object of ridiculing Martin. There are several allusions to him in plays of the same date; one or two, perhaps, may be traced in Shakspere; but it seems clear that allusions only were not the limits. Martin Marprelate was put forward as a character. We have a proof of this in a passage, wherein the author of Pappe with an Hatchet' complains that these representations had been put a stop to. He says, Would those Comedies ' might be allowed to be plaid that are pend, and then I am sure he (i. e. Martin) would be decyphered, and so perhaps discouraged. He shall not be brought in as whilom he was, and yet verie well, with a cocks combe, an apes face, a wolfe's bellie, 'cats clawes, &c. ; but in a cap'de cloake, and all the best apparel he ware the highest day in the yeare, thats neither on Christ'mas daie, Good fridaie, Easter daie, Ascension, nor Trinitie 'sundaie, (for that were popish,) but on some rainie weeke-daie, 'when the brothers and sisters had appointed a watch for parti'cular praiers, a thing as bad at the least as auricular confes'sion.'-Sign. D. 2. Rev. In 1589 the introduction of matters connected with religion into plays had become so extensive, that Burghley (who occasionally threw his shield over the Puritans) issued a commission to inquire what companies of players had offended. A very valuable document has lately been discovered, in which Shakspere, and some twenty of his fellowplayers, disclaim their having been concerned in any of these objectionable representations.*

We do not think it beside the mark to add, that two volumes came out apparently after the Marprelate tracts had ceased for some time. The first, by Penry, (but anonymous,) A treatise, 'wherein is manifestlie proved that reformation, and those that 'sincerely favor the same, are unjustly charged to be enemies vnto her Maiestie and the state, &c. 1590.' 4to. A copy of this is lying before us, and we have mentioned it, although itself not exactly connected with our particular subject, any more than many other tracts of the same sort which continued to be published, because it seems that it was replied to in the old style of the authors of Pappe,' or the Countercuffe. The spirit in which they wrote seems to have died slowly away. We do not remember to have seen this answer, and take the title of it from Herbert. The first part of Pasquil's Apologie. Wherein he renders a reason to his friendes of his long silence: and gallops the fielde with a Treatise of Reformation lately written by a fugitive, John Penrie. Printed where I was, and where I will bee ready by the helpe of God and my muse, to send you the Maygame of Martinisme for an intermedium between the first and the second part of the Apologie. Anno Dom. 1590."

* Vide Knight's Shakspere, a Biography, p. 342.

We have left until now one or two points upon which a few observations seem to be called for; and first the date of these publications. They have been set down as about the year 1590, which, speaking generally, is not incorrect. The Epistle and Epitome were both published in 1588. The first edition of the Admonition before the end of that year, or early in 1590 (as we now compute). Bishop Cooper complains how lamentable a thing it was that such books as the Marprelate's should be in men's hands and bosoms, when the viewe of the mightie Navie of the Spaniards is scant passed out of our sight: when the 'terrible sound of their shot ringeth, as it were, yet in our eares.'-P. 33. Nor had the winter passed away when Martin's answer (Hay any Worke) was published. I cannot,' he says,) be got to tell them where I am, because I loue not the 6 ayre of the Clinke or Gatehouse in this colde time of winter.'P. 2. The Queen's proclamation, as given in Wilkins, 4, 340. against certain seditious and schismatical books and libels, is dated Feb. 13th, 1588, i. e. 1589, new style. The 'Countercuffe' is dated the eyght of August, and the return of Pasquill 20th of October, in the same year. The intermediate months would be fully occupied with the other pamphlets, and winter was again near at hand, if not already come, when the Month's Mind,' dated 1589, was written.-(Vide Sign. A. 2.) At the same time, or shortly after, as we have already said, came out 'Plain Percevall.'

A far less easy task is it, even to guess at the authors. The tracts on the Marprelate side have usually been attributed to Penry, Throgmorton, Udal, and Fenner. We are obliged to refer our readers who wish a further account of these writers, to Wood's Athenæ, under Penry, to Collier, Strype, and Herbert's edition of Ames. Our limits do not allow us to say more, than that after a careful examination of these and other authorities on the subject, the question remains in our judgment as obscure as before; and that it is very far from clear, that either of the three last named were actually concerned in the authorship of any one of the pamphlets. It is undeniable that they were written by several persons. We say undeniable, in spite of the author of the 'Almond for a Parratt,' who attributes all to Penry. Let all posteritie that shall heare of his knauerie, attend the discovery

* The copy which we have used, is a second edition, with a date, 1589. It is almost page for page and line for line, identical with the other. The first is known from two alterations; one in p. 40, where dare in the text is pasted over with can, and one in p. 135, the assertion they will not denie, is modified into it is not yet proued, also pasted over. Both these are properly corrected in the second edition. We are indebted to Martin's keen eye for the detection of these (Hay any Worke, p. 38), who chuckles and says that he has already made the Bishops pull in their hornes;' and indeed the circumstance is very remarkable. Copies of both editions are in the Bodleian.

' which now I will make of his villanie.

Pen. I. Pen. Welch Pen. Pen the Protestationer, Demonstrationer, Supplicationer, Appellationer, Pen. the father, Pen. the sonne, Pen. totum in 'toto et totum in qualibet parte.'-Sign. E. 2. Rev.

We might have expected more certainty with regard to the writers against Martin Marprelate: but as we have already seen, here also we are disappointed; and all that remains appears to be, to prevent, if possible, the connecting them with wrong names. Nash, from general consent, was probably one; John Lilly, the Euphuist, another, upon the authority of Oldys, who allots to him 'Pappe with a Hatchet;' but if he wrote any of them, we should say not that, but the Almond for a Parratt: it is much more in his style, and we would refer our readers to the extract from that book, given before (p. 393). The sentence, ‘The humours of my eies, &c.,' seems conclusive.

Two or three years after the date of this controversy (viz. 1593) a quarrel of long standing was in full vigour between Nash and Gabriel Harvey. The latter published a quarto volume, now very rare, against Nash, entitled Pierce's Supererogation, or, a new praise of the old Ass.' Harvey was a learned man: his books overflow from the most queer accumulation which he had made from all sorts of authors, upon all sorts of subjects; he knew something also of the classics; he was a pedant, and absurdly vain. His enemy was a wit; himself an excellent butt. This particular volume, Pierce's Supererogation,' shows how deeply its author had been stung, and exhibits both his own foolery of style in the highest perfection, and a wonderful mixture of originality of thought, with the result of long study. We quote his work now as of no little importance to our subject. Writing against Nash, he charges his friend Lilly with the authorship of Pappe with a Hatchet.' (We doubt much whether Harvey's accusation has not been the chief evidence upon the point.) He then acknowledges that himself had been accused of having written some of the Marprelate tracts, and, much after Plaine Percecall's style, complains of the whole affair, speaks in disparagement of Martin, and in more decided language against his answerers, as would be natural, his own enemies, Nash and Lilly, (as the report went,) being of them. He abuses the 'Pappe' with right good will; but his hatred of the supposed author peeps through as the real cause, together with a strong leaning towards the Puritans. Doctor Perne (of whom we have already said enough) comes in for a fair share of his satire, and both well-placed and well-spoken it is. We would refer our readers for more information to the book; a reprint also of which is in the second volume of Sir E. Brydges's Archaica.

6

A much more important point is it, to prove that the Marprelate Tracts were not only connived at (which is acknowledged), but recommended by, and their authors known to the leaders of the Puritan party. In the 'Just Censure' occurs a passage much to the purpose. It shows that at the time of publication, men were generally used to connect the names of Cartwright, and Paget, and Travers, with these libels. When the experiment failed, however much their then followers, and afterwards their apologists, have laboured to throw off from them so great odium, yet Martin himself allows that at the time such was the common report. We have already said, that there is no plain, sincere-looking denial of such connexion in the known writings of those men. In the 'Just Censure,' the writer makes the Bishop of London say at the table of the High Commissioners, My Masters, you must not sleepe in this matter. I ' will be a pursuivant myselfe, rather than abide this tumult. If 'I were, I trowe I would watch about Traverse his house in Milke-streete, who go in and out there, and I would know what 'they caried vnder their cloakes too. There is Paget at Hounslo, ' &c.-There is Cartwright too at Warwicke, he hath got him 'such a companie of disciples, both of the worshipfull, or other ' of the poorer sort, as we have no cause to thanke him. Neuer 'tell me, that hee is too graue to trouble himselfe with Martins 'conceits.-Cartwright seeks the peace of the Church no other'wise than his platform may stande. I doe not see of my trothe, 'but that Martin's abettors may be worse than himselfe, and doe 'more mischiefe.'-Sign. D. ij. Pasquil tells Marforius also in his Dialogue, that passing by Martin, he must have three 'courses of the launce with Th. Cartwright. Hath Martin 'made him his God, and thinketh he to escape my fingers?' The author of the 'Almond for a Parratt,' sums up a long history of Cartwright, beginning from his disappointment about the Vice-chancellorship of Cambridge, by praying that pride which overthrew Golias, Haman, and Herod, will also confound arrogant T. C. and all his accomplishes in the Lord's good time.' -Sign. D. 2. Rev. It is not therefore surprising that when Cartwright was brought before the Commissioners in 1590, among the articles objected were two, accusing him of knowing who wrote and printed 'several libels, going under the name of Martin Marprelate.' And it is remarkable that he refused to deny upon oath that he had such a knowledge.

Our readers have now accompanied us through the volumes which are extant of the famous Martin Marprelate and his adversaries. Strype had read some of them: he gives especially a long account of the Admonition: Mr. D'Israeli also seems to have read in a cursory way about five or six of the tracts, and has

written a short paper on the subject in his 'Quarrels of Authors:'* but the credit which we would at least claim is, that probably for more than 200 years, no one, except ourselves, has either had the opportunity or taken the trouble of examining the whole series. Though each tract separately may not be of much interest, except for the quaint allusions to local customs, and manners of the day, which several of them furnish (and which we have been obliged to omit noticing), yet together they throw very considerable light upon the religious history of the age, and prove equally the extremes to which the doctrines of the Reformation were speedily carried, and the peril in which its genuine disciples soon placed the Church of England. Martin Marprelate was most rapid in his growth; sudden in his attack; novel in his method; we have seen that sober reasoning was powerless against him, and equally so the strong arm of the Privy Council:† but at last he was struck down with almost a like suddenness. Scarcely more than a single year saw both the beginning and the end of his attempt. Nevertheless, it was not only the great controversy of that year, but the controversy of the Elizabethan age. We must not so much estimate it by the shortness of the time it occupied, as by the consequences to which it led, and the various events which had been long tending towards it, and of which it was, though monstrous, the matured produce. The Puritans had been making many struggles: working openly, working secretly: losing no opportunities of carrying on to full perfection the fantastic theories, and wild heretical absurdities of the earlier reformers; pouring out their abuse of Catholic practice in private conventicles, in lectures from the pulpit, in exercises, and in more moderate language, by means of the press. At last they ventured upon Martin: ventured, if not beyond their own depth, at any rate beyond the sympathy of lookers on: people were amused it may be, but at the first check regained their senses, and took part against them; and Puritanism for some years, until that generation had passed away, received a blow under which it staggered, without a hope of recovery, until fresh strength and energy was again given it, from sources abhorrent to its original design; and by the enlisting among its ranks of a multifarious host, who sought, and with success, to use it as a political weapon for the attainment of other unholy ends.

We would refer our readers to that paper, because at the end is a reprint of the 'Whip for an Ape.' The other poetical pamphlet, Mar-Martin, is reprinted in the Censura Literaria, vi. 236.

It may, indeed, be doubted whether the Privy Council was sincere against the Puritans: Fuller says that there lay the great strength of that party, even as the Archbishop and the High Commission were their chief enemies; and Strype in his life of Parker tells us that when the 'Admonition to the Parliament,' was ordered under heavy penalties to be brought in to the diocesan within twenty days, so little attention was paid to it, that not one copy ever reached any of the Bishops.