Teachers might care to do this with the assistance of their pupils, in whom they would be cultivating the historic sense. We believe that previous suggestions of similar purport are in some places being put into practice. We should be glad to learn from our readers where and how far the services of teachers and school children have been enlisted. WITH great interest we have looked through the first number of a new monthly periodical, The Pictish Review, of which the first twelve issues are to appear in newspaper form. This, at the end of that time, is to be altered to magazine shape, if the review has proved itself a success. It is published at the University Press of Aberdeen (6, Upper Kirkgate), and is edited by the Hon. R. Erskine of Marr. The charge for it is one shilling per copy, but single copies cannot be supplied; it is to be bought by prepaid subscription for six or twelve issues. The review has been "set on foot in order to present a Pictish view of things in general; to re-elucidate the values implicit and explicit, in Pictish history and civilisation; and, further, to impart a turn to current affairs, and the interpretation of them, which shall be conformable to the genius and inherited tendencies of the Pictish nation." This is well calculated to arouse the desired expectations, and the first number, with several brilliant things in it, goes a long way to fulfil them. We hope the following numbers will successfully carry on, though irony is never easy to sustain. sible that the play, dealing with the various chapters in Capt. Cook's life, and Yorkshire environment, may also be produced at Whitby and Staithes. Major Fairfax-Blakeborough has already had one or two dialect plays successfully produced. Two Hundred Years Ago. The LONDON JOURNAL. They write from Lisbon, that Tho. Burnett, Efq; his Majefty's Conful there, having made a handfome Entertainment on his Majefty's Birth-Day for the Gentlemen of the English Factory, Mr. Dormer, the British Envoy, who had made none, was fo offended at him, that after expreffing his Refentments in very unbecoming Terms, as Mr. Burnett was going into his Coach a few Days after, to wait on the King of Portugal, fix of Mr. Dormer's Servants, with his Secretary at their Head, affaulted Mr. Burnett with drawn Swords, and one of them wounded him in the Leg, the Secretary alfo firing a Piftol at him. Upon the Notice of this at Court, the King of Portugal fent to Mr. Dormer, to demand the Affaffins; but he refufed to deliver them up, faying that they had exceeded his Order, but that he had beat Mr. Burnett. commanded them to Upon which his Portuguese Majefty has fent over a Memorial to his Britannic Majefty; and his Majefty, we hear, has fent to recall Mr. Dormer. WE E saw with much interest in The Times of Nov. 16 that, subject to the Ministry of We hear that the Jewels for fecond MournHealth's consent, Seaford Urban Council has decided, after long negotiations, to pur-Garnet Necklaces, fet in Gold Collers. ing are Garnet Gold Rings, Ear-Rings, and chase Seaford Head for the sum of £16,500, to preserve the area for the public as an open space. The land, which includes an 18-hole golf course and club house, is about 200 acres in extent. If the land is purchased the downs will be open from Seaford to Eastbourne and will constitute the finest stretch of seaboard on the South Coast. WE On Tuefday the private Centinel of Col. Huske's Company of Foot Guards, was fhot in Hyde-Park, for Desertion, it being the fourth Time he had been guilty of that Offence: He marched from the Savoy to the Parade, and from thence to the Place of Execution, on Foot, attended by two ClergyAlfo, men, and fuffered with Refolution. The fame Day, another private Centinel in the Guards, having been detected in frequenting Popifh Conventicles, was whipped on the Parade in St. James's Park by about 300 Men, receiving 3 Lafhes from each Centinel, out of the and was afterwards drummed Regiment, with the ufual marks of Ignominy. Literary and Historical The latter, too, was educated at Cambridge, Notes. THE 'PARNASSUS' PLAYS. THE * and the play was published by John Wright, who was also the publisher in the following year (1607) of The Travels of the Three English Brothers,' by Day, Rowley and Wilkins. The fact that Day often wrote in association with Dekker and Chettle was perhaps some reason for his harsh treatment of 'Parnassus' plays consist of a trilogy Jonson. Bullen,* in commenting on Corney's of dramas usually referred to as 'The Pilremarks, pointed out several other parallels grimage to Parnassus,' and 'The Return from between The Return' II ('The Pilgrimage Parnassus,' Parts I and II. The Return' and The Return' I had not yet been disII, which was entered on the Stationers' Reg- covered) and Day's work. Thus Will Kemp ister, Oct. 16, 1605, exists in MS. (Halliwell- figures as one of the dramatis personæ in Phillipps) in addition to the two printed The Return' II (pp. 138-141) and The issues of 1606, where the title-page states Travels' (pp. 55-9) respectively, and The that it was "" Publiquely acted by the Stu- Return' II and Peregrinatia Scholastica' dents in Saint Iohns Colledge in Cambridge.' both deal with the neglect that attends 'The Pilgrimage' and The Return' I were scholars and the pernicious practice of not printed till 1886, when they were dissimony. Day's claim," he concluded, covered in MS. in the Bodleian Library" cannot possibly be supported on the very (Rawlinson D. 398) by the Rev. W. D. slender evidence that has been adduced. That Macray. On the outside leaf is written, he made some contributions to the play is not, "Edmunde Rishton, Lancastrensis," prob- perhaps, altogether improbable. ably the name of the owner, who received his M.A. from St. John's College, Cambridge, in 1602. From the internal evidence we gather that The Pilgrimage' was acted (Christmas) 1598, but the date of compositiont of the other two parts is not so simple to determine. The nearest we can get is to say that The Return I was performed either Christmas, 1600, or 1601, and that The Return' II was originally composed in 1601, but that with slight emendations it was produced Christmas, 1602. The first suggestion as to authorship was made by Mr. Bolton Corney in the columns of 'N. & Q.'t over sixty years ago. A copy of "The Return' II, which bore the envoi, Το my Lovinge Smallocke J: D:" had come into his possession, and, after making due allowance for the difference between a running hand and a formal address, he found that the writing bore some similarity to the "J: D." in the Lansdowne MS. (No. 725) of The Parliament of Bees.' Hence, he inferred, the above initials denote John Day. The references are to the Rev. W. D. Macray's edn. of the Parnassus plays and to Bullen's edn. of Day's works. † On the question of date, see Arber, English Scholar's Library,' vi., Intro., ix.-xii.; Fleay, Biog. Chron. Eng. Drama, ii. 347-9, 354; Luehr, Die drei Cambridger Spiele vom Parnass,' 14-22, 105-7; J. W. Hales, Folia Litteraria, 167; Ward, Hist Eng. Dram. Lit.', ii. 633; Chambers, Eliz. Stage,' iv. 39. 3 S. ix. 387. In 1886 The Pilgrimage' and The Return' I also came to light, and with the discovery of this new material attention was again directed to the question of authorship. The following passage from the Prologue to The Return I was regarded with exceptional interest as providing a possible clue to the solution of the problem: Howe gentle? saye, youe cringinge parasite, Gained our stage muche favoure, did they Surelie it made our poet a staide man, MS. came into its possessor's hands from an old library in the north, all united to strengthen the view that the name of the author was to be sought in Cheshire, or at least in a neighbouring northern county. As regards the peece of cheese," Hales* was informed by Dr. Schoell that the "Farente Scholaren of the period in Germany were nick-named "Käsebettler " and "Käsejäger." Hales offered the suggestion that Christopher Beeston, a friend of Nash, may have been the author. Fleayst thought that the author's name was Cheshire or Chester, though he was not quite sure that the reference was not merely to the Ashton foundation of fellowships to St. John's, limited to natives of the diocese of Chester. = In 1899 a further interpretation of the above lines was incorporated in Ward's History of English Dramatic Literature,' where Sir I. Gollancz suggested that the word "" cheese concealed an allusion to Caius College, as pronounced according to the fashion of the sixteenth century. If the author then was a student of Caius, was he not John Day? Now as "dey"-"dairymaid" or "dairyman," and "dey-house "cheese-house," could we not understand the reference to cheese and Chessire " in the text? Sir A. Ward was, on the whole, hostile to Day's authorship, and considered it hardly likely that Day, who was a Caius man, should have lingered on at Cambridge till 1598 to write a play for the Johnians, when we know from Henslowe's Diary that he was busily engaged from 1598 to 1603 in writing for the popular stage It would require overwhelming testimony," he added, to convince me that the plays were written by a professional London playwright, in whose works I perceive no internal evidence of importance to associate him with this dramatic allegory of a sphere of life from which in all probability he had at an early date in his career become estranged." Luehr, who made an exhaustive study of these three plays, was inclined to support Day's authorship, and his arguments will therefore be examined at greater length below. Prof. Oliphant Smeaton § accepted the ingenious explanation of Sir. I. Gollancz, but doubted whether one pen was responsible for the whole of the trilogy. In 'The Return Folia Litteraria,' 173. Biog. Chron. Eng. Drama,' ii., 348. ii., 641. § The Return from Parnassus,' Intro., XXX.-xxxi. II, the Prologue and I. i.-ii. seemed to him to reveal a different style from I. iv.-v, II. ii. and the scenes wherein Amoretto appears a difference of treatment from those in which Furor, Ingenioso Phantasma, Philomusus and Studioso take part. Dr. Boas* quoted Richardus Tertius as a precedent for the performance at St. John's of a play by a Caius writer, though he was extremely dubious whether the academic authorities, with their inimical attitude to the London stage, would have permitted a professional playwright to produce three plays at St. John's. An alternative suggestion as to authorship was made by Prof. G. C. Moore Smith,t who, quoting from The Return' II, p. 79: In Scholers fortunes twise forlorne and dead Twise hath our weary pen earst laboured, Making them Pilgrims to Pernassus hill, Then penning their returne with ruder quill. inferred from the last line that The Pilgrimage' and the two parts of The Return' were by two different writers-a view confirmed by the passage already quoted from the Prologue to The Return' I, which, in his opinion, is not an autobiographical statement, but a reference by the author of The Return' I to the writer of The Pilgrimage.' If, too, the latter is a "staide man," i.e., something caused him to be stayed" from his degree, the acquisition of a German, as opposed to a Cambridge degree would still have left him "senior sophister." Prof. Moore Smith's opinion is that the author obtained a degree through the instrumentality of a powerful friend-William Holland, admitted fellow, April 10, 1584, then Senior Fellow of St. John's, April 3, 1598, and Principal Lecturer, July 7, 1599. Hence he " was faine to take his course by Germanie pun on the name of Holland. The same critic also noted that the author of The Pilgrimage' had named a piece of cheese (p. 22)" sawe a peece of cheese asunder with thy dagger." Acting on the suggestion of Mr. C. W. Previté-Orton that the poet may have held some Cheshire scholarship or fellowship at St. John's, Prof. Moore Smith put forward the name of William Dodd, scholar of St. John's, November, 1597, B.A., 1598/9, Fellow, March 26, 1599, M.A., 1602. I now return to Luehr and to those critics who see reasons for supporting Day's complete authorship or even partial revision of the trilogy. Luehr examined these three plays very 'University 332. Drama in the Tudor Age,* t Mod. Lang. Reiew, 1915, x. 168-170. minutely, with special reference to Day's described (The Return' II, p. 141) as works, and cited a number of interesting paralthose leaden spouts, lels, the majority of which are here recorded: That nought doe vent but what they receive. Similarity in the dialogue-rhymed coup- One has only to examine the scene in which lets with a single line for each of two speakers Kemp appears, contributed by Day to The ('The Return II pp. 90-91; cf. Humour Travels of the Three English Brothers,' and out of Breath,' II. ii. p. 29); the description then read in the trilogy of the writer's of Corinnas's countenance (The Pilgrimage,' unquestionable hostility to Burbage and p. 13) with that of the Countess's (Law- Kemp and the members of their craft to Tricks,' II, p. 31); images from life on the realise what a gulf separates the sentiments sea (The Pilgrimage,' p. 17; The Return of the authors of these plays. Nowhere in I, p. 44; The Return' II, pp. 141, 143; cf. Day, too, do we find such censorious critiPeregrinatio,' pp. 58, 66; Ile of Guls, II. cism of contemporary poets and dramatists. iii, p. 41; Humour out of Breath,' II. i, p. If, also, it is argued there are similarities 25, III. iv. p. 47; Law-Tricks,' I. i. p. 9); both in theme and treatment between the a reference to the music of the hounds (The Cambridge plays and the Peregrinatio (c. Return' II, p. 108; cf. 'Ile of Guls,' II. ii. 1633-4), what was there to prevent Day from p. 33); the picture of Despair ('The Return consulting The Return' II, published over a II, p. 127; cf. 'Peregrinatio,' p. 75); the quarter of a century earlier? reference to Harrington's 'Ajax' ('The Return' I. p. 36; cf. 'Ile of Guls,' II. i. p. 25); the illiterate Immerito with the country vicar (Peregrinatio,' p. 72); the attack on Puritanism in the character of Stupido with Day's remarks in the Peregrinatio,' p. 56, Humour out of Breath,' III. iii. p. 46, LawTricks,' V. ii. p. 86; the use of such words as indenture,' slimy, fliborn," marybone, 'birdbolt," and adamant," and other resemblances already mentioned. Nor do I agree with Professors Smeaton and Moore Smith that more than one writer was concerned in the composition of the trilogy; There is no greater difference in The Return II between the Prologue and I. i.-ii, on the one hand, and I. iv.-v, II. ii, on the other, than there is, say, between the Dogberry and the Beatrice scenes in Much Ado' or between the Falstaff and the more serious scenes in Henry IV.' In the Prologue to The Return' II, p 78, Momus states that "this last is the last part of the returne from Parnassus, that is the last time that the Authors wit wil turne upon toe in this vaine," from which it would seem that The Pilgrimage and The Return' I, were also by the same dramatist. In addition, single authorship is more or less confirmed by an examination I have made of the percentage of rhymed lines in each part. The foregoing list, at first sight, appears very formidable, but when these passages, which Luehr quotes in full, are compared, the English reader, especially, is left unconvinced. Against Day's authorship, too, there is the almost insuperable objection that there are a large number of northern forms in the trilogy, which one would not expect from a writer who was born in Norfolk. About the same time The Return' I was written, Day and Chettle collaborated in The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green,' where the Norfolk scenes, for which Day was mainly responsible, The Pilgrimage' are teeming with East Anglian expressions. Again, the internal evidence makes it almost certain that the author of these Cambridge plays was an academic playwright, and an academic playwright only. Is it likely that Day would have lent his countenance to a play which attacked professional playwrights and actors with such acrimonious invective? True, Day often alludes in his works to the little esteem in which scholarship is held, but here, in the trilogy, a marked contrast is depicted between the poverty of scholars and the comparative opulence of uncultured players, who are referred to as belonging to "the basest trade" and 'The Return " The Return II 384 Fleay would make our dramatist about twenty-one years of age in 1598, but this is nothing else but mere guesswork. Luehr thinks that he numbered Hall and Nash amongst his friends, which is not at all improbable, for as one reads the trilogy there are constant reminders of Hall's Satires, and, it should be noted that though Marston, who is an Oxford man, is subjected to a good deal of scurrilous abuse, no reference is made personally to his Cambridge antagonist, Hall. If, too, we take The Pilgrimage,' p. 19, literally, Ingen. What, Philomusus and Studioso? in the modern sense. First attempt to launch well met, ould schoolefelowes. her was made 24 Sept., 1610, but she was not finally launched until late in that year. She is also described as PRINCE, 64, (1187)T., re-named RESOLUTION under the Commonwealth and later re-named PRINCE in 1660. It is believed she was built by Peter Pett in 1610. Pepys's Diary mentions her 18 Sept., 1665 as PRINCE. She appears to have been rebuilt in 1641 and again in 1663, and as PRINCE ROYAL, 90, to have touched on the Galloper Sands and to have surrendered to the Dutch, by whom she was burnt in 1666. the two pilgrims, Philomsuus (the author?) and Studioso were "ould schoolefellowes,' i.e. at the University together, with Ingenioso (Nash). Now Nash matriculated as a sizar of St. John's College, Cambridge, Oct. 13, 1582, and I see no reason to doubt that the author of the Parnassus plays was a student there at the same time. Moreover, in The Return' I., p. 49, there is a reference to a Latin play by Anthony Wingfield, entitled Pedantius,' which, though first printed in 1631, was produced at Trinity College, Cambridge, c. 1851. + It is to this comedy that Nash alludes in Strange Newes (1592). Is it not possible, therefore, that our author was a fellow student of Nash at St. John's in 1581, and accompanied him to Trinity College to witness a performance of Pedantius'? There, for the moment, we let the matter rest. This, however, we can say that whatever be the name of the author, the trilogy is not the work of one who has entirely immured himself in some Cambridge cloister, but of a playwright, not only acquainted with the academic world of Cambridge, but also with the literary haunts of Elizabethan London. Endowed with a retentive memory, he has read the most outstanding works of Elizabethan literature, and keenly observant of human eccentricities he has perhaps even associated with the greatest literary figures of the day. 1637. ROYAL SOVEREIGN (or SOVEREIGN), 100, 1st rate (1545) T. Peter Pett. Laid down 21 Dec., 1635, launched October, 1637. Rebuilt Chatham, 1684, by Lee, as (1822 71/94)T. Rebuilt Woolwich, 1701, by B. Rosewell as (1883)T. Accidentally burnt at Chatham 27 Jan., 1696. See under date 1701. 1646. ADVENTURE, 38 (385) T. Supposed to have been named JERMYN during the Commonwealth. Sold 1688. 1649. SPEAKER, 62, 3rd rate. Christopher Pett. Re-named MARY in 1660 (727)T. to (830)T. Re-built at Woolwich, 1694, by Charles Pett. Reduced to 4th rate January, 1696/7 as (795)T. Lost on Goodwin Sands in Great Gale, 26-27 Nov., 1703. 1650. ADVICE, 48, 4th rate (544)T. Christopher Pett. Re-built at Woolwich, 1702, as wreck, to a French privateer off Dunquerque, (551)T. Surrendered when reduced to a 27 June, 1711. 1653/4. MAIDSTONE, 48, 4th rate (556)T. Mr. Munday. Re-named MARY ROSE in 1660. Surrendered to the French (with CONSTANT-WARWICK, 28, and TALBOT, 10, whilst going to the West Indies, as (555)T., 42 guns, 4th rate, 12 July, 1691. 1653/1659. PRESTON, 48, 4th rate (550)T. Mr. Carey. Re-named ANTELOPE in 1660. Cast by survey at Deptford 11 June, 1693, and sold as (576)T. 1664. ROYAL KATHERINE, 82, 3rd rate (1579)T. Christopher Pett. Re-built at Portsmouth, 1702, by Waff (1086)T. Renamed RAMILLIES 18 Dec., 1706, (1395 62/94)T. as 1666. FAULCON, 42, 4th rate (367) T. Chris |