characters 1). This Diogenes Scriben, „the great writer of Chilcot", is a countryman, ignorant in the extreme 2), but able to tell: A Roman story of a petty constable,

Hilts suggests to Squire Tub that Diogenes can write the Masque of a Tub, but Diogenes resigns the task to In-and-In Medlay (v, 2).

Now Fleay asserts, on on the sole basis of the name Diogenes, that Diogenes Scriben is S. Rowlands, whose Letting of Humour's Blood in the Head-vein was published 1600, ,with a new Morisco, danced by seven Satyrs (sic!) upon the bottom of Diogenes' Tub!"" (Chr. i, 370). But the new Morisco, danced by seven Satyres upon the bottom of Diogenes' Tub" announced on the title-page means simply the series of seven cynic satires which forms the last part of the book. The use of the name Diogenes for a typical cynic was perfectly familiar to the Elizabethan public. Lodge, for example, wrote a prose satire called "Diogenes in his Singularity, a Nettle for nice Noses", 1591; and Rowlands used the name again in his satire Diogenes' Lanthorn", 1607.

The name Diogenes was almost necessarily employed by Jonson in his Tale of a Tub, because Diogenes' Tub is one of the most famous that ever existed. In the play itself, when Diogenes Scriben tells of his ancestor Diogenes of the Tub, Medlay says: "Thence came A Tale of a Tub, old Diogenes'

1) The character of Miles Metaphor is clearly, as one might guess from

the name, a hit at Euphuism. It is manifestly not personal.

2) He has copied Finsbury book six or seven times without finding Zin Valentine (St. Valentine) in it. He is surprised and disgusted at finding that there is another reading" for the name "Son Valentine."

Tub." (iv, 2). There is no reason to believe that Rowlands or any other man was glanced at in the character of Diogenes Scriben.

I shall discuss the character of In-and-In Medlay when I treat of Monday.

THE CASE IS ALTERED.

The Case is Altered, as Fleay (Chr. i, 357) has clearly shown, must in its present form be later than September, 1598; for it alludes (i, 1) to Meres' Palladis Tamia, entered on the Stationers' Register on September 7, 1598. In its present form, too, it contains an allusion to Every Man in his Humour. The play must have existed in some form by December, 1598, for it is mentioned in Nash's Lenten Stuffe, entered January 11, 1598/9.

I am inclined to believe that i, 1, in which scene Antonio Balladino appears for the only time, and in which occur the allusions to Palladis Tamia and Every Man in his Humour, is a later addition made to a play already in existence for some months. We know that in the summer of 1598 Jonson was writing with Chettle and Porter a play called Hot Anger soon Cold, and, as I shall soon show, we have some reasons for placing Every Man in his Humour late in that year; Jonson, being a proverbially slow writer, must have been kept busy by these plays in the later months of 1598; hence it is likely that he wrote the original version of The Case is Altered in 1597 or early in 1598, but gave it its present form very late in 1598 (that is, in our reckoning, about January to March, 1599), after the presentation of Every Man in his Humour. The first scene of the play has absolutely no connection with the rest1), being introduced as a hit at Antony Monday, and apparently added as a kind of reply to Palladis Tamia. The date of the play, however, is very doubtful.

The play was acted by the Chapel Children.

1) The rest, as Emil Köppel (Quellenstudien zu den Dramen Ben Jonson's, John Marston's, und Beaumont's und Fletcher's, Erlangen, 1895) has pointed out, is wholly taken from Plautus, the major plot from the Captivi, the minor from the Aulularia.

Forschungen zur englischen sprache und litteratur. Heft I.

The Case is Altered contains no allusion to Marston or Dekker, For a discussion of the character of Antonio

Balladino, see under Monday.

EVERY MAN IN HIS HUMOUR.

Every Man in his Humour, Jonson says in his folio of 1616, was first produced in 1598, by the Chamberlain's men. This first version, however, had Italian characters and differed in many details from the play as printed in the folio. Brinsley Nicholson (Antiquary vi, 15-19) has conclusively shown that the first performance was really in 1598, and not, as Gifford thought, in 1597 or even earlier. The allusion to the Burgullian fencer," although not noticed by Nicholson or any other previous student, also fixes the date as not earlier than 1598.

I am strongly inclined to date the play late in the year. The allusion to the Burgullian (or Burgonian) is probably subsequent to his execution on July 10, 1598. Further, Meres in Palladis Tamia (entered S. R. September 7, 1598) mentions Jonson only as a writer of tragedies; if Every Man in his Humour, an epoch-making play that aroused the greatest interest at the time, had then been in existence, Meres would almost surely have alluded to it. Again, Every Man out of his Humour must, as I shall prove, surely be dated February or March, 1599/1600; it was a regular charge against Jonson that he brought forth scarcely a play a year, to which charge he himself replied: 'Tis true; I would they could not say that I did that." (Apol. Dial. to Poetaster, p. 381). We should, then, naturally suppose that Every Man in his Humour, Jonson's earliest acknowledged play 1), appeared just about a year before Every Man out of his Humour. In the first scene of The Case is Altered, however, there is an allusion to Every Man in his Humour; since that scene must have been written not long after the appearance of Palladis Tamia, we cannot place Every Man in his Humour later than about December, 1598. Any attempt to fix the date

1) Except A Tale of a Tub, which was completely remodeled before being acknowledged in 1633.

exactly can yield only doubtful results. This early form of the play was published in quarto form in 1601.

Nicholson has also shown (Antiquary vi, 106-110) that the revision was made about 1605. If we neglect all his minor arguments, his case is proved by two facts the first, that Strigonium 1) or Gran, which Bobadil, says was taken some ten years" since, was actually recaptured from the Turks in 1595; and the second, that the words "I have such a present for thee! our Turkey company never sent the like to the Grand Signior (i, 1) must refer to the fact that when the Levant or Turkey company was re-constituted and re-chartered in 1603, James gave them L. 5000 to be expended in a present to the Porte." (Antiquary vi, 108).

แ

Fleay objects to Nicholson's conclusions because ,,,the queen', and her majesty', iv, 9; v, 1; iv, 5, would have been altered in so careful a recasting had it been made in the time of James." "I think", he says, "we may take Bobadil's assertion that to-morrow is St. Mark's Day, April 25, as accurate; and as it appears from iii, 2, that this was spoken on a Friday, this fixes the date of the revised play to 1601 April." (Chr. i, 358). But, Nicholson replies, (Ben Jonson's Plays, Mermaid Series, i, p. 2), „the same data (as to St. Mark's Day's falling on Saturday) are found also in the quarto version, and do not allow of its being performed first in 1598, as it undoubtedly was."

Fleay's objection that the references to the Queen would have been eliminated in a revision made in the reign of James is easily disposed of; for in iii, 2, p. 61, we read: „Further, take it in the nature, in the true kind, so, it makes an antidote, that, had you taken the most deadly poisonous plant in all Italy, it should expel it, and clarify you, with as much ease, as I speak." This is clearly a remnant of the original play, with the scene laid in Italy; yet it was not altered in changing the scene to England. The mention of St. Mark's Day was also an attempt at a bit of Italian local colour. In like manner, the references to Queen Elizabeth were left, in the ordinary fashion of the time, through sheer carelessness. Nicholson's

1) In this place the quarto has Ghibelletto.

elaborate attempts to explain them (Antiquary vi, 106–110) are wholly needless.

There is no allusion to Marston or to Dekker in the play. For a discussion of some alleged personal hits, see under Shakspere, Monday, and Daniel.

LOST PLAYS.

Meanwhile, Jonson had been doing hack-work for Henslowe, the manager of the Admiral's men. With Chettle and Porter he wrote a non-extant play called Hot Anger soon Cold, and was paid on August 18, 1598 (Henslowe's Diary).

With Dekker he wrote a play called Page of Plymouth, a tragedy founded on the story of a murder committed at Plymouth in 1591). The two authors were paid on August 10 and September 2, 1599, sums aggregating L. 8 (Henslowe 155, 156). The play is lost.

On September 3, 15, 16, 27, 1599, Jonson, with Dekker, Chettle, and other Jentellman" received payment for a play Robert the Second, King of Scots', Tragedy. This play, too, has disappeared.

EVERY MAN OUT OF HIS HUMOUR: CYNTHIA'S REVELS: THE POETASTER.

The next three plays of Jonson are full of alleged personal satire. The characters are so intimately connected that I shall deal with all three together after having determined the dates of the plays separately.

EVERY MAN OUT OF HIS HUMOUR. The date of Jonson's Every Man out of his Humour is certainly 1599; for the play was entered on the Stationers' Register April 8, 1600, and contains an allusion to this year of jubilee coming on" (ii, 1, p. 158), that is, to 1600. Fleay assigns the date to about April, 1599, basing his belief upon the mention of spring and the allusion to the company's new patent for the Globe in the Epilogue“. (Chr. i, 361). The

words in question are as follows:

1) For an account of the event see Shakespeare Society Papers, London,

Shakespeare Society, 1845, vol. ii, p. 79.