I did not so much spare, 
 as since I wish I had, for that ... I am as sorry as if 
 the original fault had beene my fault, because my selfe 
 haue scene his demeanor no lesse ciuill, than he exelent in 
 the qualitie he professes : Besides diuers of worship haue 
 reported his vprightness of dealing, which argues his 
 honesty [i.e., honorable disposition], and his facetious 
 [= felicitous] grace in writing, that aprooues his Art." 
 From the words I have printed in italics we seem to be 
 warranted in concluding that Chettle had made the per- 
 sonal acquaintance of Shakspere — there is hardly any 
 doubt he had Shakspere in mind — since the publication 
 of Greene's "scald triviall lying pamphlet." It is from 
 his own observation that he testifies to Shakspere's "ciuill 
 demeanor" and excellence as an actor. At this time 
 Chettle was probably a member of the Admiral's Men 
 and Shakspere of Strange's. 
 
 [55] 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 Thomas Heywood's (B's) Hand in the Play 
 
 Concerning B's hand, "an ill-formed current hand," 
 Dr. Greg had this to say in 1923 0- "Hand B should be 
 compared with that of The Captives, &c., (MS. Egerton 
 ip94, fob. 52-95) at the British Museum, which is pre- 
 sumably Thomas Heywood's. There is a considerable 
 resemblance both in the writing and the spelling, but there 
 are also differences which make it impossible to venture 
 on an identification." In a subsequent discussion* of Hey- 
 wood's handwriting. Dr. Greg again calls attention to the 
 "somewhat close general resemblance" between the 
 atrocious penmanship of B and of the author-scribe of 
 The Captives (licensed in 1624 as "A new Play") and of 
 The Escapes of Jupiter (1611-1613?), but he cautions us 
 that "specific differences preclude the identification of the 
 two, although the probable difl?erence of twenty to thirty 
 years in date would of course allow considerable latitude 
 for change." 
 
 That Thomas Heywood was the writer of the extant 
 manuscript of The Captives seems to me to have been 
 proved beyond question by Professor Alexander C. Judson 
 in his semi-popular edition of the play in 1921 and by Dr. 
 Greg in a valuable contribution by him to the Brandl- 
 Festschrift in 1925 {Palaestra, Nr. 147-148). ^ 
 
 1 Shakespeare's Hand, p. 44. 
 
 2 English Literary Autographs, Plate XXII. 
 
 * Dr. Greg's paper deals not only with The Captives but with 
 Heywood's autograph MS. of The Escapes of Jupiter (Harl. 
 MS. J994, ff. 74-95). 
 
 [56] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 With this mass of manuscript material before him as a 
 standard of comparison, it is almost inconceivable that a 
 careful study would not enable the investigator to say 
 positively whether folios 7^ and 16 of Sir Thomas Moore 
 were or were not written by Heywood, especially seeing 
 that the two sets of manuscripts are of the same nature 
 (dramatic dialogue), both written on similar sheets of 
 paper, neither showing indications of mental or physical 
 disease, and there being nothing to indicate that they were 
 not both written under similar circumstances (i.e., while 
 the author was more or less comfortably seated at a table 
 with long sheets of paper before him). What the student 
 has to do, however, in such a case as that before us, is 
 to make allowances for such changes in a person's chiro- 
 graphy as inevitably develop as one grows older, especially 
 if that one be a person who has done a great deal of 
 writing. We have already seen that Chettle's handwriting 
 changed in many respects within the short period of five 
 or six years. That Heywood was the author or part- 
 author of more than two hundred and twenty plays we 
 know from his statement in the Epistle to The English 
 Traveler (1633) that he had had "either an entire hand or 
 at the least a maine finger" in that many plays. 
 
 Both B and Heywood write a small and almost illegible 
 hand, averaging six lines to the inch in continuous speech 
 and five lines in distributed speeches ; their lines are fairly 
 straight; the loops of the letters on one line are kept 
 from being entangled in the letters of the lines below and 
 above; the slant of the letters seems to be about the same; 
 the individual letters bear only a slight resemblance to the 
 ideal or correct forms (as these would appear in a guide 
 to correct penmanship) ; the pen-pressure is identical in 
 
 [57] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moored' 
 
 both; their words are not linked to one another, though 
 occasionally they write two words as if they were one; 
 both are economical in the employment of flourishes and 
 ornamentation; the writing of both is cramped and 
 angular; both dot their i's scrupulously; both separate 
 their speeches from one another by a very short line 
 (half an inch) under the first word of the last line of 
 each speech; both indulge in frequent pen-lifts, i.e., both 
 have the habit of writing only a few letters with one 
 continuous pen-movement; both employ two varieties of 
 h, two varieties of /> (English and Roman), two kinds 
 of a (closed and open, the latter so much like a u that 
 Dr. Greg read "deales" [deals] "denies" [devil's]), e's 
 that look like o's (hence Dr. Greg read "dobble" [double] 
 "debble" [devil]), fs that look like st's, r's that 
 look like c's and v's; the pattern of the letters are 
 identical; in both, the h's, p's and ;ir's are often 
 indistinguishable (only the context enables one to say 
 what a particular letter is) ; both are exceedingly careless 
 about having or not having the correct number of minims 
 in their m's asd w's and even in their u's and a's ; in both 
 (as in Chettle) the i is linked to its dot so that it looks 
 like a d; both sometimes make an m instead of a w (hence 
 B writes "mmch" for "much" in Moore and "gime" for 
 "giue" in Jupiter) ; in both o often looks like an undotted 
 i (hence we find "dill" for "Doll" in Moore) ; in both ^ 
 often looks like st (hence "supp" in Moore looks like 
 "stupp") ; both at times run words together (hence we 
 find "am an" for "a man" in Moore, and "sheis" for "she 
 is" in Captives) ; both represent initial u-sound by a w ; in 
 
 [58] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 both a mesial v-sound is represented by a m ; and so forth.* 
 Cf. facsimiles nos. 17 and 18. 
 
 Dr. Greg's correct observation that there are [a few] 
 specific differences between B's and Heywood's hand- 
 writing calls for careful consideration, even though he 
 has not specified what these differences are. It is a matter 
 of universal experience that the handwriting of a person 
 who writes much — and we know that Heywood was a 
 prolific writer — undergoes considerable change as he 
 grows older ; sometimes only a few years or even only a 
 change in circumstances suffice to bring about recogniz- 
 able and significant changes in a penman's calligraphy,' 
 as well as in his spelling, punctuation, habit's as to capital- 
 ization, employment of abbreviations and flourishes, etc. 
 But, notwithstanding these changes, there always remain 
 enough of his essential characteristics to enable the careful 
 investigator to establish his identity. 
 
 4 If the reader will take the trouble to familiarize himself 
 with the penmanship of B in the pages of Moore and of Hey- 
 wood in Jupiter and in Captives (fragments of which are re- 
 produced in English Literary Autographs, Plate XXII) — not 
 merely by looking at the facsimiles but by going over the writing 
 with a dry pen, — or, better still, by trying to imitate it — he will 
 not only see the similarities in form, but will recognize the 
 identities in slant, pen-pressure, pen-lifts, shading, etc., and thus 
 learn to recognize the peculiar rhythm characteristic of this 
 hand, leaving him not the slightest doubt that the penmanship 
 is identical and that B and Heywood were one. 
 
 5 It is largely by virtue of this phenomenon that Sir Edward 
 M. Thompson was enabled to conclude ("The Autograph Manu- 
 scripts of Anthony Mundy," Transactions of the Bibliographical 
 Society, London, 1919, xiv, 325-353) that the manuscript of 
 John-a-Kent was written two or three years before Sir Thomas 
 Moore. 
 
 [59] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 In the case before us this matter possesses great interest 
 even apart from its bearing on our immediate problem, 
 for it so happens that Heywood's penmanship shows, in 
 addition to increasing carelessness, deterioration, coarsen- 
 ing and illegibility, specific differences not only between 
 his contribution to Moore and his two other manuscripts 
 but equally pronounced specific differences between Jupiter 
 and Captives. That in the presence of a sufficient num- 
 ber of peculiar personal characteristics the occurrence 
 of a number of differences in two documents does not 
 preclude a common authorship is sufficiently borne out 
 by the fact that the petmianship of the manuscript of 
 The Escapes of Jupiter, written in all probability between 
 1611 and 1613 and presenting salient differences from the 
 calligraphic habits shown in the manuscript of The 
 Captives, written, there is reason to believe, in 1619 or 20, 
 is conceded to be that of Heywood. The specific differ- 
 ences between Moore and Jupiter are not much greater 
 and not more significant ttian the differences between 
 Jupiter and Captives, though the former couple are sepa- 
 rated by an interval of some twenty years and the latter 
 only by about eight years. 
 
 Moore, Jupiter, and Captives differ from one another 
 specifically in the following respects: (1) in the last 
 (C) almost every final n, m, and u (and sometimes even 
 a final e) has a shorter or longer horizontal dash over it; 
 in Jupiter (J) this is very rare; in Moore (M) it does 
 not occur at all; (2) in C the letter / is almost invariably 
 doubled initially, mesially and finally (hence deaff, off, 
 ffayre, for, offt) ; this is rarely so in J (except in the 
 word off [of]), and unknown in M; (3) J contains a 
 large sprinkling of minuscular Italian p's which occur 
 
 [60] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 nowhere in C or in M ; (4) double-M mesially is very com- 
 mon in C, less so in J and rare in M ;* (5) a mesial small 
 Italian c is very common in C.much less so in J and almost 
 unknown in M ; (6) in C the epsilon variety of e is very 
 common, less so in J and wholly wanting in M; (7) 
 Italian capital C's are of frequent occurrence in C, un- 
 known in M ; (8) f-shaped Italian ^'s occur in J, not in 
 M and C ; (9) in J and in C we find many Italian final ^'s 
 which do not occur in M; (10) in M the punctuation 
 marks are few and limited to periods (colons and commas 
 occur rarely) ; in J these punctuation marks^ are more 
 frequently employed and question marks are not uncom- 
 mon; (11) Heywood's characteristic old EngHsh capital 
 R, so common in M, does not occur in J or in C, except in 
 proper names;* (12) the left-shouldered r which occurs 
 very often in M, is rarely (if ever) employed in J and 
 in C, probably to avoid confusion with epsilon e; (13) 
 the perfectly good k which we find in M does not occur in 
 J or in C, being replaced by a modern-looking b; (14) in 
 J and in C we find the frequent employment of a spurred 
 
 6 On fol. 16b of Moore we find "hannde;" Greg (5". T. M., 
 p. 93, line 70) erroneously reads "hande." In M we also find 
 "doonne," "ennemyes.' 
 
 7 Here we also find a very small number of long commas 
 resembling a large caret lying on one of its sides (the apex 
 being to the right.) In Captives this "peculiar mark,'' as Dr. 
 Greg calls it, is very common; in Moore it occurs rarely as a 
 slightly elongated comma or as a virgule, e.g., in line S on 
 folio 16b (Greg, p. 93). 
 
 8 Heywood's growing habit of using capital letters freely prob- 
 ably also resulted from a desire to make his penmanship more 
 legible. 
 
 [61] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 b, spurred a, and spurred o,^ not one of which occurs in 
 M; (15) in Ma capital L occurs only as the initial of 
 names and titles, but in J and in C a capital L, resembling 
 a perpendicular cramped "2," is fairly common as the 
 initial of other words; in J we find L's whose shape is 
 intermediate between the L of M and of C; (16) we find 
 in J and in C a few instances of a small Italian y, initially 
 and mesially, which occurs not at all in M; (17) in M 
 hyphens do not occur between the components of such 
 compound words as bone fiers, wher too, smith felde, but 
 they do occur in C; (18) as he grew older Heywood 
 seems to have become increasingly addicted to the habit 
 of adding a final e to his words and to doubling certain 
 letters, especially the d, e, g, t, I, n, o, p and f, hence 
 we find him writing (in C) cann, canott, ragge, ytt, warr, 
 thee, mee, beesydes, perhapps, goodde, badd, jhoviall, etc., 
 but we find such absurd spellings even in J {e.g., preferr- 
 innge, fferfull, etc.) and also in M {homier, thatt, marsse, 
 vppon, ennemyes, etc.). 
 
 There are in B and in Heywood several significant 
 points of agreement as regards spelling, even though this 
 phenomenon is ordinarily a most unreliable guide in the 
 identification of a penman. These are the habits, mani- 
 fested in M, Ji and C, of almost invariably writing weare 
 for were, suer for sure, theare for there, heare for here, 
 aiu for av {e.g., gaiue, slaiue), of writing the first syll- 
 able of neglect and negligence with a c instead of a g, 
 and of spelling such words as bench, wench and French 
 
 9 The spurred letters were probably adopted by Heywood for 
 the purpose of enabling the printer to distinguish a 6 from an I 
 (in Moore all his 6's are l's), an a from a u and an o from an e, 
 i or u. Heywood, we know, was aware of the badness of his 
 penmanship. 
 
 [62] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 with sh instead of ch, a spelling not recorded in the 
 N. E. D. 
 
 Observant students of late sixteenth and early seven- 
 teenth century calligraphy had occasion to comment on 
 the interesting fact that fluent Elizabethan penmen, lay as 
 well as professional, often wrote two or even three 
 different hands.^" Study of the facsimiles published in 
 English Literary Autographs shows that Thomas Dekker 
 "wrote two, or really three, distinct hands" (Greg) ; that 
 Anthony Mundy "used two distinct styles of writing, an 
 ordinary English hand, and [a] rather rough Italian or 
 'pseudo-Italian' script" (Greg) ; that George Chapman 
 "wrote two wholly different hands, an English hand . . . 
 and an elegant Italian script" (Greg) ; that George Peek's 
 penmanship "differs greatly in style" in the only two 
 specimens of his handwriting extant ;ii that John Mars- 
 ton's Roman penmanship offers such variations that the 
 British Museum catalogue claims only a few lines on f ol. 
 5^ of MS. Royal i8A. xxx'x as being "apparently auto- 
 graph," whereas Dr. Greg considers fol. 2^ of that docu- 
 ment (a description of the pageant presented to James I. 
 and Christian IV. of Denmark) as also a Marston holo- 
 graph ; and that Thomas Nashe wrote two distinct hands, 
 as did also Ben Jonson and Jbhn Day. 
 
 10 It is because of this phenomenon that it is impossible to 
 say definitely that Shakspere could not have been the writer of 
 "the Addition'' in Sir Thomas Moore. All that can logically be 
 said is that at present the evidence from the handwriting is 
 overwhelmingly against the theory that folios 8^, S^, and 9^ of 
 Moore are a Shakspere holograph. 
 
 11 The surviving Peele documents are written in a large, 
 firm, clear, old Roman hand with only the slightest admixture of 
 old English letters — an extremely unfortunate circumstance for 
 our investigation of the identity of the writer of the Addition. 
 
 [63] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Novel or startling though the statement may sound, it is 
 a fact that Thomas Heywood, "the most lovable of the 
 Elizabethan dramatists" (Judson), whose name — like 
 John Day's — might almost be a fcy-word for atrocious pen- 
 manship, at times wrote a hand that might almost be de- 
 scribed as elegant. Thus, for example, the stage-direction 
 ("Enter Thomas Ashburne the younger brother to Jhon A 
 
 Merchant wth one of his factors: Fact: Gibson" )i2 
 
 at the head of Captives, V. 1, is written in a manner that 
 would delight any student delving into dramatic manu- 
 scripts of the period. Dr. Greg rightly infers that the 
 changed penmanship "illustrates the effect of a change of 
 pen (after the word 'Enter'), but he does not point out 
 that in this stage-direction {cf. facs. no. 18), written in 
 a mixture of Italian and old English letters, we have such 
 a capital T, capital A, small h, small y, small g, small /, 
 capital F, and capital G, as are not to be found in the 
 MS. text of either Jupiter or Captives. 
 
 12 Professor Judson (op. cit., p. 127) attributes the words 
 "Fact: Gibson" to "another hand" than Heywood's, though he 
 is apparently willing to assign the name "Thomas" (to the left 
 of the first speech in the scene), which is clearly in the same 
 handwriting, to the author of the play. In his introduction 
 (p. 11) Professor Judson remarks that the handwriting of the 
 marginal notes — including entrances, exits, stage-paraphernalia, 
 and the names of some of the actors — scattered throughout the 
 MS. is "different from [and later than] the rest" and makes the 
 interesting observation that the writer of the marginal additions, 
 whom he imagines to be some theatrical manager, consistently 
 writes "John" whereas throughout the text the word appears as 
 "Jhon." (It will be noted that in the above quoted stage- 
 direction the name is written "Jhon" and is not in the margin). 
 Dr. Greg (/. c), taking no cognizance of Professor Judson's 
 statement, says: "Certain directions have been added later, but 
 it would seem by the same hand." From what I have seen of 
 
 [64] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 It has been supposed,^^ from evidence in Henslowe's 
 Diary, that Heywood was possibly writing for and acting 
 in Lord Strange 's and the Admiral's Men from 1592 on- 
 wards, and the foregoing demonstration that he wrote 
 several pages of the manuscript of Moore might be re- 
 garded as proving the correctness of this supposition. 
 Considering his youth (he was only about twenty years 
 old at this time), it is not improbable that he began his 
 dramatic career as an actor,i* possibly with the Earl of 
 Worcester's Men. If Heywood really had a hand in the 
 revision of the Jew of Malta for its revival at court and 
 at the Cockpit Theatre,!^ as some suppose, it might be 
 regarded as an indication that this play was originally 
 written by Marlowe and Heywood, and that they must 
 at one time have been writing for the same company 
 (Lord Strange's).^* 
 
 Inasmuch as the specific dififerences in the handwriting 
 of Heywood in 1593, 1612, and 1620 may trouble one 
 who is not accustomed to examining handwriting speci- 
 mens carefully and scientifically and who may perhaps 
 
 photostats of the manuscript of The Captives I must express my 
 entire agreement with Dr. Greg. The additional stage-directions, 
 etc., in He)rwood's handwriting would seem to warrant the 
 inference that he was discharging managerial functions in the 
 company (Queen Anne's) for which he had written the play and 
 of which he had become a member after the dissolution of the 
 Earl of Worcester's Men in 1603. Cf. facs. no. 18*. 
 
 13 English Literary Autographs, XXII. 
 
 14 C/. E. K. Chambers, E. S., Ill, 338; II, 225. 
 
 15 Cf. "The Marlowe Canon," by Tucker Brooke, in Pub. Mod. 
 Lang. Ass'n, 1922, vol. 37, pp. 384-6. 
 
 16 The version of the play acted by Strange's Men in the winter 
 of 1591-2 may have been a revision. 
 
 [65] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 think that the presence of such variations is a barrier to 
 certainty in the identification of one person as the penman 
 of papers written at different periods, I shall quote here- 
 with what Mr. Osborn, one of the foremost authorities on 
 the examination of disputed documents, has to say on 
 this subject. In his Questioned Documents (pp. 20-22) 
 he says : "Writing of different individuals varies in differ- 
 ing degrees as written at different times and for different 
 purposes . . . Handwriting is individualized from the 
 very beginning of learning to write, but such development 
 becomes much more pronounced as soon as writing is 
 used to any considerable extent for practical purposes. 
 . . . Even after a writing becomes distinctly individual- 
 ised it will gradually change in numerous particulars, the 
 extent of the change depending upon the amount of 
 writing done, the occupation, habits and environment of 
 the writer. With one who writes but little and whose 
 surroundings continue the same, changes will be but 
 slowly developed, while the writing of one who writes 
 much will often show a gradual but constant evolution 
 in certain particulars." 
 
 How strikingly a person's handwriting may change in 
 the course of years and yet not alter its identity is nowhere 
 shown more convincingly than in the facsimiles of the 
 handwriting of Edward de Vere, seventeenth Earl of 
 Oxford, and of the poet Abraham Cowley, reproduced in 
 sections XXVII and XXVIII of English Literary Auto- 
 graphs. In the letter written by Oxford to Burghley in 
 1572 the writing is nearly vertical, the commas are fairly 
 large, the .j's and /'s lack grace, the writing is crowded, 
 the i-dots are almost directly above the i's, the p's are 
 stiffly made, the st- and ct- digraphs are provided with an 
 
 [66] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 overhead, horizontal, compound curve ; in the letter written 
 in 1594, on the contrary, the writing is neater, less 
 crowded, more slanting, much more graceful, the p's, /'s 
 and long j's are beautifully curved, the commas are very 
 small, the st- and ct- loops are wanting, the mesial c 
 {e.g., in "councell," 1. 8) is provided with the cedilla, the 
 i-dot is considerably to the left of the i, and double j 
 {e.g., in "redressed" 1.6) is written in the modern German 
 way (in 1572 Oxford wrote a long i- followed by a small 
 one), and so forth. But, notwithstanding these specific 
 differences, enough points of identity remain to make it 
 impossible to doubt that one person wrote both these 
 letters. 
 
 Even more striking are the specific differences in the 
 penmanship of the letters written by Cowley in 1649 and 
 in 1663. Very striking differences are also shown in the 
 handwriting of Michael Drayton's receipts written in 1599 
 and a presentation inscription written in 1627. And I 
 have no doubt that the beautifully written manuscript of 
 Day's Peregrinatio Scholastica {MS. Sloane 3150) and 
 The Parliament of Bees {MS. Lansd. 725) are in the 
 same handwriting as the poorly written Return from 
 Parnassus {Bodl. MS. Rawl. D 398) and the wretchedly 
 scrawled receipt which John Day gave Henslowe on 
 June 4 (?), 1601 {Dulwich MS. I, art. 35"). And how 
 different Robert Wilson's receipt of June 2, 1598, looks 
 from that of November 8, 1599 ! 
 
 Notwithstanding the paucity of material at his disposal 
 — a brief postscript in a letter to Philip Henslowe — Sir 
 George Warner was able to identify, correctly, the hand- 
 writing of the manuscript play Believe as You List 
 
 [67] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 (B. M., MS. Egerton 2828) as that of Philip Massinger. 
 He did this even though his standard of comparison — 
 the aforesaid postscript — contains not a single instance of 
 certain letters, e.g., the twin-stemmed r, the old English 
 g, the old English p, etc., which are almost the rule in 
 the play. The penmanship of the presentation inscription 
 in a copy of The Duke of Milan (1623) offers numerous 
 striking divergences from that of the postscript and of 
 the play and yet there can be no doubt that it is a genuine 
 Massinger autograph. In view of these facts and because 
 of the many points of essential identity between these 
 three documents and the manuscript comedy scene found 
 in Beaumont and Fletcher's play The Faithful Friends 
 {Victoria and Albert Museum, D. 25, F. 10), I have not 
 the slightest hesitation in saying that this scene (IV. 5) 
 was written by Massinger and is in his handwriting. If 
 Massinger's handwriting could undergo such striking 
 modifications in the course of years there surely is no 
 reason why Hey wood's should have remained unchanged. 
 
 [68] 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 D's ( ? Shakspere's) Hand in the Play 
 
 D's contribution,three folio pages in his own handwriting, 
 has been studied so thoroughly and from so many view- 
 points that very little more remains to be said concerning 
 it. Whether he was or was not Shakspere will probably 
 be settled only on the discovery of a handwriting of some 
 other poet or dramatist of the period which shall cor- 
 respond with this so closely as to constitute an identifica- 
 tion, or on the discovery of an unquestioned specimen of 
 Shakspere's handwriting, other than a mere signature, 
 written about 1590. On the basis of Shakspere's extant 
 seven autographs the test of handwriting is at present 
 overwhelmingly against the assumption that he wrote 
 those three pages. ^ 
 
 To some scholars an early date for this play and this 
 scene (II. 4, 1-172) is fatal to the Shaksperian attribution; 
 whereas to others a late date (1598-1608) is the fatal 
 obstacle. Professor Thorndike, on the other hand, is of 
 the opinion that if Shakspere was the much-discussed 
 reviser he could have written these lines at any time 
 
 1 Cf. my essay, "Shakspere's Unquestioned Autographs and 
 'the Addition' to Sir Thomas Moore," in Studies in Philology, 
 April 1925, 22 : 133-60, or Chapter X of my book, Problems in 
 Shakspere's Penmanship. If these three pages are Shakspere's he 
 must have acquired not only a new calligraphic alphabet but 
 also new writing habits between 1593 and 1603 (the earliest 
 possible date for his signature in his copy of Montaigne's 
 Essays), — which is improbable almost to the degree of impos- 
 sibility. 
 
 [69] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 during his career, but that, as a matter of fact, this scene 
 was not beyond the powers of any one of several of 
 Shakspere's contemporaries, e.g., Marlowe. 
 
 The essential and specific differences between Shak- 
 spere's acknowledged autographs and the three pages in 
 Moore are not of a nature to prove that he could not pos- 
 sibly have been the author and the writer of the revision 
 in the insurrection scene, inasmuch as we know that the 
 handwriting of fluent Elizabethan penmen often offered 
 specific differences in different documents and some- 
 times even in the same document. As a matter of fact, 
 D's handwriting on folio 9 differs strikingly in certain 
 respects from that on folio 8, but not enough to justify an 
 opinion that these two pages do not emanate from the 
 same hand. These differences have been so well described 
 by Thompson^ that we cannot do better than to quote him. 
 He says: "there is a marked distinction between the 
 handwriting of the first two pages [ff. 8* and 8''] of the 
 Addition and that of the third page [fo. 9*] ; the text 
 of the former is evidently written with speed, the rapid 
 action of the hand being indicated, for example, by the 
 unusual length of the long-shafted descending letters [old 
 English s, f, p] and by a certain dash in the formation of 
 others [old English h, S, W, E, y] . These signs of speed 
 generally slacken in the course of the second page in which 
 a more deliberate and heavier style supervenes — a change 
 which seems to be coincident with the change in the char- 
 acter of the composition — the change from the noisy 
 tumult of the insurgents to the intervention of More with 
 his persuasive speeches requiring greater thought and 
 
 2 Shakespeare's Hand, pp. 68-9. 
 170] 
 
5? 
 
 
 
 '^ . I p ^ !*« %? ^/:> 
 
 
 ;^ Li h 
 
 '-.M??-L"'^W< 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 I ■■> . 
 
 
 
 ^<«p. 
 
 '\- 
 
 i 
 
 r 
 
 ^ 
 
^s^, Lf.wi'^^ 
 
 ^4:^^ .(.y^^ *(^^ 
 
 M 
 
 '^ ,-*t^A.« 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 i 
 
 Xo. 11 — Fragment of margin of 
 fol. 8a of iMoorc. 
 
 
 ^'>" ^y^ ,*^A 
 
 Xo. 12 — Fragment of margin of 
 fol. 8a of .l/oori'. 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 choice of language.' The full effect of this change in 
 the style of the composition is made manifest in the yet 
 more deliberate character of the writing of the third page 
 [fol. 9^]. Here there is a stronger contrast between the 
 light and [the] heavy strokes than is the case generally 
 in the first two pages, and long-shafted letters give place 
 [to some extent] to others which are stoutly-shafted and 
 even truncated. Of these two styles of writing, it may be 
 assumed that the more deliberate style would represent 
 the characteristic hand of the writer, "^ being the style in 
 which he would set down his more thoughtful scenes. 
 There would be temporary pauses in the course of com- 
 position and corresponding suspensions of the pen and 
 consequent loss in the momentum of the writing. In 
 scenes of a lighter nature, on the other hand, he might 
 be expected to compose so easily as to inscribe line after 
 line, with little variety, in the ordinary scrivener's clerical 
 style.." 
 
 The specific differences between folios 8 and 9 can be 
 much more simply and probably accounted for by the 
 assumption that they were written at different times. 
 
 8 In my judgment folio Sb, written almost wholly in splendid 
 verse and in language that is much more vivid and figurative 
 than folio 9a (and almost wholly free from corrections and alter- 
 ations), is written with no less speed and dash than folio 8* 
 (almost wholly in prose). On both pages the writing gets more 
 crowded towards the bottom of the page and there the descenders 
 become shorter as the writer becomes increasingly more con- 
 scious of his spatial limitations. — S. A. T. 
 
 * Not so ; when one writes slowly and deliberately one is much 
 more likely to revert to the conventional, orthodox patterns 
 which he was taught during childhood ; it is only when one writes 
 rapidly that one introduces his own peculiar formations and 
 linkings.— S. A. T. 
 
 [71] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 If this is the hand of Shakspere it is deserving of the 
 most critical attention, for it may yield us data for the 
 explanation of Corruptions in the text of his works and 
 for the emendation of these corruptions, besides acquaint- 
 ing us with his mode of work. 
 
 In studying this hand in comparison with Shakspere's 
 seven genuine autographs,^ his signatures and the words 
 "By me," we must not forget that at least ten years inter- 
 vened between the writing of Moore and the earliest of 
 Shakspere's extant signatures (in the British Museum's 
 copy of Montaigne's Essays). 
 
 If D and Shakspere were one we have proof here that 
 the master dramatist was a member of Strange's Men as 
 early as the spring of 1593 and that as the company's 
 poet he was occasionally employed in revising other men's 
 work. 
 
 Dr. Greg has started the theory (which is fairly gen- 
 erally accepted) that D was a careless contributor who 
 showed no respect for and perhaps had no knowledge of 
 the play on which he was at work. In the words of Sir 
 Edward Thompson: "In a haphazard fashion he dis- 
 tributes speeches and exclamations among the insurgents, 
 and sometimes he merely attaches the word 'other,' instead 
 of the actual name of a character to a speech, leaving it 
 to the reviser to put things straight." That in this view 
 the available evidence has been all amiss interpreted seems 
 to me fairly clear from the following considerations : D 
 employs the designation "other" only at the beginning of 
 the scene, where it clearly does not matter who the speaker 
 
 5 Cf. my essay, "Reclaiming one of Shakspere's Signatures," 
 in Studies in Philology, July 1925, or Chapter IX of my book, 
 Problems in Shakspere's Penmanship, N. Y., 1927. 
 
 [72] 
 
u 
 
 o 
 
 
 \ 
 
 '& 
 
 F4i 'I i'i'^ 
 
 'iM' 
 
 
 «v:J > 
 
 15^^ 
 
 
 
 >/N/ Oy .jV)'^ Aaa* -T,'*^ ^-T^' 
 
 "jwr "/y > «>«/it> »«*»?^ -f*^r^ Aa'wtA ,,n^-r^ -c.^'' 
 
 
 >i 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 is; the two speeches (11. 10-11, 30) assigned to Williamson 
 by C (Kyd) could just as well have been given to anyone 
 else in the crowd, for there is nothing distinctive about 
 them ; when C and D discussed the revision of the scene 
 the matter of the identity of the individuals constituting 
 the mob may have been left to some extent in the air; 
 C probably decided to omit Sherwin from the scene, for- 
 getting that he is addressed by name in 1. 183 of the 
 original ending, after D had completed the work he had 
 been requested to do ; the repetition of the designation 
 "all" in the left margin of 1. 142 was such a slip of the 
 pen as may be made by anyone; "moor," the speaker's 
 name in the margin of 1. 90 ("Lett me sett vp" etc.) is, 
 though Dr. Greg thinks not so, in D's handwriting. (It 
 may be noted here that C almost always writes the name 
 "Moore,' whereas D always writes it "Moor"). We must 
 not overlook, in this connection, the fact that the stage- 
 direction: "Enter Lincoln. Doll. Clown. George Betts 
 Williamson others and a Sergaunt at Armes," which should 
 have headed fol. 8*, is near the bottom of fol. 7^ and 
 was probably not seen by D. From the fact that C's 
 scene (II 3) on fol. 7^ terminates a little before the 
 bottom of the page, I think it reasonable to infer that C 
 wrote this scene and this stage-direction after D had re- 
 vised the insurrection scene (II 4). And, considering 
 the matter rightly, designating successive speakers in a 
 crowd as "other," "oth" or "o," is to show them no more 
 disrespect or to be less artistically conscientious than 
 designating the Fairies in A Midsummer Night's Dream 
 or the Citizens in Julius Caesar as "1," "2," "3" and "4." 
 D was not the hasty, careless and indifferent reviser the 
 commentators have too readily labelled him. 
 
 [73] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moored' 
 
 That D was called in to revise the insurrection scene in 
 the hope of saving Moore from going into the waste 
 basket, is fairly inferable from the absence of any trace 
 of his presence in any part of the original version of the 
 play. It is difficult to believe that this would have been 
 done by the company for which the play was written and 
 to which the authors of the original version belonged. 
 We are driven, therefore, to the assumption of a theory, 
 similar (in several respects) to that espoused by Mr. Oli- 
 phant in 1919 {op. cit., p. 233), to wit: that the play was 
 written for one company and subsequently sold to another. 
 Mr. Oliphant, assuming that the play was written in 
 1598 or 9, thought that it originally belonged to the 
 Admiral's Men, did not appeal to the business instincts 
 of Henslowe and was sold to the King's (the Lord 
 Chamberlain's) Men, after Shakspere (D) had altered 
 II 4.* In view of the facts now at our disposal, I would 
 say that the play was originally written by Mundy, 
 Heywood and Chettle, either for the Admiral's or for 
 Worcester's Men, and that on it's being returned un- 
 licensed (or even before its rejection by Tyllney) it was 
 sold to Strange's Men, whose poets (Kyd, Dekker and D) 
 immediately set about revising it. Their labors were 
 hardly begun, however, when Thomas Kyd was arrested 
 on the grave charge of seditious libel. 
 
 The bibliographic arguments advanced by Dr. Greg 
 and Professor Wilson, in Shakespeare's Hand in Sir 
 Thomas Moore, to prove these three folios a Shakspere 
 
 6 By an unfortunate printer's error — the omission of a line — 
 Mr. Oliphant was made to say that the play was sold after 
 Shakspere had made the revision, — the very opposite of what he 
 had written, as appears from what he says on page 230. 
 
 [74] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 holograph do not seem to me to bring us even a single 
 step nearer a solution of the problem. Professor R. W. 
 Chambers' arguments in his illuminating essay in the same 
 book (pp. 142-187), seems to be completely counter- 
 balanced by Professor L. L. Schiicking's keenly analytical 
 essay, "Shakspeare and Sir Thomas More," in the Review 
 of English Studies (January 1925, vol. 1, pp. 40-59). In 
 connection with this nice and important problem the stu- 
 dent will do well to read what Professor J. Q. Adams 
 has to say concerning it in his book, A Life of William 
 Shakespeare, 2d edition, 1925, pp. 497-501. 
 
 It may possibly be objected to the theory advanced in 
 the previous paragraph that about this time the Admiral's 
 and Strange's Men were so closely amalgamated that the 
 sale from one of these companies to the other would not 
 be likely, especially in view of the fact that the prevalence 
 of the plague temporarily put most of the theatrical com- 
 panies out of business. If the play was originally written 
 for Worcester's Men, as is not impossible, part of this 
 objection at once falls to the ground. How closely the 
 Admiral's and Strange's companies were connected we 
 have no means of knowing. They may have travelled and 
 acted together occasionally without having the same 
 repertoire. There is, for example, no record' of Strange's 
 Men ever having played either Tamburlaine or The 
 Wounds of Civil War, printed as Admiral's plays in 
 1590 and 1594 respectively. And, furthermore, the plague 
 caused only a temporary suspension of theatrical activi- 
 ties, the theatres being reopened as soon as the death-rate 
 from all causes fell below fifty per week. 
 
 That D, whoever he was, made his contribution very 
 
 y Cf. E. K. Chambers. E. S., II. 120, 139. 
 [75] 
 
"The Books of Sir Thomas Moored' 
 
 shortly after the play was written and in all probability 
 before May 12, 1593, follows from the following con- 
 siderations : line 136, which he left unfinished, was com- 
 pleted by Kyd by the insertion of the words, "Tell me 
 but this," and his three pages contain not only a stage- 
 direction, but the catch-names of several of the characters 
 speaking, in Kyd's handwriting. 
 
 The application of the so-called "Sievers test" to this 
 puzzling problem can hardly be taken seriously, especially 
 in view of the fact that Mr. Green's verse tests* {op. cit., 
 p. 261) put the revised insurrection scene abreast of // 
 Henry VI, IV, 2, — exactly where it belongs if Shakspere 
 wrote it and the Jack Cade scenes.' Two other essays on 
 the Moore problem deserving of attention are Mr. G. B. 
 
 8 Cf. "The Apocryphal Sir Thomas More and the Shakespeare 
 Holograph," by Alexander Green, in The American Jo. of 
 Philology, July, 1918, pp. 263-6. 
 
 9 In Palaestra (No. 148, 1925, pp. 173-210) Professor Sievers, 
 in a supplement to an essay of his on Shakspere's share in King 
 Lear, discusses Moore from the point of view of his rhythmic- 
 melodic test and concludes that the Addition (I) was not written 
 by Shakspere, (2) is not even the work of a poet writing in the 
 heat of composition, (3) but is the work of a scribe trying to 
 transfer to paper somebody else's work which he had committed 
 to memory. That little value can be attached to this conclusion 
 must be evident to one who notes that Professor Sievers' knowl- 
 edge of Elizabethan English and Elizabethan scribal customs is 
 such as to permit him to attribute to the writer of the Addition 
 the "un-Shaksperian" word "mattery," ("written mafie" [should 
 be maUe] "and matte") for "matter" in 11. 196, 224 and 244. 
 Need I say that "matie" is D's abbreviation for "majesty" and 
 that the word "'mattery'' as a substantive does not occur in the 
 English language and does not fit the context? 
 
 [76] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Harrison's "The Date of Sir Thomas More" {Review of 
 English Studies, July, 1925, 1 : 337-9) and Professor A. 
 W. Pollard's "Verse Tests and the Date of Sir Thomas 
 Moore" (in the same journal, October, 1925, 1:441-3). i° 
 Careful comparison of the penmanship of folios 8 and 
 9 with the handwritings of the dramatists writing between 
 1550 and 1650, as these are depicted in Dr. Greg's English 
 Literary Autographs, leaves no room for doubt that the 
 revised insurrection scene was not written by any one 
 of these. To some, no doubt, this will be an additional 
 argument for crediting Shakspere with it, even though 
 no specimen of the handwriting of Marlowe, Beaumont, 
 Shirley, Webster, Ford, Greene, Fletcher, and of several 
 others of his contemporaries, has survived. But, of course, 
 with the exception of Marlowe, not one of the men just 
 named can come in question. It is necessary to point out, 
 however, that there were four contemporary dramatists 
 — George Peele, John Marston, Thomas Lodge, Samuel 
 Daniel — who might not impossibly have written the 
 Addition and who, because their handwritings have sur- 
 
 10 Other discussions df this subject worthy of perusal are the 
 following: The Shakespeare Apocrypha, by Professor C. F. T. 
 Brooke, Introduction, pp. xlviii-liv ; A. H. Tolman's Fatstaff and 
 other Shakespearean Topics, N. Y., 1925, pp. 26-33; "Shakes- 
 pearian elisions in 'Sir Thomas Moore,'" by J. D. Wilson, in 
 London Times L. S., Sept. 25, 1924; letter by A. D. Wilde in 
 Times L. S., May 22, 1919; "The Play of 'Sir Thomas Moore,'" 
 by Longworth Chambrun, Times L. S., December 20, 1923; Mr. 
 Alexander Green's' scholarly and closely argued essay; and Dr. 
 B. A. P. Van Dam's The Text of Shakespeare's Hamlet, 1924, 
 pp. 369-371 (though he is utterly wrong in saying that "it is 
 obvious that the three pages mttst have been written by a 
 scribe"). 
 
 [77] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 vived only in the modern Roman script, cannot be posi- 
 tively ruled out on calligraphic grounds." 
 
 "A letter of John Marston's is said to be extant and in 
 private hands, but I have seen no facsimile of it and do not know 
 whether it is written in old English script. Robert Greene died 
 in September 1S92, before Moore was written. The old English 
 dedication to Lady Arundel prefixed to a manuscript of Lodge's 
 medical treatise, The Poor Man's Talent, is probably the work 
 of a professional scrivener and can be readily differentiated 
 from the hands in Sir Thomas Moore. — Dr. Greg makes no 
 reference in English Literary Autographs to the existence, in 
 1866, in the hands of "a private collector in London," of a short 
 document (nine lines in Latin, written in the Roman script, and 
 an ornate signature) purporting to be in Robert Greene's hand. 
 It is facsimiled in Professor Nikolai Storojenko's Life of Robert 
 Greene, edited by Dr. Grosart. — I am indebted to Dr. A. S. W. 
 Rosenbach for information that The Huntington Library and 
 Art Gallery has recently acquired what is probably the only 
 extant John Fletcher autograph. It is a small folio sheet bearing 
 the transcription (in an old English hand) of an unpublished 
 poem over the signature of the poet; on the back of the sheet 
 Fletcher wrote the address of the lady to whom he was sending 
 the poem. 
 
 [78] 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 When Was the Play Revised? 
 
 An interesting question that has caused considerable 
 discussion is whether the revisions in Moore were made 
 before or after the Master of the Revels had ordered the 
 insurrection scene (II 4) and "ye Cause ther off" (i.e., 
 
 I 1, 1 3, II 2, II 3) to be omitted. Mr. Oliphant {op. cit.. 
 p. 227), following Greg, was of the opinion that the 
 alterations or "additions" by A, B, D and E, — C being 
 regarded merely as a scribe, — were made before the play 
 was submitted to the Censor, "inasmuch as Shakspere's 
 [i.e., D's] alteration of the insurrection scene would never 
 have been undertaken after Sir Edmund Tyllney's definite 
 injunction to omit the scene, and because also it must 
 have been recognized that his demands could not possibly 
 be met without the entire ruin of the play." 
 
 That this view of the matter, plausible as it sounds, 
 is incorrect, seems to me clear from the following con- 
 siderations. Had Tyllney read folios 8 and 9 (the pages 
 in D's handwriting) he would without a doubt have de- 
 manded the excision of the references to "straingers" in 
 11. 7, 32, 89, 141 and 161. And it seems improbable that 
 a play containing two versions of several scenes or parts 
 of scenes and speeches (e.g., part of IV 5) which do not 
 fit into the rest of the play would have been submitted 
 for censorship. The fact that the original version of 
 
 II 2 by Mundy was deleted by Tyllney, whereas the re- 
 vised version (folio 7*) by Hey wood bears not the slight- 
 est trace of the Censor's minatory pen, though the scene 
 
 [79] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 is rich in objectionable matter, is fairly good proof that 
 this scene was not part of the manuscript originally sub- 
 mitted to Tyllney. In this scene the author speaks of the 
 audacious "strangers" (in 11. 2, 26, 47, 52) although in 
 the earlier pages Tyllney has repeatedly objected to this 
 word or its equivalent and substituted "Lombards" for it ; 
 Tyllney is, in fact, flagrantly defied in lines 57 and 75-6 
 by the nomination of the Dutch and the French^ as the 
 objectionable aliens whose houses were to be fired in re- 
 taliation for their "inforced wrongs." And it seems fair 
 to infer that if the matter (II 2) on folio 7* (the revision 
 we have just been considering) was written after the 
 manuscript was submitted to the Censor, the matter (II 3) 
 on the back of this page {i.e., 7*", in the handwriting of 
 Kyd), a new and rather good scene which was clearly 
 not the work of Mundy, was also written then. All in all, 
 the indications are that two of the revisers, Kyd and D, 
 and only they, took the Censor's objections seriously and 
 tried, no matter what their feelings in the matter might 
 have been, to rewrite the great scene in the play so diplo- 
 matically, i.e., by putting the citizens in the wrong, as to 
 overcome his objections. 
 
 When the revised and new matter in the handwritings 
 of Chettle, Heywood, Kyd and Dekker, was added to 
 the play will be discussed later. For the present it is 
 sufficient to say that Dr. Greg is probably right^ in think- 
 ing that "the bulk of additional matter, the Erasmus- 
 
 1 That this play was written in 1593, the very year in which 
 the Londoners were protesting against the presence in their city 
 of a large number of Frenchmen and Dutchmen, will appear 
 later. 
 
 2 The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore, 1911, p. xv. 
 
 [80] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Faukner scene with its adjuncts and the last player-scene, 
 as also the 'More in melancholy' passage (IV. 5, 68flE.), 
 owes its existence "solely to dramatic considerations:" 
 but there can be little doubt that some of these additional 
 'scenes' were added for the purpose of compensating the 
 audience for some of the matter the cooperative authors 
 knew would have to be deleted in deference to the 
 Censor's orders. Why the revised and emended play was 
 not submitted to Tyllney, why "no attempt [was] made 
 to sew the loose ends into decent continuity" (Greg), 
 and why it was never performed, though it was cast, are 
 interesting questions which we shall answer later on. 
 
 [81] 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 Chettle's Contribution to the Play 
 
 In attempting to determine whether Chettle contributed 
 more to this play than the one page (fo. 6^) of revisional 
 but original composition^ that has come down in his hand- 
 writing we have nothing to guide us but a feeling for his 
 style and a recognition of the presence or the absence of 
 linguistic, stylistic, and metrical peculiarities that we 
 associate with his work. His insertion "has not been 
 properly fitted into its context" (Greg), he omits Catesby's 
 only speech (11. 89-90) in the scene, eliminates the men- 
 tion of Gough, thus doing away with two actors, and 
 addresses a silent servant as "faithful Steward." 
 
 There is enough of his work in this scene to enable us 
 to say that as an artist he is, notwithstanding his youth, 
 in every way superior to Mundy; his verse has dignity, 
 his characters are creatures of flesh and blood, he knows 
 how to move us genuinely to sympathise with his hero, 
 he consistently makes More address his wife and his 
 servant as "thou" and she him as "you," and he uses 
 "you" as both nominative and accusative plural, using 
 "ye" (only once) in the plural and accusatively. His verse 
 is almost painfully regular ; he is very sparing in feminine 
 verses (there are only five in seventy-one lines, all being 
 curable by elision), carefully avoids the occurrence of 
 anapests, and employs rhyming couplets quite freely 
 
 1 Cf. Brooke's Appendix to Sir Thomas More, pp. 419-20, 
 "Later draft of IV. v, 68 ff." in his Shakespeare Apocrypha. 
 
 [82] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 within and at the end of his speeches (especially in sen- 
 tentious utterances). 
 
 That the original version of this part of the scene was 
 by Mundy is clearly evident from the way ""thou," "you" 
 and "ye" are used in 11. 85-8 ("deare Gough, thou art my 
 learned Secretarie,/ you Mr Catesbie Steward of my 
 house,/ the rest (like you) haue had fayre time to growe/ 
 But I must tell ye,"). 
 
 After a careful study of the play I think we are war- 
 ranted in accepting Dr. Greg's conclusion that it is 
 "unlikely" that "A" (our Chettle) wrote more "than the 
 single passage [ ? page] preserved in his own hand." 
 
 From the fact that Chettle's revision was not tran- 
 scribed by Mundy when he fair-copied the play, that it 
 is not properly fitted into its place, that it omits two 
 characters called-for in the original ( Mundy 's) version 
 of the scene, and that it is a manifest improvement on 
 Mundy's treatment of this pathetic domestic scene, one 
 is almost compelled to conclude that Chettle's revision was 
 prompted largely by artistic considerations and partly, 
 perhaps, by the necessity of eliminating two actors from 
 the scene who might be needed for other parts in the 
 fifth act. He probably did this while the play was being 
 read by Tyllney, not after it had been returned unallowed. 
 It seems highly improbable that such an impecunious 
 individual as Chettle seems always to have been would 
 have wasted his time in revising a scene in a play after 
 he knew it had been refused a license. 
 
 That Chettle's revision of matter originally occurring 
 on folio 19* (IV. 5, 59fif.) was wholly voluntary and 
 not prompted by a desire to meet the Censor's wishes is 
 proved by two considerations : ( 1 ) there is nothing that 
 
 [83] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Tyllney could have objected to in Mundy's original version 
 of the scene; (2) the deletion of folio 19* was done by 
 himself, not by Tyllney, and after the manuscript's return, 
 as is fairly evident from the fact that the deletory marks 
 on folio 19» (by Mundy) and on folio 6'> (by Chettle), 
 a kind of triangle through the left edge of the text, are 
 not like Tyllney's deletory marks.^ 
 
 2 Writers differ among themselves in the matter of deletory 
 marks as they do about other matters. 
 
 [84] 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 Heywood's Contribution to the Play 
 
 Heywood's relationship to this play presents much more 
 important and difficult problems than Chettle's. In his 
 handwriting we have folio 7* (a revised version of II 2, 
 the original version of which was probably the work of 
 Mundy — note his use of thou, ye and youl — and which 
 Tyllney^ very properly and emphatically marked for 
 deletion), folio 16^ (IV. 1, 310-61), ten lines on folio 
 16'' (IV. 1, 362-67 and III. 3, 1-5), as well as some mar- 
 ginal additions, consisting of one or more speeches, on 
 folios lO (II. 4, 209-210), 10" (III. 1, 44), 11^ (III. 1, 
 74-5 and 86-93), and possibly the almost wholly illegible 
 memorandum ("this must be newe written")^ on folio 
 ll'' opposite the beginning of the heavily deleted scene 
 (III. 2) which my tests assign to Mundy. It is note- 
 worthy that Heywood adds not a word to the scenes 
 written by Chettle, Kyd, D, or Dekker, that, in other 
 words, his corrections, suggestions and additions are 
 confined to matter in the autograph of Mundy, — a cir- 
 
 1 It is at least curious that Dr. Greg tells his readers only that 
 this scene (fol. Sb, 11. 412-52) was "marked for omission" and 
 gives no hint of the obvious fact that it was Tyllney who ordered 
 the scene struck out and that the revised version — which omits 
 not a single word of the objectionable matter! — is free from 
 Tyllney's strictures. And yet these facts seem, to prove that the 
 revision of this scene was done after the manuscript had been 
 submitted to the Censor. 
 
 2 This might have been written by Tyllney — or even by Dek- 
 fcer. 
 
 [85] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moor^' 
 
 cumstance tending to show that the revisions and additions 
 might have been made at the suggestion or order of Hey- 
 wood who, in that case, would have to be regarded as 
 having held an important post in the company for which 
 the play was written. That, notwithstanding this, Hey- 
 wood was not thoroughly familiar with the play and was 
 working in great haste would seem to be indicated by 
 his making Doll Wilkinson (II. 2, 5) the wife of John 
 Lincoln, by not allowing time for the banquet in III 3, 
 by not connecting this scene smoothly with the scene 
 (IV 1) which follows it, and by addressing a messenger 
 (at III. 3, 19) as "Good gentlemen." 
 
 Inasmuch as we cannot think it possible that Heywood 
 would have dared to run counter to Tyllney, we must 
 assume that this revision of II 2 (Mundy's folio S**), as 
 we have it on folio 7*, with its (politically) objectionable 
 matter and without Tyllney's warning marks or com- 
 ments, must have been written while the play was in the 
 Censor's hands.^ The reason for the revision was in all 
 probability only a desire to increase the comedy element 
 in the play by the addition of speeches for the clown. 
 
 He very likely contributed more to the revised version 
 of the play than has come down to us in his autograph : 
 on folio 16'* we see him struggling with the composition 
 of the opening lines of III 3 which we find copied in 
 their final form by Kyd into their proper context in the 
 margin of folio 14*. It is more than merely reasonable, 
 therefore, to regard the whole of III 3 as his com- 
 
 3 The large heavy X in the left margin of fol. S^ corresponds 
 to the similar X in the right margin of 7* and is probably the 
 work of Heywood. 
 
 [86] 
 
H 
 
 
 -<-< 
 
 u 
 
 ;' ^- 'C 
 
 
 ■^. 
 
 i^ 
 
 H. 
 
 1 i 
 
 ^: 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 f- 
 
 
 
 ^''l/^i 
 
 C 
 
 \ 
 
 N 
 

 Ik 
 
 k 
 
 ?4 
 
 '^ 
 
 ?! ^;: Xt.?- '^ 
 
 M 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13 ^^H^ 
 
 1 
 
 ■4 
 
 >4 
 
 !.e^ 
 
 1 
 
 ^-3 
 
 ,1 1 f- K 
 
 N 1 Vi\ 
 
 f{ 
 
 v.. 
 
 ■^J be 
 
 i I 
 
 1J OJ 
 
 o o 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ^ 7-' 
 
 C^i 
 
 n^^'-|C:K|^ 
 
 o o 
 
 H H 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 position even though part of it (11. 6-22) is not in his 
 handwriting. 
 
 On the other hand, it is fairly certain that Heywood 
 was not the author of everything that has survived in 
 his autograph. His revised version of II 2 (folio 7*) is 
 original with him only as to 11. 1-16 (two speeches for 
 the Clown and one for George), 20-22, 35-37, 50-51, and 
 56-59, 72-77, and 84-5, — all speeches for the Clown. As 
 for the rest, he copies Mundy's lines from folio 5'' almost 
 exactly, not infrequently even his spelling, making in- 
 significant alterations of single words* here and there and 
 ruthlessly throwing to the winds Mundy's rather careful 
 punctuation, elisions and stage-directions, but retaining 
 Mundy's characteristic "ye" in all instances but one 
 (1. 77). What proves him not to have been the author of 
 the original version of this scene is not only his assigning 
 two speeches to Lincoln which properly belonged to 
 Williamson (11. 59-65) and to George (11. 69-71) and his 
 not knowing that the name of the Clown's brother was 
 George, but that; because of difficulty in reading Mundy's 
 crabbed handwriting, he makes George say "let's stjmd 
 vppon o'' swerds" instead of "Lets stand vppon our 
 Guarde," though the phrase "to stand upon one's sword" 
 is not idiomatic English and though he must have known 
 that mere citizens did not carry swords. 
 
 Heywood, it will be noted, has confined his own activi- 
 ties to writing additional lines (310-67) for VI 1, the 
 whole of the short scene that is now III 3, and a number 
 
 4 The verbal differences between the two versions may not be 
 due to the copyist ; he may have been transcribing from Mundy's 
 original version of the scene instead of from his fair copy. 
 
 [87] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 of speeches for the Clown in three other scenes, III 1, 
 II 4,' and especially in II 2. The point is of interest in 
 view of the fact that there is no Elizabethan dramatist 
 of whom "Clowns" (so named) are more characteristic 
 than of Heywood. It follows, therefore, that Dr. Greg 
 is prejudicing the case against Tom Heywood (op. cit. p. 
 xviii) in questioning whether any one but the author of 
 II 2 "would have troubled to make the revision . . . for 
 the sake of the trifling alteration introduced." Heywood 
 evidently did not consider the insertion of speeches for 
 the Qown in scenes in which he otherwise had no exist- 
 ence a trifling alteration. Whether he contributed any- 
 thing to other scenes it is impossible to say. That his 
 additions (Clown speeches) to Mundy's pages were 
 written prior to the manuscript's trip to Tyllney is not 
 impossible. 
 
 5 Dr. Greg could make no sense of 1.210 in this spene, Hey- 
 wood's line for the Clown, which clearly reads — as Oliphant saw 
 even without consulting the manuscript — "eles a deales dobble 
 honnestlye," i.e., else he (More) deals double honestly. 
 
 [88] 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 Kyd's Contribution to the Play 
 
 Kyd's connection with the play presents many more 
 points of interest than could have been hitherto sus- 
 pected. It may be said that his identification is the key 
 which opens the doors to almost all the problems con- 
 nected with this much discussed drama. Till now the 
 general assumption has been that inasmuch as the matter 
 in Kyd's (C's) handwriting comprises numerous stage- 
 directions scattered throughout the manuscript, a tran- 
 script of a rough draft by B (Heywood), the addition 
 of speakers' names to speeches written by B, the fair 
 transcript of matter written by others (in copying which 
 he often makes errors), as well as evidences of his edi- 
 torial work on the manuscripts of his associates, he was 
 only a play-house reviser and that none of the matter in 
 his hand was his original composition. This view has 
 apparently received acceptance the more readily because 
 two of the seven extant dramatic "plots," one belonging 
 to Lord Strange's and the other to the Admiral's com- 
 pany, are undoubtedly in the same handwriting as these 
 four and a half pages in Sir Thomas Moore. 
 
 That Kyd was more than transcriber, editor, and stage- 
 manager, that, in fact, he was also one of the authors of 
 the play, seems to follow from the occurrence of certain 
 errors and corrections in certain lines in II 3 and in III 2. 
 Line 84 of III 2 originally began with Faukner's char- 
 acteristic oath, "sbloud," but this was struck out and 
 placed, more appropriately, after the exclamation "to 
 
 [89] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 newgate." Line 206 originally read: "When that [my 
 propensity to merry pranks] forsakes me I may haue my 
 grave"; but subsequently "have" was struck out and 
 "hugg" substituted in an interlineation. In line 255 the 
 repetition and deletion of the words "You"^ L[ordship]" 
 may be regarded as an indication that Faukner, having 
 replied to More's exclamation of surprise ("Why sure 
 this [is] not he") with the words "and Yo'' Lordshipp 
 will," intended to begin a new sentence with the words, 
 "Your Lordship." The deletion of "god" before "ever" 
 in 1. 260 may also be a correction made by the author in 
 the heat of composition. This is true even to a greater 
 extent of the deletion of the word "twere" in IL 3, 17 : 
 instead of writing "Twere good," as he probably intended 
 to do, he struck out the word "twere" and wrote after it 
 "Tis time." Three lines below this he changes "broaken 
 open" to "broake open" for metrical and euphonic con- 
 siderations. But the clearest proof that Kyd was the 
 author of at least a part of this scene is furnished by his 
 treatment of the following lines : 
 "W'='' hangs vppon ther lives, for sillie men 
 plodd on they know not [w]how, [like a] foo[t]Ies 
 
 [penn] 
 that ending showes not any sentene writt" 
 
 (in. 2, 45-7)— 
 a passage which he finally and sensibly marks for total 
 omission. It follows then, it seems to me, that Kyd was 
 the author of the whole of II 3, occupying all of folio 7^ 
 of the manuscript (i.e., the back of the sheet containing 
 Heywood's revision of II 2), and of at least part of the 
 revised version of Mundy's original III 2. From the fact 
 that he twice refers to "Lombards" instead of "strangers" 
 in II 3 it may be inferred that in his writing of this scene, 
 
 [90] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moor^' 
 
 in all probability a substitute for a scene of Mundy's now 
 lost, he was taking cognizance of Tyllney's injunction and 
 that he himself deleted the first eight lines for fear of 
 incurring the Censor's disapproval. It will be interesting 
 to remember this in connection with his subsequent 
 history. 
 
 From the fact that in the scene written by himself 
 Kyd was evidently taking cognizance of the Censor's 
 objections, it may be inferred that he wrote his scene 
 (II 3) — a scene of which there is no earlier version — 
 after the manuscript had been returned unlicensed. This 
 is to some extent corroborated by the fact that this 
 product of his invention was written on the back of 
 Heywood's new version of II 2 (fo. 7*), written after 
 the play had been submitted to the Censor, and that he 
 tried (unsuccessfully) to link these two scenes together 
 (by the words "Manett Clowne" in the right margin of 
 fo. 7* — cf. facs. no. 17). But the strongest evidence of his 
 participation in the revision of the play subsequent to its 
 being submitted to Tyllney is to be found in the fact that 
 he is intimately associated with D in II. 4. This famous 
 scene could have been written either before or after 
 Tyllney so menacingly ordered the omission of the original 
 version. Not only does Kyd supply the names of the 
 speakers on folios 8* and 9^ and add stage-directions, but 
 he even completes (after a fashion) a half-line which D 
 had apparently given up temporarily.^ It is quite clear that 
 he really thought the play could be amended so as to 
 secure the Censor's approval, and that he was preparing 
 it for production by Strange's Men. 
 
 1 These things are nicely shown in our facsimiles nos. 16 
 and 17. Note especially the word "willian" and the J and r 
 in the word "seriant" (= sergeant), written by C (Kyd), 
 
 [91] 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 
 Thomas Dekker's Contribution to the Play 
 
 The extent of the contribution to this play made by 
 Thomas Dekker, "the most lovable of all our old dra- 
 matists" (Oliphant), is less easily ascertainable than that 
 of some of his associates. That he penned the lower half 
 of folio 13^ (III. 2, 283-322), left vacant by Kyd, is 
 certain; that he was the author of these supplemental 
 lines is reasonably inferable from two lines, 304 and 314. 
 In the former, the dramatist seems originally to have in- 
 tended Morris (who is given to calling Faukner names) 
 to say: "why doest thou follow, you Coxcomb?" but he 
 decided to change this — possibly to indicate that the 
 kindly master is moved by his follower's tears — crossed 
 out the word "yo"" and wrote "mee" after it ("why doest 
 thou follow mee;"). In the latter, 1. 314, he struck out 
 the word "foole," applied to Faukner by his master, and 
 substituted "Asse" in an interlineation. The deletion of 
 11. 311-13 {"Morr: yo" Coxcomb."— "Fa/fe : nay yo» ha 
 poacht mee, yo" ha given mee a hayre, its here here.") 
 seems unequivocally to point to the same conclusion, for 
 the deleting strokes were evidently made currente calamo, 
 being made with the same pen, the same ink and the same 
 degree of pen pressure as the rest of the writing. The 
 artist's interest in his creation is witnessed by Dekker's 
 erasing the "exit" at the end of 1. 282 (the end of the 
 scene) and adding some forty lines of unnecessary, but 
 characteristic, and fairly amusing dialogue between master 
 and servant. Cf. facs. no. 19. 
 
 [92] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Dekker's share in the play (in III 2) consisted in all 
 probability in the revision of as much of Mundy's work 
 as related to the Faukner incident. From the spirit with 
 which he enters into this and the skill with which he 
 depicts the scene, we may infer his dissatisfaction with 
 Mundy's treatment of the episode. That he was the 
 author also of that part of the Faulkner scene which is 
 in Kyd's handwriting (on folios 12^ 12'', 13'') is inferable 
 from several rather interesting facts : at 1. 257 he very 
 appropriately inserts the words "I am ipse ;"i an analysis 
 of the petty oaths occurring throughout the play shows 
 that only in the Faukner passages, in the part that is in 
 Kyd's autograph as well as in Dekker's hand, do we find 
 oaths beginning with s^ ("sbloud," in 11. 74, 84, and 303 ; 
 "shart" in 1. 276) ; there are certain similarities of phrase 
 in the two parts of the MS. dealing with the Faukner 
 incident which point to identity of authorship, viz: "if I 
 notch not that rogue," (1. 278, Kyd's hand), "a notcht mee 
 thus" (1. 287, Dekker's hand), "I am a polecat" (1. 278, 
 Kyd's hand), "He goe hang my Selfe out for the poll 
 head" (1. 293, Dekker's hand), "makes me looke thus like 
 a Brownist" (1. 280, Kyd's hand), "make a Sarcen of 
 lack" (1. 293) ; and Morris addresses Faukner as "thou," 
 
 1 Dr. Greg failed to notice that the words "I am ipse" are in 
 Dekker's handwriting. 
 
 2 In other parts of the play the oaths are yfaith, faith, afore 
 God, before God, marrie, body a me, by the Lord, by the Mass, 
 good God, Gods me, hir Lady, and a Gods name. It is interesting 
 and undoubtedly of significance in this connection to note that 
 oaths beginning with 's {e.g., 'sblood, 'sfoot, 'snails, etc.) are em- 
 ployed almost exclusively in Dekker's The Honest Whore, 
 Part I (1599). 
 
 [93] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 whereas Faukner addresses Morris as "you," throughout 
 the scene. 
 
 Dekker, like Kyd and D, had nothing to do with the 
 original composition of the play. His influence can be 
 felt only in the revised III 2, a scene originally written 
 by Mundy. That his contribution to the play was made 
 for Strange's Men and after Tyllney's disapproval of the 
 work of Mundy, Heywood and Chettle, is fairly indicated 
 by two facts: (1) his Faukner scene is transcribed by 
 Kyd, whom I have shown to have been the prompter and 
 adapter for Strange's Men; (2) he writes and composes 
 additional, though unnecessary, dialogue for a terminated 
 scene, deleting the stage-direction: "exit" (III. 2, 282), 
 on the lower half of a page (folio IS*") whose upper half 
 is occupied by a part of the same scene in the handwriting 
 of Kyd. (Cf. facs. no. 19.) 
 
 So little of Dekker's early life is known that we cannot 
 say to what, if any, company he belonged in the early 
 nineties. It is not impossible that he may have been a 
 free-lance at this time and was invited by Kyd or the 
 manager of the company to help in the revision of the 
 rejected play because of his growing reputation as a poet 
 and a dramatist. We know that in 1598, when he was 
 only about twenty-six years of age. Meres generously 
 characterized him as one of "our best for Tragedie." 
 
 [94] 
 
o 
 
 
 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 ?r 
 
 
 '^ XN 
 
 '>st 
 
 
 < > ■ vr> 
 
 -/Sf>/'c 
 
 % 
 
 ^ 
 
 It. 
 
 1;. 
 
 
 
 
 
 '-* 'tis 
 
 '-. ? , >C -t. ?f 
 
 
 ? 
 
 1^ 
 
 r 4 
 
 ?8" -.'V 
 
 r ■. 
 
 I 
 
'» ^ 
 
 Lis ^ t 
 
 'i\ 
 
 
 ■^'-, 
 
 No. 20 — Sir Edmund T_vllne\'s injunction 
 (Slightly enlarged). 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 
 When the Play Was Written 
 
 If, then, some four and a half pages of Sir Thomas 
 Moore are in Thomas Kyd's handwriting, the play must 
 have been written before the latter part of 1594, the date 
 of Kyd's death. But it is inconceivable that after May 12, 
 1593, Kyd would have had a share in the writing of a 
 play which so obviously dealt with the hostility between 
 the Londoners and the strangers (especially the Flemish 
 and French aliens !) and which the city authorities and 
 the Privy Council would have been certain to interpret as 
 incitement to outrages and rebellion, the very thing for 
 which he had been arrested on May 12, 1593, and for 
 which he suffered torture. The play must therefore have 
 been written, fair-copied, disapproved, and revised before 
 that eventful May 12. And when we consider that the 
 quarrel between the English and the foreigners had been 
 so acute as to trouble the Queen's councillors for several 
 months before this, it is eminently reasonable to conclude 
 that the play was written within two or three months of 
 May 12, 1593, and that it was written at some one's order 
 or suggestion for the express purpose of inciting the 
 London citizens to rise against the aliens, mainly natives 
 of the Low Countries and France, whose presence was 
 overcrowding the city (the erection of new buildings had 
 been prohibited by the Queen some years before), causing 
 rents and the prices of commodities to soar beyond the 
 reach of the much exploited poor, diminishing the amount 
 
 [95] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 of work available for Englishmen, and greatly increasing 
 the number of native beggars. ^ 
 
 How intense the feeling against the resident aliens was 
 is revealed in the minutes of the Privy Council. From 
 The Acts of the Privy Council of England (1901, vol. 24) 
 we learn that "a lewde and vyle ticket or placarde [having 
 been set up in the early part of April 1593] upon some 
 post in London purportinge some determynacion and 
 intencion the apprentyces should have to attempt some 
 vyolence on the strangers," the Lord Mayor was requested 
 to have the person guilty of having written the libel 
 apprehended and tortured if he did not disclose his 
 meaning and purpose and the identity of his accomplices 
 (p. 187). It is evident that the Mayor made no arrest, 
 for on April 22 the "Queen's Majestie" requested Mr. 
 Doctor Caesar, Sir Henry Killigrewe, Sir Thomas Wilkes, 
 Mr. William Waad, and Mr. Thomas Phillippes "to ex- 
 amine by secrete meanes who male be authors for the 
 saide [seditious] libelles" (pp. 200-01). On May 5, be- 
 tween eleven and twelve o'clock at night, the "Rhime" 
 
 1 On March 12, 1593, Robert Cecil, in the House of Commons, 
 moved "for some course of necessary relief to be had and de- 
 vised, for the great number of poor people pressing everywhere 
 in the streets to beg." In I. 1 of the play Lincoln prepares a 
 "bill" to "the worshipfull Lords and maisters of this Cittie,'' 
 calling their attention to "the greate importable hurts, losses 
 and hinderaunces, whereof proceedeth extreame pouertie to all 
 the Kings subiects, that inhabite this Cittie . . . f for so it is that 
 Aliens and straungers eate the bread from the fatherlesse chil- 
 dren and take the lining from all the Artificers . . . whereby 
 pouertie is so much encreased, that euery man bewayleth the 
 miserie of other, for craftsmen be brought to beggerie, and 
 Merchants to neediness.'' 
 
 [96] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 we have already quoted (see page 37) was "set up against 
 the wall of the Dutch Churchyard." At the same time 
 a prose "libel" ordered "the beastly Brutes, the Belgians, 
 or rather Drunken Drones, and faint-hearted Flemings" 
 and the "fraudulent" Frenchmen "to depart out of the 
 Realm of England," between this and the 9th of July 
 next." On May 11 the Council ordered (p. 222) a Com- 
 mission consisting of Sir R. Martin, Anthony Ashley, 
 Alderman Buckle, and others, to use "extraordinary 
 pains" to apprehend the malefactors.^ 
 
 From another source (MSS. Car. D. Hallifax) we learn 
 that "several young men were taken up, and examined 
 about the Confederacy to rise, and drive out the Strangers. 
 — Some of these Rioters were put into the Stocks, carted 
 and whipt; for a Terror to other Apprentices and Serv- 
 ants" (as quoted by John Strype). 
 
 That the situation was generally recognized to be grave 
 is evident, furthermore, from the fact that on March 20, 
 1593, there was introduced into the House of Commons a 
 "Bill against Alien Strangers selling by way of Retail 
 any Foreign Commodities" which was heatedly discussed 
 during several sessions (March 21, March 23 and 24) 
 by Mr. Francis Moore, Mr. Proud, Mr. Hill, Sir John 
 Wolley, Mr. Fuller, Sir Edward Dymock, Mr. Dalton, 
 Mr. Finch, Sergeant Drew, Mr. Palmer, Sir Walter 
 
 2 The Council's minutes for August 26 (p. 488) refer to the 
 anti-alien outburst again when they order the release (from the 
 Fleet of one Peter Cole, who had been committed by "the Court 
 of the Star Chamber for certain lewd speeches uttered in the 
 time of the stur betwixt the prentices of London and the 
 straingers." 
 
 [97] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Raleigh and Sir Robert Cecil.^ Mr. Fuller, speaking 
 against the aliens, pointed out that "the exclamations of 
 the City are exceeding pitiful and great against these 
 strangers," whereas Mr. Finch, speaking for the strangers 
 pleaded the scriptural admonition : "Let us not grieve the 
 soul of the stranger," and ended his address with the 
 words which D (Shakspere ?) may have had in mind when 
 writing his great speech for More: "They are strangers 
 now, we may be strangers hereafter. So let us do as we 
 would be done unto." 
 
 Sir Walter Raleigh said: "Whereas it is presented, 
 That for Strangers it is against Charity, against Honour, 
 against Profit to expel them ; in my opinion it is no matter 
 of Charity to relieve them ... I see no reason that so 
 much respect should be given unto them. And so to con- 
 clude, in the whole cause I see no matter of Honour, no 
 matter of Charity, no Profit in relieving them." 
 
 It is not be be wondered at that at such a time as this, 
 when Englishmen's bloods were stirring and when the 
 prevalence of the plague augmented the sufferings of the 
 disafifected citizenry. Sir Edmund Tyllney objected to a 
 play which contained such lines as these : "It is hard when 
 Englishmens pacience must be thus ietted on by straungers 
 and they not dare to reuendge their owne wrongs" (I. i, 
 32-4) ; "lets beate them downe, and beare no more of 
 these abuses" (35-6) ; "if mens milkie harts dare not 
 strike a straunger, yet women will beate them downe" 
 
 3 Cf. A Compleat Journal of the Notes, Speeches and Debates, 
 both of the House of Lords and House of Commons throughout 
 the whole Reign of Queen Elizabeth, Collected by. . Sir Simonds 
 D'Ewes, London, 1693, pp. 504-9. 
 
 [98] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 (72-3); "I am ashamed that free-borne Englishmen, 
 hauing beatten straungers within their owne homes should 
 thus be brau'de and abusde by them at home" (92-6) ; 
 "Aliens and straungers eate the bread from the f atherlesse 
 children, and take the liuing from all the Artificers, and 
 the entercourse from all Merchants wherby pouertie is so 
 much encreased" (143-7) ; 
 
 "by perswasion I enforc'de the wrongs, 
 and vrgde the greef e of the displeased cittie : 
 He [i.e.. Bard] answered me and with a sollemme 
 oathe 
 
 that if he had the Maior of Londons wife, 
 he would keep her in despight of any Englishe." 
 (I. 3, 33-7) ; 
 
 "But if the Englishe blood be once but vp, 
 as I perceiue theire harts alreadie full, 
 I feare me much, before their spleenes be coolde, 
 some of these saucie Aliens for their pride, 
 will pay for't soundly," (I. 3, 57-61) ; 
 
 "Come gallant bloods, you, whose free soules doo 
 scorne 
 
 to beare th' enforced wrongs of Aliens. 
 Add rage to resolution, fire the houses 
 of these audacious straungers" (II. 2, 23-6) ; 
 
 "Shall these [outlandishe fugetiues] enjoy more 
 priueledge then we 
 
 in our owne countrie ? lets then become their slaues. 
 Since iustice keeps not them in greater awe 
 weele be our selves rough ministers at lawe"(31-4) ; 
 
 [99] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 and many other passages expressing the discontent of the 
 citizens* and their determination to put an end to the "vilde 
 enormities" of the aliens and their own "extreame 
 pouertie," at any cost. 
 
 It must be noted that a lofty patriotic strain runs 
 throughout the original version of the play, the version 
 damned by Tyllney, and that it is only in the alleged 
 Shaksperian portion (the revised insurrection scene, II. 4) 
 that the outraged citizens, even Lincoln, are made to talk 
 and act like fools. Even brave John Lincoln makes no 
 reference to the insults they have to submit to or to their 
 just grievances and can charge the foreigners only with 
 being great eaters and with having brought into the 
 country strange roots, parsnyp and pumpions, which 
 'breed sore eyes and infect the city with the palsey.'^ If 
 Shakspere wrote that, he must have done so only because 
 he thought that' in no other way could the play be saved. 
 
 4 It is not insignificant in this connection that in the play 
 (1.3) the English nobility, the Earl of Shrewsbury, the Earl of 
 Surrey (the distinguished poet), Sir Thomas Palmer, and Sir 
 Roger Cholmeley, are in sympathy with the "wronged citizens" 
 and denounce the "high-creasted insolence" of the "hott 
 ffrenchemen" and the other aliens "that fatned with the traf- 
 ficque of our country." 
 
 5 In these lines (II. 4, 13-24) we seem to have a very clear 
 reference to the plague from which London was suffering at 
 the time this play was being written. From Thomas Lodge's 
 A Treatise of the Plague (1603) we know that prominent among 
 the distressing symptoms of this dread disease were "feebleness 
 and weakness of the regitive vertue of the bod/' (i.e., palsy, 
 tremor) and "Ophthalimes or inflammation of the tunicle of 
 the eies." 
 
 [100] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 There is not a particle of evidence extant to show that 
 the play was ever put on the stage.^ From the fact that 
 the revised portions bear no trace of Tyllney's pen, not 
 even opposite highly objectionable utterances, it is reason- 
 ably certain that the revised manuscript was not re- 
 submitted to him, even though the producer had gone so 
 far as to plan the casting of the play. When we ask our- 
 selves what the reason was for the play's not being com- 
 pleted, not being re-submitted to the Master of the Revels 
 and its not being acted, the obvious answer is : Thomas 
 Kyd's arrest on a charge of being involved in the pub- 
 lication of seditious libels which threatened to involve the 
 capital in rebellion and the nation in international difficul- 
 ties. With that the play was doomed. 
 
 6 Professor Felix E. Schelling was clearly in error {The 
 English Chronicle Play, 1902, p. 211) when he asserted that "the 
 play was certainly performed by the Chamberlain's company." 
 See also p. 20. 
 
 [101] 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 Thomas Kyd's Heretical Treatise 
 
 iHarl. MS. 6848. ff. 187-9) 
 
 [fol. 189] Albeit in this vehemet & vnthought on 
 perturbation of mind reuerend father w[hen] Labor is 
 odious writing difficult & hard comentatio vnpleazant & 
 grieuos vnto me yet in the defence of my caus being 
 required to write for the reuerence I ow to your Lord- 
 shipp Aboue other I haue purposed brefely & compen- 
 diosly to comit in writing what I think touching 
 Tharticles. 
 
 W'^'* mine opinion by the comunication before had w* 
 your Lordshipp might haue bin euident inough & suffi- 
 ciently known withowt writing for first at the beginning 
 when yo'' Lordshipp admitted me to disputation before 
 many witnesses And then after to priuate & familier talk 
 I did plainly say all that then came into my mind verilie 
 I haue not dissembled my opinion which I got not or 
 borrowed owt of Sarcerius, Conradus, Pellican, & such 
 garbages or rather sinks or gutters but owt of the sacred 
 fountain. 
 
 To w'^'' sacred fountain iust & right faith ought to 
 cleaue & lean in all controuersies touching religion chefly 
 in this point w"^"" semeth to be the piller & stay of our 
 religion. Wher it is called in question concerning the 
 inuocation of saincts or expiation of sowles A man may 
 err withowt great danger in this point being the ground 
 & foundation of owr faith we may not err withowt 
 damage to owr religion. I call that true religion which 
 instructeth mans minde w* right faith & worthy opinion 
 of God And I call that right faith which doth creddit & 
 beleue that of God w'^'' the scriptures do testifie not in a 
 few places & the same depraued & detort to wrong sense 
 B[ut] ... ye 
 
 [102] 
 
Appendix A 
 
 [fol. i88] [as ye] will say throughly w' one & the 
 same perpetuall tenor & consent. 
 
 What the Scriptures do witness of God it is clere & 
 manifest innogh for first Paul to the Romains declareth 
 that he is euerlasting And to Timothi imortall & inuisible 
 to the Thessalonians liuing & true James teacheth also 
 that he is incomutable which things in the old law & 
 Prophets likwise are thought infixed inculcate so often 
 that they cannot escape the Reader. And yf we think the 
 epithetons not vainly put but truly & profitably adiect 
 And that they agree to God And that [they] we must not 
 beleue him to be God to whom the same agree not we 
 therfor call God which onlie is worthie this name & 
 appellation, Euerlasting, Inuisible, Incomutable Incom- 
 prehensible linortal &c. 
 
 What the Scriptures do witness of God it is clere & 
 manifest inough & so forth as is aboue rehearced. 
 
 And if Jhesus Christ euen he which was borne of Marie 
 was God so shall he be a visible God comprehensible & 
 mortall which is not compted God w' me quoth great 
 Athanasius of Allexandriae &. 
 
 For yf we be not able to comprehend nor the Angels 
 nor our own sowles which ar things creat To wrongfully 
 then & absurdly we mak the creator of them compre- 
 hensible espetiallie contrary to so manifest testimonies of 
 the Scriptures & cet. 
 
 [fol. i8y] ... for how may it be thought tru re- 
 ligion which vniteth in one subject contraries as uisibilitie 
 & inuisibilitie mortallitie & imortallitie & cet. 
 
 It is lawfuU by many wayes to se the infirmitie of 
 Jhesus Christ whom Paul in the last chapter to the Cor- 
 
 [103] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 inthias of the second Epistle denieth not to be crucified 
 through infirmitie. And the whole course & consent of 
 the Euangelicall history doth make him subject to the 
 passions of man as hunger thirst wearines & fear. To 
 the same end ar swete anxietie continuall praier the 
 consolation of the Angell again spitting whipping rebukes 
 or checks His corps wrapt in the linnen cloth vnburied 
 And to beleue forsooth that this nature subiect to theis 
 infirmities & passions is God or any part of the diuine 
 essence what is it other but to make God mightie & of 
 power of thone part weak & impotent of thother part 
 which thing to think it wer madness & foUie To per- 
 suade others impieties. 
 
 The Nature diuine is single comunicable to no creature 
 comprehensible of no creat vnderstanding explicable w' 
 no speche. But as Paul saith in the first of the Romains 
 by the uisible structure of the world we deprehend the 
 inuisible [of] power sapience & goodnes of God wher it 
 is by the Scriptures euident That ther is one God. As in 
 the sixt of Deut: yo"' God is one God yet the vocable is 
 stransferred to other & therfore it is written in the eigh- 
 tenth Psalme of Dauid God stood in the sinagog of Gods 
 which place Christ in the tenth of John declareth to agree 
 to the Prophetts whiles he studieth to auodd the crime of 
 Blasphemie for that the calling of God Father had 
 signified himselfe to be the Sonn of God. And Paul the 
 first to the Corinthians 8 Chapter And though ther be 
 which are called Gods whether in heauen or in earth as 
 there be Gods many & Lords many yet vnto me ther 
 is but one God which is the father of whom ar all things 
 & we in him & saith Paul ther be to whom their bellie 
 is God But to many Idols according to that saying all 
 
 [104] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 the Gods of [the] Idols And Paul in the second to 
 the Corinthians fourth Cap : doth call Satan the God of 
 this world. To men it is applied but seldom yet som- 
 time it is And then we vnderstand it as a name of mean 
 power & not of the euerlasting power. Exodus two & 
 twentie Thow shalt not detract the Gods And Moises be 
 he a God ,to Pharao Again Paul to the Romains Ninth 
 calleth Christ God blessed foreuer, And in the Gospell of 
 John Chap: twentie Thomas Didimus doth acknowledge 
 him God thorough the feling of the wound many times 
 that I remember I do not finde . . . 
 
 [105] 
 
APPENDIX B 
 
 KYd's memorandum of accusations against MAR- 
 LOWE, UNSIGNED AND UNDATED, BUT WRITTEN AFTER 
 
 MARLOWE'S DEATH. (B.M. Had. MS. 6848, fo. 154.)^ 
 
 Pleaseth it yo"^ hono''able LP^ toching marlowes monstruous 
 [sic] opinions as J/ cannot but w* an agreved conscience 
 think on him or them so can J but /(articulariz/ fewe in 
 the respect of them that kept him greater company,' 
 Howbeit in/ discharg of dutie both towrds god yo'' LP^* 
 & the world thus much haue J thought/ good breiflie to 
 discover in all humblenes/ 
 
 ffirst it was his custom when J knewe him first & as J 
 heare sale he/ contynewd it in table talk or otherwise to 
 iest at the devine scriptures/ gybe at praie''^, & stryve in 
 argum* to frustrate & confute what hath byn/ spoke or 
 wrytt by prophets & such holie men/ 
 
 1 He wold report S* John to be o' savio'' Christes 
 Alexis^ J cover it w"" reverence/ and trembling 
 that is that Christ did loue him w*'' an extraordin- 
 ary* loue/ 
 
 1 This was in, all probability addressed to Sir John Puckering. 
 
 2 Lordship. 3 The Privy Council evidently wanted informa- 
 tion concerning Marlowe's associates, the men of quality referred 
 to in the final paragraph. These men of quality were Thomas 
 Harriott, Matthew Roydon, Walter Warner, George Chapman, 
 the Earl of Northumberland, the Earl of Oxford, George Carey, 
 Sir Walter Raleigh, and others. 
 
 4 Lordship, i.e., the Privy Council. 
 
 5 A beautiful youth beloved by the shepherd Corydon in 
 Vergil's 2d Eclogue. 
 
 ^Le., unnatural. 
 
 [106] 
 
ir^. ,/._.„.,,. .^*.l.- .. \' -^^f ., '- 
 
 ■na-ttfJiuf #/<'*'■ 
 • - "V 
 
 ' • .. . >^ 
 
 No. 21 — Part of the plot of a lost play — Fortune's Tciniis (? ) 
 J!. M. Add. MS. 10449/ s- 
 
yif^i 
 
 "ff^ '•iWt > ' , -V 
 
 / "i. «%'r ->** 
 
 I 
 
 
 /f-n f^Vt/^'-M 'm 
 
 A- - 
 
 /s- ^ €<■'" 
 
 
 ! ''< H 
 
 
 . (07 ^7' f 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 1. (^ ) 
 
 
 
 .(/ . 
 
 ''y'/~j^-il^',,'P^L, H {f'''^-- 
 
 //.,--;' v.? , I,' 'K ■ ', - ■ /^ X •'" *' -p ; 
 
 y / 
 
 j\;o 22 Part of the plot of a lost play — Troilus and Crcssida (?) 
 
 B. M. Add. MS. 10419/4. 
 
Appendix B 
 
 2 That for me to wryte a poem of S* paulis conversion 
 as J was determined/ he said wold be as if J 
 shold go wryte a book of fast & loose, esteming/ 
 paul a Jugler./ 
 
 3. That the prodigall Childej portion was but fower 
 nobles/ he held his/ purse so neere the bottom in 
 all pictures, and that it either was a iest/ or els 
 fowr nobles then was thought a great patrimony 
 not thinking it a/ /(arable/ 
 
 4 That things esteemed to be donn by devine powC 
 might haue aswell been don/ by observation of 
 men all w'^'^ he wold so sodenlie take slight occasion 
 to/ slyp out^ as' J & many others in regard of^" 
 his other rashnes in attempting/ soden pryvie^^ in- 
 iuries to men did ouerslypp though often reprehend 
 him for it/ & for which god is my witnes aswell 
 by my lordes comaundm' as in hatred/ of his life 
 & thoughts J left & did refraine his companie/ 
 He wold perswa.de w'"" men of quallitie to goe vnto 
 the ki2 of Scotts whether^^/ J heare Royden is 
 gon and where if he^"* had liud he told me when J/ 
 sawe him last he meant to be/ 
 
 7 A noble was a gold coin worth 6s 8d. 
 
 8 blurt out 5 that i" in regard o/=knowing n secret 
 
 ^2 king '^3 ■whither 14 Marlowe 
 
 [107] 
 
APPENDIX C 
 
 Thomas Kyd's Letter to Sir John Puckering 
 
 (Harl. MS. 6849, //. 218-19.) 
 
 [fol. 218] At my last being w* yo"^ LP. to entreate 
 some speaches from yo" in my favor/ to my Lorde, whoe 
 (though I thinke, he rest not doubtfull of myne inocence) 
 hath yet/ in his discreeter judgm' feared to offende in his 
 reteyning me, w*out yo"' hono^^ former pryvitie; So is it 
 nowe R. ho: that the denyall of that favo'' (to my/ 
 thought resonable) hath mov'de me to coniecture some 
 suspicion, that yo'' Lp holds me/ in, concerning Atheisme, 
 a deadlie thing w'^'^ I was vndeserved chargd w^all, &/ 
 therfore have I though' it requisite, aswell in duetie to 
 yo'' LP, & the lawes, as/ also in the feare of god, & free- 
 dom of my conscience, therein to satisfie the/ world and 
 yo": 
 
 The first and most (thoughe insufficient ) surmize that 
 euer [w]as^ therein/ migh' be raisde of me, grewe thus. 
 When I was first suspected for that/ hbell that concern'd 
 the state, amongst those waste and idle papers (w'^'' I 
 carde/ not for) & w"='» vnaskt I did deliuer vp, were 
 founde some fragments of a disputation, toching that 
 opinion, affirmd by Marlowe to be his, and shufled/ w**" 
 some of myne (vnknown to me) by some occasion of o'' 
 wrytinge in one/ chamber twoe yeares synce/ 
 
 My first acquaintance w* this Marlowe, rose vpon his 
 bearing name to/ serve my Lo: although his Lp never 
 
 1 A word partly illegible, probably "was." 
 
 [108] 
 
Appendix C 
 
 knewe his service, but in writing for/ his plaie's, ffor 
 never cold my L. endure his name, or sight, when he had 
 heard/ of his conditions, nor wold indeed the forme of 
 devyne praiers vsed duelie in his/ Lp^ house, haue quad- 
 red w*'' such reprobates. 
 
 That I shold loue or be familer frend, w*"* one so ir- 
 religious, were verie rare,/ when Tullie saith Digni sunt 
 amicitia quib" in ipsis inest causa cur diligantur/ w'^^ 
 neither was in him, for p[er]son, quallities, or honestie, 
 besides he was/ intemp[er]ate & of a cruel hart, the verie 
 contraries to w"^'', my greatest enemies/ will saie by me. 
 
 It is not to be nombred amongst the best conditions 
 of men, to taxe or to/ opbraide the deade Quia mortui 
 non mordent. But thus muche haue I (w"^ yo"" Lp^ favo"") 
 dared in the greatest cause, w'^'^ is to cleere my self of be- 
 ing/ thought an Atheist, which some will sweare he was. 
 
 ifor more assurance that I was not of that vile opinion, 
 Lett it but/ please yo"" LP to enquire of such as he con- 
 versd w^'all, that is (as I am/ geven to vnderstand) w"* 
 Harriot, Warner, Royden and some stationers/ in Paules 
 churchyard, whom I in no sort can accuse nor will excuse/ 
 by reson of bis companie, of whose consent if I had been, 
 no question but/ I also shold haue been of their consort, 
 for ex minima vestigia artifex agnascit/ artificem. 
 
 Of my religion & life I haue alredie geven some 
 instance to the late commission''V & of my reverend 
 meaning to the state, although p [er ] haps my paines and — / 
 vndeserved tortures felt by some, wold haue ingendred 
 more impatience/ when lesse by farr hath dryven so 
 manye imo extra caulas ■w'^^ it shall — / never do w*** me. 
 
 [109] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 But whatsoeue'^ I haue felt R. ho: this is my request 
 not for reward/ but in regard of my trewe inocence that 
 
 it wold please yo"^ L"* so t[o] [ ]i the same/ & me, 
 
 as I maie still reteyne the f avo" of my Lord, whom I haue 
 servd almost/ theis vj yeres nowe, in credit vntill nowe, 
 & nowe am vtterlie vndon w*^out/ herein be somewhat 
 donn for my recoverie, ffor I do knowe his Lp holdes/ 
 yo'' bono" & the state in that dewe reverence, as he wold 
 no waie move the/ leste suspicion of his loves and cares 
 both towards hir sacred Ma*'^ yo"' LP^/ and the lawes 
 wherof when tyme shall serve I shall geue greater instance 
 w'^^/ I haue observd. 
 
 As for the libel laide vnto my chardg I am resolued w"" 
 receyving of y^ sacram*/ to satisfie yo'' LP^ & the world 
 that I was neither agent nor consenting thervnto/ [fol. 
 218b] Howbeit if some outcast Isniael for want or of his 
 owne dispose to lewdnes, haue/ w"" pretext of duetie or 
 religion, or to reduce himself to that he was not borne/ 
 vnto by enie waie incensd yo'' Lp^ to suspect me, I shall 
 besech in all humillitie/ & in the feare of god that it will 
 please yo"" Lp^ but to censure me as I shall/ prove my self, 
 and to repute them as they ar in deed Cum totius 
 iniustitiae/ nulla capitalior sit quam eoru, qui turn cum 
 maxime fallunt id agunt vt viri/ boni esse videant' ffor 
 doubtles even then yo'' Lp= shal be sure to breake/ [ . . . . ]2 
 their lewde designes and see into the truthe, when but 
 their lyues that/ herein haue accused me shalbe examined 
 & rypped vp effectually, soe/ maie I chaunce w* paul to 
 Hue & shake the vyper of my hand into the/ fier for w'^'' 
 
 1 An illegible word (probably "'of") in the MS. 
 
 2 A word lost by the action of damp. 
 
 [110] 
 
Appendix C 
 
 the ignorant suspect me guiltie of the former shipwrack./ 
 And thus (for nowe I feare me I growe teadious) assuring 
 yo'' good LpV that if I knewe eny whom I cold iustlie 
 accuse of that damnable offence to/ the awefull Ma*'= of 
 god or of that other mutinous sedition towrd the state/ 
 I wold as willinglie reveale them as I wold request yo' 
 LP^ bette'' thoughts j of/ me that neuer haue offended yo" 
 Yo'' Lp= most humble in all duties 
 
 Th. Kydde. 
 
 [Ill] 
 
0\ 
 I— I 
 
 n 
 < 
 
 00 
 
 I— I 
 vo" 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 I— I T-l O 
 
 O 
 
 <1 ri 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 O 
 
 tn 
 H 
 
 Oh 
 t-i 
 
 u 
 
 a .3 "o 4J 
 
 
 a ■" 
 
 O -H 
 
 J! « to 
 
 * tl "O 
 
 d o 3 
 •"•Co 
 
 M § 
 
 J3 
 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 3 M-( 
 
 tn O O 
 
 ^ O 
 
 c Si ^ 
 
 ^ <" 9i 
 
 S " S 
 
 ^ a al 
 
 iT « c 
 
 C> -, tS 
 
 c ^ ^ .-ill 
 
 u 
 
 t3 M 
 
 d 
 g 
 
 8 
 
 g. 3 
 
 a II 
 
 u 
 c 
 o 
 
 13 
 ;^ 
 
 C 
 3 
 
 II «« 
 
 0) TJ 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 -e2 
 
 s 
 
 o o 
 
 •^ n, 
 
 o 
 
 S s 
 
 hJ 3 
 
 e -^ 
 
 ^ 'g 
 
 ni JJ 
 
 t: ^ 
 
 a s g 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 cS n! 
 
 « .-tl 
 
 •-I 5 
 
 O P 
 
 1-1 (U 
 
 (-! re 
 
 1) j-i 
 
 tJOtJ 
 
 'c ° 
 
 CO 
 
 ni <U 
 
 — ' JS 
 
 J o 
 
 Oh . 
 
 a 
 
 •Q ^__^ 
 •rt 4) 
 
 •^ IH 
 
 3 O 
 
 O '<-' 
 
 ? U2 
 
 I— I <o 
 
 T3 (U 
 C 5i 
 ni ^ 
 
 .^% 
 
 "^ 13 
 
 -^ r:! HH 
 
 3 O 
 
 O " I- 
 
 tJ j-> O 
 
 J- (U 
 
 3 i-i v<r 
 
 « 5^ "^ "« 
 
 O 3 1) Vh 
 
 ■M S -d 9 
 
 3 -^ ■" 1-1 
 
 ^ c S ^ 
 
 ™ C 0) •" 
 
 a- a " 
 
 . O .5 nl 
 13 M r - - 
 
 ltd 
 
 go 
 bo 
 
 § 
 
 o ja 
 
 1 — I <U 
 
 ex to 
 
 "J ^ 
 aj TO 
 
 rt 0) 
 
 "H-i C3 •?< 
 
 ^ ni 4j 
 
 13 
 
 ^ O .;m CD 
 13 bjo O tJ 
 '-' ^ Cl. 
 
 
 1) 
 
 r-l i-H <U "3 
 
 O g J3 
 
 J3 +^ (U 
 
 "*^ >» 2 
 
 ji- a s 
 
 •? n> -C 
 
 55 ^ 2 
 
 +j CO -^ 
 
 <u <u .13 
 
 O >. J3 
 M ■« ^ 
 
 (U O 3 
 
 ^ ^ O 
 
 3 
 
 c a, 
 
 .■y <u 
 
 H ^ £5, 
 
 3 ^ _ 
 
 ■jo bB-° 
 
 S.S >> 
 
 4-1 
 
 O _j <u 
 
 y rt -H 
 
 C Ri 
 
 CO "^ OJ 
 
 ""- u '^ 
 
 rt ^ 13 
 
 t/3 H rt 
 
 3 
 Cl. 
 
 ■ u 
 tuO i; 
 3 O 
 
 bo I- bo >- 
 
 eg eg 
 
 n! O rt O 
 
 [112] 
 
Appendix D 
 
 bo iH 
 
 c S 
 
 . 4) 
 
 
 [113] 
 
'The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 -a 
 o 
 bo 
 
 <u 
 u 
 O 
 
 Si 
 
 O ci 
 
 CO 
 
 > '-' 
 
 £1 
 
 ^ en f"^ 
 
 «5| -I s^cni^w-^-^^ 
 
 ,1 :| 2, i^^ii.i^i 
 
 ho -, 
 
 
 ■^ -SI-IS ?;nicl<u'^„, 3rti-l 
 
 
 
 [114] 
 
Appendix D 
 
 B 
 
 0) CO 
 
 g |) 
 
 4-t '^ 
 
 IS 
 
 H « 
 
 o I- 
 (U o 
 >1 •*-< 
 
 ^1 
 
 . w 
 
 ^ O 
 
 6 tuo 
 
 1-1 .s 
 
 ■43 O 
 
 ni to O 
 
 « 6 a 
 
 o ^ Si 
 
 o N 
 
 
 C^ .2 
 o g 
 
 <-4-l ^ 
 
 <n a 
 
 rt 
 
 0) S 
 > 
 
 
 J! 
 
 n! 
 J3 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 ■3 
 
 ^ « 
 
 ■M a 
 
 o 
 a 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 HH > 
 
 o -a 
 
 1) c 
 
 O 
 
 cj O 
 
 •2 ^ 
 
 ^ £ ?? 
 
 4-1 <u 
 
 a j; 
 
 J3 
 
 J3 
 
 o 
 
 § 
 
 u 
 
 1) -o 
 
 u 
 
 1) o 
 
 -^ J 
 
 ^ a 
 
 a -d 
 
 § U 
 •^ tuo 
 
 «| 
 
 rt O 
 ho C 
 
 
 a 
 
 bJO 
 
 a 
 
 •c 
 
 42 
 
 Si 
 O 
 
 ^ H 
 
 en 
 
 •c 
 
 a — 
 
 a . 
 '" Si 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 •a 
 I 
 
 
 J8 
 
 I 
 
 
 [115] 
 
'The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 
 
 "^ . 
 
 
 
 
 c >» 
 
 
 
 
 3 rt 
 
 
 
 
 ■tt S -^ 
 
 
 
 
 g 1 => 
 
 
 
 
 -^ o o 
 
 
 
 
 o CJ ■" 
 
 C/) 
 
 
 
 >% 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 nl — 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 tn •« 
 
 ■w 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 S3 
 
 g god hath h 
 ustyce, powe: 
 rule, and wil 
 
 111 
 
 e 
 
 o 
 
 
 c '— > „ 
 
 C^ 
 
 
 
 T3 
 
 -a 
 
 8, 
 
 
 toth( 
 
 read 
 
 bid 
 
 o 
 
 t- 
 
 
 4-> 
 
 !3 
 E 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 s 
 
 a 
 
 MH O J3 
 
 ni 
 
 n) 
 
 a> 
 
 J3 
 
 [116] 
 
Appendix D 
 
 I 
 
 « 1-1 
 
 •il !> N -r! art 
 
 en ^ - - '^ o iM 
 
 I— t Cq ^ VO 00 *-4 <-t 
 
 •a 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 n! 3 
 
 <U g ° 
 
 to J 
 
 V, "a rt 1- o 
 o g 1- S o n 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 «^ i» " (^ l-l 
 
 I m t% Ot *H 
 
 [117] 
 
'The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 •o 
 
 s 
 
 <u 
 I) 
 ii 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 
 •2 S . to .2 j3 * 
 
 1^ i.feg-s^.-sgirso^^.^ii^'" 
 
 
 nj 
 
 Ji 
 
 2 c o h 
 
 Q ^ 1> X 
 
 g J 3 "§ g J3AV0I10J siq iiB sanof 3JOOp\[ ^Bq; 
 
 g ^ ^ 
 
 13 g -^7 B3q joj 'padxa 3Jo;s auBara Xui q,Av 
 
 o, 
 
 ^ -^ <u "o J2i ^ IF i^oX jajaad o; oop ubo i ;s3q aq; 
 
 "S ^ "^ " ^ jS aqj o^ 3UX \p} o; jooj Ava ;b uana 
 
 pq U o oj en ps SI XB aq; aoj iiinj Xm unqs o; 
 
 jd I 'psnjq qSnoqj anq Xbui ;aX puB 
 qs pooMjapuA sjbj ajjBO ub uaqM aspiiq; 
 
 [118] 
 
Appendix D 
 
 a, CO 
 
 s s . s ^ 
 
 •25 -^ -. S « 
 
 
 
 s 2 c* - s ; •§ i .a -2 1 ^ I a 6 
 
 
 .< <i> S -w O 0) S .9 C '-* rt „ e i; 
 
 (L) 
 
 o 
 
 rs^sinCi; .<" — ,0.. £:o_vr 
 
 [119] 
 
 
 o 
 
 5 '4>i--"Ocj^.S 5 aeCs 
 
 
 •o „ "S t; o o .0 -o 
 
 
 •§ -§5 I ^ .id lis 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 / 
 
 £aNAV010 XiaNVM 
 
 3;sjg 91}; aq aji jag jay 
 
 si o 
 
 ? ^ 
 
 •o "• 
 s g 
 
 <u '-' 
 
 -a -d 
 
 'S >-' 
 
 2 ° 
 
 J= U 
 
 ^ M-l 
 
 +^ JJ 
 
 o x: 
 "Jrt "^ 
 
 C cd 
 c« bJO 
 
 O 
 
 'V 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 w B -, 
 
 r— 1 "O 
 
 li K Ji. 
 j2 I — ' > 
 
 *i V O 
 
 — 3 U 
 O 3 
 
 <" 1 
 
 T3 
 C 
 
 to 
 -O 
 
 o 
 
 ^ o 
 
 ^§ 
 
 5 -iS 
 
 3 JJ 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 rt 3 
 
 3 -^ 
 
 CO u 
 
 1) 
 
 J3 
 
 C 
 
 § ;S 
 ni .S 
 
 g.s 
 
 c 
 ^-5 -2 
 
 3 15 
 
 a. J 
 
 
 0) ^ 
 
 ^ en ^ 
 
 •i3 3 o 
 
 a-: ■° ^ 
 
 V 
 
 
 3 
 bX) 0) 
 
 
 a 
 
 XI 
 
 in 
 
 <U O 
 G N 
 
 2 o 
 
 >^ O 
 
 1) X 
 X 
 
 G , 
 
 " <u 
 
 ■w Id 
 
 § 3 
 
 >..-3 
 
 rt ni 
 
 S i 
 
 S "S 
 
 ^ en 
 
 M-i fl> 
 
 o a 
 
 s i^ 
 
 cn (U 
 
 C X! 
 
 OJ -t-J 
 
 3 - 
 cr 
 
 d) 
 
 X 
 
 ni 
 S 
 
 3 
 ni 
 
 > 
 
 to 
 
 •4-t (L> 0} 
 
 T-J CO 
 
 X ^ 
 
 ^ o 
 
 f) (h o 
 
 S X S 
 
 J C/3 1-1 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 (U 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 'C 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^-*» 
 
 P 
 
 a; 
 
 
 bs 
 
 >, 
 
 ^W 
 
 ua 
 
 !-• 
 
 
 O 
 
 •d 
 
 (L> 
 
 0) 
 
 P 
 
 2 
 
 
 •o 
 
 •d 
 
 -< 
 
 c 
 
 fo 
 
 n 
 
 
 4j 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 O 
 
 n 
 
 13 
 
 .2 
 
 <u 
 
 
 bo 
 
 m 
 
 3 
 
 V 
 
 
 'u 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 ■*-» 
 
 n 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 J5 
 
 
 H 
 
 i 
 
 [120] 
 
Appendix D 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 a 
 
 O ■• r 
 
 ri +J • ■ m 
 
 
 
 
 o Oslo's -l-Sir-Sai 1 ^^g&§«-^fiwc§ 
 
 ^y o 
 
 r! 
 
 (U 
 
 
 iti 
 
 [121] 
 
'The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 V 
 
 
 V 
 
 •J . an 
 
 M ^ E3 S ■« 3 -^ 
 
 tt -i«! .-S 2 2 C tf n 
 
 I -s a 8 . .| - ^ c/^ Q § 
 
 2 "> S ^ ,, .S o c 
 
 O) 
 
 fi o " rt ? ■ « -b c ^ 
 
 *J+jp(n>.H™inO(U'r30<<UT!,, +jB 
 0!OcaT2P"-a'3S,CSS>hc''J'^fl) 
 
 
 [122] 
 
Appendix D 
 
 J3 tn J4 
 
 o3 o ■ 
 
 
 u M 
 
 § fe § ph 
 
 1^ fe 
 
 o 
 
 
 [123] 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 (In the following bibliography STM stands for Sir 
 Thomas Moore, "Sh" for Shakespeare, and LTLS for the 
 London Times Literary Supplement.) 
 
 Acheson, Arthur. — Sh, Chapman at STM. Revue Anglo- 
 Americaine, 1926, nos. 5 and 6, vol. 3, 
 pp. 428-439, 514-531 
 Adams, Joseph Q.— A Life of William Sh. 1923. 
 
 Illustrated. 
 Anonymous. — Sh's hand in the play of STM. LTLS, 
 April 24, 1919 (p. 222) ; Dec. 20, 1923 
 (p. 896) ; Oct. 18, 1923 (p. 687) 
 
 Sh's handwriting. LTLS, May 27, 1920 
 
 (p. 326) ; Oct. 30, 1924 (p. 682) ; Nov. 6, 
 1924, p. 710 
 
 Sh's hand in STM. Notes and Queries, 
 
 13th Series, vol. 1, pp. 339-340 
 
 The Sh. apocrypha. The Contemporary 
 
 Review, August, 1908; vol. 94 
 
 Baldwin, T. W. — On the chronology of Thomas Kyd's 
 works. Modern Language Notes, June 
 1925, vol. 40, pp. 343-349 
 
 Bayfield, M. A.— Sh's hand in the play of STM. LTLS, 
 May 15, 1919 (p. 265) ; May 29, 1919 
 (p. 295) ; June 5, 1919 (p. 312) ; June 
 30, 1921 (p. 418) ; Aug. 18, 1921 
 
 Boas, F. S.— The Works of Thomas Kyd. 1901. Illustrated 
 
 Briggs, W. D. — On a document concerning Christopher 
 Marlowe. Studies in Philology, April, 
 1923, vol. 20, pp. 153-159 
 
 Brooke, C. F. T.— The Sh Apocrypha. 1908 
 
 [124] 
 
Bibliography 
 
 Brown, Ford K. — Marlowe and Kyd. LTLS, June 2, 
 
 1921, p. 355 
 Byrne, M. St. Clare.— The date of STM. LTLS, Aug. 
 
 12, 1920, pp. 520-521; Aug. 19, 
 
 1920 (pp. 536-537) 
 
 John-a-Kent and John-a-Cumber. 
 
 1923. Illustrated. 
 
 Anthony Mundy's spelling as a 
 
 literary clue. The Library, June, 
 1923, vol. 4, pp. 9-23 
 
 Was STM ever acted? LTLS, 
 
 Aug. 19, 1920, p. 536 
 
 Chambers, Edmund K. — The Elizabethan Stage. 1923 
 
 The unrest in Shakesperian 
 
 studies. Nineteenth Century, 
 Feb., 1927, vol. 101, pp. 255-266 
 
 R. W.— Sh's Hand in the Play of STM. 1923. 
 
 pp. 142-188 
 
 The spurred a. LTLS, Aug. 27, 1925 
 
 (p. 557) 
 
 Chambrun, Longworth. — The play of STM. LTLS, Dec. 
 
 20, 1923 ; p. 896 
 
 Collier, John P. — John-a-Kent and John-a-Cumber, a 
 Comedy by Anthony Munday, 1851 
 
 Dyce, Alexander. — Sir Thomas More, a Play. 1844 
 
 Farmer, John S. — The Book of John-a-Kent and John-a- 
 Cumber, by Anthony Munday. 1912. 
 Illustrated 
 
 The Book of .STM. 1910. Illustrated 
 
 Fehr, B.— Sh's hand in STM. BeiUatt, vol. 35, pp. 97-102 
 
 Fleay, F. G.— Sh. Manual. 1876; 1878 
 
 [125] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Fleay, F. G. — A Chronicle History of the Life and Work 
 
 of William Sh. 1886 
 Fort, J. A.— The Sh. signatures. LTLS, Jan. 22, 1925 
 
 (p. 56) 
 
 Shakespearian elisions in STM. LTLS, 
 
 Oct. 9, 1924, p. 631 
 
 Furnivall, F. J.— The Leopold Sh. 1877; p. cii 
 Gilson, J. P.— Sh's handwriting. LTLS, June 17, 1920 
 
 (p. 384) 
 Green, Alexander. — The apocryphal STM and the Sh. 
 holograph. American Journal of 
 Philology, July, 1918, vol. 39, pp. 
 229-267 
 
 A Sh. find. N. Y. Evening Post 
 
 Literary Review, Dec. 13, 1924 
 
 Greenwood, G. G. — Shakspere's Signatures and STM. 
 1924. Illustrated 
 
 Shakspere's Handwriting. 1920. 
 
 Illustrated. 
 
 Shakspere's handwriting. LTLS, June 
 
 10, 1920 (p. 368) ; June 24, 1920 (p. 
 403); July 8, 1920 (p. 441) 
 
 Shakspere's signatures and STM. 
 
 LTLS, July 7, 1921 (p. 436) ; Jan. 20. 
 1925 (p. 71) ; Nov. 6, 1924 (p. 710) ; 
 Jan. 15, 1925 (p. 40) ; Jan. 29, 1925 
 (p. 71) 
 
 The spurred a. LTLS, Nov. 12, 1925 
 
 (p. 756) 
 Greg, W. W.— The Book of STM. 1911. Illustrated 
 
 Autograph plays by Anthony Munday. 
 
 Modern Language Review, Jan. 1913, vol. 
 8, pp. 89-90; Cf. also LTLS, Dec. 18, 
 1919 (p. 768) 
 
 [126] 
 
Bibliography 
 
 Greg, W. W.— Sh's Hand in the Play of STM. 1923; 
 pp. 41-56, 228-243. Illustrated 
 
 Was STM ever acted? LTLS, July 8, 
 
 1920 (p. 440) ; July 29, 1920 (p. 488) 
 
 The Escapes of Jupiter, an autograph 
 
 play of Thomas Heywood's. Anglia. 
 Palaestra 147/8; 1925; pp. 211-257. 
 Illustrated. 
 
 Sh's hand in the play of .STM. LTLS, 
 
 Nov. 6, 1919 (p. 630) 
 
 The evidence of theatrical "plots" for 
 
 the history of the Elizabethan stage. 
 Review of English Studies, July, 1925, 
 vol. 1, pp. 257-274 
 
 Hall, A.— Sh's handwriting further illustrated. 1899. 
 
 Illustrated 
 Harrison, G. B. — The date of STM. Review of English 
 Studies, July, 1925, vol. 1, pp. 337-339 
 Herbert, J. A. — Sh's handwriting. The Library, 3d 
 
 series, vol. 8; Jan. 1917, pp. 97-100 
 Herford, C. H. — Shakespearian elisions in STM. LTLS, 
 
 Oct. 9, 1924, p. 631 
 Hjort, G. — "Scilens." London Mercury, Nov. 1924; pp. 
 
 80-81 
 Hopkinson, A. F.— The Old Play of STM. 1902, 1915 
 
 Ingram, J. H. — Christopher Marlowe and his Associates. 
 
 1904 
 Keller, W.— Sh's hand in STM. Sh Jahrbuch, 1925, vol. 
 
 61, pp. 132-135 
 Kenyon, F. G. — The handwriting of Sh. Living Age, 
 May 31, 1924; vol. 321, pp. 1060-1063 
 
 [127] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore" 
 
 Lawrence, W. J.— Was STM ever acted? LTLS, July 1, 
 1920 (p. 421) ; July 15, 1920 (p. 456) ; 
 Sept. 2, 1920 (p. 568) 
 
 Lewis, J. G. — Christopher Marlowe. 1891 
 
 M., L. D.STM. Nation and Athenaeum, 1922, vol. 30, 
 p. 472 
 
 Oliphant, E. H. C. — STM. Journal of English and Ger- 
 manic Philology, April, 1919, vol. 
 18, pp. 226-235 
 
 Perrett, W.— Sh's hand. LTLS, Oct. 18, 1923 (p. 690) 
 
 Pollard, A. W.— Sh's Hand in the Play of STM. 1923 ; 
 
 pp. v-vi, 1-40 
 The date of STM. LTLS, Nov. 8, 1923 
 
 (p. 751) 
 
 Sh's hand in the play of STM. LTLS, 
 
 May 22, 1919 (p. 279) 
 
 Verse tests and the date of STM. 
 
 Review of English Studies, Oct. 1925, 
 vol. 1, pp. 441-443 
 
 Elizabethan spelling as a literary and 
 
 bibliographical clue. The Library, June, 
 1923, vol. 4, pp. 1-8 
 
 Schelling, Felix E. — The English Chronicle Play. 1902 
 
 Schiicking, L. L. — Das Datum des pseudo-Shakespeare- 
 schen STM. Englische Studien, vol. 
 46, pp. 228-251 
 
 Sh. and STM. Review of English 
 
 Studies, Jan. 1925, vol. 1, pp. 40-59 
 
 Sievers, Eduard. — Sh's Anteil am Konig Lear. Anglia. 
 Palaestra; 1925, no. 148, pp. 173-210 
 
 [128] 
 
Bibliography 
 
 Simpson, Percy. — The play of STM and Sh's hand in it. 
 
 The Library, Jian. 1917, 3d series, vol. 
 
 8, pp. 79-96 
 
 Simpson, Richard. — Are there any extant MSS. in Sh's 
 
 handwriting? Notes and Queries, 
 
 4th series, vol. 8; July 1, 1871, pp. 1-3 
 
 Sisson, C. J. — Bibliographical aspects of some Stuart 
 
 dramatic manuscripts. Review of English 
 
 Studies, Oct. 1925, vol. 1, pp. 421-430 
 
 Smedley, W. T. — Elizabethan handwriting. LTLS, July 
 
 22, 1920; p. 472 
 Spedding, James. — Sh's handwriting. Notes and Queries, 
 4th Series, vol. 10; Sept. 21, 1872; pp. 
 227-228 
 
 Reviews and Discussions. 1879; pp. 
 
 376-384 
 
 Stopes, Charlotte C. — Sh's handwriting. LTLS, May 
 
 29, 1919 (p. 295) ; June 19, 1919 
 
 (p. 337) 
 
 Tannenbaum, S. A. — Sh's unquestioned autographs and 
 
 'The Addition' to STM. Studies 
 
 in Philology, April, 1925, vol. 22, 
 
 pp. 133-160. Illustrated 
 
 The spurred a. LTLS, Sept. 24, 
 
 1925 (p. 619); Oct. 22, 1925 
 (p. 698) 
 
 Problems in Sh's Penmanship. 
 
 1927; pp. 179-211. Illustrated 
 
 Thompson, Edward M. — Sh's Handwriting. 1916. 
 
 Illustrated 
 
 [129] 
 
"The Booke of Sir Thomas Moored' 
 
 Thompson, Edward M. — Sh's handwriting. LTLS, 
 
 June 12, 1919 (p. 235) ; Aug. 
 4, 1921 (pp. 499-500) ; Sept. 
 17, 1925 (p. 600) 
 
 The autograph mss. of 
 
 Anthony Munday. The 
 Library, 1919, vol. 14, pp. 
 325-353. Illustrated 
 
 Sh's Hand in the Play of 
 
 STM. 1923; pp. 57-112. 
 Illustrated 
 
 Thorndike, Ashley H.— Sh's Theater. 1916 
 
 Tolman, A. H. — Falstafif and other Shakspearean Topics. 
 
 1925 ; pp. 26-33 
 Van Dam, B. A. P.— The Text of Sh's Hamlet. 1924; 
 
 pp. 369-371 
 Wilde, A. D.— Sh's Hand in STM. LTLS, May 1, 1919 
 (p. 237) ; May 22, 1919 (p. 279) ; June 5, 
 1919 (p. 312) 
 Wilkinson, K. E. T.— Sh's handwriting. LTLS, July 1, 
 
 1920 (p. 424) 
 Wilson, J. Dover.— Sh's hand in the play of STM. LTLS, 
 May 8, 1919 (p. 251) ; May 29, 1919 
 (p. 295) 
 
 Sh's Hand in the Play of STM. 1923 ; 
 
 pp. 113-141 
 
 Shakespearian elisions in6TM. LrLS", 
 
 Sept. 25, 1924 (p. 596) 
 
 "Scilens." London Mercury, Dec. 
 
 1924, p. 187 
 
 [130] 
 
INDEX 
 
 (In this Index Moore means the play of Sir Thomas Moore.) 
 
 "A" not a copyist, 79; co-author of 
 
 Moore, IS, 16, 29; identified with 
 
 Henry Chettle^ S3, S4; his share in 
 
 Moore, 12, 14, 79 
 Acheson, Arthur, 22 
 Adams, Joseph Q., vii, 18, 75 
 Addition, the. Handwriting of, 69, 70, 
 
 71, 77; date of, 72, 76, 91, 95; 
 
 attribution to Shakspere, 13, 14, 15, 
 
 76, 79; the citizens in it, lOO 
 Admiral's Men, the, 33, 35, S3, 55, 65, 
 
 74,75 
 Age and Handwriting, 57, 59, 66, 68 
 Alexis, 106 
 Aliens, plots against, 20, 21, 37, 96, 
 
 97; a bill against, 96, 97; hostility 
 
 to, 95, 98 
 AUeyn Papers at Dulwich, 19, 35, 53 
 Arden of Peversham, Authorship of, SO 
 Authors of Moore, 13, 15, 16, 23, 24, 
 
 57, 65, 89, 90, 92, 94 
 
 i 
 
 "B," co-author of Moore, 12, 14, 15, 
 23, 29, 32, 33, 89; his penmanship, 
 25, 56, 58; identified with Haywood, 
 58; see Heywood, Thomas 
 
 Baines, Richard, his note accusing 
 Marlowe, 52 
 
 Baldwin, T. W., 37 
 
 Bayfield, M. A. Cf. Bibliography 
 
 Beaumont, Francis, 68, 77 
 
 Believe as You List, Massinger's, 68 
 
 Bibliography, 124-130 
 
 "Bibliotics" defined, 9 
 
 Blind Beggar, The, "for to" in, 25 
 
 Boas, F. S., 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 45, 50, 51 
 
 Boleyn, Anne, 18 
 
 Brewen, The Murder of John, alleged 
 
 Kyd autograph in, SO, 51, 52 
 Briggs, W. D., 42, 43 
 Brooke, C. F. T., 10, 11, 65 
 Brown, F. K., 42 
 Buc, George, 18 
 Byrne, M. St. Clare, 21, 47, 48 
 
 "C," his calligraphic characteristics, 
 36, 43; a copyist, 13, 14, 79; differ- 
 entiated from Peele, 48; dramatic 
 reviser, 13, 14, 35; identified with 
 Thomas Kyd, 45, 48; scribe of ex- 
 tant plots, 35, 43, 45, 89; hand in 
 John-a-Kent, 47, 48; differentiated 
 from "D," 49; hand in Moore, 12, 
 19, 29, 33, 43, 45, 73, 79 
 
 Caesar's Fall, Webster's, v 
 
 Captives, The, by Heywood, 25, 56; 
 date of, 60; penmanship of, 56, 58, 
 59, 64, 65; calligraphic differences 
 between it, Moore and Jupiter, 60, 
 61, 62, 63 
 
 Carey, George, an associate of Mar- 
 lowe, 106 
 
 Catholic conspiracies and Lord 
 Strange, 40 
 
 Cecil Robert, 96, 98 
 
 Chamberlain's Men, The, 74 
 
 Chamberlin, Frederick, 41 
 
 Chambers, Edmund K., 11, 18, 19. 35. 
 36, 39, 40, 65, 75 
 
 Chambers, R. W., 75 
 
 Chambrun, Longworth, 77 
 
 Chapman, George, his penmanship, 
 63; his hatred of Shakspere, 22; 
 and Moore, 22; an associate of 
 Marlowe, 106 
 
 [131] 
 
INDEX 
 
 Chettle, Henry, vi. 25, S3, 54, 80, 85, 
 94; identified with "A," 53, 54; his 
 theatrical affiliations, S3, 55; pen- 
 manship, 53, 54, 57, 58 ; receipts, 53, 
 54; collaboration with Mundy, 55, 
 74 ; mention by Meres, 55 ; remarks 
 on Shakspere, 55 ; contribution to 
 Moore, 82-84; style, 82; use of thou, 
 ye and you, 82; date of his con- 
 tribution, 54; purpose of his re- 
 visions, 83 
 Cole, Peter, 97 
 
 Collier, John P., 9, 47, 48, SO, 51 
 Conference of Pleasure, The, 52 
 Cowley, Abraham, his penmanship, 
 
 66, 67 
 Crowne, Joseph V., vii 
 
 "D," his alleged identity with Shak- 
 spere, 14, 49, 69 ; differentiated from 
 "C," 49; calligraphic peculiarities, 
 70, 71, 73; contribution to Moore, 
 
 12, 13, 14, 16, 33, 69, 74 75 ; and the 
 aliens, 80, 98; associated with Kyd, 
 74; his hand differentiated from 
 Shakspere's, 49; his ignorance of 
 Moore, 72; not a careless reviser, 
 73 ; his share in Moore, 79 ; 
 
 Daniel, Samuel, 78 
 
 Day, John, his penmanship, 63, 67 ; his 
 Peregrinatio Scholastica, 68; his 
 Return from Parnassus, 68; his 
 Parliament of Bees, 68 
 
 Dekker, Thomas, co-author of Moore, 
 
 13, IS, 16, 74, 92; his handwriting, 
 51, 63; his contribution to Moore, 
 92-94; his oaths, 93; his early life, 
 17, 94; references to, v, 17, 35, 80, 
 85 ; wrote for Strange's Men, vi, 94 
 
 Deletory marks of diverse penmen, 84 
 De Vere, Edward, his handwriting, 
 
 66, 67 
 D'Ewes, Sir Simonds, 98 
 Drayton, Michael, his penmanship, 67 
 Duke of Milan, The, Massinger's 
 
 autograph in, 68 
 Dyce, Alexander, 9 
 
 "E" is Dekker, 13 ; his hand in Moore, 
 12, 14, 16, 23, 29, 33 ; not a copyist, 14 
 Elizabeth, Queen, 18, 40 
 Elizabethan penman, 44, 63 
 English Traveller, The, quoted, 57 
 Escapes of Jupiter, The, by Heywood, 
 56; penmanship of, 56, 59, 60; date 
 of, 60; calligraphic differences be- 
 tween it, Jupiter and Moore, 56, 60, 
 61, 62, 63 
 
 Fairfax, Sir Thomas, his signature, 51 
 Faithful IFriends, The, Massinger's 
 
 autograph scene in, 68 
 Farmer, John S., 14, 47, S3 
 "fashis," error for "fashion," 13, 15, 23 
 Fehr, B. Cf. Bibliography 
 Fidele and Fortunio, "for to" in, 25 
 Finch, Mr., and the aliens, 98 
 Fleay, F. G., 11, 20 
 Fletcher, John, his autograph, 77, 78 
 Ford, John, 77 
 
 Fort, J. A. Cf. Bibliography 
 "for to" in Moore, 25 ; in other plays, 
 
 25 
 Fortune's Tennis, Dekker's, plot of, 
 
 35, 46 
 Frazer, Persifor, 9 
 Fuller, Mr. and the aliens, 97, 98 
 Furnivall, F. J., 10 
 
 Gilson, J. P. Cf. Bibliography 
 Gintzler, Morris, vii 
 Goodal or Goodale, Thomas, 19, 39 
 Green, Alexander, vii, 76, 77 
 Greene, Robert, and "for to," 25; 
 attack on Shakspere, 55 ; penman- 
 ship, 77, 78; death, 78 
 Greenwood, G. G. Cf. Bibliography 
 Greg, W. W., 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 
 23, 27, 35, 36, 43, 48, SO, 53, 54, 56, 
 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74, 77, 
 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 88, 93 
 Griston, Harris J., vii 
 Grosart, A. B., 78 
 
 [132] 
 
INDEX 
 
 Hall, A. Cf. Bibliography 
 
 Halliwell-PhiUipps, J. O., 9, 10 
 
 Hamlet-Saga., the, vi, 36 
 
 Handwriting and age, 57, 59, 66, 68 
 
 Handwritings in Sir Thomas Moore, 
 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 70 
 
 Handwriting, variations in individual, 
 44, 45, 59, 60, 63, 64, 66, 67, 71 ; of 
 the Addition, 69, 70, 71 
 
 Harriott, Thomas, 106, 109 
 
 Harrison, G. B., 77 
 
 Heaven of the Mynde, The, 18 
 
 2 Henry VI., 13, 20, 76 
 
 Henry VIII., 18, 19 
 
 Henslowe, Philip, 54, 74; his Diary, 
 9, 13, 19, 53, 65, 67 
 
 Herbert, Henry, Earl of Pembroke, 
 39 40 
 
 Herbert, J. A., 11 
 
 Herford, C. H. Cf. Bibliography 
 
 Hesketh, Richard, and Lord Strange, 
 40, 41 
 
 Heywood, Thomas, co-author of 
 Moore, vi, 57, 65, 74, 80, 89, 90, 91, 
 94; his unique spellings, 42; wrote 
 The Captives, 56; his penmanship, 
 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68; 
 identified with "B," 56; how age 
 altered his penmanship, 57, 59; the- 
 atrical affiliations, 65; wrote for 
 Strange's Men, 65 ; and the Jew of 
 Malta, 65; his share of Moore, 57, 
 79, 85-88; his position in the com- 
 pany, 86; date of his contribution, 
 86; ignorance of Moore, 86; interest 
 in the clown, 86, 87, 88; treatment of 
 Mundys share in Moore, 79, 87; 
 extent of his authorship, 57, 59, 79. 
 87; his spelling, 61, 62; his dis- 
 regard of Tyllney, 80 
 
 Hjort, G. Cf. Bibliography 
 
 Honest Whore, The, Oaths in, 93 
 
 Hopkinson, A. F., 11 
 
 Hotson, J. Leslie, 38, 52 
 
 Huntington Library, Henry E., 47 
 
 Ingram, J. H., and the Kyd-Marlowe 
 documents, 52 
 
 Jaggard's "Bibliography," 10 
 Jew of Malta, 40, 65, 66 (nl6), 
 Jho and Tho often written alike, 
 
 50, 51 
 
 John-a-Kent, 15, 17, 18, 25, 30, 47, 48, 
 
 59 
 Jonson, Ben, his penmanship, 63 
 Judson, A. C, 56, 64 
 Julius Caesar, 73 
 
 Keller, W. Cf. Bibliography 
 
 Kent, John-a-, IS, 17, 18, 25, 30, 47, 
 48, 59 
 
 Kenyon, F. G. Cf. Bibliography 
 
 Kind-Hearts Dreame, 55 
 
 King's Men, The, 18, 19, 74 
 
 King, T. W., 40 
 
 Kyd documents, genuineness of, 52; 
 watermarks in, 52 
 
 Kyd, John, 50 
 
 Kyd, Thomas, vi, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 46, 
 47, 73, 80, 85, 92, 93, 95 ; letter to Sir 
 John Puckering, 36, 39, 44, 51, 108- 
 111 ; arrest and torture, 36, 37, 38, 
 46, 95, 101 ; penmanship, 36, 43, 44, 
 45, 46; accusation of Marlowe, 38, 
 41, 42, 43, 44; wrote for Strange's 
 Men, vi, 39, 40, 74, 89, 94 ; dismissal, 
 38, 40, 41; death, 38, 94; hand in 
 Moore. 47, 51, 57, 80, 86, 94; alleged 
 autograph in The Murder of John 
 Brewen, SO, 51, 52; his duties, 89, 
 94; hand differentiated from Peele's, 
 48; collaboration with Marlowe in 
 1591, 52; function in the revision of 
 Moore, 35, 76, 86, 89, 90; one of 
 the authors of the revised Moore, 
 
 51, 74, 89, 90; took cognizance of 
 the Censor's objection to Moore, 80, 
 91 ; intimately associated with "D," 
 91 ; identified with "C," 45, 48, 51 ; 
 relations with Marlowe, 36, 41, 46, 
 108, 109; the writer of several ex- 
 tant plots, 35, 46, 89; wrote Mar- 
 lowe's alleged disputation, 43, 47; 
 autograph in John-a-Kent, 47; his 
 hand differentiated from "D," 49; 
 charges against him, 108, 110 
 
 [133] 
 
INDEX 
 
 Lang, Dr. Samuel, vii 
 
 Lawrence, W. J., 20, 21 
 
 Lewis, J. G. Cf. Bibliography 
 
 Lewis, Louis S., vii 
 
 Leigh, William, 40 
 
 Libels, Seditious, against London's 
 
 foreigners, 21, 96, 97 
 Lodge, Thomas, 11, 77, 78, lOO 
 
 Marlowe, Christopher, attacked by 
 Greene, 55; wrote for Strange's 
 Men, vi, 39, 65; collaborated with 
 Heywood in Jew of Malta, 65; re- 
 ferred to, 36, 46, 52, 70 ; accused of 
 atheism, 38, 41, 42, 44, 108; his 
 alleged "disputation," 38, 42, 43, 
 102-5; association with Kyd, 38, 41, 
 42, 46, 52, 108, 109; and Lord 
 Strange, 40, 41, 109; his hand- 
 writing, 47, 77; his associates, 106; 
 Kyd's charges, 106, 107, 108, 109 
 
 Marston, John, his penmanship, 63, 
 77,78 
 
 Mason, the actor, 18, 19 
 
 Massinger, Philip, his autographs, 67, 
 68 
 
 Maverick, Lucy, vii 
 
 Meres, Francis, his mention of Chettle, 
 55 ; his mention of Dekker, 94 
 
 Midsummer Night's Dream, 73 
 
 Montaigne's Essayes, Shakspere's copy 
 of, 69, 72 
 
 Moore, Sir Thomas, authorship of, v, 
 9, 15, 74, 89, 90, 92, 94; handwrit- 
 ings, in, 9, 10, 11, 53, 57, 58, 70, 71 ; 
 styles in, 15 ; never acted, v, 81, 
 101 ; facsimile of MS., 14 ; date of, 
 V, 17-22, 59, 69, 72, 76, 80, 85, 95; 
 for whom written, 33, 74; property 
 of Strange's Men, 33, 74; when re- 
 vised, 74, 79, 80, 83, 86, 91 ; reasons 
 for its revision, 79, 80, 83, 86 ; treat- 
 ment of aliens in, 80, 98, 99, 100; 
 oaths in, 89, 93 ; reason for its non- 
 allowance, V, 98; unique features 
 of, v; "for to" in, 25; refused a 
 license, 33; when sold, 34, 74; its 
 patriotism, lOO; 
 
 More ditch, 20 
 
 More, Sir Thomas, 18 
 
 Mundy, Anthony, his literary char- 
 acteristics, 30-32; his peculiar use 
 of thou, ye and you, 30, 32, 83, 85, 
 87 ; his scenes in Moore, 29, 32, 33 
 servant to the Earl of Oxford, 33 
 wrote for the Admiral's Men, 33 
 collaboration with Chettle, 55; re- 
 ferred to, V, 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, 27, 79, 
 80, 82, 83, 87, 88, 91, 83, 94; his 
 penmanship, 59, 63; scribe of 
 Moore, 12, 13, 14, 15,30; his Heaven 
 of the Mynde, 18; his verse, 31; 
 author of Moore, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 
 33 ; his use of "for to," 25 
 
 Murder of John Brewen, The, an 
 alleged Kyd autograph in, 50, 51, 52 
 
 Nashe, Thomas, his penmanship, 63 
 Noble, value of a, 107 
 Northumberland, Earl of, 106 
 Northumberland Manuscript, The, 52 
 
 Oaths in Moore, 89, 93 
 Ogle, references to 19 
 Oliphant, E. H. C, vi, 13, IS, 16, 17, 
 
 23, 25, 74, 79, 88, 92 
 Osborn, Albert S., 9, 66 
 Oxford, Earl of, an associate of 
 
 Marlowe, 106 
 Oxford's Men, 33 
 
 Parliament of Bees by John Day, 67 
 Peek, George, his penmanship, 48, 63, 
 
 77 
 Pembroke's Men, 39 
 Peregrinatio Scholastica, John Day's 
 
 hand in, 67 
 Perrett, W. Cf. Bibliography 
 Plague, the, in 1593, 75, 98, 100; 
 
 symptoms of, lOO 
 Plots against Aliens, 20, 21, 37, 96, 97 
 "Plots" defined, 19; facsimiled, see 
 
 f acs. nos. 2, 21 and 22 ; referred to, 
 
 35,43 
 Pollard, A. W., 19, 21, 22, 77 
 Privy Council, the, 20, 95. 96, 97, 106 
 
 [134] 
 
INDEX 
 
 Proctor, John, 42 
 
 Puckering, Sir John, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 
 44, 45, 48, 51, 52, 106, 108 
 
 Raines, Canon F. R., 40 
 Ralegh, Sir Walter, 47, 98, 106 
 Return from Parnassus, The, written 
 
 by John Day, 67 
 Robin Hood, Part 2, 55 
 Rosenbach, A. S. W., 78 
 Royden, Matthew, 106, 107, 109 
 
 "S," the scribe of Moore, 12, 13, 14, 
 15; identified with Mundy, IS, 23 
 
 Schelling, Felix E., 101 
 
 Schiicking, L. L., 75 
 
 Seven Deadly Sins, Part s, 19, 35, 
 43,45 
 
 Shakspere, William, spoken of by 
 Chettle, 55 ; as an actor, 55 ; alleged 
 authorship of part of Moore, v, vi, 
 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 63, 69, 74, 
 76, 100; his copy of Montaigne's 
 Essayes, 69, 72; his handwriting 
 and "D's," 49; his affiliation with 
 Strange's Men, 72; his share in 
 King Lear, 76; designated char- 
 acters by numerals, 73; hated by 
 Chapman, 22 
 
 Shirley, James, 77 
 
 Sievers, Eduard, on the Addition, 76 
 
 Simpson, Percy, 20 
 
 Simpson, Rev. Richard, 10, 20 
 
 Sisson, C. J. Cf. Bibliography 
 
 Smedley, W. T., 52 
 
 Spanish conspiracies, 40 
 
 Spanish Tragedy, Kyd's, 36, 39 
 
 Spedding, James, 10, 49 
 
 Spelling, peculiar, by Heywood, 61, 
 62 
 
 Stanley, Ferdinando, Lord Strange, 
 39, 40; dislike of Marlowe, 39; and 
 Catholic conspiracies, 40; death, 40; 
 piety, 40, 41 
 
 Stanley Papers, 40 
 
 Stopes, C. C. Cf. Bibliography 
 
 Storojenko, Nikolai, 78 
 
 Strange's Men, Lord, 19, 33, 35, 39, 
 
 41, 42, 43, 51, 55, 65, 72, 74, 75, 
 
 89, 91, 94 
 Strype, John, 97 
 
 Tamhurlaine, never acted by Strange's 
 
 Men, 75 
 Tannenbaum, Edward, vii 
 Tannenbaum, S. A. Cf. Bibliography 
 Tarlton, Richard, see Seven Deadly 
 
 Sins, 35 
 Theological treatise in Kyd's hand, 43 
 Thompson, Edward M., 13, 15, 17, 18, 
 
 20, 59, 70, 72 
 Tho and Jho often written alike, 50, 51 
 Thorndike, Ashley H., vi, 69 
 Tolman, A. H., 77 
 Tragedy of Hoffman, The, "for to" 
 
 in, 25 
 Troilus and Cressida, plot of, 19 (n3), 
 
 Tyllney, Edmund, v, 10 18, 32, 74, 79, 
 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 91, 94, 98, 100. 
 101 
 
 Van Dam, B. A. P., on the identity 
 of "D," 77 
 
 Warner, George F., 18, 67 
 Warner, Walter, 106, 109 
 Watermarks in the Kyd documents, 
 
 52 
 Webster, John, v, 77 
 Wilde, A. D., 77 
 
 Wilkinson, K. E. T. Cf. Bibliography 
 Wilson, John Dover, 74, 77 
 Wilson, Robert, his penmanship, 67 
 Worcester's Men, The Earl of, 53, 
 
 65, 74, 75 
 Wounds of Civil War not acted by 
 
 Strange's Men, 75 
 
 Young, W., 35 
 
 [135]